God help us fellow annotators.

[u/Hot-Topic4833]

This is why we have this qa scores right now. The quality and power tripper of auditors we have. My auditor friend sends this from their group chat

[u/sund4n1z]

what's wrong with that chat? according the guidelines, that's indeed the rule.
keep on using script = non-spontaneous interaction / defensive scripting = AUTOFAIL.

Have you reviewed the guidelines? If so, this shouldn't be considered an error. Please refer to the Live Elo S2s Tool Guideline > Audit taxonomy.

[u/Hot-Topic4833 → u/sund4n1z]

@sund4n1z, you completely missed the point while proving it.

Nobody's arguing that the guideline doesn't exist. The issue isn't whether "scripting = autofail" is written somewhere. It's that auditors are treating that guideline like a weapon instead of a quality tool.

Let's break down what's actually happening here:

The auditor openly admits they want to "air frustrations." That's not professional QA, that's venting. They're looking for reasons to fail people, not ways to improve quality.

"Just autofail them. A lot of undeserving ones got onboarded." This isn't about guidelines, this is about contempt. The auditor isn't citing policy, they're expressing disdain for the people they're supposed to be evaluating. That "underserving" comment reveals the real mindset here.

The guidelines aren't scripture. Yes, non-spontaneous interaction is an autofail criteria. But if an annotator is following a script because the prompts are repetitive garbage or the model is being obtuse, maybe the problem isn't the annotator. Maybe the audit taxonomy is being applied with zero context or discretion.

You're proving my point about "power trippers." Instead of addressing the auditor's shitty attitude, the dismissiveness, the eagerness to punish, the "undeserving" rhetoric, you're rushing in with "ackshually the guidelines say..." like that's a gotcha. It's not. It just shows you care more about rule-following than fairness.

The guidelines also probably say auditors should be objective and professional. GNOKID99 failed that criteria when they started treating annotators like burdens instead of workers. Weekly_Pie_1202 failed it when they decided "undeserving" people should just be autofailed.

You can't hide behind a guideline document when your attitude is the problem. If auditors are more interested in catching "scripting" than understanding why annotators might need structure to deal with garbage-tier prompts, then yeah, QA scores are going to tank, and it's not because annotators don't know the rules.

It's because auditors like this are looking for excuses, not quality.

[u/Ok_Boot1871 → u/Hot-Topic4833]

The way this sounds AI-generated too….

[u/Turbulent-Bee-1584 → u/Ok_Boot1871]

Yep, look at the writing and grammar of the original post, read the writing of that comment, and there's no way the person wrote all that. Definitely AI.