This thread will be used to discuss all matters relevant to the Mafia QC System located http://pokemon-online.eu/threads/mafia-qc-v3.28865/ It may also be used for QC Application information when that time comes. Please post any suggestions, comments, or concerns about the system here.
A veto system can be established. The sMAs can "veto" a theme, existing or in Review. This disables the theme/declines the theme. A system of checks and balances can be assured that if all the Mafia QC + Lead QC say that the Theme should not be disabled/stay in review, it will stay. sMAs/Lead QCs should also be able to "blacklist" certain people from posting in review threads/adopting themes. Thus, the Mafia QC will run faster and smoother. The "people" I am talking about are people who make pointless comments/things that were already mentioned 100 times. *cough* There are also people that are not the best at producing quality themes. They obviously should not be allowed to adopt themes. This "blacklist" does not need to be public. Another thing is that QC should have a private place where they can discuss themes w/o the Theme Author's influence.
I would recommend watching the ideas that could affect you as well, ie blacklisting. If someone really shouldn't be allowed to post there, then they get infracted. Yet, you can't logically infract without them posting. So if they don't post, no problem. If they post, they get infracted.
This is likely to make the system far too subjective. The idea of the new system is to make reviews more objective, implementing this idea is likely going to add too much bias, and possibly even turn into an ego war between the parts that can counter each other. Blacklists are bad. If someone is spamming the thread with pointless comments, then report them to forum moderators. It's better than blocking people who can potentially give relevant feedback even if they have no knowledge in theme making (feedback from such people is sometimes even more valuable than feedback from other theme makers, as they are normal players without bias toward specific themes). The whole reason for the QC system was created was to make the process transparent. This would just be a step backward.
Going to bring back something that I suggested when the new system was being formed that could greatly help the reviews: a simple explanation of the ratings a theme can get. Since each criterion can get 0~5 points, it may be helpful to have a guideline about what each number represents. Something like this: So, for example, if we are judging balance for a theme, the above descriptions could be interpreted as: Spoiler 0: Theme is purposely broken or unbalanced, as if aiming for poor games. 1: Theme is not balanced at all, with lots of roles without counters or checks, unfair role distribution or spawn ratio. 2: Theme has some balance issues that makes games unfair for some sides. 3: Theme has no glaring balance issues, but it's still not on the point where all sides have a fair chance of winning. 4: Most sides have a fair chance of winning on most game sizes, but some points may still need tweaks. 5: All sides have a fair chance on any game size. Of course, this is only an example regarding a very specific parameter, but the idea is that some descriptions could make it easier for reviewers to know there a theme stands regarding that criterion, while theme authors should be able to notice when an unfair rating is given or where to ask for more feedback. (Note: I'm suggesting only the first block I posted here is added to the guidelines; the example about balance is only here to explain the idea, and shouldn't be added to the guidelines).