Content Moderation and it's impact on the creator's ideas.

[meatfactory]

The idea behind this thread is to reduce the alterations made by requests of the resource moderators to the content creator's ideas if the original idea does not break any of the rules and is functioning properly.

While it is of upmost importance to keep the quality of the resources on the site at it's best, there maybe a "darker" side to the process of moderation. For example, if someone submits a resource which more or less follows the rules under which a resource could be submitted and it is of sufficient quality it should be approved. However at the whim of the moderators this could be a long and tedious process which could lead to the total metamorphosis of the creator's original idea (for better or worse).

A specific example:

I bring your attention to this -> Harbor of War
Now on most points the moderator is correct and actions have be taken to improve the resource,
however the status of the resource is held on "awaiting update" for the soul reason that it doesn't follow
a guideline from a user-made tutorial which is not an official site rule.

Please don't think this thread is some sort of whining about a resource's status. I do believe this is a serious issue which should be addressed and some code should be further developed to prevent situations like these.

 

[deepstrasz]

For example, if someone submits a resource which more or less follows the rules under which a resource could be submitted and it is of sufficient quality it should be approved

That's why there are moderators/reviewers so that the rules won't be easily dodged with lower quality stuff. The rules are mostly vague or incomplete.

I've asked Ralle to include the tag descriptions in the rules so that such interminable debates won't appear but it didn't happen.

 

[Chaosy]

Oh do not get me started on that clown fiesta of a section.

Nothing against the enforcers, I just fundamentally disagree on how it is being run.

"Substandard" and "Approved" are words describing quality, yet there are multiple rules that have absolutely nothing to do with this.
How a lack of credit list can cause a map to not be approved is beyond me, for example.

 

[Ralle]

We have always required that people give credit where credit is due. I am sure most content creators agree with that. I feel like if we should discuss this topic more, we need a new thread.

We will add tag descriptions for sure.

 

[Chaosy]

In my opinion giving credit is just polite/decent/proper/fair but I do not see how it has anything to do with quality.
And substandard is clearly describing quality.

But it is just a nitpick so I do not think it should be a big discussion.

 

[KILLCIDE]

How a lack of credit list can cause a map to not be approved is beyond me, for example.

A map won't get rejected because it is missing a credits list; it will be put on Awaiting Update until a credits list is made. What kind of rush are people in to dislike their map being put on Awaiting Update because of a missing credits list?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Credits list should be generated automatically, by looking into imported files. Server should automatically ask map submitter for author of any unrecognized asset. Afterwards user could add any names to the credits list.
Default contents of melee map descriptions should be generated by categorically enlisting pre-placed units and generating an image where creep camp icons (of appropriate color) are placed onto the map preview image.

 

[Chaosy]

A map won't get rejected because it is missing a credits list; it will be put on Awaiting Update until a credits list is made. What kind of rush are people in to dislike their map being put on Awaiting Update because of a missing credits list?

Fair enough. But let's say I do not update my description, eventually it will be put as substandard.

As I said, it is not really that serious of a problem it really is a nitpick which I do not even know why I dislike, it just triggers me.

If I made directors cut map and it did not get approved by a mod because of a credit list.. I'd lose my shit.

Actually, I do know why it triggers but I just feel like I have a problem putting it into words.
It's like: "I apply to a basketball team, coach rejects me because I have red shoes. Which happens to the the team's color" it has nothing to do with my performance at all.

How about, just judging whatever I submit by its quality alone? to me that just makes sense.

Credits list should be generated automatically, by looking into imported files. Server should automatically ask map submitter for author of any unrecognized asset. Afterwards user could add any names to the credits list.
Default contents of melee map descriptions should be generated by categorically enlisting pre-placed units and generating an image where creep camp icons (of appropriate color) are placed onto the map preview image.

