Optional judgment

[Sorahn]

I proposed an idea in this thread (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?t=12364) which I think would be beneficial to Althanas, and it seemed to get positive response. Since Serilliant said to start a new thread about it when he closed that thread, I am doing exactly that.

Basically the idea is this: make judgments optional. That is to say, if you want, you would have the option of having your thread skimmed over by a moderator in order to determine appropriate EXP and GP rewards and not have a full judgment or score.

This would greatly reduce the workload of the judges. I know that personally I have written several threads that were basically "necessity" type threads or threads that I wrote just for fun that I felt bad for forcing a judge to spend time reading in order to give me a score that I did not care about in the first place. However it is the only way to obtain the EXP, GP, and items that I earned in the thread.

Instead I propose we implement some manner of requesting that a thread only be read for rewards instead of full judgment.

Two amendments were proposed that I fully support:

1. A thread must have a full judgment to qualify for a Judges Choice. This seems obvious considering one of the criteria of a judges choice thread is score. If a moderator thinks a thread is particularly good and would like to give it a proper score, they can PM the author and ask what they would like to do.

2. The judge may still make any comments they want to make. When skimming the thread they may still find things they think will improve your writing and may still post these, because... well they couldn't possibly hurt.

Of course, anyone who still wants a judgment can still get it. I strongly encourage judged threads because it helps improve your writing. It's just... well some threads don't deserve a judge's time.

So there you have it. Thoughts? Ideas? Support? I'd like to see how many people support this idea. Personally I think many people on Althanas are way too focused on scores and judgments, and lose sight of the fact that this is in fact a game. Some disagree and say this is a creative writing forum and judgments are necessary. Either way, this idea would reduce the workload of the judges, which would result in faster judgments and less backlogs.

Also... do you think these quick judgments should be put in line with the normal judgments, or should they have their own separate queue, effectively creating an "express lane"?

(Please note this thread is completely unrelated to the topic of whether mods should get compensation, so please don't discuss that here.)

[Edward Judorne]

Good idea. I know I'm working on one of those necessity threeads on one of my other characters. Of course, I still will want judgement on that, including score, but there should be an option like that.

[Call me J]

I approve of this idea, but I'd like to know a few things from the players.

In general, how much would you use this option? This proposal doesn't save time if you don't want to use it. I don't see anyone opposing it in principle, but I wonder how many people would use it. I'd use it relatively often, but I don't know how many other people would.


Also... do you think these quick judgments should be put in line with the normal judgments, or should they have their own separate queue, effectively creating an "express lane"?

I'd prefer if they stayed in the regular queue, unless if we were going to split the mod staff up into two groups some who handled express lane judgments and others that handled regular ones.

[Karuka]

I'd probably use it fairly often. I mean, there are ome threads that are integral to a character's storyline, and you want those judged, but "hey, I'm bored, some one want to go grab an ale at the tavern and go through a brawl with me?" would probably not need a thorough judgment.

[Edward Judorne]

After I finish up the first in a series of solo quests for Shell that are essential to her, I'll want that one judged, but I'd use that option for most other solo quests.

[Cyrus the virus]

I'd definitely use it for some of my threads, if my writing partners agreed to it. I'm also positive that many judges would appreciate it as an option, once in a while, to still help out but in an easier way.

[Nymph and Dragon]

So would the judges just read the thread over and give a rounded overall score depending on how good they thought it was? It seems like that kind of ambiguity would just invite more complaining. Or would the judges go through the rubric and give points in each category without adding comments and critiques? I thought that the latter was already an option.

[Karuka]

So would the judges just read the thread over and give a rounded overall score depending on how good they thought it was? It seems like that kind of ambiguity would just invite more complaining. Or would the judges go through the rubric and give points in each category without adding comments and critiques? I thought that the latter was already an option.

It would probably be an estimate of the score along with appropriate gains. If people want to complain, they can remember that they could have gotten their thread judged fully, and opted not to.

[Dirge]

Yeah, or a judge can just write it on the side, like a number for each category... you don't have to write it all out at the end. Then just add it up, give the exp as if they had judged it but without having to add the numbers or comments.

I love the idea, and would probably use it for every thread. I'm not too worried about getting a JC on anything (hahaha, yeah right), so all my threads are more for my own enjoyment and storyline purposes. I know I can write well enough to be comprehensible, and that's all that really matters to me. I'm just here to have fun, not get that perfect score.

