Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Dhrizzle]

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

Do you understand? When a external partner as example didn’t fullfill race quotas they have to submit how they will make it happen

No, they have to explain why those goals were not met. Hence the phrase "steps that were taken." Past tense.

[Biomega]

These systems aren't designed to make people justify the reason as to why they gave the review they did.

That doesn't mean 0/10 is justifiable. They're free to give any rating they want, but we're also free to call them out for giving bullshit ratings. That's how it works. That's what I'm doing.

At that point, you may as well say turning off comments is good too because people just don't have the right views on things.

That's you trying again to make this about me not wanting people to not like the show. Which is not what my problem lies with (and besides, if you'd read any of my comments on the show, you'd see *I* don't like it). If comments were used the way ratings were I'd have the same problem; and in fact I have, on many occasions, pointed out to people (including you, I think) why I do not in fact find comments like "I just don't like this" useful. That is NOT the same as saying nobody is allowed to say that, it just means that you liking vanilla ice cream and not chocolate will not result in a constructive debate because those are preferences you can only state, not discuss.

Personal opinions aren't quizzes with a right or wrong answer.

And the only one bringing right or wrong into this is you. Stop doing that. It's not about right or wrong, because these ratings aren't about what one person thinks as much as they are about creating information for other people - and if you misuse the system, you're creating bad information. Your opinion is your opinion, but once you start distorting things for other people, it's no longer just about you.

If you know what aggregation means then you know why that 1 out 10 rating by itself has no value.

Which is partly why I started everything with me saying it's not about value.

If a lot of people have a 1 out of 10 rating (meaning lowest rating possible) it means they really dislike something.

And people using the system like this is why I think it's a shit system. I'm not defending rating systems. I'm showing WHY they're shit - people misuse it.

As in meaning dislike.

But why 6 specifically? Why pick that number and not another?

[Yourendbsby]

No, they have to explain why those goals were not met. Hence the phrase "steps that were taken." Past tense.

Exactly they have to explain why racial quota was not met and what they will do to get the desired racial % .

Simple as that

[InfiniteCharger]

That doesn't mean 0/10 is justifiable. They're free to give any rating they want, but we're also free to call them out for giving bullshit ratings. That's how it works. That's what I'm doing.


That's you trying again to make this about me not wanting people to not like the show. Which is not what my problem lies with (and besides, if you'd read any of my comments on the show, you'd see *I* don't like it). If comments were used the way ratings were I'd have the same problem; and in fact I have, on many occasions, pointed out to people (including you, I think) why I do not in fact find comments like "I just don't like this" useful. That is NOT the same as saying nobody is allowed to say that, it just means that you liking vanilla ice cream and not chocolate will not result in a constructive debate because those are preferences you can only state, not discuss.


And the only one bringing right or wrong into this is you. Stop doing that. It's not about right or wrong, because these ratings aren't about what one person thinks as much as they are about creating information for other people - and if you misuse the system, you're creating bad information. Your opinion is your opinion, but once you start distorting things for other people, it's no longer just about you.


Which is partly why I started everything with me saying it's not about value.


And people using the system like this is why I think it's a shit system. I'm not defending rating systems. I'm showing WHY they're shit - people misuse it.


But why 6 specifically? Why pick that number and not another?

Come on man. Not today.

Nobody has to justify to you or anybody else why they gave a rating of anything. That is the point.

YOU trying to add your magical know it all meaning behind why somebody chose a particular rating is the problem.
I am not going to sit here and debate you are about something so asinine because YOU have no way of proving it one way or another.
So this is pointless. You cannot control other people and or their opinions and what they do in a ratings system.
This is stupid and dumb and this TV show isn't important enough to be venting your spleen about what is and isn't a good review.
A lot of people don't like it. A lot of people apparently do and a lot of people are in the middle.
Nobody can control that, not even Amazon. And ultimately Amazon has the data that matters most: view counts.
And on top of that, how many people watched an episode and for how long which is a much better indication than anything.

[Yourendbsby]

That doesn't mean 0/10 is justifiable. They're free to give any rating they want, but we're also free to call them out for giving bullshit ratings. That's how it works. That's what I'm doing.


