Why the heck my reviews been declined without any reason?

Not all abuse is equal, and honestly "abuse" may not be the best word to describe the some behavior of violating some IMDb guidelines. Every movie review is expected to acquiesce to the basic mission of IMDb's audience-authored reviews of movies, shows and podcasts, which is that the content of the review is supposed to focus on the content of the artifice being reviewed (with some allowance for references to predecessor, sequel or spin-off works), and review authors are more than welcome to include their personal feelings and professional/unprofessional opinions about the content of the movie. In the process of doing so, review authors are to avoid putting forth hateful remarks.

@Fran​ I have reviewed the guidelines and again I have not violated any of these guidelines, can you point out which guidelines have been violated in my reviews? Just saying the breach is very easy without giving any concrete evidence, that's what I called total crap.

The review contains personal opinion on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based. Also, commenting about other reviews is not allowed. As mentioned before, feel free to submit a new user review for our editors to review.

A personal opinion on real life are you kidding me, every review is opinion what kind of bullshit? Don't be ridicoulus, I need proof of any real violation not just bullshit.

Well, where is the proof that every review has such a kind of bullshit?

What the heck you're talking about? Every review is a person opinion, just stop bullshitting. Every review described in one or the other way what's been shown in the series. You're saying it's OK to show in the series, but it's not OK to discuss the same thing in the review, because then, it's become bloody opinion about someone?

Where is the proof that every review contains a personal opinion on real life events or subject matter on which a movie is based rather than purely an opinion on nothing more than the actual content of the relevant movie?

Did you even read my review? I guess you're just bullshitting to the core. First, you give me a few examples from my review where my review breach any rules like which sentence or statement. Then, I will give you examples of the reviews which are already there? So stop bullshitting in the blind and provide real proof

Have I read the review? Ha! No, since I've not been made aware of its content, about which I did specifically inquire in the very first response message to this thread. I don't know anything about it except from what Fran, a member of the IMDb staff, has above stated. Whereas the staff can access the submission details by entering the reference number thereof as input to the system, the rest of us who are neither the staff nor the contributor of the submission are denied access. Anyway, I have no reason to believe that what Fran has stated isn't accurate. The answer provided is straightforward, even though it doesn't reproduce any piece of the content of the declined review. Also, nobody here can help anybody who refuses to follow instructions and refuses to make needful disclosures.

Don't be a judge here if you don't know the shit? I asked Fran, as usual, they just say a few bullshit words its breaches the rules, which rules? Which sentence no bullshit response.

Well, there is nothing preventing me from being judge, but honestly neither I nor most of the Contributors around here would describe what I'm doing as judging something that I've not directly observed. I'm here explaining the guidelines and way things work in these parts, and I'm also asking important questions that I cannot answer on my own. Fran answered, "The review contains personal opinion on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based. Also, commenting about other reviews is not allowed." Somebody who sincerely believes this is a bullshit response would be wise to back away from interacting with this thread and also wise to either cease submitting any movie reviews to IMDb or cease complaining about reviews that have been declined for violating the guidelines. Capisce?

Yes, somebody who doesn't know shit about freedom of speech and stands up for what is right? A coward would bow down to the system even if the system is wrong. I have submitted more than 50 plus reviews and I know how to write a review and what to write, but, when I have been wronged I won't stand down. If you want to lick balls, go ahead it's not me.

I've observed no indication that the "system" (IMDb in this case) is wrong. The burden of proof isn't on me.

Then why do you even involve? Unless you want to pass your own judgment on the subject matter which you don't even aware of or know what it was. So stay out of it.

I'm involved because I'm curious and would like to provide assistance, but I'm comfortable with withdrawing my involvement. By the way, this is a public forum. If somebody doesn't want feedback from IMDb non-staff, then he or she ought to either indicate so ahead of time in a post or simply use the contact form found at https://help.imdb.com/contact. Understood?