[Call me J]

So would the judges just read the thread over and give a rounded overall score depending on how good they thought it was? It seems like that kind of ambiguity would just invite more complaining. Or would the judges go through the rubric and give points in each category without adding comments and critiques? I thought that the latter was already an option.

In reading five or six posts of a thread, I can get a vague estimate (within 10 points) of what a thread would score. I'd take the medium of that number and assume thats the score. The whole thing would take me 15 minutes as opposed to 30 minutes to 4 hours. This would, of course, be slightly inaccurate, but I'd imagine if you requested it a lot, you'd get roughly the same amount of EXP over time.

[Sorahn]

So would the judges just read the thread over and give a rounded overall score depending on how good they thought it was? It seems like that kind of ambiguity would just invite more complaining. Or would the judges go through the rubric and give points in each category without adding comments and critiques? I thought that the latter was already an option.

The main idea is that there would be no score at all. The mods would simply get an idea of the quality of your thread for the sole purpose of awarding EXP, GP, and items. No numerical score would be provided.


I love the idea, and would probably use it for every thread. I'm not too worried about getting a JC on anything (hahaha, yeah right), so all my threads are more for my own enjoyment and storyline purposes. I know I can write well enough to be comprehensible, and that's all that really matters to me. I'm just here to have fun, not get that perfect score.

This is exactly how I feel, and is basically why I thought of it.

I would use it quite often, reserving full judgments for my really epic quests or where the others in the thread wanted a full judgment.

Yay for me... I feel like I'm finally giving back and helping Althanas. It only took 5 years. :p

[Cyrus the virus]

Well, we need a score so we know how to give EXP. But I don't see a problem with providing an arbitrary score just as an estimate.

[Call me J]

However, mods should not post whatever this score they used to determine EXP rewards.

[Ranger]

Yeah, the absence of the score is why I like it. Give me the exp, close the thread, approve my spoils if you'd like as normal... but don't bother writing up a huge essay on the details. I normally get the sames things wrong, and the judges always say grammatical terms I don't understand and never have.

Heh. Might as well just be consistent and just get some exp and have fun, no scores, no judgments.

[Cyrus the virus]

However, mods should not post whatever this score they used to determine EXP rewards.

Awesome, yeah. This idea seems great! Exciting.

[Doomsday]

I like the idea and it's been an idea that had crossed my mind. I have to ask would asking for this option while requesting spoils put make it harder to get spoils? Being sometimes I want a judging quick because the spoils are something that I really want the character using as soon as possible.

[Sorahn]

It shouldn't. The same thread should get the same spoils regardless of which way it was judged.

That said perhaps it might bias the judges ever so slightly subconsciously.

[Karuka]

Well, I think reasonable spoils would probably not need a full judgment, but if it's pushing it, it would probably either be downgraded or would need a full judgment.

[Cyrus the virus]

Karuka's sensible opinion seems sensible to me. If you want a gunblade, I'm going to want to do a full judgment to see if you really deserve it, I guess. Of course, score alone doesn't dictate whether or not I award a spoil, but it definitely helps to have read the thread in its entirety.

[Max Dirks]

Here's a few things to think about:
However, mods should not post whatever this score they used to determine EXP rewards.For those of you who aren't aware, Althanas rewards are based on formulas. These formulas exist to streamline Althanas rewards and make their disbursement fair to all players. The EXP formula for quests takes three things into account: the character's level, the quest score, and the post count. Each element adds to one another to create a base EXP amount. Under Sorahn's system (assuming we use the same formula), a low scoring quest with a large number of posts can theoretically net a high level character the same amount of EXP as a high scoring quest with a low number of posts. I'm sure those who choose to hold their writing to a higher standard will be quite pleased with this system. Of course, there is judge's discretion. Depending on the flavor or the nature of the quest, the judge can adjust the EXP amount accordingly.

Put simply, it doesn't seem wise or fair to give a judge who merely "skimmed" the thread that much authority or discretion to change the score.

Battles under the no-judge system present an even greater problem. The EXP formula for battles takes two things into account: the characters' levels, and both players' battle scores. The relationship between level and score are much more complex for battles. First, a base EXP amount is determined by comparing both players' levels on a handy chart. Then, the base EXP amount for the winner is adjusted by a percentage based on his score and the base EXP amount for the loser is adjusted by the difference in the two scores. Integrating the no-judge system with the present EXP formula is a recipe for disaster. Scores and numbers are very important to determining a winner, and frankly, I assume most would be curious as to the reasons why they lost. The less streamlined the rewards process becomes, the more unfair it is.

