[Abyzz]

I think the problem is that you're trying to adjust the system to the flaws of human beings, and by doing so only increase the amount of limitations. If Niar gets an auto-5 then it's because he's done something in the past that in the viewers eyes makes him worth more than he is - it's a common feat really, to favor something you know is good. If you were handed a Coke, weren't you more prone to like the content than if you were handed, say, a Jolly? No system can change these psychological aspects.

The idea of using certain rankings to alter the possibilities to rate could work, and would help filter the useless spam, and make it less influential. Fundamentally, those who are more serious about the system should have more impact on it. There's already weighting in the impact of your rating though (depending on much more than just Fame), and to take it a step further is overkill I think.

I personally suggested that the "Skilled?" button were added to the rating perimeters, but that still doesn't solve the issue of not taking any (or every) perimeters seriously when rating, and to solve that you need to merge them. Put simply, forget all about these different variables and make one bar with, say, 10 stars in it that says "Rating". We might not be able to tell the audience that it's a good movie but with bad editing, but who cares anyway? How many won't download a movie that's rated 4.5 overall, if editing is only 3? Besides, we have the comments to elaborate should there be something worth noticing. Forget about complicating things, about giving special people advantages, adding perimeters for special movie genres, or trying to counter people's motives. There is no such system as a 100% accurate system, and embracing this fact I think it's best just to let the numbers do the talking. The more who rate, the more representative it'll be, and with an easier system chances are more will rate - and that their ratings will actually better match their impressions.