Needs fix spells

[Kazeon]

Any particular reason why "Needs fix" resources in spell section are visible, unlike the other sections? That makes it looks dirty, since in fact ~55% of spell section consists of needs fix resources. Just my opinion, make them invisible. But discussion is better.

 

[IcemanBo]

I agree. It seems kind of inconsequent that "All xxx" ...

-shows only approved ones in map section
-shows apprroved + pending + needs fix ones in spell section

In map section it's even impossible to look at "needs fix" submissions.
In spell section you can see "needs fix" submissions.

 

[Ralle]

Is it ONLY like this in the spells section?

 

[IcemanBo]

As I can see only in spell section you can see "Needs Fix" resources.

In Icon/Model/Skin section you can see approved + pending resources.

In map section only see approved resources.
(though you can see pending ones seperated by approved ones)

 

[Chaosy]

I agree. It seems kind of inconsequent that "All xxx" ...

-shows only approved ones in map section
-shows apprroved + pending + needs fix ones in spell section

In map section it's even impossible to look at "needs fix" submissions.
In spell section you can see "needs fix" submissions.

Many of those 'needs fix' submissions are fully working. I got like 4 of them, and every single one works and is MUI/MPI. Hiding such entries is wrong in my opinion.

Obviously I am not only speaking of my own stuff. There are many good/useful stuff that aren't approved (aka needs fix). This is a wonderful example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...stem-league-legends-209778/?prev=r=20&page=52

Meanwhile the maps that are put as needs fix generally got a really poor quality. The standard in the spell section is just higher.

 

[IcemanBo]

That's not the place to discuss about approval. Please stay on topic.

And I did not say to hide them. I just suggest to be consequent. Maybe it might be ok to see them seperated.

 

[Chaosy]

needs fix = not approved, so it certainly suits the topic. And you compared it to the map section where they are invisible, so to me it seemed like that's what you were suggesting.

Sorry for the slight misunderstanding.

edit: I changed my first post a little to hopefully prevent people from getting the wrong idea of what I want to say.

 

[Kazeon]

Is it ONLY like this in the spells section?

Yes. What are you going to do about this, chief?

The other sections seem just right already for me.

 

[Ralle]

As I said in your PM. This is a feature specifically for spells. People complained that small details that moderators wanted changed didn't warrant the resource being removed from view.

 

[Kazeon]

I don't know about spell section's history and what former activist thought about this matter. But in my opinion, by hiding needs fix spells, it will force people to get their resources approved, to get their spells displayed in the section. If their spells are hidden from public place, they will feel worthless to make and submit their resources without getting them approved, and eventually, they will feel forced to update their resources (hopefully).

Currently, it's like getting approved spells is not important. Just take a look at spell section, it's filled with needs fix spells and the authors do not seem like willing to update them.

 

[Chaosy]

How is the approved state supposed to something to work towards when great stuff is still as 'needs fix'?

let's take this example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/spells-569/multi-wave-143100/?prev=of=downloads&r=20&page=4

He needs to use one variable to boost performance by 0.0001% otherwise the spell is MUI, looks nice, is leakless. 'Needs fix'.
Just to clarify so I don't get more hate than I already will, I do not question the moderators. If anything, I question the rules they obey.

 

[IcemanBo]

I don't see something bad in seeing "NeedsFix" spells.
But I personly would prefer to have it seperated, just like "pending" and "approved".

In my mind there would be "Approved", "Pending", and "NeedsFix" category.
User still can browse through the "NeedsFix" section, but the user also would know that THW does not guarantee any standards there.

If you now come to spell section in this certain moment, you will see many "NeedsFix" spells.
This might seem spammy, because you don't want to see on purpose unapproved resources.

@Chaosy,
I see your point, but I think it's a bit offtopic. The question is only about the visibility of "NeedsFix" spells.
Seems like you're more valueing on significance/sense of an approval status in general.
(The more critical point in the linked resource is that it manipulates custom value of units. I would not approve it, too.)

 

[Chaosy]

I was trying to oppose Quilnez argumemt, but yeah. I agree that it's a tad off topic. It just feels wrong to hide decent stuff by filtering it away by default :-/ maybe went a bit overboard though.

