Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26234016-20170906203547

Wow.

I'm just going to... be really happy about that wordplay right there.

Just...

Wow.

Er, aside from ogoling at good puns, I want to have a serious conversation about the purpose of role reviewers. This is partially brought on by this post on the forum, which is basically a call-to-arms against the wiki's role reviewers/creators. That's how I see it, others have different opinions, but when I read that '[ProfessorArceus] browsed through some of the feedback there, and it's horrendous ', well, that didn't sit too well with me.

I know I've said something akin to this before, but I don't think I've ever started a thread about it, and I really think that this is a conversation we need to have. I honestly don't think role reviewers on the wiki have a purpose.

Now, don't get me wrong, reviewing roles is sort of helpful to the community, or at least as helpful as creating roles. But on the wiki, a role reviewer has no power.

I've always thought of myself and other reviewers as an 'optional filter'. We go through all the roles reviewed on the wiki (and there's a lot) and filter out the bad ones so that the forum and BMG won't have to deal.

Optional is the keyword there. I would imagine this paragraph as the Firefighter Creator's wet dream, because I'm going to say this right now: You can completely ignore the role reviewers on the wiki. If you disagree with the opinion of Desert, or Glass, or Vert, or Haw, or whoever else is reviewing your role, than go ahead! Take it to BMG! We hold no power!

So why does anyone listen to us? What is the Role of a Reviewer?

I really want to encourage some free thought, not just from wiki vets but also from newcomers, and especially role creators.

also a highlight would be nice  