Declined review policies are impossible

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Answered
I tried submitting a review already three times after carefully editing the content.
ID#: 181210-102355-665304

Every time it says 'declined', and the only reason is : "Your submission conflicted with one or more of our policies as stated in..."

There are several problems with this that make this procedure impossible:

- I carefully read the policies and could not find any problem with the review.

- There are ten policies and it doesn't state which one was the problematic one

- There is no indication of what part of the text (its not a short review) is the problematic one. So even if I knew which specific policy they are talking about, I wouldn't be able to find the problematic text since I carefully read everything and could find a single problem.

(This whole declining procedure has to change if you ask me. I see there are dozens of other similar complaints.)

Thanks in advance.

Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes

Posted 6 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
Post the complete review if you would please.
A lot of us here may notice the offending material, if there is one!
Sometimes there are mistakes.
And the most recent review and the 18 digit reference number associated with it.
Thanks.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
It feels wrong posting a review in a public imdb forum that was declined on another imdb forum, but OK, here goes...

(I already posted the ID above)



The good:

The first hour promises a superbly crafted and written epic historical movie with dense, intelligent dialog and characters. This hour involves the set-up: An idealistic-minded blacksmith in mourning for his wife and child, finds himself en route to Jerusalem along with a newly discovered father. It's only after this hour that things fall apart.

His traitorous fanatically Christian brother provides the religious catapult for the rest of the movie that involves Holy Land politics, crusades and battles.

The sets and costumes look great (to this historically untrained eye at least). And the couple of battle scenes are epic in scale as only Ridley Scott can create.

The bad:

For starters, Orlando Bloom is passable, but pretty flat as the protagonist. Eva Green is an intense superb actress, but her character is way too modern and liberated for this movie.

As soon as we get to Jerusalem, all of a sudden it becomes a preachy liberal movie with anachronisms galore, there are no really devout Christians, only hypocritical fanatics, Jews are practically nowhere to be seen, and the Arabs are noble, honorable and tolerant people. In other words, it suddenly drowns in modern liberal PC anachronisms, bias and warping of truth.

For example, there are some insulting plot developments that try to convince us that Balian the liberal is an idealistic leader. The village he moves into is dry for hundreds of years, and as soon as he arrives they dig and find a well. Evidently, Arabs living in this land had no idea how to dig a well until a European came along. Same goes for his basic and obvious advice to seasoned war veterans about soldiers needing water.

Now, even if you were to argue that there was a period where the religions lived together in Jerusalem, it would hardly be the tolerant utopia this movie would have you believe. There would be outbreaks of attacks and intolerance, second-class citizens and treatments, and so on.

A quick look at Wikipedia about the events in this movie reveals a completely different story than this liberal fantasy movie: Balian initially promised to Saladin never to fight him. Christians had to absolve him of his oath to protect Jerusalem because Christianity is more important than an oath to a non-Christian. Before Saladin took Jerusalem he offered peaceful terms of surrender and they refused. It's only after the siege started that he refused terms. Balian then threatened to kill all Muslims in the city and destroy Muslim holy sites if he didn't offer them quarter. And then they had to pay ransom as part of their surrender, and many of the people were enslaved.

So not only does history blatantly contradict the events in this movie, it depicts very different people, leaders and motivations and the liberalism this movie fantasizes about is nowhere to be seen.

But even as a non-historical fantasy, this movie simply makes no sense. The real fatal problem of this movie is that this movie has agnostics, liberals, atheists and religious people that only pay lip-service to religion, all fighting religious wars with no apparent motivation. Why defend a city if you explicitly state that all you care about is the people? If that's the case, give up the city and negotiate a peace! Or even run away if that's not possible. The Wikipedia version of this story makes a lot more sense, whereas this fantasy doesn't even begin to make sense.

Case in point: the final battle. We have two completely religiously unmotivated but noble and honorable leaders waging battle without even trying to negotiate before it starts. Why? Who knows. Just so that we get our epic battle scene, and they can be portrayed as perfect, liberal and intelligent leaders even in war.

In summary, the liberal agenda in this movie is so desperate to re-interpret history with its bias, it fails to see that the people and story make no sense as soon as this is done. Therefore it fails both as a history lesson and as a fantasy movie.

Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3284 Posts
  • 3098 Reply Likes

Declined review policies are impossible
by zevt
Joined on December 6, 2018
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/zevt
- - -

? ?

Kingdom of Heaven  (2005)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/reference
Orlando Bloom   ...  Balian de Ibelin 
Eva Green   ...  Sibylla

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/reviews?sort=submissionDate&dir=desc
965 Reviews

Good and bad 
by zevt 6 December 2018
The good:

The first hour promises a superbly crafted
and written epic historical movie with dense,
intelligent dialog and characters.
This hour involves the set-up:
An idealistic-minded blacksmith in mourning for his wife and child,
finds himself en route to Jerusalem along with a newly discovered father.
It's only after this hour that things fall apart...

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4497292/

- - -

zevt
IMDb member since August 2003
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2613642/
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2613642/reviews - 45 Reviews
.

(Edited)
Photo of steveruzicka .

steveruzicka .