That's you trying again to make this about me not wanting people to not like the show. Which is not what my problem lies with (and besides, if you'd read any of my comments on the show, you'd see *I* don't like it). If comments were used the way ratings were I'd have the same problem; and in fact I have, on many occasions, pointed out to people (including you, I think) why I do not in fact find comments like "I just don't like this" useful. That is NOT the same as saying nobody is allowed to say that, it just means that you liking vanilla ice cream and not chocolate will not result in a constructive debate because those are preferences you can only state, not discuss.


And the only one bringing right or wrong into this is you. Stop doing that. It's not about right or wrong, because these ratings aren't about what one person thinks as much as they are about creating information for other people - and if you misuse the system, you're creating bad information. Your opinion is your opinion, but once you start distorting things for other people, it's no longer just about you.


Which is partly why I started everything with me saying it's not about value.


And people using the system like this is why I think it's a shit system. I'm not defending rating systems. I'm showing WHY they're shit - people misuse it.


But why 6 specifically? Why pick that number and not another?

Dude you understand that amazon choose to erase all ratings under 6? All writtwn reviews that where under 6 got erased.

Episode 2 has currently only 4 reviews written according to imdb (imdb=amazon)

[Dhrizzle]

Exactly they have to explain why racial quota was not met and what they will do to get the desired racial % .

Simple as that

No. It is for a situation where the goals were not met. The people are hired, it is done.

[Gumble]

The arguments here are amusing.

Forced diversity is the same thing as discrimination. It is just the people at the top saying that they believe groups of people aren't qualified enough to be hired otherwise. Its -isms from people believing they are "good people".


If you take 2 people, who are closely qualified for a position, and you hire the man over the woman because of his gender, its sexist.

So..... if you take the same 2 people, and hire the woman over the man because of her gender.... what is it?


If you take 2 women, one black and one white, and hire the white woman because of her race, its racist.

If you take the same two women, and hire the black one because of her race..... you guessed it, still racist!



If you take anyone's race, sex, religion, etc into consideration when you are making hiring decisions, it is INHERENTLY WRONG. Every time. Bar none. You don't get exceptions. It is always wrong.


Amazon admitted they hired based on sex and race. Their shows ended up sucking. Maybe don't do that.



At least House of the Dragon seems pretty good so far. First episode is free on youtube!

Infracted.

[Yourendbsby]

No. It is for a situation where the goals were not met. The people are hired, it is done.

Amazon Studios clearly set a racial goal explicitly stated by % number .

When a external Studio didn’t accomplish that they have to justify.

What do you not understand that they set a % of race selected actors?

Why do you pretend it’s not real?

Why they draw likes and say

10% lgbt
10% disabled
And other 30% race quotas and so on

You try to convince people that they have no race selected hires

Are you a troll or just woke as fuck?

Dont bother to try fool people

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals

A external partner has to justify why they didn’t met racial quota, so how you can sell us a story that there is no racial quota.

By 2024 its up to 50% and it’s gonna be enforced

Its their inclusivity statement

Besides that i am fucking out of this discussion

Woke protector, you are racist by supporting racial based hirings and quotas

Get the fuck out i am done and off

[kenn9530]

Again, I am not having this debate with you about your opinion. You can't force people to like something they don't like.
Nobody has to justify themselves to you or anybody else why they rated something the way they did. That is just a waste of time argument.
And I don't see the point.

Also there is no objective way, outside of things like emails, IP addresses or verified accounts to catch "bots".
Otherwise, you have to accept these are the honest reviews of real people and use percentage to filter noise at an aggregate level.

This is not about an opinion, giving someone a 1/10 review no matter how you feel about it is just completely dishonest, there is not much even the worst produced things dont even deserve a 1/10 rating.

Giving a 1/10 rating proves you are not giving an honest opinion on the matter and have no personal integrity. So most of the reviews are not honest reviews in the slightest and you have been proven wrong on the simple fact that the show is nowhere near a 1/10 rating.

[InfiniteCharger]

This is not about an opinion, giving someone a 1/10 review no matter how you feel about it is just completely dishonest, there is not much even the worst produced things dont even deserve a 1/10 rating.

Giving a 1/10 rating proves you are not giving an honest opinion on the matter and have no personal integrity. So most of the reviews are not honest reviews in the slightest and you have been proven wrong on the simple fact that the show is nowhere near a 1/10 rating.

