[Icons and Skins] Free-hand, tracing, CnP and exporting

[Ralle]

We have been debating this topic for a while now internally and reached the conclusion that we must all decide whether this is a good idea. Attached is a poll for you to cast a vote resembling your opinion on the matter.

In the model's section we have rules that allow porting of models (license permitting) from other sources and adapting them to Warcraft as long as it fits the style in Warcraft and is high quality enough for approval.

I would like for the icon and texture sections to open up for porting whole images, tracing and CnP. To focus on the result and not the method as long as the method is legal and the result is quality. As is already required, the submitter would have to mention which parts were not made by himself.

These are examples of how the rules of moderation in the icons and skins section might take place today:

Examples

If a user makes a high quality icon or texture and borrowed parts of it from an existing texture (e.g. one from inside Warcraft) it might not get approved because it was not drawn free-hand at an appropriate level.

If a user takes an image from an external source but with license permitting its use and makes it into an icon that fits the style of Warcraft, it might not be approved.

If a user traces a photo he took but drew everything himself, it might not be approved because we don't allow tracing.​

I get the sense that there are two groups of people, but we will see. As one who has only been using 2D graphics and not created my own, I will be writing my perspective, "the modder", and our icon moderator @Murlocologist will be writing his.

In my opinion Icon and Texture Sections won't have any benefit from allowing copy-pastes to be submitted, therefore I'm against proposed changes. Modding was never copy-pasting. Equalizing copy-pasted works with legit made ones is an insult to time, effort and enthusiasm of people who support this website with their works.
Copy-pastes submitted by attention seekers who put themselves as authors for something they did not make will become a common and acceptable thing if people accept proposed changes.
Copy-paste can be done in just a few seconds, one can submit numerous copy-pastes in a short period of time and overtake the section's pages of display. Real works would be pushed away. Real authors would eventually fade away. And so would the workshop.
Is it worthy risking to lose forum contributors in order to let copy-pastes overrun resource sections? My opinion is NO and poll is here for you to decide.

The modder does not care much for where art comes from, as long as he can use it without breaking the law. He is more interested in finding the exact piece he needs to fit with the puzzle that is his map. Hand-drawn or copy-pasted from a website allowing non-commercial use. If this is what he needs, it does not matter whether hours was spent on sweating over it or not. The modder cares about the result because that is what he needs. He is grateful of the artists but he'd rather have more choice than being forced to only pick between hand-drawn resources.

I might be rattling a bee's nest with this thread. You might be provoked. I don't know. That's why I created this thread. If this is the case, share your side and I will be ever the wiser. All I ask is you speak in a respectful manner.

The resource sections were designed to be a place for the modder to find where he needs and the resource creator to share their work. But many things have changed since then and I'm not comfortable with making this sort of decision myself.

Ralle

 

[stein123]

I though that the Hive's 2D Manipulation Workshop and the Hive's Simple Resource Thread were meant to be for stuff like that (CnP's, recolors, etc)

 

[Arowanna]

Whilst I do not care for how people work*; using filters, photos, tools, brushes and etc. As long as the product is up to snuff, I simply do not care. I would strongly argue against putting recolors/CnPs and original work in the same box however. I have never been a fan of the stingy rules - read, 75% freehand, whatever that means - but putting peoples hard work next to recolors/CnPs really devalues the work people actually put into their products.

It is like seeing fertilizer next to your butchers produce. The meat may be Grade A Meat, but the display of crap next to food is really off-putting. Some customers will not care, but the butcher will most likely find a new avenue for their produce.

If there is a strong consensus that we need recolors and CnPs, at least consider giving them two separate categorize. Akin to what the Hive's 2D Manipulation Workshop and Hive's Simple Edit Resources Thread threads have become.

*I have no idea how prevalent this topic is today, but I remember the days when the WC3 community generally refused to accept the use of filters, photos and etc. because it wasn't deemed "freehand".

If you still cling to the freehand ideal, check out software such as Substance Designer. The world has moved on, and while I admire the ideal, it's ultimately a pointless endeavor.

 

[Nolrovos]

Admittedly, I'm not sure if I have much of a say in this, as I'm fairly inexperienced with it all. However, I do see several things which I can most certainly relate to. Ultimately, it looks to be about time spent, versus little time spent. On one side, I fully agree that it doesn't much matter how much time you spend into any piece of work, for example, let's say I'm cleaning the kitchen. On one hand, a guy takes an hour, on the other, another guy takes only a half of an hour. The only difference is time, the guy who took a half of an hour could simply be far more efficient and organized, it doesn't necessarily mean the quality of his work is down. More time doesn't always equal more quality.

