Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
In these days, I am pretty disappointed to see so many map-makers breaking the Map Submission Rules so frequently. Then, what also concerns me is that if somebody, for example. breaks just one simple rule (like not adding a map catergory), we ignore it completely. The proof is the map HOPE: Revive (3.2.15) which has not been rejected yet though it broke two rules and as the upload seems glitched, the issues cannot be fixed. What about the cinematic "How to be a Rogue"? It's missing a credits list (and that's a big one) though it was approved (my mistake was also voting for approval instead of awaiting update but let's get to the point...). So here's one question: Why were the Map Submission Rules made if people spontaneously break them and we just go and approve those maps? This is a bad example for other map-makers. I do not mean that if a map breaks a straightforward rule we must reject it instantly but simply not approving it until the issues are fixed.
I agree with this.
Users seens to just check the "I checked the Rules" flag and say Fuck the Rules. Some moderators don't pay much attention on it anymore. Speaking in moderators, where are Hell_Master and -Kobas-?
It's always been this way. It's just that I'm the moderator not insta-rejecting since I still open maps with more than lacking descriptions. Also, since there isn't an overflow, there isn't a need to quickly get maps out of pending and more time can be used to get maps lacking approved instead of simply setting them to rejected or await update.
SF said:
The proof is the map HOPE: Revive (3.2.15) which has not been rejected yet though it broke two rules and as the upload seems glitched, the issues cannot be fixed.
We cannot help against Spazzler for now. It ruins part of the map file but the map still works in-game.
I think the description makes up for the missing minimap. But the submitter has to know that the number of players and other things are missing. Those are important when users search for maps.
I think we can approve it, but recommend that the submitter not use Spazzler.
That tool was very useful during its young timeline, now its just zombie[fies] map files. I'm the one moderating the map that time, it was rejected due to a lot of errors, I sent it back to pending for others to check it out. I might just re-moderate it myself again instead.
What about the cinematic "How to be a Rogue"? It's missing a credits list (and that's a big one) though it was approved (my mistake was also voting for approval instead of awaiting update but let's get to the point...).
Yep. I want to defend sheep-like decision a little, however. In our discussion, some users posted: "I am pretty disappointed. Many of these pending maps have been reviewed by at least one reviewer and they are still as they, pending for no reason. Couldn't they be approved/rejected right now?" and "Anyway, I think we should be like the old days back in 2008 or so, where members of the group are very valued. Each of our reviews count quickly toward Map's Approval"
The point in my defense is that we can't be approving reviewed maps oh so quickly, as some of you wish, if many reviews aren't meeting the standards. Recently me and Orcnet have been stretching the net of what reviews were acceptable or not because of quotes like these.
So from now on, I'll be checking on all reviewers to see if they are checking map submission rules off in their review in a way
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
