I've changed my perspective on the issue. On further reflection, I don't think any proof should be necessary at all since I feel the authenticity/reputation issue (the issue that proof relates to) is a moot one-- the site won't be vauching for the accuracy, content, or authenticity of the reviews, so the site itself can hardly be blamed for any BS reviews. Faulting a site for a false review that one of its members posts would be like saying a message board as a whole is utter garbage because one member posted the most absurd theory imaginable there. (If I made a post at Dragonmount theorizing that Alivia killed Osmodean, could one logically conclude that the site as a whole is disreputable on the basis of one clearly bogus theory?) Do you yourself think proof should be necessary given the lack of any trouble in the past with an extremely lax spoiler-free review policy at wotmania?



If that would resolve the matter, sure, I would be fine with reading through the reviews to make sure they're spoiler free.

At the end of the day, I think this issue is one for Ben and the other mods to decide since this is their site. As I said in my last post, if they see a real possibility of being sued or shut down over allowing reviews to be posted, I say it absolutely isn't worth the bother. If the main issue is just one of preserving the reputation or credibility of the site, though, I personally don't think there is an issue there at all.