There is already a imported list for all maps now. However it only works for stuff downloaded from the hive AFAIK

 

[KILLCIDE]

I apply to a basketball team, coach rejects me because I have red shoes. Which happens to the the team's color" it has nothing to do with my performance at all.

Makes sense, but in our case, the "coach" told you not to wear red shoes, and if you still wore them, that's on you lol. Anyway, the Reviewers are just following a process. Making exceptions to rules because of special cases can easily get abused by other users, so its best to keep the rules black / white so we save everyone headaches in the future.

I actually think the credits list is sort of off topic of what OP intended. Im guessing this is similar to a case in the icon section where authors were making "required" changes based on their taste vs considering the authors vision.

 

[Chaosy]

Even so, it's not like Michael Jordan would get rejected because of his shoes, see what I am getting at?

As I said, I understand that mods/reviewers are just following the site rules, I do not blame them for that.
All I am saying that I find rules that does not relate to quality pointless, if anything I have a problem with Ralle's view of what is required in a map (since he is ultimately the one who decides the rules)

Obviously, it would not be fair to only apply rule X if the map is average or less.
Which is why I'd remove the rule entirely.

___

As for being off topic, I think there can be some truth to that thought it connected with the thread's purpose to some extent.
Once I read the thread again I realize that my initial translation was a bit off to put it mildly.

That said, approving a map should be insanely simple.
Play map, ask yourself "was it fun" if the answer is yes: approve it
Very simple.

 

[Ralle]

There is already a imported list for all maps now. However it only works for stuff downloaded from the hive AFAIK

It only works for stuff on Hive that is the same version as the stuff on Hive. So if a used model file is changed, the chain is broken.

Even so, it's not like Michael Jordan would get rejected because of his shoes, see what I am getting at?

He wouldn't even show up at the game if he got pulled over for a broken tail light.

 

[Chaosy]

Maybe he walked.

 

[KILLCIDE]

if anything I have a problem with Ralle's view of what is required in a map (since he is ultimately the one who decides the rules

Thats definitely not true. When it comes to anything on the site, everyone on the Staff has to agree to it, not just Ralle. In addition, the rules probably havent been updated in years. It takes threads like this for us to decide to revist the rules and adjust them accordingly. The same case happened for both the Spells & Icon section.

 

[Deleted member 247165]

Instead of creating a thread for things like this, you could have simply talked to the reviewer that moderated your map. The rules are totally fine in my point of view. As for the credits, it's fine as well. Think of this, you create an icon, some models and an User Interface. Someone uses them all in his/her map, without putting you in the credits list as a "THANK YOU BOY FOR CREATING THESE AWESOME STUFFS". Wouldn't that be kinda unfair? The modellers, icon creators and so on, put effort in what they do, it is totally normal to have a credits list.

 

[deepstrasz]

Hiveworkshop is not just a site. We're trying to do things here somewhat academically, hence references are an important aspect of the overall stability.

This would be over quick if we had the tag guide in the rules and the new melee tag (Defining and Placement of Melee Maps with Meagre Changes) added otherwise the melee or altered melee tag description would have to be changed. I know the tweaked melee tag is sloppy but the idea was to save those thinly altered melee maps from Substandard so authors won't suffer and not to combine these maps with those melee with major gameplay/visual etc. changes.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

There is already a imported list for all maps now. However it only works for stuff downloaded from the hive AFAIK

It only works for stuff on Hive that is the same version as the stuff on Hive. So if a used model file is changed, the chain is broken.

Hence the "Server should automatically ask map submitter for author of any unrecognized asset. Afterwards user could add any names to the credits list."

