So - I haven't played a whole lot of Foundry missions until today; largely because I was away for most of the period immediately after the Foundry launched; and then the Foundry was down... you get the idea.
At any rate, I'm making up for lost time and really enjoying what people have been doing.
Unfortunately I'm having a problem as a reviewer - namely that I have very little space to explain what's good and bad about the mission. This is problematic because I like to give useful feedback, rather than just saying "Awesome" or "It sucks"; and sometimes that feedback needs to be a little more detailed than "I hated this part".
To use a mission I just ran as an example - It was a fun space-battle filled Klingon mission* - and I wanted to explain the handful of gripes I had in an otherwise enjoyable experience. The only one I had space enough to relate was (imo) a badly placed spawn point. This is... blergh.
And somehow I don't think using a bunch of chatspeak twitter-style would get me taken very seriously.
Not an enormous issue I guess but... bothersome.
*The Neutral Zone Infraction, for those interested. Not story heavy or anything, and one of my gripes was Federation behavior on the mission - but it was fun and if you're in the mood for a lot of space combat, it's a great mission for exactly that.
Definitely in game email is the way to go if you want to go into detail.
As an author, I have to say please do be specific. It is frustrating when people say you have typos in a mission review, but they don't list where. I need to know where they are, because most authors have taken a fair amount of time going through their dialogue to find typos already, and are going to miss it again if they have to scour the entire thing.