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I believe you have injected your political views when quoting part of the movie being  "preachy liberal movie" and a tint of racism regarding Arabs. My opinion is that IMDB is correct in their interpretation of rules.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6750 Posts
  • 8397 Reply Likes
Racism? The reviewer pointed out how absurd it is that the Arabs portrayed did not think to build a well whereas the Europeans portrayed did. Sounds like the movie's error, not the reviewer's.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
I do not quite know where to start. Did you check the box "Contains Spoilers"? It made a reference to it being a liberal movie. That makes reference to current social issues. A No No. You described part of the plot. That is for plot outlines. Not reviews. PC anachronisms? Current Social issues again. IMDb has been rejecting reviews that contain your "Idea" of what is socially acceptable. It may differ from someone else's idea of "What's Acceptable"  Again IMDb is trying to make reviews about the movies technical aspects, cinematography, directing, acting, entertainment value, etc. , the priority. Not it's social impact.
Other than a complete rewrite, there is no simple "One Thing" to fix.
I know that won't be the answer you seek.
But it is what they are looking for.
Sorry.
Cheers.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6750 Posts
  • 8397 Reply Likes
Perhaps some of IMDb's policies are vague.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3284 Posts
  • 3098 Reply Likes
Ed CliffJ Jones D. Weaver III 

Did you check the box "Contains Spoilers"?

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4497292/

.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
It's not as declined as we were led to believe?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
Jeorj,
Some????
That's generous!
A lot is more in line.
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 69 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Plenty of reviews provide a bit of plot outline, and I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven in years, so I can't say whether this review contains spoilers--although, as it's a historical picture, a warning may not be necessary.

But, the review was surely rejected for the injection of the author's political views.  I had a review declined for a similar reason.  There's a way to comment about a movie's place within a larger social/political context under IMDb's recent more stringent, if still inconsistent, enforcement, and that's to be more subtle and tactful with a focus on objective context and not personal views of it.  I had to make such adjustments to get my review accepted, and, in that case, I think it was a better-written review for it.  My review also dealt with racial issues, which requires some delicacy.

At the very least, you only really need to say something is "liberal" or "PC" once; anymore and it reads as a rant.

And, yeah, IMDb's policies and enforcement are vague.
Photo of Jeffrey Strickland

Jeffrey Strickland

  • 16 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Yeah I can entirely see why that was declined, what is it with people using the word agenda to describe anything that doesn't suit their personal moral sensibilities. It's always either that or propaganda!

Same sex couple, it's gay propaganda or part of the gay agenda.
Mixed race couple, it's propaganda or part of an agenda.
It leans politically one way or another, it's left/right propaganda or part of the left/right agenda. etc etc etc

Like everyone else said, stick to the movie. I'm guilty of it myself truth be told but you need to resist the urge and just discuss what is relevant. And the words agenda and propaganda should perhaps be kept clear of IMDB reviews as a rule.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
Think..... How would Siskel or Ebert write a review?
You can't miss.
This was from 1970
He made absolutely no mention of Vietnam while reviewing this. No mention of protests going on at colleges etc. He focused on the picture, and the picture alone
M*A*S*H
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mash-1970

Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Thank you for your comments and help...

First of all, yes it was declined, it's an update to a review that I already wrote.

Yes I checked "Contains Spoilers", so it's not that.

There is no such policy to avoid "reference to social issues". The policy is "Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based." There is not a single personal opinion on social issues in my review.

Calling a movie a liberal movie is a comment on the movie and its definition. It's the same as calling a movie 'a propaganda movie'. Categorizing a movie does not qualify as 'a personal opinion on social issues'.

The complaint that it contains "PC anachronisms" is once again a description of the movie. Since it claims to be a 'historical movie' I am challenging the movie's description of itself by it being anachronistic.

I read my review several times. There is not a single 'personal opinion' on real life issues. Everything I wrote is about the movie. For example I don't talk about whether liberalism is good or bad. Can you extract from my review what I think of liberalism or what any of my political opinions are? No, because it doesn't contain my personal opinion. For all you know, I am a die-hard liberal. I talk about the movie using modern-day liberalism to warp its own plot. That doesn't mean liberalism is bad, or good. It means it is infused with modern-day bias to its own detriment. There is not a single sentence that can be classified as a personal opinion. Just mentioning liberalism doesn't count.

And finally: "You described part of the plot. That is for plot outlines. Not reviews." See every single review Ebert and every other critic has ever written. They all contain plot descriptions.

(Edited)
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Just one more very important point: The fact that the movie has a liberal agenda is critical to my review because my claim is that this agenda is what made the movie make no sense. If you just skim over the review and see words like 'liberal agenda' without noticing the points that I make about the movie itself, its plot points and character motivations, then obviously it will read like a political rant.

This is probably what happened when they declined it if you ask me. But read it carefully and you will see it is not a political rant. It contains only complaints about the movie itself and its character motivations which make no sense due to the liberal agenda in the movie.

