Forum:Are some of the FX/SFX and Editor's Note descriptions too opinionated?
| Report post
|
After the banning of one user for writing with a biased point of view (adding "Stunning" and other positive connotations into one of the logos for the Warner Bros. and MGM pages), this is something I would like to bring up that made me feel iffy about. The thing is, I've seen a lot of pages where the FX/SFX and Editor's Note seem opinionated yet everyone is cool with that. I think this is against the true meaning and purpose of the Editor's Note section, which is supposed to serve as a replacement for both the Cheesy and Scare Factors while at the same time keeping the pages informative by describing its impact and reputation on the logo and other communities. But instead, it feels like some handlings of either section continue the infamous, opinionated "cheesy" and "scary" descriptions that made this community polarizing in the first place. For instance, in one of the most recent edits I've seen where the Editor's Note is nothing but an opinion: This logo is one of, if not, the greatest logo in India, thanks to the great animation and the powerful fanfare. And another page I've seen a few months ago: The atrocious & cheap animation, the cheap sounds, & the terrible graphics makes this undoubtedly one of the worst logos of Motion Graphics History. It can also creep some due to the heavy wind sound & 2 cent budget animation. Even one of the biggest pages on this site retains similar opinion-leaning terms that got that user banned in the first place such as "Beautifully crafted CGI" and "Incredibly breathtaking CGI". Remember this forum where one user tried proposing a Cheesy Factor-like section but got some red flags for it feeling like it "could be exploited to basically being another Cheesy Factor"? Yeah, many pages feel like the section has been exploited into feeling like that or the Scare Factor. So what makes those descriptions alright and not subject to penalty? |
