This is obviously a highly debated topic at the moment. Some feel that UGC missions should have to be "approved" by players to ensure that the missions that go live are appropriate. Others feel that there are simply too many ways this can be abused, and that any inappropriate missions should be reported after the fact. All arguments asside, lets see what the numbers show:

Should UGC have to be approved before going live?

After you vote, feel free to share your thoughts.

From what I've read once you publish a mission it is available to everyone who has signed the UGC eula stating that they know they may see objectionable content. The only thing the review process does is help filter out the junk before players who haven't signed the UGC eula can see it and also makes the missions eligible for presentation in the new contact window that is coming out with season 3. Based on that, I like the review process they've come up with.

My answer is "yes", but not necessarily because it's offensive, more to ensure it's not bugged.

I think the concept of reviewing UCG is good, however my main concern is given the enthusiasm behind UCG, will this review process lead to long delays in getting missions out the door. I'd definitely like to try and do some weekly missions and I'm sure others would too. As I expressed in the other thread, if it takes 2-3 weeks to get a mission reviewed, that would be unacceptable.

I'd like to see an option to play "Unreviewed" UCG missions where you fully assume any risk associated with such content. The very nature of playing with other people behind the complete anonymity of the internet means you are eventually going to be subjected to "content of questionable nature" so I see no reason to provide absolutely no means to play UCG missions without someone first reviewing them.

Let those who wish to assume the risk play them and let those who only want to play reviewed missions wait for them to be reviewed.

What you describe is how it will work. If you want to see unreviewed and reviewed missions you sign the UGC eula (this also makes you a reviewer).

Here's what the FAQ says...

So the question is, does everyone who sign up automatically become a reviewer or do you have to be selected as a reviewer by someone on the dev team? If everyone can be a reviewer, then why bother to separate between "reviewers" and "non-reviewers".

I think it'd be better to allow all content to be available and given an "unreviewed" status. Basically you trade signing up to be a reviewer with a checkbox that says "unreviewed" when choosing UCG content. The end result is the same except I think it would cause a lot fewer waves within the community.

measured response

missions should have 2 gradings

Does it violate STO content rules, no racist, porn, ect.. crap YES or NO
If yes, it is reported and removed

ok, it is not vile
how good is it ? 1 to 5 stars...by folks who played it

Dats it.

absolutely no more is needed

>>>> K. I. S. S. <<<<
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

Reviewed in a way to screen out bugs, and inappropriate missions then yes. Going through a random "jury" of the public that can keep truly epic missions away from the eyes of cryptic then HELL NO.

The way I understand it anyone can sign the UGC eula and become a reviewer. The separation is probably just a way for Cryptic to protect themselves from any lawsuits, etc.

We need to be clear about what "going live" means. A mission will go live without review if this means that it can be played by anyone who searches for it. If by "going live" we mean that it shows up in a remote contact list without first being scrutinized...

I like the system that Cyrptic has devised. I don't want to sift through junk to find a good mission, and I want the quality of missions to count for something with the playerbase.

The system makes sense and it's the best of both worlds.