Sorahn's system certainly can work, but there is much more to think about than what's already been mentioned. Keeping the scores secret might not be the best idea for two reasons: (1) The EXP formulas SHOULD be public, or they were designed to be public. If a player knows how to trace the EXP amount backwards, he can essentially calculate his score. Then it becomes an issue of defending yourself when a player becomes angry for using too much discretion. (2) In battles scores are absolutely essential in determining the winner and appeasing the loser. Maybe the no-judge system should only be applied to quests, assuming the discretion v. formula issue can be resolved.
I normally get the sames things wrong, and the judges always say grammatical terms I don't understand and never have.If anyone else feels similar to Ranger, I encourage you to ask the moderator what the comment means. Ever had a teacher grade and comment on a paper, only to find you can't read her handwriting? Your situation is kind of like that, Ranger. Just go ask her what it says.
I'd probably use it fairly often. I'm glad you say that, Karuka. I'm glad that others agree, because the success of this idea (if implemented) resides solely on the players. This is not the first time that a simpler form of RP has been proposed or implemented on Althanas. Four years ago, Santhalas attempted to recreate the IV on Althanas as a place to "post between posts." The moderators quickly shot it down. The Peaceful Promenade and Radasanth (now Corone) were initially places where general, non-story arc RP could take place. Now both are highly recognized places with their own back stories. They are very much integrated into the regions system and promote higher quality RP. Then there is Athlyia's Verse. I'm sure you all remember that. If you don't: it failed. Athylia's Verse was meant to be a feature for continuous simple, fun RP. I meant to model it off of the RP of old, but not many remember it, and I according to many, the idea was not well thought out (alas now I have the nostalgia thread to show you what it was like, but that's in the past). Suffice it to say that it failed because no one participated. Before implementing the system, I suspect the staff will look heavily into the interest.

I'm for anything that will simplify RP on Althanas. However, judging is what makes Althanas unique (other than its players, of course). It is what makes this forum turn out so many good writers. Without judging, we'd be no different than Alleria, Tazlure, Terrawin, or any other play-by-post RP forum.

[Max Dirks]

Sorry to double post, but I wanted to sum my argument better.

If you use Sorahn's system as you do, it will essentially lead to EXP shopping. It will become discretion v. equation. If a fun RP thread is judged, the equation could very well produce more EXP than the discretion amount would. I can also picture a situation where one moderator typically gives out more EXP than another. I would ALWAYS pick that moderator. Thus there are two possible ways to EXP shop.

I enjoy fun RP, but I tell you what. If it turns out I can get more EXP from the same fun quest by having it formally judged rather than having it "skimmed" under Sorahn's system, you'd better believe I'm willing to wait a week longer and make the judge work four times harder by judging it. Ultimately this moderator shopping might just backfire against what the no-judge system is trying to accomplish. LOTS of things would have to change (maybe even the EXP equation) for this to be a success.

[Call me J]

The EXP formula for battles takes two things into account: the characters' levels, and both players' battle scores. The relationship between level and score are much more complex for battles. First, a base EXP amount is determined by comparing both players' levels on a handy chart. Then, the base EXP amount for the winner is adjusted by a percentage based on his score and the base EXP amount for the loser is adjusted by the difference in the two scores. Integrating the no-judge system with the present EXP formula is a recipe for disaster. Scores and numbers are very important to determining a winner, and frankly, I assume most would be curious as to the reasons why they lost. The less streamlined the rewards process becomes, the more unfair it is.

Battles requested as no judge could have EXP allocated as quests. Simple solution.


I'm for anything that will simplify RP on Althanas. However, judging is what makes Althanas unique (other than its players, of course). It is what makes this forum turn out so many good writers. Without judging, we'd be no different than Alleria, Tazlure, Terrawin, or any other play-by-post RP forum.

We'll still have judgings, and I doubt they are going to go away.

[Cyrus the virus]

I figure we should do away with judge-requesting for anything but extreme cases. I never liked that. Probably a whole different thread, though.