Yes, this is a public forum and as such if you don't have knowledge of anything, then, you shouldn't be involved. You didn't read the review, you didn't know what's that review for, what was the content of it and then, you still want to comment on it? If the discussion was open and everyone knows what had been discussed, by all means, comment on it. You made more comments than the staff.

I wouldn't mind knowing the details of the review. I don't need those details to comment on the review, as I have not put forth and am not putting forth exact remarks on its content. I've only pointed out that I have no reason to doubt Fran's explanation and identification of the two violations present within the review.

Fran himself couldn't able to response to my reply and question. You may not have any doubts, but you still don't know the entire content.

On a public forum at least, IMDb staff is probably not allowed to take a red ink pen approach to explaining how exactly a declined review violates IMDb guidelines, but supposing that there is no such restriction upon them, then it may be obvious (from the history of IMDb staff answers) that thus far the obligation doesn't exist. For future reference, it is important for all of us to be mindful of all the provisions found in IMDb Contributors' Charter: IMDb's mission is to be the world's most trusted and authoritative source of movie, TV, and celebrity content and to make that content available to the widest audience possible. IMDb has been continuously growing, changing, and evolving since its creation in 1990, but one thing never changes: our reliance on you, and the millions of people like you, who contribute to IMDb by adding and correcting data. Hundreds of millions of IMDb users rely on the data you submit to help them make informed choices about what to see, discover titles they might not otherwise have found, and enrich their viewing experiences by providing fascinating extra information and context. This charter recognizes the importance of our contributors and explains what we should expect from each other. We welcome all contributors. Whether you're adding your first credit or you've been contributing for decades, you are important to us. Without you, IMDb would not exist. We will treat every contributor with courtesy and respect. We will process your contribution promptly. We do apply different levels of priority to different types of data, with different service level agreements (SLAs). These can be reviewed on the Processing Times page. This page is updated every business day so that we can let contributors know about any delays and backlogs. We will listen. We will respond to issues raised by our contributors and will include your ideas and suggestions in our own policy discussions. We will improve. We will never stop reviewing and revising our policies to reflect changes in the entertainment industry or in the ways in which people use our data or simply because we (or you) have thought of a better way of doing things. We will try to create clear and consistent policies in the contribution guides based on the practicalities of managing a database of this size. We respectfully ask that contributors follow these policies even if they may personally disagree (in which case debate is, of course, encouraged). In return we hope that when there is a difference of opinion, contributors also show courtesy and respect during their conversations with each other and with IMDb staff. IMDb tracks each contributor's accuracy over time and if any contributor repeatedly submits data which is inaccurate or which violates our policies, their contributions will require increasing levels of additional proof in order to be processed. Thank you for helping to keep IMDb up to date and comprehensive and for making it the premier online entertainment destination.

Yes, that's called hypocrisy as I have found similar language and very similar both like my reviews or opposite kind of reviews have been approved by IMDB and those reviews are there? If those have been approved then, rejecting my reviews by citing bullshit blanket statements is profiling. That's the reason we have the first amendment to protect.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The provisions found within such an amendment prohibit the United States government from criminalizing the freedom of expression/publication, among other things. Those provisions don't prohibit private entities and folks who've sworn no duties to the public trust from exercising unfettered discretion over what messages they choose or choose not to carry on things that they respectively own (i.e. private property, e.g. websites). The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Likewise first section of the the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Together these these mean to prohibit governments belonging to States within the United States from criminalizing the freedom of expression/publication, among other things. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't prohibit private entities and folks who've sworn no duties to the public trust from exercising unfettered discretion over what messages they choose or choose not to carry on things that they respectively own (i.e. private property, e.g. websites). As a matter of fact, exertion of such control over ordinary civilians and their corporate fictions is not even what a Constitution is for. (So, for instance, Constitutional and legal as the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was, it was also worded contrarily to what is supposed to ever be found in any Constitution.)

Still hypocrisy is hypocrisy. When you make a rule, doesn't matter it's private or government, it means it either applies to everyone or no one. One rule can't be different for different people. That happened only in fascist or communist rules. Understood?