 

[tulee]

It is hard to take these complaint threads about maps not getting approved when they come across as whining about their own map's situation. Also, it is hard to not notice how many of these threads convey an expectation that the staff/moderators have no other purpose in life except to serve Hiveworkshop. But I guess when you have a website like hive where people as young as 10 years of age are mixed with people in their 30s, there will be confusion as to the role the staff/moderators play. The rules for moderation reflect a desire for HWS to become a higher quality community, and not just a map repository. If you come across rules that you feel do not have a place on this website, perhaps try to make a post conveying your arguments about they should be removed, and not make general complaints about the "system". For me personally, I disregard all comments that make broad generalizations that hint that "the system" is against. This "darker side" the original poster mentions fits right into that paranoid theme, and it masks any real arguments he made behind a wall of ignorance.

The Original poster's complaint on his thread was regarding the issue of how to label maps with the melee tag. That issue has been debated before, and I believe it was for the sake of melee players that those maps with non standard melee doodads/units would not be allowed to be posted under the melee tag.

The argument for the credits not being mandatory really shows a lack of awareness about why it is so important to include them, not just for the community but for the sake of the author of the map himself/herself. Also, expecting the admins to be able to solve the issue of the server not being able to recognize credits when there is a discrepancy between the model version on hive and the one in the map with a simple snap of their fingers is silly.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Also, expecting the admins to be able to solve the issue of the server not being able to recognize credits when there is a discrepancy between the model version on hive and the one in the map with a simple snap of their fingers is silly.

Hence the "Server should automatically ask map submitter for author of any unrecognized asset. Afterwards user could add any names to the credits list."

 

[Shar Dundred]

The "Resource in Use" tab is not very reliable when it comes to credits.

Resources that do not hail from the Hive Workshop are obviously not credited (this is kinda predictable, but still).
Also, more importantly, it is not very accurate. I have been looking through the 30 pages of "Resources in Use" of
one of my campaigns and have seen quite a few resources from Hive that are definitely NOT imported into the campaign file.
Other resources from the Hive were missing.
While it is a good addition to find used resources, it cannot be trusted to replace a seperate credits list.
I think that the lack of creating a credit list is nothing but laziness which should not be supported.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Also, more importantly, it is not very accurate. [...]

That's bad code to be fixed.

I think that the lack of creating a credit list is nothing but laziness which should not be supported.

I think you don't even try to understand my proposal, which would enforce crediting each asset, factoring out human error due to failing to keep tabs on asset credits. And do not conflate automation and laziness, this is about automatically putting the user to maintain credits, maybe autofilling some.

Visual for troglodytes:

The server is making sure Cool_Orb.mdx is credited as well.

 

[IcemanBo]

@deepstrasz has worked on a Tag Description Guide long time ago, and it is important for the Maps Section, and especially for the confusion between melee/altered melee. It would make good sense to start pushing this again.

Map quality standard alone is most important for the map itself. But an important point is in my opinion when providing content in general on hive, as then there also becomes other things important, like a hive standard. There must be just some minimum of standard, to keep things comfortable for all users -- like having a proper resource name, a proper description, correct tagging, .. and yes Hive also asks you to put down a credists list for used resources. So sure, not really 100% of judging is about map quality alone, but a minimum part will be always reserved for standards, that are not important for the gameplay itself, and only to ensure overall site quality. I personally find this ok, also specified to credits.

It doesn't really change my thoughts of having a required credit list, but for sure, server side code automatically generating a list could be a cool helper. Ralle probably won't ever find time for this though, as it's not really essential code, as it can be solved by manual tracking, and there are always more important topics waiting in the actions queue.

 

[meatfactory]

I see this thread got a bit sidetracked. Let me simplify what the idea behind it is - The original idea that the author of a resource intended VS the idea of what the moderators think the resource should be.

The Original poster's complaint on his thread was regarding the issue of how to label maps with the melee tag.

No it was not. The specific example has nothing to do with tagging, rather than the change of the resource. (I like the the model of the cannon tower better than the other ones.)

If you come across rules that you feel do not have a place on this website, perhaps try to make a post conveying your arguments about they should be removed, and not make general complaints about the "system". For me personally, I disregard all comments that make broad generalizations that hint that "the system" is against. This "darker side" the original poster mentions fits right into that paranoid theme, and it masks any real arguments he made behind a wall of ignorance.