[Karuka]

Judging would still be an option, Max. It's not like we're abolishing it entirely. We can just choose to say "SPEED JUDGMENT!" in our little judgment request boxes, like we can say now "I'd like a detailed judgment, a fairly detailed judgment, a moderate judgment, a minimal judgment, or 'numbers will be fine.'" The speed judgment would go from "numbers will be fine" to "comments will be fine."

And it wouldn't be that we're eyeballing points, it's that we're eyeballing scores. I know that I've remarked to other judges near the beginning of a thread "I'd say this will score between 55 and 65." Most of the time it fell within that range.

Under this system, say I was judging something of Letho's. He just did it for kicks, he's not really into getting an in-depth analysis, he just wants some EXP and maybe a shiny new toy. I would skim the thread, say "that's probably somewhere between a 70 and a 74." so I'd take the middle number, 72, and give him his EXP based on that score.

Say he'd wanted an in-depth judgment instead, and I did it, and since I was reading closely, I caught a couple of things that made me go "huh?" and a couple of little grammatical errors that tend to happen to the best of us pop out, and I notice because they really annoy me. The score actually winds up being a 69. Still close to my eyeball score, but he gets benefited a little, the other way around.

Or, the other way around, he wanted a judgment, I judged it, and there was something really cool in there that I missed in the skim, and it added to technique and wild card and the score wound up being 78. It's still not that far from my ballpark. Okay, so he gets a few EXP shaved off. But the next time, someone might round up, and he'd get more EXP.

I don't think it's actually that unstable a system, although I do agree that maybe battles should still be judged.

[Max Dirks]

Battles requested as no judge could have EXP allocated as quests. Simple solution.That solves the EXP shopping side, but leads to issues of EXP allocation between winners and losers. If the battles are rewarded as quests, the incentive to win is gone. At the minimum, the quest formula would have to be altered to take this into account. There is also still the issue of fairness/complaints with respect to such large discretion with comparatively low attention to detail in the judgment.

...it wouldn't be that we're eyeballing points, it's that we're eyeballing scores Karuka, that argument doesn't sit well with me. The key word being "eyeballing." That implies a crap ton of discretion. It would also make getting away with "this is a 70, because its Letho, and he's always that high" much, much easier and less obvious to the appeals committee.

Anyway, I trust our current moderators. Preventing EXP shopping is the bigger issue.

[Karuka]

I'm not saying that I recommend a person's first threads to be merely eyeballed, since I don't. Quite the opposite, to get them settled in and let everyone be familiar with what they can do. And say I were to judge something of yours on eyeball.I haven't really read anything of yours, ever. I'd say "This probably scores between a 55 and a 70." So I'd re-skim, and have a range of say, 60 to 68. That's a better range for my comfort.

That said...


Anyway, I trust our current moderators. Preventing EXP shopping is the bigger issue.

Then why do you like battles more than quests? Lots of battles say "I want lots and lots of EXP and abilities and crap" while lots of quests say "I have a story somewhere along the line that I want to tell."

EDIT:

Also, I like Cyrus's idea of not requesting a particular judge unless there's a really good reason to. And only if you're actually getting a judgment, not "Oh, Shyam gives more generous scores than Karuka, let's get HIM to eyeball our stuff."

[Call me J]

That solves the EXP shopping side, but leads to issues of EXP allocation between winners and losers. If the battles are rewarded as quests, the incentive to win is gone. At the minimum, the quest formula would have to be altered to take this into account. There is also still the issue of fairness/complaints with respect to such large discretion with comparatively low attention to detail in the judgment.

If people want a winner and a loser, they have it judged. Since scores can be marginal, it seems the only fair way to do that. If you're worried about the incentive to win being lost, people seem to write quests where there is no incentive to win quite often and do a good job with them.

[Max Dirks]

If people want a winner and a loser, they have it judged. Since scores can be marginal, it seems the only fair way to do that. If you're worried about the incentive to win being lost, people seem to write quests where there is no incentive to win quite often and do a good job with them.Right, but hasn't that always been the distinction between "quests" and "battles" on Althanas? "Quests", though they might involve battles, do not have scored winners and losers whereas "battles" do. It seems to me like you feel that the no-judge should not be extended to battles. I agree with you.
Then why do you like battles more than quests? Lots of battles say "I want lots and lots of EXP and abilities and crap" while lots of quests say "I have a story somewhere along the line that I want to tell."I don't get your question here. EXP shopping would only be a problem if the discretionary amount for the no-judge quest was higher or lower than the amount received if it was formally judged. It would primarily be a problem with quests, not battles due to post count being a factor. I battle because I enjoy them. They are the quickest way to gain EXP on Althanas. To answer your question, I can envision a situation where non-judged quick quests would be the quickest way to gain EXP, but I would probably still stick with battles. I love the me v you tension it creates. It makes me write better.