However, as @Arowanna said, unless I'm mistaken, it should be categorized differently, so that people know exactly how it was made. So that people can be proud of their work still, because if you jumble both of them in the same spot... well, once again I agree with Arowanna, his Grade A Meat analogy hits it right on the spot. If you don't, the people who spend more time on their works will find another place, or do what everyone else does, because their work will simply mesh in, and everyone will just end up assuming their work is like everyone else's. I know what that feeling is like, and it's pretty horrible.

On the other hand, like @Murlocologist hinted at, there is a kind of pride in being an author. Even I admit I look up at it with a kind of respect, but when such a release happens, it will lose a lot of value. As a person who can't become a author currently, and being a scrub in more-or-less everything concerning Warcraft III editing, I look up to authors, and know several people who do as well. But once such an update would be released, all of the authors would be muddled down by those who would copy-paste, and as a whole wouldn't be any real kind of achievement. Might as well not even mention author on this site. It's a small reward, but one never the less, which will be essentially taken away. There are a lot of attention seekers out there, just waiting to pounce.

I am often considered a man of justice, had a strong sense of it long before anyone else in my school developed it. I always seek to do the right thing, often to my detriment. In this case, if anyone considered my opinion valuable, I'd actually choose to side with Murlocologist. It's a tough call, both sides have strong merits. Emotionally speaking, I can't decide, and when my emotions can't make a decision, I go with the logical. It would simply discourage those with the right personality to keep their loyalty. Perhaps an example is in order. Say there are two groups, hard workers, and not hard workers. Currently, mostly only the hard workers offer content, but you can release an update to allow not hard workers to also offer content with basically the same quality. Let's say most of the hard workers leave, or don't offer work like they used to, but you have about the same amount of quality works, there appears to be no difference, right?

Not necessarily, because you have to think outside of the box of the update. Those people willing to work hard, are often the same people who retain their loyalty, they understand patience, or are far more likely to then the people who don't work hard. These same people tend to also be the ones you generally want on a forum, helping those in need and overall having positive, professional attitudes. What I'm saying, is that in this case, since I don't see anything necessarily wrong with either, I'm going with the one that won't let off a single drop of water, to later end up disturbing the pond, causing waves. Giving away food to those in need is good, but if you keep giving your food away, more and more people will come just because they don't have to, and one day, you'll find yourself overwhelmed and end up without any food to feed yourself, starving in the process. A line has to be made at some point, this may just have to be that line. I hope I made some sense, as I can ramble.

 

[Abovegame]

In my opinion this damages the originality of the work.It would, as well, contrast with the hard work put by people making resources since.

Unless it would come to some serious reengineering of the resource rank system i'm staying with my vote.

 

[Panda]

I personally love you ralle and I do not want to start any type of drama with this but I voted to be against this. I did so because I want people to have the freedom to just make/create there own works and be proud of what they have made and when it gets approved.. Not making a CnP model/skin/icon and call it there.. even if its useful. As a reviewer myself I have had tons of those types of icons hit me and some similar too that, so that's what I chose because I want to review works from actual people not stolen works.

 

[Ralle]

I personally love you ralle and I do not want to start any type of drama with this but I voted to be against this.

Don't be afraid of disagreeing with me. I much prefer that over pretending like everything I do is to your satisfaction. No problem

Admittedly, I'm not sure if I have much of a say in this, as I'm fairly inexperienced with it all.

I posted for you and others to express yourselves. So you most certainly have a say in it.

While I can see that the not handmade creations might water out the handmade ones, it does not in any way take anything away from them (the handmade ones). At least not in my eyes. The bits making up the graphics are the exact same and modders just have more choice.

It's been mentioned at least twice now that a compromise would be to separate the handmade creations from the CnP/imported ones. For the modder, this leaves him another place to look for what he needs. But this would somehow make the experience for the artist better because his creations would show up among its 'peers'. I am just trying to understand exactly what makes it worse so I can maybe suggest another compromise.

 

[PrinceYaser]

I must say Yes to this poll.

Well, I was myself once a copy-paster before. I really learned basis of drawing and freehand work at that way (but also suffering Mods, you know). I know they can copy and learn things at their own place, not here; but in my opinion, CnP makers should be allowed to contribute here, because many of them seek attention; we would let them share their CnP and traced works in a separate section for some causes. This way: 1. They will learn how to draw freehand by and by. 2. Their need for attention will also be resolved. - That's what I think.