So many words for a statement that doesn't even reflect a single thought behind the intent of this thread.
You misinterpreted what I was trying to convey.

 

[tulee]

No it was not. The specific example has nothing to do with tagging, rather than the change of the resource. (I like the the model of the cannon tower better than the other ones.)

But it is about melee taging. The melee tag is currently use to define maps that can be played by professional melee players. You were putting a human cannon tower as part of the map, which makes it unacceptable for a professional melee map. That is not to say this argument is fair-- it has been debated before.

So many words for a statement that doesn't even reflect a single thought behind the intent of this thread.
You misinterpreted what I was trying to convey.

The problem is you do not realize what the point your own thread conveyed.

The original idea that the author of a resource intended VS the idea of what the moderators think the resource should be.

You say this is the point of your thread, but you referenced your own map s an example, which does not convey the point you claim you are saying. Please try to understand why your map was set to awaiting update first.

 

[SadisticLeprechaun]

Although kind of new to these forums, I must admit I am hesitant to post any map or merged resource I make because of comments I have read on almost everything I download with very subjective criticism or complaints of ungiven credit. Blows my mind. It's a game, and old as hell for that matter. I am combining heroes from a bunch of maps on the forums here but I doubt I will ever post it because of these reasons, just using it for myself and a friend.

 

[meatfactory]

But it is about melee taging. The melee tag is currently use to define maps that can be played by professional melee players. You were putting a human cannon tower as part of the map, which makes it unacceptable for a professional melee map. That is not to say this argument is fair-- it has been debated before.

The problem with the tagging comes from the opinion of deepstrasz.
The Blizzard editor recognizes them as valid melee even with the human tower as neutral hostile in it.
I don't have a problem with the map's tagging. I have a problem with changing something in the map the does not change the gameplay in any way.
Even more so, I can change the category to Altered Melee if that makes everyone happy.

The problem is you do not realize what the point your own thread conveyed.

Everyone has a point of view. As I mentioned in the thread, this is not some whining about some resource's status or tag.
You see it your way, I see it mine.

You say this is the point of your thread, but you referenced your own map s an example, which does not convey the point you claim you are saying.

I did not make the thread only for this map only, but for any other resource which might be subjected to the same circumstances.

Lets say I make a model and that model looks good, but it has some animation bugs.
A moderator spots the bug and tells me to fix it - and I fix it.

Now let's say I make a model that works perfectly fine, but it doesn't fit the expectations of some of the moderators and they force me to change it
based on who knows what (not official rules) ; they don't like some color or shape from it.

Do you understand what I am getting at?

Although kind of new to these forums, I must admit I am hesitant to post any map or merged resource I make because of comments I have read on almost everything I download with very subjective criticism or complaints of ungiven credit. Blows my mind.

Most of the "give credit comments" are some generic spam to make points on commenting IMO.

 

[deepstrasz]

The problem with the tagging comes from the opinion of deepstrasz.

OK dude, this is getting personal. I've written in my reviews that you can and should ask another reviewer for a verdict on your map if you're not satisfied. Now, either you really have something to contribute with or just stop wasting our time.

 

[meatfactory]

Problem is that melee=Warcraft III ladder melee and we've gotten past that by accepting modified tilesets and doodads but not units and especially nothing related to gameplay balance/mechanics. This is the borderline. You are free to contact the staff or other reviewers. I have done it like this and will not make an exception for you. Worst thing, I could leave it Pending.
If the map tag I mentioned about will be introduced, then no problem, if not I'll stay away from reviewing these maps in the future.

Some of the errors I've mentioned are still but it doesn't matter,
Approved.

melee | HIVE

?

No it's not personal and please refrain from writing such stuff as "bullshit" on the rep comments it makes you look very childish.