Edit: Cyrus just brought something to my attention. The EXP shopping is not an issue if scores are actually given. The original proposal said moderators just come in and give rewards, which would cause that problem. Call me J said later that "scores would be kept secret" which implies there would be scores. So basically, if we JUST REWARD, the EXP shopping issue exists. If we GIVE SCORES, the issue does not exist. However, all fairness issues are still relevant.

[Sorahn]

Max brings up some very good points.

Seeing as how I haven't written a battle in probably well over a year, I totally forgot about that aspect. Battles are battles because they have a clear winner and a clear loser, based on thread score. Therefore this system couldn't possibly apply to them, unless you really didn't care who won. In which case it becomes a quest, and could be judged as such.

The main problem it seems is the ambiguity, leaving lots up to chance. However I think this system is intended for people and their threads who don't really care too much about the thread. Thus I think it would be reasonable to put restrictions on the "no-judge" option. Such as if you choose this method, you aren't allowed to request a specific judge, and you can't appeal the decision. It's a lot more of a risk, yes, but that's the point. If you want something very precise or if you want exact justification for everything, then obviously this option is not for you.

[Edward Judorne]

What if for battles, the better writer got a set amount of exp and the worse writer got a set amount of exp. Make these set amounts less than what you'd normally get, say, 200 for the winner, 100 for the loser. You've just set up a system that rewards players for being patient, but allows impatient players a way out. You could do something similar for quests too, just everyone could get a set amount of exp based on writing skill 150 for decent writing, 200 for average, 250 for above average, and 300 for superb. once again, nowhere near the exp you would get if you submitted a thread normally, so it rewards you for waiting.

[Dirge]

That wouldn't work because the number you give would be no different than if the judge just kept the hidden score... and it would be more accurate still if they did keep the score hidden. Just handing out a set amount of exp for good, bad, and amazing threads isn't the topic, and would put more bias on the players involved as well as how the mod reads it.

Say a mod looks over my thread... they say, yeah, it's good. Here's 1000 exp. That's not going to work, even though the system says a good thread should get that much. I'm level 5, if they skim it and keep the number secret but use the formula I would receive 3000+ exp.

[Camella]

That wouldn't work because the number you give would be no different than if the judge just kept the hidden score... and it would be more accurate still if they did keep the score hidden. Just handing out a set amount of exp for good, bad, and amazing threads isn't the topic, and would put more bias on the players involved as well as how the mod reads it.

Say a mod looks over my thread... they say, yeah, it's good. Here's 1000 exp. That's not going to work, even though the system says a good thread should get that much. I'm level 5, if they skim it and keep the number secret but use the formula I would receive 3000+ exp.

Actually, I said 100, not 1000, but I see your point. All I'm saying is we may be approaching this from the wrong angle. Instead of trying to cut down on the wait time, reward them for patience, while leaving a n option open for those not-so-patient types.

[Godhand]

Hell, I'm always in favor of options. I mean I'd probably never use this because I fear change but it's still nice to know I could, you know?

[Karuka]

I don't really like the idea of punishing the impatient types. After all, it's less work on a mod to skim and guestimate (with accuracy, I might add. I know that for me, if I skimmed, the range would probably only be within a couple of points). It saves them time and gets threads out of the queue faster. So I'm in favor of full points for impatients.

[Call me J]

Right, but hasn't that always been the distinction between "quests" and "battles" on Althanas? "Quests", though they might involve battles, do not have scored winners and losers whereas "battles" do. It seems to me like you feel that the no-judge should not be extended to battles. I agree with you.

I don't mind if no judge is extended to battles, but only if it is understood that the battle, in terms of EXP allocation, will be treated as a quest. If two people are battling for fun and are not interested in seeing who the better writer is, I don't mind if they submit a battle as no judge and accept roughly equal amounts of EXP (all other variables held constant). Where we are definitely in agreement is a competitive battle should be scored.

