... that is not the point ... why don't you write such stuff on the front page?
It is nice to see that I have been warranted with this additional freedom ... but some communication would have been nice. like an e-mail to the persons, who had been granted with this function.

Yeah, don't ask for it and most importantly don't make us regret putting that kind of trust in you. It doesn't mean we aren't watching. Suffice to say that these "scribes" are only selected after careful staff discussion and there's only a small number of them now, which won't change much, relatively speaking.


Unnecessary, the respective users find out anyway when the button changes and their reviews are auto-approved. This privilege applies only to a microscopic fraction of MA's userbase.


Eh, maybe. You'll live, though, won't you? There may be some kind of automated message/email in the future.

Just a moment of weakness. Please excuse a man's vanity!

Hey, awesome. I really should post more reviews to justify having this power now.

Just got off school so now I get to read that I was ok'd for this additional privilege. Awesome. Thank you MA staff! No points anymore, though.


Just saw this and I can answer this. I originally wrote the review in 2009, and it sucked so bad. Awful, awkward formatting with a dumb conversation in the review between two characters that added nothing. I then edited the review and resubmitted in 2011 when V2 went online, but before V2's proper resubmission system, so resubmitted old reviews turned up as new ones, hence why it appears as a 2011 review. I changed a lot of things and kept some - those bad parts are the parts that I left in. Yeah... I'll probably delete those now that I have auto-review approval status.

Edit: Just deleted and added some stuff to the review. Should be better now. Auto-approval rules!

The point issue should be fixed. In truth I set it to work like moderator reviews, which bypass the queue but also get no points. Auto-approved reviews now grant 5 points to both mods and "scribe" normal users.

Just note that this isn't a badge of honour or anything, or any indication that your review are particularly exceptional (I object to Az depicting it as such); it only means that your reviews hardly ever require rejection (which means they're always acceptable, not that they're always exceptional; big difference). It's essentially just a way to alleviate moderator workload. So, yeah, no gloating people, or I'm unticking that checkbox.

All the sweet, precious points I've lost! Like, hundreds or THOUSANDS of them!

Saw this user with an annoying name and I noticed how he liked to make positive review comebacks. Only three reviews, but I can only expect more negative reviews that'll be countered by this guy in time.

Yeah, I was confused also but I have an idea: Any user who is granted this privilege should recieve an admin message that says Congratulations! You have been autothralled.You now have the option for your review to be instantly approved for 5 points. Thank you for contributing. And scribes who lose and abuse the privilege recieve the message that says We're sorry but you have been ConorFined because you lose points and are now ostracized as perpetually substandard. Thank you for contributing-I guess.

kill 'em with kindness.

German humor, eh?

That probably sounded better in his head.

Are the auto-published reviews looked over to see if they warrant a higher or lower score than 5?

Nah, the goal was to make the review queue mods' job easier. Also, I don't think they care that much about their points.

They're not me.

Attention mods: I was editing my review of Crucifiction's "Portals to the Beyond" and I forgot to change the score when I submitted it to the queue. Could you bump it's current score of 93% to 95% when you get to it? It's too colossal an album for my original score.

EDIT: Also, to save you time, the only changes I made to my review of Dawn of Crucifixion's S/T demo is that I lowered to score from 87 to 85. No need to read it through.

You can change the scores on reviews yourself without having to submit them back into the queue.

Oh. I didn't know that, but I'll keep it in mind, thanks.

DawnoftheShred and BloodIronBeer both submitted reviews today. The old-schoolers are making a comeback!

19% for The Electric Age?

What in the blue fuck?!

Indeed. I'm not saying everybody has to like that album, but that wasn't a very good review. I didn't get much of a description on how the music sounded to him other than "it all sounds the same" or "I can't tell the songs apart"...if you can't tell the songs apart, why review it in the first place? That's what I want to know.

This is one of the strangest lines of reasoning I've seen in a while. Indistinguishable songs is a 100% valid complaint.



Those two segments alone explain the general idea behind his chief complaint. Yeah it wasn't the most descriptive review out there but it's certainly valid. That bolded part still just blows my mind. I've stretched to justify why I feel like a review I disagree with is bad on a technical level before, I'm human too, but that's just so weird to me. It's like a strange rewording of "If you don't like it, don't review it", which we should all know is one of my least favorite things to hear.

Considering that the same reviewer gave Ironbound an 80% and the two albums are very similar, the disparity in scoring strikes me as highly illogical. The review is reasonably well written, but in my opinion the guy has hearing damage if he thinks The Electric Age is one-dimensional.

Just want to point out that I really like Ironbound and I really don't like The Electric Age. Granted it's not for the same reasons as this reviewer, but it is a very possible opinion to have.

For me, "indistinguishable songs" usually means I haven't listened to the album enough times, or given it enough attention. This is why I don't understand the point of bringing that up in a review. Maybe you are different.

Yea...that review for The Electric Age really threw me off. Of course it is possible to not like it, but I feel like he listened to a different album then I did. The songs are certainly distinguishable. I certainly think "Come and Get It" is an awesome track and future classic, but this guy was pretty "meh" about that one. I couldn't believe it.

Or he thought the songs were indistinguishable.

Its problem was that it couldn't swim, the dude's reasoning is sound enough.

There's nothing worse in reviews than forced poor comedy. The rules should state some limit as to how unfunny reviews can be.

Oh look this is a thread.

Think I'll take a seat. Stay a while.

Noctir, you're the grumpiest reviewer on MA. Congratulations.

I'm the second grumpiest because he submitted all his reviews in bulk. Me no likely bulk submissions.

Holy shit, 3% for Bergtatt thats insanity, I can understand low scores for shitty Enslaved but that is one of Ulver's only good albums, and one of the best black metal albums of all time.

I really HATE that, I'm usually letting them rot there out of spite.

It just seems like he deliberately reviews albums and gives them really low scores to get a rile out of people. Half of that Dimmu Borgir 0% review is a nothing-rant.

From the Ulver review:

Ok he's just fucking with us.

Yeah, Noctir's streak has certainly been a controversial one. I really think the scores in many cases are hyperbolic, with the actual review not really justifying the negativity, and just coming off as a rant. Hah, the sentence Ozzy pointed out is pretty laughable

Yup, Noctir's Bergtatt review is horrible. The 3% score is blatantly hyperbolic and an attempt at lowering the overall score. He barely described the music beyond the fact that it mixed black metal and folk. He claimed Ulver were ripping off their peers when no one was really playing like that at the time. This was especially cringe worthy:

It is easy to spin this sentence around a bit.
This one bothers me:

When did Ulver release Nattens Madrigal ... ah yes, two years after Bergtatt. Now that is a strange line of reasoning.


Good for him to be of such intellectual grandeur as well as a capacity in the black metal scene that it is up to him to define what belongs together and what now. So much for pretentiousness.

The tl;dr version of his review for Dimmu Borgir's debut (0%) is basically, 'everyone knows how gay this band is these days, but you're still a faggot even if you thought their early shit was half decent'.

Dimmu is too deep grim for him.