I could be a liberal and still write the same review.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Just one more very important point: The fact that the movie has a liberal agenda is critical to my review because my claim is that this agenda is what made the movie make no sense. If you just skim over the review and see words like 'liberal agenda' without noticing the points that I make about the movie itself, its plot points and character motivations, then obviously it will read like a political rant.

This is probably what happened when they declined it if you ask me. But read it carefully and you will see it is not a political rant. It contains only complaints about the movie itself and its character motivations which make no sense due to the liberal agenda in the movie.

I could be a liberal and still write the same review.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Apologies for the double post I only posted once but there seems to be a bug. Also the "Remove" button doesn't seem to work so I can't delete it myself (a second bug). I press Remove, OK and then nothing happens.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
One additional comment: As you can see, the previous version of my review for this movie was not declined. You can compare the old version (the one currently on IMDB) with the one I posted here.

The main difference is the addition of the Wikipedia version of the story. I added this with no comments or personal opinions on the actual history and only said that this demonstrates what is wrong with the movie (i.e. 1. it's not historical, 2. their motivations make no sense in the movie compared to actual events). So as I mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any conflict with any policies and someone probably just skimmed what I wrote.

Also, obviously the review was not declined due to me saying things like 'liberal agenda' since the old review was accepted.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
One additional comment: As you can see, the previous version of my review for this movie was not declined. You can compare the old version (the one currently on IMDB) with the one I posted here.

The main difference is the addition of the Wikipedia version of the story. I added this with no comments or personal opinions on the actual history and only said that this demonstrates what is wrong with the movie (i.e. 1. it's not historical, 2. their motivations make no sense in the movie compared to actual events). So as I mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any conflict with any policies and someone probably just skimmed what I wrote.

Also, obviously the review was not declined due to me saying things like 'liberal agenda' since the old review was accepted.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Once again a double post even though I most definitely clicked only once. Definitely a bug. And once again it doesn't delete posts.  (Browser: Firefox)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6750 Posts
  • 8397 Reply Likes
Well, that is it then. References to Wikipedia are disliked.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
The policies don't mention anything about Wikipedia references being a problem. I have a feeling the reviewer just misread my review and thought it was a personal rant. But that's exactly the problem here - nobody knows what the problem is and everyone (mis)-interprets things differently. What am I supposed to do... try editing my review 20 more times until I conform to some whim of some random reviewer?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6750 Posts
  • 8397 Reply Likes
There are hidden policies. Every organization has them.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11924 Posts
  • 13505 Reply Likes
As soon as we get to Jerusalem, all of a sudden it becomes a preachy liberal movie
That is an opinion. A social comment.
I would write it this way to get past the editors....


As soon as we get to Jerusalem, all period realism is abandoned. It is replaced with modernistic ideals.
(Edited)
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Thanks for your suggestions but this can't be the problem: First of all the accepted previous version of the review already has this wording and I didn't change it for the update. Second of all it is a description of the movie not a social comment. I am not commenting on society being preachy, I am commenting on the movie being preachy.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Note that there are two issues here: One is how do I edit my review to allow it to be accepted. Your comments are about this issue, and thanks.

The second is a general problem in the way IMDB declines reviews: The process does not allow reviewers to understand what the problem is (as we can see from the above comments, it is not at all clear). This needs an IMDB rep.
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 69 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Yeah, as it's a declined edit of an already-approved review, perhaps it's an error of some sort and, indeed, should be addressed by an official rep.

And I agree that it's a problem that the process doesn't specify the violations of declined reviews.  You're bound to receive different interpretations of what are violations in the first place among the IMDb staff.  I've had a word replaced by IMDb for one of my reviews, while the same word went untouched and approved in another.  Likewise, they seem to be inconsistent regarding the politics or social commentary in reviews... among other things.  And many reviews obviously were never read in the first place of the approval process.
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2901 Posts
  • 4846 Reply Likes
This topic is tagged as "Answered", I hope that some IMDb official will browse and react to it (but I am not very confident that they will...)
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3284 Posts
  • 3095 Reply Likes
So, the teacher asks the class "How much is 2+2 ?"
Student replies "5 !"
Question was Answered
.
Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Exactly,  ACT_1.

I could start a new post and ask why this one was marked as  'Answered', but that could start an infinite loop.

I suppose I could also re-post the review a few more times until I happen to chance on one person that will actually read the review (like the one time they approved it), or until I get tired and give up on 'contributing'.

Photo of zevt

zevt

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Update: I posted the SAME review a few more times until it got approved, thus proving my point: That declined review policies are arbitrary, random and completely impossible. Note, the exact same text was declined twice and then approved the third time.

So, in summary, in this post I raised four issues: The problem with my review specifically, the general problem of vague, impossible and random IMDB policies, and two bugs with the getsatisfaction site.

But ALL this was swept under the table by simply marking this post as 'Answered' prematurely. So much for satisfaction.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 11846 Posts
  • 13404 Reply Likes
Supposed to fire my imagination
I can't get no - oh no, no, no!
Hey hey hey! That's what I say!
That's life sometimes.
There are more than one that do the job.
Ones interpretation is different from anothers.
If A.I. did it, it would be uniform.
Lt Commander Data for editor!!