The ZMan:

BTW remember tht competition for reviewing and submitting - did anyone ever win anything.

I was just thinking about it... but I can't find it's page anywhere. I can't win anything, of course, but it's strange how all details disspeared

 

The ZMan:

what happened to your morals and ethics

Exactly, CDarklock. You keep talking about the obligation to review games, and at the same time you say that you won't be reviewing any games... what's up with that?

Catalin Zima:

The ZMan:

BTW remember tht competition for reviewing and submitting - did anyone ever win anything.

I was just thinking about it... but I can't find it's page anywhere. I can't win anything, of course, but it's strange how all details disspeared

This one here? I don't recall hearing anything about it after the initial announcement. Maybe someone got something. :p

Nick Gravelyn:

This one here?

Yeah, that one.

The ZMan:

apathy, boredom and procrastination are quite different to maliciousness.

Agreed, and I'm not at all of the opinion that refusing to peer review something is inherently malicious. I'm saying that when it is malicious - when your intent in refusing peer review is to prevent the game's inclusion on the service, no matter what your justification - it's an abuse of the system. Abuse of the system can't really be justified by saying someone else was abusing it first.

I'm speculating that there will be systemic controls around the issue. There's a FAQ on the CG space which specifically calls out in the "how many games can I submit" question that they're still defining this - so I think the issue of getting updates every day will probably never exist in the first place. What concerns me is the idea that people are expecting to actively blackball developers based on whether they've used the system "properly" or not, when proper use of the system is out of scope for peer review.

The ZMan:

what happened to your morals and ethics ;-)

Contingent staff can't participate in peer review.

There, I said it, okay? Now everybody knows.

CDarklock:

The ZMan:

what happened to your morals and ethics ;-)

Contingent staff can't participate in peer review.

There, I said it, okay? Now everybody knows.

I did know that MS employees and CS couldn't partake in the review process... I suppose it wasn't too much of a stretch for me to guess that based on your location... darn it and there I was all proud of myself for being self righteous...

 

CDarklock:

I'm saying that when it is malicious - when your intent in refusing peer review is to prevent the game's inclusion on the service, no matter what your justification - it's an abuse of the system.

By refusing to review a game, we are not breaking a single rule; we are simply exercising our free will to choose to not review that game. This has the side effect of improving the community by allowing the community of developers to punish those trying to ruin it by releasing broken/buggy/incomplete games and patching all the time.

The community will ultimately decide whether or not it wants to allow peer review to developers trying to harm the community. As it stands I believe refusing known abusers is how the community can help itself and the XNA team. If we try to make the XNA team police the system (more than they must already for various other technical and legal reasons), it just takes away from their ability to work on the actual framework and system. As a community we have the power to fight malicious developers by simply refusing them access to the system via refusing peer review to their games. It helps the team, it helps the other developers, and it ultimately helps the end-users.

This thread has gone off-topic for a while now.

The original question has been answered, and now the discussion is ping-pong-ing between two sets of opinions.

 

Even though the discussion is done by moderators, we also have to obey the rules, so I'll lock this thread.

For further discussions, please open a thread with an appropriate topic.