Again, you have no way to prove this and it is a pointless argument.
In general, a 1 out of 10 means someone dislikes this show and is not going to watch it for the season.
There are many reasons why that is a perfectly valid response, especially as time goes on.
And when combined with the view count data, it will be much more clear how accurate it is.
But outside of Amazon, nobody has that data, so speculating on who is a bot and who is not is pointless.
If the ability exists to give a rating of a certain value, some people will choose it.
Amazon only is concerned about this because of how it may affect viewership.
Outside of that I see no reason to be arguing with you about it.

[Biomega]

Nobody has to justify to you or anybody else why they gave a rating of anything. That is the point.

And my point is that you are absolutely free to give a rating without justification, and I am absolutely free to call that useless and detrimental to the value of the information aggregated from it. I'm not saying people HAVE to justify their ratings, I'm saying that if you misuse the system, you are making things worse for everyone; and giving a rating without (at least implicit) justification is misusing the system.

You seem to think that a binary like/dislike system works the same was a point-based scale. That's not the case. "If I don't like it I'll just give a 0/10" is seriously misunderstanding how such systems are intended to work, and while any one individual won't move the needle, systematic and pervasive misuse DOES sway the average.

You cannot control other people and or their opinions and what they do in a ratings system.

And have I ever suggested as much or said this is what I want? I want ratings systems to go away. I've called them shit multiple times. How you get from me saying don't misuse the system to "I want to control people's opinions" is beyond me.

I want people's input to be useful. "I like this, 10/10" or "I don't like this, 0/10" is not useful. It's the opposite of useful, because it's treating a point-based scale like a binary system, which it isn't.

That's why justification matters to me, too, by the way - because someone simply going "I don't like this" isn't useful, since it's beyond discussion. You don't like it? Cool. So noted. Now we can move on. It doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't create discourse. Justifications do.

[Zodiark]

Again, you have no way to prove this and it is a pointless argument.
If the ability exists to give a rating of a certain value, some people will choose it.

I think your right in your statement. I feel that 1-10 ratings for movies and shows however give too much leeway. Rating from 1-5 I feel is more accurate and all that is needed by most people. 5 stars means it's a damn good, well written, enjoyable program. 1 is Just bad because you didn't like it, it was poorly written and acted, etc. 2 would be like a guilty pleasure, 3-4 are decently good and watchable under most circumstances. But most people aren't going to take the time to weigh the good and bad points much on something they don't like. They will just give whatever the lowest rating is. However today in our age of extremes the top rating will never be good enough and the lowest will never be bad enough to satisfy some. This is why you read reviews of things and see comments like "if I could give 0 stars I would!"

[Al Gorefiend]

Amazon Studios clearly set a racial goal explicitly stated by % number .

When a external Studio didn’t accomplish that they have to justify.

What do you not understand that they set a % of race selected actors?

Why do you pretend it’s not real?

Why they draw likes and say

10% lgbt
10% disabled
And other 30% race quotas and so on

You try to convince people that they have no race selected hires

Are you a troll or just woke as fuck?

Dont bother to try fool people

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals

A external partner has to justify why they didn’t met racial quota, so how you can sell us a story that there is no racial quota.

By 2024 its up to 50% and it’s gonna be enforced

Its their inclusivity statement

Besides that i am fucking out of this discussion

Woke protector, you are racist by supporting racial based hirings and quotas

Get the fuck out i am done and off

Holy hell, why does it matter? You talk like white people are losing their jobs to bad talented people simply because they aren't white, and are angry about that. Do you think white people are better actors for having been born white?

[Dhrizzle]

Amazon Studios clearly set a racial goal explicitly stated by % number .

When a external Studio didn’t accomplish that they have to justify.

Correct, but you are saying if the goal is not met they have to go back and try again which is clearly nonsense. All they have to do is show they could not hit the targets while filling in the skills needed. Simple.

What do you not understand that they set a % of race selected actors?

Woke protector, you are racist by supporting racial based hirings and quotas

Get the fuck out i am done and off

Ha, the old "people who think racism is a problem are the real racists!" is a classic.

[Veggie50]

One of the enduring messages of Tolkien best exemplified in LotR is "diversity is strength" and that usually gets the sorts of people who cry about WOKE in a frothing rage.

- - - Updated - - -



To mess with people. What better way to spread discord than to pretend to be in opposition to your main goals and then spread discord among those united against you. It's not entirely unlike what he did as Annatar.

I think he would look a lot fairer/younger if it’s sauron… but we’ll see!