 

[Nolrovos]

It's been mentioned at least twice now that a compromise would be to separate the handmade creations from the CnP/imported ones. For the modder, this leaves him another place to look for what he needs. But this would somehow make the experience for the artist better because his creations would show up among its 'peers'. I am just trying to understand exactly what makes it worse so I can maybe suggest another compromise.

A compromise would likely end in something horribly complex, because it is a bunch of small problems becoming big ones, were they a few, or one big problem, it would be a much easier beast to trap, and some among them would probably cause some distress. For example, as mentioned before, being a author is a kind of badge which would be taken away. You'd either have to one, make a new rank which basically says, "I'm a copy-paste 'author'," or don't give them any kind of title at all. This would potentially end up causing troubles, as those people would lightly fight tooth and nail on the forums to gain the title that is the same as those that have spent the time and effort to gain it. From our perspective, it seems silly they would waste so much effort into requesting/demanding the same title, when they could spend that energy into actually earning that title, but I'm sure by now you've seen it happen in games where there are many lazy people who want the things that the hard workers earned. The same people that play MMORPGs who believe spending a half of an hour every two days should net them the same titles, items, and any other things the people who spend 4-8 hours a day into said MMORPG. It doesn't even have to be game related, at least here in the USA such people are extremely common. I have no doubt such people would be attracted to this. The attention seekers, as has been called in previous posts. I seriously have met many people who get frustrated at people's success when it was earned through hard work. They don't even see the fallacy of their outlook, even when brought to their attention. These people are just as, if not even more, common on the internet.

I could go on, but oh boy, I feel my rambling senses tingling! Better put an end to it now! But I will say this, I don't think a kind of compromise wouldn't be impossible, as I make it basically a religion out of, "Nothing is impossible." But I simply cannot think of something that would work in both side's favor without any potentially devastating sacrifices being made. But just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't out there. But until one is brought to my attention, whether through my own thought or another's, my vote will remain.

 

[Nowow]

Voted against this, but I believe a compromise is something that can be handled and would actually be better for both modders and icon/texture makers.

Thing is tracing and CnP are not only different than the freehand drawn icons allowed so far in the method of creation, the result is also different. In my eyes, the range of work I would expect from the current icon section and a hypothetical 'edited works' section is entirely different. As such, putting 'edited works' in the icon section would not only be a somewhat unfair to the artists of the section, but it will also be confusing for me regarding what type content I'm supposed to see.

Furthermore, the current solutions discussed here (namely: Hive's 2D Manipulation Workshop and Hive's Simple Edit Resources Thread) are not optimal - a user must either search the thread (not meant for searching, at least not as much as a content section) or ask about an already made resource in the thread, a "less useful" thread comment I'd assume the site would want to discourage. There is of course, another place for such 'edited works' which hasn't come up so far: the substandard resource section. But this, too, is perhaps not an ideal solution as well. It always seemed to me like this is the place where everything that doesn't meet with the moderation team's standards ends up, be it because the resource is too simple, does not meet quality requirements, etc.

And this is where the problem is: if you consider 'edited works' as a different entity, then it also has a different standard, rather than being substandard. In short, I suggest the following: create a different content section altogether for 'edited works' such as CnPs and traced drawings (of icons, skins and whatever). This will differentiate between hand drawn icons and CnPs, thus not harming the display of original, hand-drawn content of the kind we encourage, while creating easily searched ordered section in the site to manage these resources, instead of the messier request threads. The modders looking for resources will have one more place they can search for the resource they want, and I'd take searching a resource section over googling for threads containing resources (sorry Ralle, you're good but you can't beat google operator search). This section will allow the moderation team to be more lenient with resource reviews, of resources they would have to comment on anyways if the said resource was uploaded to their section.

I believe this solution will cover most bases, but since I'm no moderator or icon maker I'd be happy to hear how this resonates with someone closer to the section.

 

[MindWorX]

My main reason for voting yes to this is because there exists an entire license dedicated to remixing resources for usage in other situations. Just look at the site Open Game Art. A quick search on "icons" gives resources like the image I attached. These fit very well in the Warcraft III style, they just need a proper border and maybe a few touch ups. These icons will never be available here under the current rules, even though the resource was intended to be used by everyone and made for this specific purpose.

 

[Panda]

My main reason for voting yes to this is because there exists an entire license dedicated to remixing resources for usage in other situations. Just look at the site Open Game Art. A quick search on "icons" gives resources like the image I attached. These fit very well in the Warcraft III style, they just need a proper border and maybe a few touch ups. These icons will never be available here under the current rules, even though the resource was intended to be used by everyone and made for this specific purpose.