 

[Ralle]

Do you think that people won't bother fixing things because their resource is already visible?

 

[Kazeon]

Do you think that people won't bother fixing things because their resource is already visible?

No. But more like people will feel worthless to create and submit their resources without getting those approved, since it won't be visible to users and no one will use eventually. I hope you get what I mean here.

How is the approved state supposed to something to work towards when great stuff is still as 'needs fix'?

let's take this example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/spells-569/multi-wave-143100/?prev=of=downloads&r=20&page=4

He needs to use one variable to boost performance by 0.0001% otherwise the spell is MUI, looks nice, is leakless. 'Needs fix'.
Just to clarify so I don't get more hate than I already will, I do not question the moderators. If anything, I question the rules they obey.

I'm sorry but your example is not valid, again. It's not simply "need variable", it has another issue that it uses Unit User Data, which is prohibited by spell submission rules. None is allowed to put something to needs fix just because of minor optimizations.

 

[Chaosy]

So? He needs to replace the one line where he stores the custom value to a hashtable. That's quite a lot of work indeed. Not to mention that using custom of value of unit is allowed since unit indexers use it and are approved so he should not be forced to change it in the first place. This is why I didn't include it in my other post.

While I am defending this specific recourse I know there are many like this one that will be hidden. Many of the authors is inactive and can't update them either way so hiding them would not solve a whole lot if you wish to motivate people to update their submissions.

Doing what Iceman suggested is okay though, put needs fix stuff in it's own 'section'.

 

[Daffa]

So? He needs to replace the one line where he stores the custom value to a hashtable. That's quite a lot of work indeed. Not to mention that using custom of value of unit is allowed since unit indexers use it and are approved so he should not be forced to change it in the first place. This is why I didn't include it in my other post.

Check the submission rules :

Under no circumstances can a resource modify Unit User Data (Custom value) with the exception of Unit Indexing systems.

The resourcs you linked modifies GetUnitUserData, which means it will bug spells and systems with Unit Indexer.

Doing what Iceman suggested is okay though, put needs fix stuff in it's own 'section'.

 

[Kazeon]

needs fix stuff in it's own 'section'.

And I'm agree on that part too.

 

[IcemanBo]

This still bothers me a bit, because when we approve 1 resource and set 5 to NeedsFix the approved one does maybe get less attention as it could have.

"People complained that small details that moderators wanted changed didn't warrant the resource being removed from view."

This was reason why 'NeedsFix' spells are now visible in "All Spells' category,
but so again, what if we just put them out of 'All Spells' and put them in a new category 'NeedsFix' or 'AwaitingUpdate'.

 

[Chaosy]

High standards = less approved stuff

makes sense?

Anyway, having a special section for needs fix spells is the same as hiding it completely if you ask me. People wont use needs fix stuff unless that system got monopoly.

 

[Shadow Fury]

I agree with Quilnez here. I almost have zero knowledge about the spells section but I know for sure that if, for example, maps I set as needs fix end up beside the approved ones, I'd be disappointed. I disagree with Chaosy here (not so surprising, we always have diverging opinions). Putting Needs Fix maps in their own section is not the same thing as hiding them. If someone already doesn't want to download needs fix spells, it wouldn't matter where they can be found. In addition, it doesn't need a genius to click on a "Needs fix section" button if you want to visualize such spells. Quilnez is also correct on another point. Why should one update his needs fix spell if it is visible like an approved one? It doesn't encourage people to fix their bugs/flaws.

IcemanBo, you should not worry if you approve one spell for every 5 spells set to needs fix. If people can still check both types of spells, then why worrying if one section is more popular than the other? In the end, we search for the satisfaction of downloaders and separating fully-functional spells from non-fully-functional ones (this has nothing to do with quality), that's probably why other sections have separate sections.

 

[IcemanBo]

For me it's clear that people will use an approved one over needs fix, even both are visible,
so the "people won't update anymore " argument is not valid for me.

this has nothing to do with quality

I'm not sure how this is meant. Quality is very important in spell section.

