Hi! As the title already suggest, I'd have a little idea about what should be changed in future moderations: the "forced" changing of style! "Forced" changing? Example: a moderator moves a model or icon to the Needs fix section with the reason "the handle of the polearm should use a different texture. The texture of the cloak doesn't realy fit the model". This is why i'm calling it "forced" change. To put this in other words: either the model is made another way or it will be rejected. IMO, the style of a model shouldn't be a valid reason for rejection/needs fix. I think the style should be left to the modeler alone, as it falls under "freedom of arts/freedom of the artist". In my point of view it shouldn't be allowed that things like the following examples are rejected/moved to needs fix: an undead soldier has an Alliance cloak. He might have scavenged it from a famous human warrior he slew ones and now he wears it to show whome he managed to defeat. a wolf has a slightly shorter snout and slightly thinner head than most wolves. Wolves are different in the nature, hence they can't all have the same snout lenght. a human paladin has a red mohawk haircut (like Arthas having the hair of the Troll headhunter). For me, this is an original idea, and this aside, it brings a nice difference if some models have special or greatly different patterns. I'm not referring to blurry/messy skinnings, awkward and unlogical animations and such. These aren't things that can be declared as free art and usefull model. Last but not least: I don't want to make the moderators' jobs harder than they are, but i think that there should be certain freedoms for the artists as well. As long as there is no clear definition of what is artistic freedom and what sloppy or bad work, many good models may be reected and a lot of good work lost. Imagination has no bounds and borders and it's key to creativity and creativity is the path to uniqueness in most cases. Right now, as far as i know, the rule for ressource rejection says that valid reason must be stated, but the problem is that only the most crude reason are briefly described leaving a huge field entirely open. I think the rules should become in the point stated above more defined and preciser. For everyone else who has an oppinion to this, I'd be happy to hear it. If this is going to be put into reality, I think it should be first discussed in every aspect and detail so that later modifications can be avoided. If you have any constructive criticism or idea to add to this, then please by all means, post it here.