Yeah we may not have those currently on the hive for everyone to download and/or may break the rules but if you need any of those icons for your map then that person should download button manager and make it themselves for what they need instead of uploading all of them to the hive and spamming the section.

 

[Chaosy]

As the end user I really do not care how the icon was created.
If the icon base gets larger I am happy.

 

[KILLCIDE]

Chaosy hit the nail on the head for me. I feel the same exact way.

 

[MindWorX]

Yeah we may not have those currently on the hive for everyone to download and/or may break the rules but if you need any of those icons for your map then that person should download button manager and make it themselves for what they need instead of uploading all of them to the hive and spamming the section.

Making icons is only a single aspect. There are also resources to make custom UIs on the site. Things that need much more remixing. And we're blocking all of it completely.

 

[Arowanna]

Everything is a remix!

 

[IcemanBo]

I don't see hive as factory that only serves the needs of the modder. It should serve as home for artist people, the guys who make the resources, too.

The modder does not care how the icon was made - sure, and it doesn't matter. But he also does not really matter the download category, very short example:

• Approved
• CnP

It's not the goal to ban licence-permitting, as it seems to be the focus of argumentation.
But artists seemingly do very care that it's put on very same level to normal approved section, where they put real effort and passion into their submission. Effort-work might be flooded and might lose platform for something end-modder does not even care about.

It's mostly a question of where and how exactly to allow it, as it should be a place for modders, and also for artists. So without detailed suggestion of how the structure looks like, it makes no sense for me voting for allowing it, and I vote for artists.

 

[Cuore]

Whatever right and correct thing I could write about this topic has already been explained by @Nowow at post #10 ([Icons and Skins] Free-hand, tracing, CnP and exporting)

The only thing left for me to do is to wholeheartedly beg who's in charge of things to read that and consider the content of that post for their future choices, regardless of the result of this particular poll, as it's the plain truth of the matter:

it's pretty clear that a class of reources exists, that can be considered as lying in a sort of gray area: resources that on the one hand do not contain critical faults and are usable to practical purposes (maybe even particularly desired by modders) but that, on the other hand, don't meet the minimum necessary requirements to be called "approvable", or if you will "works of art".
The possible reasons are many: lack of originality (e.g. cnp and hand-traced images), too small/too simple changes with respect to a resource used as base (e.g. recolors), and many others.
They have so far been handled within the two "simple resources" threads. This kind of solution is difficult to maintain, difficult to search, and not so easy to locate as these threads are placed into subforums that aren't the ones dedicated to resources.
This site has a wonderful resource database with a boatload of sections and tags to classify reosurces. Would a separate permanent category, different and intermediate between substandard and approved, (let's call it "simple edits" for now) be a good idea for this class of resources? Ideally it would solve many utilization problems that now afflict those modders who come in search of those resources. Of course the issue that would be raised would be: 'how can you tell the difference between a simple edit resource, and a straight-up substandard one'? I'm sure a sip of common sense would help out.

 

[Eagle XI]

I am for this, because hand-drawn on a mass production scale, like producing icons for an entire building set is insanity unless im darn getting paid for it.
I am against this, because the resource section will get flooded with resources that are of such low quality that has never-before seen on Hive.

What about we find a healthier compromise, like its not allowed by default but can be arranged ? That way can get in the actually useful stuff without opening the flood gates.

 

[Selaya]

This is long since overdue.

As Cokemonkey's put it, Hive's full of art-related bullshit, while that's a rather extreme statement there's some truth to that. A change to the 2D submissions rules would be a start.

To address some people's fears it should be possible to create a new subcategory for freehand work if that's really an issue (from what I've seen people are vastly overestimating freehand work, the vast majority of all submitted freehand work is of quite substandard quality anyways).
Besides, a lot of creativity can be shown through adapting someone else's work, without completely redrawing it (arbitrary restriction).

 

[IcemanBo]

As Cokemonkey's put it, Hive's
full of art-related bullshit
, while that's a rather extreme statement there's some truth to that. A change to the 2D submissions rules would be a start.

There is too much art-related bullshit, so as reaction there must be much more CnP art so they don't feel so important? I don't see the point. It's all about future structure.

To address some people's fears it should be possible to create a new subcategory for freehand work if that's really an issue

This seems the issue. To find a good compromise with possibly a new category and/or new standards in relation both with Substandard category which is asking to be changed for a longer time, too.

 

[Chaosy]

As long as I do not need to search in the three sections separately I think that should be fine.

 

[deepstrasz]

As long as original art isn't mixed with lazy copying, I'm for it.

