After much procrastination and internal debate. Allow me to help you understand my

voting practices.

First, credit must be given where it is due, to Mourngrymn, for coming up with the idea

and to Silveressa for expanding upon it and her idea that everyone (or those who are

willing) should create one.

Current Voting Scores/Meaning.

1.0/5 - Needs some serious work - not ready for public consumption

1.5/5 -

2.0/5 - Okay idea but flawed. Has a few issues but can still be useable by some

2.5/5 -

3.0/5 - Good solid idea, nothing fancy, just a great, useable, quality submission

3.5/5 -

4.0/5 - Sweet idea with some artistic flair or increased usefulness that really set it apart

4.5/5 -

5.0/5 - Exceptional Submission. Extremely useable, well written, and organized.

My Interpretation.

1.0/5 - This submission needs to have some serious work done with it and should not

yet have been released. Bad spelling. Poor Grammar. This submission is unreadable.

Submissions with a score this low will be challenged.

1.5/5 - A very basic idea. Over-saturation/been done before. Still hasn't been put through

a spellchecker (I'm guilty of this myself on occasion), but there is something here. Put it

back in work and improve on it. Depending on content/reason submissions with a 1.5/5

score may or may not be challenged.

2.0/5 - As with Silveressa, this is the beginning score for a submission that shows

potential. With a good idea, that might not have been properly thought out. A 2.0 will

also be given to submissions that may have good content but with serious flaws in

spelling and grammar.

2.5/5 - My lowest ‘good' score. (Anything less than a 2.5 on my submissions will prompt

me to place it straight back ‘in work'). There is an idea here that I would like to see

expanded upon; spelling and grammar are passable.

3.0/5 - The ‘standard' score that I will give most submissions. Good spelling and

grammar. The idea is a good one. Perhaps lacking a little in originality or depth/detail.

3.5/5 - There is something here that I like/can use. Pretty much the same as 3.0/5 but

with more detail/simpler adaptability.

4.0/5 - This is where it starts getting good. I can see that a lot of time and effort has gone

into the submission. Whilst it may not be to my liking or in my interests, it is of good


4.5/5 - Ticks all my main +0.5 boxes. Very well thought out. Detailed. Made with a lot

of TLC.

5.5/5 - Crème de la crème. The very best. There isn't really much I can say for this score.

A comment on the submission will generally contain my reasons why.


I will of course re-vote on anything that has been updated if I have voted on it previously.

The author has made special effort to edit this and that should not, as is so often the case,

go unnoticed. My re-vote will be accompanied by a reason and praise/critique. Usually

good-natured of course.


Up-votes will be given to every user that comments on and has something useful

to say on one of my own submissions, thereby hopefully encouraging them to vote

and comment more on other peoples stuff. Up-votes will also be given on other's

submissions, where a good idea, constructive criticism or some other valuable/witty

comment is given.


3.0 tends to be my ‘standard' score. So here is a list of those things for which an increase

will be given:

  • Spelling, grammar and punctuation.
  • Usefulness to the GM/DM.
  • Quick to prepare/understand.
  • I like this. A lot.

  • Challenging a submission.

    It is rare that I should challenge a submission, in fact, I cannot remember ever issuing a

    challenge. However, should I need to do this it will only be for a select few reasons:

  • The submission has received either a 1.0/5 or 1.5/5 rating.
  • The ‘author' has stolen someone else's work.
  • Hall of Honor.

    My HoH vote will be given to particularly good submissions, 5/5's, and anything that I

    like enough.

    More often than not though, it is given to draw attention to a particular submission; either

    one that has not received the attention it deserves or one that is so good that the Citadel

    needs to be reminded it is there.

    Golden Vote.

    Recently acquired, and only given out twice so far. The Golden Vote is reserved for

    submissions that are truly amazing! That have no flaws, are incredibly detailed and

    entertaining, and where the author has given her/his all.


    After much mumbo-jumbo and rambling... There you have it; how I vote.

    If you have any questions, please, do not hesitate to ask! I will answer as best I can.

    Login or Register to Award Kassy XP if you enjoyed the submission!
    ? Community Contributions (2)-2

    Herein, I shall finally reveal the unfathomable secrets behind my personal voting system...

    I pick a number between 1 and 5, 1 being utter crap, 5 being excellent.

    In answer to axelrowes reply to my reply, which I also see as an Idea so I'll put it here. I hope that it might shed some light.

    I would think the sites nature to be very clear. As for my perceived place within the community, I'm afraid I don't quite understand, but will try to offer what information I can.

    The way I see it, we are all equal here and this is a place where we can exchange material, discuss roleplaying, and generally interact with other people as happens on forums and sites. I don't give myself nor another a 'place' or 'rank' in the Citadel, with the exception of Strolen and the admins. The ranking system is just a way to see who contributes and how much they give.

    I would think that my submission answers the reasons as to why I vote, and my criteria for such. However, I do not think that I can give a full explanation on why I vote, as the reasons for voting are numerous, as I'm sure we would all agree and each have our own reasons.