Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-4750363-20131023020818/@comment-6761334-20131028061319

I would be interested in being a reviewer. I am one of the reviewers over at Index, so I have been doing something similar for awhile.

My only questions would be: Are we only going to judge it based on writing skill? I ask, specifically, because I have encoutnered sites that actively regulate "scary" under a very general boilerplate disclaimer that stories can be deleted if not up to whatever the unknown standards of the reviewer are. It is massively frustrating to write for, as they have a tendancy to rule by making a partial list of exceptions known instead of having a well crafted definition of what they are looking for.

I am all for getting rid of stuff that is about as well written as Sonic.exe. While the original is famous, it is deeply flawed on a technical level. Pastas that are  poorly written should go.

The catch is that concepts like "scary" are extremely subjective. My personal example is that I am unfazed by most paranormal stories. However, I don't reject stories at Index based on if they cater to my personal tastes. As long as it is competent I will generally vote to allow it on the main page. The guidelines are fairly vague, so I expect others have their own criteria. That is just how I weigh a story.

Any guidelines that refer to deleting stories for not being scary enough should be very well defined and published publicly.