Also the poll shows that there is some sort of problem so it's not wasting your time that much.

 

[deepstrasz]

No it's not personal and please refrain from writing such stuff as "bullshit" on the rep comments it makes you look very childish.

Thanks for the life lesson dad.

 

[meatfactory]

Thanks for the life lesson dad.

No problem son. lol

 

[Shar Dundred]

If only I got a dollar for every meatfactory thread that ends like this...

 

[EdgeOfChaos]

I have also had an issue with this moderator, and his decision was overturned when I complained about it. If you want to do the same, just use the staff contact forum.

Even though it was approved, I removed all my maps soon after because I found a better way to distribute maps, so had no more need to put up with this every time I wanted to upload. The map moderation is extremely subjective and random, which makes THW a poor place to spread maps.

I now distribute through Discord. It's harder to get users to join, but after joining it is much more convenient. The chat environment of Discord also promotes better discussion than a forum. Pretty much all communities have moved to Discord, even the ones that have a forum here, like Gaias.

 

[deepstrasz]

Last I remember, Hiveworkshop was a site for good quality maps. If this site does not fulfill your needs, why even be here anymore? Did you try to change anything for the better instead of whining?

 

[Shar Dundred]

@KILLCIDE I suggest closing this thread, I see nothing but whining insisting that it is no whining ...

 

[meatfactory]

Oh why, let's see some whining ...

 

[EdgeOfChaos]

I think you missed the part where your decision got overturned because it was wrong. I voluntarily removed my work. I didn't lose. Good point on why am I even here: I hardly am anymore. I post like once a month. Just check around from time to time and see what's going on, maybe answer a few questions, just saw someone else noticed your poor judgment *shrug*

Also using reputation to send messages is silly and cowardly. If you want to say something, then say it for everyone to see.

 

[deepstrasz]

Different people, different opinions.

I told you what I had to publicly. What was supposed to be for you, was.

And another thing there are more reviewers now and they can be asked for a verdict over another if rules aren't broken of course.

 

[Lord_Earthfire]

So, looking over this thread and looking over the map and that you most likely are referring to (And its not the map you linked, since honestly, there is only an issue with the hive needing to sort out its categories, so of course it doesn't get approved for as long as that issue with the categories itself doesn't get sorted out, although in my oppinion it should be set back to pending and not awaiting update).

If you are not happy with reviews (because some aspects that are marked as-fixed can be intentional, but these can be reasoned upon, which i honestly didn't saw you doing at all, a big mistake on your part), then get other reviewers to judge upon the map. People have different oppinions on mechanics and there are masses of different stances on game design and thus quality markers for maps. So the judging of a person towards quality can be different than what another person thinks.

For example when two reviewers complain on your map that its slowing down to a boring halt without much variation and engaging (See here: Throne), you can of course agree or disagree with it, but when you disagree, it is rather time to get other reviewers to look upon the map. Thats what the Staff Contact is for. Or PM other reviewers directly.

But if you see the problem and somewhat agree with the moderators and/or reviewers, keep in mind that you still don't have to follow the suggestions.

For every design-problem, there are multitudes of solution.​

Of course the reviewers propose solutions or changes, but these are sometimes not in the intention of the creator. They honestly see problems with the map and want to help. In that case, it is your task as a developer to look at the problem, analyse it, and solve them in a way that resolves the problem while staying true to your own concept.

So, overall, it is not that the reviewers/mods change the direction of the map, it is more that you, as a creator, don't try to take the underlying problem in the feedback and only see the proposed solutions, which don't give a full picture.

 

[meatfactory]

@Lord_Earthfire I was referring to Harbor of War, not Throne.

 

[Lord_Earthfire]

If you really were, in that case the whole thread is simply based on a misunderstanding and honestly somewhat pointless.