[Veggie50]

I think your right in your statement. I feel that 1-10 ratings for movies and shows however give too much leeway. Rating from 1-5 I feel is more accurate and all that is needed by most people. 5 stars means it's a damn good, well written, enjoyable program. 1 is Just bad because you didn't like it, it was poorly written and acted, etc. 2 would be like a guilty pleasure, 3-4 are decently good and watchable under most circumstances. But most people aren't going to take the time to weigh the good and bad points much on something they don't like. They will just give whatever the lowest rating is. However today in our age of extremes the top rating will never be good enough and the lowest will never be bad enough to satisfy some. This is why you read reviews of things and see comments like "if I could give 0 stars I would!"

People giving 10 or 1 reviews are not actually reviewing anything. They’re trying to punish/reward showrunners.

[InfiniteCharger]

I think your right in your statement. I feel that 1-10 ratings for movies and shows however give too much leeway. Rating from 1-5 I feel is more accurate and all that is needed by most people. 5 stars means it's a damn good, well written, enjoyable program. 1 is Just bad because you didn't like it, it was poorly written and acted, etc. 2 would be like a guilty pleasure, 3-4 are decently good and watchable under most circumstances. But most people aren't going to take the time to weigh the good and bad points much on something they don't like. They will just give whatever the lowest rating is. However today in our age of extremes the top rating will never be good enough and the lowest will never be bad enough to satisfy some. This is why you read reviews of things and see comments like "if I could give 0 stars I would!"

I think one "dishonest" aspect could be not actually watching the show before giving a rating.
But even then it could also be "dishonest" if they rate it 0/1 but still watch the show anyway.
It is not dishonest if they don't want to watch it whether due to trailers or having watched an episode.
Basically 0 or 1 for a series like this means I literally have no plans to watch this ever.
Other people may be saying that you need to watch the whole thing before leaving a review like that (or at all).
This is partly how the certified critic reviews on rotten tomatoes are behaving.
And Amazon is rolling out something similar to this on their site for users to actually make sure they watched.

[Mehrunes]

Ha, the old "people who think racism is a problem are the real racists!" is a classic.

I'm pretty sure they talked about people "supporting racial based hiring and quotas", not "who think racism is a problem". And I think that because I copy-pasted that text from their post. Those two aren't interchangeable and it's perfectly possible to oppose racism while thinking the quotas (which, by the way, aren't even legal in US) are not the way to address it. And while all the screaming about "forced diversity" irks me, things like you having to blatantly misrepresent what you're replying to aren't a great look either.

Like... what? What is Self-identify as a person with disability? Either you have a disability or you don't, indulging into self-diagnosing or "faking" shouldn't be encouraged. :|
Like these people who fake tourettes for clout.

Yeah, I was thinking that it was something like the site being in another language being google-translated weirdly, but it appears to be legit. The bit about how racial quotas are to be used only "where it doesn’t compromise the authenticity of the story" was also interesting, given the givens. Though my favorite is how there's a 30% quota for white men and a 30% for white women and non-binary people. Having "woke" policies is one thing, but failing at them so hard you can't even give an equal quota to (white) men and (white) women (one would think that'd be the bare minimum and the first thing to include in such a hiring plan) and instead bundle women together with non-binary people is another.

[eschatological]

Warning: There has already been a warning issued yesterday about bringing outside conspiracies of agenda to this thread. Initially, the discussion about review bombing was attempted in good faith, but it is clear now a few posters are attempting to derail in the worst possible faith. From now on, this is considered off-topic for this thread. There is a separate thread on this subforum to discuss review bombing specifically, if you wish to discuss further. Infractions have been issued, and will be continued to be issued, for further pursuing this derail.

[Kumorii]

Yeah, I was thinking that it was something like the site being in another language being google-translated weirdly, but it appears to be legit. The bit about how racial quotas are to be used only "where it doesn’t compromise the authenticity of the story" was also interesting, given the givens. Though my favorite is how there's a 30% quota for white men and a 30% for white women and non-binary people. Having "woke" policies is one thing, but failing at them so hard you can't even give an equal quota to (white) men and (white) women (one would think that'd be the bare minimum and the first thing to include in such a hiring plan) and instead bundle women together with non-binary people is another.

Googled it and it seems self-identify just being the one who identify your disability to the employer.
Such a weird wording to me, granted english isn't my first.

You can choose not to disclose your disability, but if you do, you would be "self-identified person with a disability".
Feel like they could just use "10% goes to a person with a disability".