[Saxon]

I'd like to see this idea implemented immediately. I know there are quite a few times I write that I wished there was an easier way to obtain experience than to sit and write something for months and hope for a great score. For a perfectionist like me, this seems like an all around good idea that seems to take immense pressure off the judge's shoulders, and from what little I read it gives a chance for players who prefer to roleplay over writing to actually do that and not be tied up with the process of treating this like a workshop.

Sounds like an all around win/win to me. Somebody draft up a proposal and put this bad boy on the frontlines, I'm sure we'll be hearing the collective sigh of relief from all the current judges around once they see our staff has established an express lane. ;)

[Edward Judorne]

I don't really like the idea of punishing the impatient types. After all, it's less work on a mod to skim and guestimate (with accuracy, I might add. I know that for me, if I skimmed, the range would probably only be within a couple of points). It saves them time and gets threads out of the queue faster. So I'm in favor of full points for impatients.


Yeah, but I wouldn't want it abused either. take this example:

X knows he'll get a 600 exp for sure if he uses the quick turn-in. He thinks he did a craptastic job on a quest, so he uses this option to net more exp than if he turned it in normally.

That is the other reason I set the make believe exp points so low.

Also, if you make the exp total a set amount, It wouldn't really be punishment if they chose to take that option because they know about what they will get when they make the choice.

[Karuka]

Yeah, but I wouldn't want it abused either. take this example:

X knows he'll get a 600 exp for sure if he uses the quick turn-in. He thinks he did a craptastic job on a quest, so he uses this option to net more exp than if he turned it in normally.

That is the other reason I set the make believe exp points so low.

Also, if you make the exp total a set amount, It wouldn't really be punishment if they chose to take that option because they know about what they will get when they make the choice.

It's more like it'd be an abuse to set the low, standard EXP gains for any given quest if they get it skimmed. That means we don't need to read it at all, just give them the EXP and go. We do still want to reward quality so that our players can continue to improve.

[Edward Judorne]

Hence why I set multiple set exp based on performance, but you do have a point.

Also, keep in mind the exp I gave were just so I could give an example. I don't expect them to be as low as I put them.

In any case, you are right. bad idea.

[AdventWings]

Ooh, this is a scary note for me, as I have always preferred full judging so I know how far I've come and how far I still have to go.

However, I'm not against this idea of a Speed Judging Request. It could help to speed up your EXP and GP gains, but asides from those two you're not getting much out of the thread. Unless you already know what you did wrong. (Ha)

[Edward Judorne]

Unless you already know what you did wrong. (Ha)

Well, I know I am not very good at describing places, people, and actions thoroughly. :P

[Sighter Tnailog]

Hey guys, we already have a rubric that's split into 3 sections, each with subsections that total 30 points, plus wild card.

Why not make Speed Judgings ones where instead of judging each individual subsection, the judge just gives each heading a score out of 30, plus wild card?

I could quickly say this:

STORY: 25
CHARACTER: 20
WRITING STYLE: 24
WILD CARD: 6

TOTAL: 75

It's quick, easy, leaves room for a bit of commentary, but not a shit ton, and maintains just enough of the current rubric to lend some decorum to the score and help satisfy those worried about EXP shopping.

[AdventWings]

Ah, now that's a good idea. :D

[HikariAngel]

I love it! Functional yet stylish. While I would personally not make extensive use of it, I can think of a couple times where I would take advantage of the expedient judging system if it was implemented.

[BlackAndBlueEyes]

Sighter, you da' man. I'm all for that idea.

[Call me J]

Hey guys, we already have a rubric that's split into 3 sections, each with subsections that total 30 points, plus wild card.

Why not make Speed Judgings ones where instead of judging each individual subsection, the judge just gives each heading a score out of 30, plus wild card?

I could quickly say this:

STORY: 25
CHARACTER: 20
WRITING STYLE: 24
WILD CARD: 6

TOTAL: 75

It's quick, easy, leaves room for a bit of commentary, but not a shit ton, and maintains just enough of the current rubric to lend some decorum to the score and help satisfy those worried about EXP shopping.

I still have to read just as much to do that as I would a "regular" judging. The benefits to the moderator are at best marginal and I fail to see the benefits to the player.

[Karuka]

Not to mention it's the same as the "just numbers" option, instead of the "just comments" option that we're looking to implement.