You see, in the hive, there is currebtly a discussion in progress how to differentiate the whole "altered melee" genre. Since what is smached up there are at the one side generic melee with some tweaks (like the map you mentioned), and whole race overwhaul projects. Both differentiate to such a degree that people talk about stuff like "tweaked melee" or others, which i personally would consider a fitting name.
This is all under this point in the review made:

5. You have to remove things like neutral hostile canon towers for this map to remain true melee. As altered melee, this would be weak. You could use a campaign tower instead, you know, a unit that no melee race has. But until we solve this (Defining and Placement of Melee Maps with Meagre Changes), leave it melee.

Now when you want to make a melee map. Keep in mind, melee maps have *a lot* of unwritten rules in them that the competative playerbase distilled out of the blizzard map pool, simply because wc3 has a highly competative enviroment and thus fragile meta. Most consider the placement of camps, neutral buildings, avaiability of recources and pathways. Honestly deepstratz made a lot of remarls that fit these rules. Most of these guidelines can be seen in tutorials here around the hive. Or just straight up ask one on the melee discord or subreddit. Most importantky are things like only using normal creeps and items (eg. No towers, no resurection runes or gold- or lumber-bundles in a random itempool), because they heavily screw with the meta and thus what melee is about.

And when you look to make an altered melee, the map simply doesnt feature enough custom content to be considered one. In that case you should go quite litterally nuts with design. Its then litterally a melee map with some meaningless alteration in comoarison to full fleshed out altered melee prohects.

That is why people are talking about a new category, like "tweaked melee", where your map currently would fit in. But that simply does not exist currebtly.

So really, when you are refering to the map, its not that the moderator does actively want to chance the course, but simply got problens with the current classification system and whant to help you to fit it into one, because you obviously want to have it approved asap.

Its just a big case of miscommunication with currebt structural changes.

So when you don't want to change the map to fit these categories, i would just suggest to leave it on pending until these things have been sorted out and ask for a reeveluation once that is done.

 

[meatfactory]

If you have read some of the previous comments, you would see that I said I don't mind what category the map is in. That is not the point of the thread. The whole "whining" as described by some is the fact, that even though the world editor/game recognizes the map as melee, the reviewer wants me to alter something that doesn't affect the map's melee status (based on editor/game) and he is referencing some tutorials and not official rules.

 

[Lord_Earthfire]

Then read the last paragraph of my last post again.

There it says why, even though the editor recognizes the map as melee map, it simply does not fullfill the criteria a quality melee map needs to fullfill.

The editor can not consider if a map is balanced for all matchups for wc3 and features all criterias the competative community deems necessary to create enjoyable high level play. If your cramped pathways gives flying units too much of an edge, you just gave un-players an unfair advantage (although honestly i am not that sure anymore if destroyers are that vaible as a strat anymore since balance updates). If you don't give in a 4p map expansions for a full house, you gimped the undead vs human matchup, where hu want to quickly expand.

These guidelines are existing for a reason, because that are the guidelines how official melee maps are build and you can't give them a blind eye only because a far too simple program don't recognize if the map is competativeky balanced or not. Try to create an Age of empires 2 map and don't give every player at least 2 boars in the beginning area and call it competative. You justchanged the fundamebtal early game build orders. Or make a SC2 map with only 2 avaiable expansion per player. The zerg player will surely thank you for that (beware: sarcasm).

Honestly, a quality melee map is to some degree more work than some custom modes. I would seriously inform yourself how these are build to enable the matchup as besr as possible.

If your map isn't balanced as a proper melee map, of course it won't get accepted as a melee labeled one.

The hive, to my knowledge, holds a rather high quality standard to melee maps in comparison to custom maps (although there were a time where the latter was a quite high bar, too), because these can ne broken down on certain standards, that let far more properly evaluate the quality. So by going for a melee map, you directly went for far higher quality demands, too.

TL;Dr: If you make a melee map, it should not mess too much with the meta and be as balnced as possible in most, if not all, matchups. There are no official rules, only community-made ones.