I'm for seperating it.

 

[Shadow Fury]

For me it's clear that people will use an approved one over needs fix, even both are visible,
so the "people won't update anymore " argument is not valid for me.

Not exactly what I said. People feel less motivated to update their buggy spells when they are visible like approved ones. I never said that all people will never update their spells but I do say that some may not (or that 55% of needs fix maps doesn't prove that already?). Some spells are needs fix from the Stone Age, it can't be a coincidence.

I'm not sure how this is meant. Quality is very important in spell section.

I'm for seperating it.

Oh apparently you didn't get it exactly. I was speaking about separating spells which follow all the rules (approved) and spells which do not follow all rules (needs fix) without taking into consideration the quality (but of course if the spell follows all rules but it lacks quality it should not be approved).

 

[edo494]

High standards = less approved stuff

makes sense?

Anyway, having a special section for needs fix spells is the same as hiding it completely if you ask me. People wont use needs fix stuff unless that system got monopoly.

when its set to needs fix, it probably isnt suit for public use for the time being anyways

 

[Chaosy]

when its set to needs fix, it probably isnt suit for public use for the time being anyways

I have seen way too many decent systems/spells being set as needs fix because of minor stuff. I don't remember the system specifically but mckill had a needs fix system, I doubt anyone will say that he doesn't know what he's doing, it's needs fix because of something minor.
It's kinda absurd to assume the system is bad just because of 'needs fix'. In fact the bad stuff with 10 leaks and waits are rejected. The stuff that is working but is inefficient in some way is needs fix, sadly this goes anywhere from storing a variable twice to leaks.

 

[Shadow Fury]

I have seen way too many decent systems/spells being set as needs fix because of minor stuff.

We should make people aware of this point then since it would be a shame to keep good spells needs fix because they miss something.

 

[Kazeon]

I have seen way too many decent systems/spells being set as needs fix because of minor stuff. I don't remember the system specifically but mckill had a needs fix system, I doubt anyone will say that he doesn't know what he's doing, it's needs fix because of something minor.
It's kinda absurd to assume the system is bad just because of 'needs fix'. In fact the bad stuff with 10 leaks and waits are rejected. The stuff that is working but is inefficient in some way is needs fix, sadly this goes anywhere from storing a variable twice to leaks.

Chaosy, how many times should I tell you? In order to get a spell resource approved is by fulfilling the minimum spell quality standard. The spell submission rules was created to avoid troublesome resources from being used. We don't want to riskfully approve a resource that is potentially harmful. Moderators are only allowed to put something to needs fix if only it doesn't meet the requirements to be approved: the spell submission rules. Unless if you can mention any needs fix spell resource which was set to needs fix whereas it has passed the standard, then I will admit, I'm wrong here.

 

[Chaosy]

You can keep telling me, wont change how I view it. Calling something bad because it's lower than the minimum standard is bullshit. Which is what Edo did. I am not whining about approval here.

when its set to needs fix, it probably isnt suit for public use for the time being anyways

 

[IcemanBo]

NeedsFix may be good yes, but it also may be bad.
Even you think it's silly or not, if it's NeedsFix, there must be something mod wanted to be changed.
Noone says the resource itself is necessarily bad when in NeedsFix.
But I want more discuss about if/how to seperate NeedsFix from Approved ones, nothing more, just for more clear lists.

 

[Chaosy]

NeedsFix may be good yes, but it also may be bad.

Exactly.

Even you think it's silly or not, if it's NeedsFix, there must be something mod wanted to be changed.

Obviously, otherwise it would be approved
Normally I would debate about the things the mod actually want you to change to get stuff approved, but it's not really OT so I will save it for another time.

But I want more discuss about if/how to seperate NeedsFix from Approved ones, nothing more, just for more clear lists.

As a person with a lot of needs fix stuff I am against it haha. But it's better than hiding them, so if anything I am ok with it compared to other ideas.

