I agree with Link. If you want to quibble over word use or if you want to flame eachother you can use private messages. If you want constructive debate this is not the way to do it.

Now, a reply to Link:

That's not my understanding. Well, at least, in the big topic about the subject the debate was mainly about allowing short reviews which don't specify a clear reason for rating vs. only allowing reviews that give clear reasons to stay. In this it was mainly what I call a soft power vs hard power argument: I wanted people to have a lot of freedom in what they did and that allowing those things doesn't mean encouraging them, you can still discourage them using other methods. Derby wanted the things which were not recommendable activity to be disallowed. In short, the argument was: should everything not great be disallowed or only be discouraged?

But the debate, including my posts, seems afterward to be pretty vague to me, I think we kind of stopped looking at eachother's points clearly.

Bobby and me, the main admins, pretty much agreed that admin policy should be more lenient towards reviews that are not really clear. Like things like "I give this level an 8 because the eyecandy is really good" should not be disallowed, just be discouraged. One proposal from Bobby was to have a minimum character amount on reviews, for example 200 chars. (not retroactively of course)