Comic Store Rejected for Explicit Activity

HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,710 ✭✭✭✭✭

Sorry if it feels like I am asking for a lot of different advice for some nominations but I am getting some very unsettling rejections and was wondering if I was doing something wrong.

There is nothing explicit about Comic Books and table top games? I mentioned that this was a place where it was a great place to be social and I get the absolutely pathetic explicit activity reason!?

The Games Capital has an about page which tells information about it. Although part of the Good Games Group, it is the only store with a unique name "The Games Capital" as it is located in the Australian Capital Territory and the only tabletop gaming store in the Canberra CBD I think.

Is the description bad?


  • ld3300-INGld3300-ING Posts: 56 ✭✭

    I personally believe that this is a really good nomination. This type of store is literally mentioned as an example of eligibility criteria. You have a thought out and unique description. I would certainly consider resubmitting this, maybe wait a bit so it wouldn't feel like a repeat if a reviewer sees it again.

    I think the only thing that I would change is removing "It is not a franchise." and the statement about meeting the criteria. For some reason, as a reviewer, it feels weird having a submission try to tell you it qualifies. Even when it does it fuels a funny little paranoia.

    Likely the "explicit or inappropriate" tag was a lazy reviewer picking a random excuse. It is possible you got a reviewer that has a religious aversion to Dungeons & Dragons (in the neighborhood where I grew up it was ignorantly considered evil by members of the dominant religion for a while). You could try excluding D&D and MTG from the description and use more generic terms relating it to a gaming store, but I would be disappointed in a reviewer if that was the reason this was rejected.

    Hopefully some others will weigh in on the matter if they feel there is anything else to contribute.

  • ApplPsydarr-PGOApplPsydarr-PGO Posts: 139 ✭✭✭

    I would've approved it too but maybe for the main photo focus more on the sign or logo and less of the items in the store window.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,710 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the last time someone gave feedback to one of my nominations, they were very much "oh god I really love playing signfarer!" and was disgruntled about how every nomination has to focus on signs rather than the thing as a whole.

    I don't think it's a case of lazy reviewers anymore. But if you don't tell them it meets criteria, they never will know.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not much to fine tune.

    I do agree that the support text felt a bit... cheeky? At least drop the "...exercise one's mind with mind and card games." Your selling point / eligibilty criteria great place to be social with others, don't muddle it.

    Personally I'd emphasize the designated play area in support text. Not everyone is familiar with the store & play arena concept.

    "Long standing, independent game and tabletop store. Store has also a designated play area for the customers and visitors. Popular gathering place for gaming community for it's regularly hosted play evenings and events."

Sign In or Register to comment.