 

[edo494]

I have seen way too many decent systems/spells being set as needs fix because of minor stuff. I don't remember the system specifically but mckill had a needs fix system, I doubt anyone will say that he doesn't know what he's doing, it's needs fix because of something minor.
It's kinda absurd to assume the system is bad just because of 'needs fix'. In fact the bad stuff with 10 leaks and waits are rejected. The stuff that is working but is inefficient in some way is needs fix, sadly this goes anywhere from storing a variable twice to leaks.

Thats not the problem of Needs fix, but the standards and how mods treat systems in spell section

 

[Dr Super Good]

People should be able to see "needs fix" resources. There is no reason they should not be able to. One could say that such resources should be down played (prefer showing approved) but they certainly should not be hidden.

 

[IcemanBo]

I'm not sure why again this comes up. I don't see someone suggstes to hide them, but to seperate them.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

To be honest, whenever I browse the spell section (which happens rarely), I don't even bother clicking the "needs fix" spells, as I know the standards of spell submission and here and I'm one of those that considers them too lax. So "needs fix" already works like a hidden category for me. It's just that "needs fix" takes up real estate on screen so I have more pages displayed when browsing.

Is that a big issue? Probably not.
Could it be changed? Yeah.

Consider this: almost all "approved" spells have 5 times the number of downloads than the "needs fix" spells. This is not coincidence. People care about the seal of approval. Which is a good thing.
So if you want people to actually use your resource (and that's why you upload it after all), then you definitely shouldn't be satisfied with "needs fix", as it guarantees you a much lower amount of downloads.


The problem I have with the spells section is something else: there is no good method to seperate the really good ones from the "barely approved" ones.
If you apply high standards when it comes to spell code, you are forced to work your way through thousands of mediocre submissions. Normally, I'd just browse the "directors cut" section like I do when finding new maps to play. But the directors cut section for spells is basicly empty (there is exactly ONE spell that is directors cut).


So this lead to a weird workflow of mine in which I basicly use a custom search mask for specific users that I know produce quality code and pretty much ignore everything else. This is fucked up when you think about it.


I think what the spells section needs more than a fix to "needs fix" is a more active directors cut section.

 

[InfernalTater]

Many of those 'needs fix' submissions are fully working. I got like 4 of them, and every single one works and is MUI/MPI. Hiding such entries is wrong in my opinion.

Obviously I am not only speaking of my own stuff. There are many good/useful stuff that aren't approved (aka needs fix). This is a wonderful example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...stem-league-legends-209778/?prev=r=20&page=52

Meanwhile the maps that are put as needs fix generally got a really poor quality. The standard in the spell section is just higher.

This is more of an issue of moderators tagging them with "Needs fix" because they have a personal preference they want to be met. This is not an issue with "Needs fix" spells needing to be included, but rather an issue with spells worth being included that shouldn't be tagged "Needs fix".

 

[Ralle]

This is more of an issue of moderators tagging them with "Needs fix" because they have a personal preference they want to be met. This is not an issue with "Needs fix" spells needing to be included, but rather an issue with spells worth being included that shouldn't be tagged "Needs fix".

If you could provide a bunch of samples proving this, we would pay attention to what you say.

 

[InfernalTater]

If you could provide a bunch of samples proving this, we would pay attention to what you say.

Typical "pics or it didn't happen" response. You're more interested in denying anything I say for the sake of pretending there is no issue, than you are in improving the site. Frankly I'm fed up with this attitude.

It's your site. If you don't want to maintain it, that's your problem. I'm not going to waste hours searching through the spell section finding every example for you just so you can ignore that as well. I don't like the idea of wasting my time trying to help the site just to be scorned every time. If you want to address the issue, do so. If you don't want to address the issue, don't. It's your work to be done, not mine.

Stop looking at my posts as accusations. I'm pointing out problems. That will inevitably look "bad", but that is not my intention, that is simply the truth of the matter. I am not trying to accuse moderators of being bad, I simply understand that they are human and make mistakes, and that these mistakes need to be addressed, just as we all, including myself, make mistakes that we look back on. You can pretend everything is perfect and keep things the way they are, or you can accept that nothing is perfect and never will be but strive to be as close as possible by acknowledging flaws and addressing them.

 

[IcemanBo]

That's not how it goes.

It's absolutly legit to to let you argue on a basis.

