This article is scary. The name, the tone. The message, intent and application aren't, but damn. Reading this gave me a sense of impending doom, fear of the Hammer's retribution. I'm curious though, with articles such as Silv's and Mourn's and a few others about how to vote and act here, will we be allowed to discuss voting practices when the subject is so blatantly brought up or are those types of submissions now discouraged?
In any case, I'm not sure if this is a neccesary implementation. Only because it sounds harsh compared to how lax the Citadel has always been. Just remember what old Unlce Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
Strolen, am sure these aren't fun things to post and that people must look to you full fill a role that you didn't ask for or imagine when you started this site. Thanks, seriously, for stepping up and asking for a higher standard of the site that carries your name. IGo to Comment
((The fact remains that I know of a small chunk of great authors that have left or took an extremely long break because of the outcome of these type discussions.))
Go to Comment
A request for clarification: is the commentor him/herself allowed to mention why they voted they way they did, as long as it is voluntary? If I give a low score to something that needs obvious improvement, I may be tempted to include a statement like "I normally vote a 3 or less on something with this many grammatical errors" -- in addition to any suggestions I might have to improve the submission itself. It's OK with me if that is now a Hammer Offense, but I would like to know in advance.