I'm not going to waste hours searching through the spell section finding every example

Well, if you make a statement I would say it's indeed your job to prove it.
Should Ralle spend searching time for each vague report? How would that be? Just no-no.

Theory:
Speaking imaginary about a problem is not worthy to look at said problem.
Proof existence of the problem, then Ralle can decide if/ or what to do.

Because actually you come to him and say you see/have a problem in a section. (in which Ralle doesn't spend too much time)
I say it not related to this NeedsFix issue, because I honestly also did not very understand your opinion,
but I only say it towards your attitide that Ralle does a bad job by wanting examples of your statement.

That's how it works.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I don't see the problem with the current NeedsFix policy by the spell moderators.

And out of curiosity I just went through the first page of spell submissions who got the "needs fix" tag assigned to them, just to check out why.
Here's the results:

Code needs a lot of improvements. ( Check my post in the thread )
Replace the UnitIndexer system with an approved system for our database.

Please do not submit your own UnitIndexer system. We have enough of them

Too simple in concept. Also has critical flaws like loaction leaks.

1. Provide a configuration trigger.
Users should be able to easily configurate your spell in there.
This should cover abilityId, damage, distance, speed, aoe, .....

2. Use the data complexity which fits the situation
Use arrays wherever they are required. For example in
Point_Caster a non-array could and should be used ( clean coding, memory, speed ).
Another example would be when you do a group enumeration.

3. Remove all hardcoded stuff
All of this should be covered in the config trigger and stored into variables.

I think it will take time and updates until this spell can be approved

•The test map is way too big, reduce unneeded imported files
•Remove the recover trigger, use dummy animation death time
and death type "Does not decay" instead
•Don't pause the caster
•Don't do "Assa_Max Equal to 0" ten times per second
•You only need one dummy unit to cast Storm bolt on every unit
•The spell is not easily configurable, you could use a configuration trigger

Testmap crashes when I click on the paladin.

Using waits is not a good approach for a dialogue systems.

How should one use this system? There are a lot of trigger and folders in the map
but no manual/comments what is required.

This is not a Missile system, but allows to controll which units are
already damage by a spell. Currently not very efficient or easy to use.
In general not a bad idea, but you need a much better API.

Why do you code everything in custom scripts? It's very hard to read,
thus making mistakes is pregprogrammend. Move to either plain JASS
or back to normal read-able GUI.

Add a proper description

Disclaimer: the description of said spell submission was: "The system make damaging in just once" ...


... To be honest, I absolutely agree with all of them. If a resource really slips under the radar and gets "needs fix" for no apparent reason, the author can always contact the mods again for a re-evaluation. I'd say at least 95% of the "needs fix" tags are justified.

And while I agree that the choice of unit indexers is a matter of taste, rejecting a submission with a hardcoded built-in unit indexer is absolutely justified.

 

[InfernalTater]

I don't see the problem with the current NeedsFix policy by the spell moderators.

And out of curiosity I just went through the first page of spell submissions who got the "needs fix" tag assigned to them, just to check out why.
Here's the results:












Disclaimer: the description of said spell submission was: "The system make damaging in just once" ...


... To be honest, I absolutely agree with all of them. If a resource really slips under the radar and gets "needs fix" for no apparent reason, the author can always contact the mods again for a re-evaluation. I'd say at least 95% of the "needs fix" tags are justified.

And while I agree that the choice of unit indexers is a matter of taste, rejecting a submission with a hardcoded built-in unit indexer is absolutely justified.

This is because you looked at the first page. You're looking at new, incomplete/buggy submissions that do indeed need to be fixed.

Go deeper, and you'll start finding spells and tools that work just fine.

That's not how it goes.

It's absolutly legit to to let you argue on a basis.

Well, if you make a statement I would say it's indeed your job to prove it.
Should Ralle spend searching time for each vague report? How would that be? Just no-no.

Theory:
Speaking imaginary about a problem is not worthy to look at said problem.
Proof existence of the problem, then Ralle can decide if/ or what to do.

Because actually you come to him and say you see/have a problem in a section. (in which Ralle doesn't spend too much time)
I say it not related to this NeedsFix issue, because I honestly also did not very understand your opinion,
but I only say it towards your attitide that Ralle does a bad job by wanting examples of your statement.

That's how it works.

If we were on a debate team or in a courtroom, sure.

When it's his own website that he should want to improve, he should be willing to investigate any potential issues rather than looking for an excuse to pretend they don't exist. We should be on the same side, as I'm trying to help; not opponents because he wants to believe everything is impossibly perfect.

I also don't believe that spells should be required to be MUI. It's rare that players will be controlling multiple units that use the same fancy abilities in the same map. The only time you need MUI is when the same player is going to have multiple units casting the same ability at the same time. Most ability submissions are of an epic scale, fitting for bosses or heroes only; not for basic units. How many maps have you played where the same player has multiple of the same hero using the same abilities at the same time? Very few. And this is the only time an ability actually needs to be MUI. Other than in such a situation, MPI works perfectly fine for the other 99.999% of maps. Games where players control more than one hero are already rare; but I have yet to play a game that gives players multiple of the same hero with the same abilities to control at the same time. I'm sure there's one out there, but it's probably the only map that needs MUI abilities for heroes. The rest will work exactly the same with MPI, which is much easier to make and opens the resource section to a wider portion of the community. Sure, you could say "But we don't want noobs to be able to submit resources". Well, why not? What's wrong with it being made by a noob, if it meets all other standards for approval, just because they made it MPI instead of MUI? Since when is skill a determining factor? Shouldn't quality, usefulness, and functionality be all that matter?

Sure, MUI is better, and more skilled to make, but should we really require it for all submissions when it really isn't needed for most people, just because it's been established that MUI spellmakers are pro? Isn't that kind of elitist? Aren't we supposed to be filtering resources based on how useful and functional they are, not how skillfully made they are? With the modelling section and mapping section, you only have to meet minimum requirements. Beyond that your quality is up to you. Suddenly, in the spell section, your submission has to be absolutely perfect and extremely complex just to be approved.

 

[edo494]

if you were to work 8 hours a day + were working on new website(Hive 2.0) + wanted some form of social life + maybe family life, I doubt you would have time to look around Needs fix spells to see how it goes. Thats why we have mods. If someone feels he has been misjudged, he can always go to mod/admin contact forum and ask for re-moderation, or bitch about the mod.

I agree that there should be requirement for MUI when possible, there are things(Rubic's telekinesis for instance) that can not be done in MUI, but can be done in MPI

 

[Kazeon]

If you could provide a bunch of samples proving this, we would pay attention to what you say.

Exactly what I asked. People keep complaining that some spells were set into needs fix based on "improper" reasons. But they can't even provide any example/evidence where/that the problem really happened. Ralle was not refusing to improve and to work on the issue you mentioned, he just wanted some evidence that the issue really happened. Because, if there is no evidence, then the issue isn't there. Simple. I have never met the issue you talked about. Spell moderators are qualified coders, they know what they are doing. The problem is, you were disappointed that a spell you liked was set to needs fix based on crap issues, crap in your perspective.

Go deeper, and you'll start finding spells and tools that work just fine.

Well, they (moderators) don't judge based on how it looks. But they will look deeply into the code and will try to find every single issue. Even tho the spell looks alright and bug free, still there may be some leaks or other issues in the code and maybe some important improvements.

Edit:
Hello to THW btw. Long time no see

 

[IcemanBo]

Wb Quilnez.

InfernalTater,
so you seem to have problems with current submission standards like for example your MUI example.
This is similar like Chaosy's request. He also tries to point out that there are submissions of worthy usefulnes,
which could/should be approved but are not because of certain other reasons.
I agree on that. And we mods don't bitch around (well maybe sometimes) with details, if we see the whole rest is working good.
But standards are standards and should be kept all in all. And it's not like you could not improve it to approval if you get helped what to change.

And I pointed it out before: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/2708926-post29.html

If you really think there is a resource that should be approved and is confirm with rules then please link to staff as Ralle pointed out and we will have a look at it.

 

[Ralle]

Typical "pics or it didn't happen" response. You're more interested in denying anything I say for the sake of pretending there is no issue, than you are in improving the site. Frankly I'm fed up with this attitude.

In order to really understand the problem, I need to see all parts of it. I need to see the resource, I need to see the response from the moderator and I need to see your opinion on it. If I only have the last, I cannot magically know the rest of the parts.

This is how things work.

1. Somebody points out that there is a problem.
2. Instances of the problem are presented.
3. The instances are corrected and a change of process is made.

You are only at step 1 and you want me to do the rest. I simply cannot.

 

[InfernalTater]

In order to really understand the problem, I need to see all parts of it. I need to see the resource, I need to see the response from the moderator and I need to see your opinion on it. If I only have the last, I cannot magically know the rest of the parts.

This is how things work.

1. Somebody points out that there is a problem.
2. Instances of the problem are presented.
3. The instances are corrected and a change of process is made.

You are only at step 1 and you want me to do the rest. I simply cannot.

I'm not asking you to go back and fix every instance of the issue. That will happen on a case-by-case basis as it is up to people whose resources are labelled "Needs fix" to contact the staff if they think their resource should be approved. This is already how you handle this situation, which is appropriate.

I'm just asking you to make an effort to reduce how often this happens in the future by speaking with the moderators to come up with more suitable standards that will still filter out close to the same amount of junk without throwing away the treasure. The first step to this is being aware that an issue exists.

You're right, all I've done is step 1. It's not my website, so I'm not obligated to do the entire process for you. I don't even have to do step 1 if I don't want to. I contributed the amount of insight that I am willing to. None of my resources have been unjustly rejected (those that were rejected were indeed flawed) or labeled "Needs fix", and any resources I've encountered that were labeled "Needs fix" were still available for download, so this issue does not significantly affect me and therefore I can't be bothered to look through the resource section for other people's spells and tools if they didn't even contact you themselves. I just thought I'd point something out on behalf of people who would benefit from the issue being addressed; a group which I am not among because it does not affect me.

 

[Ardenian]

Without wanting to pour oil on the fire or to propose to one side,
here is one example of a spell I found, while searching for spells for my map, that could be approved under certain circumstances.
It is not exactly the issue InfernalTater mentions, but well, better than nothing.

Holy Heal v0.2

As one can see, the only problematic thing is one or another configuration variable and a misplaced variable setting.

Couldn't we handle this issue like we did with old skins missing information ?
So, if people are ready to fix the spells of people being inactive or in general, wouldn't this solve the problem ?

 

[edo494]

You are still pouiring this on Ralle's head, but this isnt his personal website either, its ours, he is the one that has root access of course, but he isnt the sole moderator/admin, and as I said, he is more busy than not

 

[IcemanBo]

So, if people are ready to fix the spells of people being inactive or in general, wouldn't this solve the problem ?

Ardenian,
If you think of a resource that is useful for community but has issues that needs to be fixed,
then yes it is a good idea to take initiative and work on it if author is inactive/ stopped work on it.

Common spells aren't usually THAT useful for community in my eyes, because it's often very map specific.
Systems would be more the matter of things.
But sure, the idea behind is good and legit.

But anyway, in matter of doubts just contact staff how to handle/what to do with it.

Edit:

A good example for this is BPower who works on Dirac's missle system, btw.

 

[Ardenian]

@IcemanBo

Well, I mean, if there is a spell that could be easily fixed and be approved, why not ?
I am not very advanced in triggers, but I guess there are some spells that could be easily fixed. The question is just how to handle it. In a thread, like Ralle did with the skins, or via Staff contact, not being publicly accessible.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

here is one example of a spell I found, while searching for spells for my map, that could be approved under certain circumstances.
It is not exactly the issue InfernalTater mentions, but well, better than nothing.

Holy Heal v0.2

There is no way this spell could possibly be approved in it's current state. It creates a hashtable at every single spellcast.

The only really bad thing about the review was that Magtheridon did not mention this critical flaw in his review. Also, this submission is from 2012... we are kind of beating a dead horse here if we have to go back that far to find unjustified "needs fix" submissions.