 

[Selaya]

There is too much art-related bullshit, so as reaction there must be much more CnP art so they don't feel so important? I don't see the point. It's all about future structure.
[ .. ]

You misunderstood it. What I (and, as far as I am able to read it Cokemonkey asw with their original statement) meant is that Hive's putting far too much emphasis on the, well artistic part of it (modding).
I understand the intentions behind it, but as others have already said, as an actual mapper I'd rather have more (categories of) resources to select from when creating something, and not restrict myself to the hand-drawn stuff. (Which is a rather high barrier of entry to creating icons for instance; I for once simply lack the artistic skill for that, however I'd certainly be able to create useable Icons and Skins that aren't hand-drawn. Just as an example.)

As long as original art isn't mixed with lazy copying, I'm for it.

The barrier's fluid, actually. I would however vote for a specific recolor/re-something category. While it certainly is lazy it doesn't mean its actually useless.
Additionally, right now we're not even accepting all original art (screenshot of another resource for instance could be) but only a specific subset of it.

 

[IcemanBo]

You misunderstood it.

Well what you said is it's full of art shit, and change of rules is a start. Not sure what I misunderstood.

Hive's putting far too much emphasis on the, well artistic part of it (modding).

Ok, and what you mean as concrete consequence?

I understand the intentions behind it, but as others have already said, as an actual mapper I'd rather have more (categories of) resources to select from when creating something, and not restrict myself to the hand-drawn stuff

I don't understand how this argument always pops up that end-user wants to use all icons, not only hand drawn. Do you realize it's not a problem? As if the artists would care if end-users are allowed to use other icons, other than not hand-drawn in final product. What they care about is putting copy & paste work on same approved state in resource section, as the effort then seems faded away, and artist skill loses much weight in this regard.

 

[Chaosy]

It's funny how WoW icons are allowed to be uploaded but other copy and paste work is not.
Feels like the line is crossed already in that sense.

 

[Selaya]

Well what you said is it's full of art shit, and change of rules is a start. Not sure what I misunderstood.


Ok, and what you mean as concrete consequence?

[ .. ]

Adapting the rules so that more types of content are allowed, obviously.
This change'd be a start.

I don't understand how this argument always pops up that end-user wants to use all icons, not only hand drawn. Do you realize it's not a problem? As if the artists would care if end-users are allowed to use other icons, other than not hand-drawn in final product. What they care about is putting copy & paste work on same approved state in resource section, as the effort then seems faded away, and artist skill loses much weight in this regard.

Okay.
See the problem now? You guys are far too focused on yourself and see Hive as a showcase for your personal work.
You, however aren't the only (group of) user(s) on Hive.
What I want (and obviously I'm not alone on that) is to broaden the, well target audience for uploads, so that more content creators may use Hive as a platform to share their creations. It doesn't have to be full art (see the above) to be worthy of that seeing as even a simple recolor may be quite useful to another modder/mapper who isn't as proficient in graphic manipulation (besides, actually correctly recoloring stuff isn't as trivial as some of you may think it is).

 

[Ralle]

I don't think it's constructive to call something shit.

Many modders have replied agreeing with me. A number of artists have replied emphasising the point by Murloc. My theory of two kinds of people seems to be pretty spot on .

I am starting to feel that no matter what happens, we want to keep the mostly hand-drawn things in one place to maintain a healthy artist community.

I am starting to think that maybe it's cool to have a purely hand-drawn section where only Hive-members can submit art. And a section for imports/CnP. Both would have the same requirements to the end result requirement but the hand-drawn section would be for 100% hand-drawn things. One could be a sub section of the other allowing one to easily include the other in search results but not the other way around. I'm just thinking aloud here. It's one way to do it for sure.

 

[Selaya]

I don't think it's constructive to call something shit.

Was just because someperson said something rememberable at some point concerning this issue so I used it as a quote.
I'd agree on it being not-so-constructive tho.

Many modders have replied agreeing with me. A number of artists have replied emphasising the point by Murloc. My theory of two kinds of people seems to be pretty spot on .

I am starting to feel that no matter what happens, we want to keep the mostly hand-drawn things in one place to maintain a healthy artist community.

I am starting to think that maybe it's cool to have a purely hand-drawn section where only Hive-members can submit art. And a section for imports/CnP. Both would have the same requirements to the end result requirement but the hand-drawn section would be for 100% hand-drawn things. One could be a sub section of the other allowing one to easily include the other in search results but not the other way around. I'm just thinking aloud here. It's one way to do it for sure.

Having a specific category for stuff that falls into the current submission rules is a good idea.
I support that.

 

[Shar Dundred]

So, we'd have "normal" Icon Section, substandard Icon Section, CNP section and possibly a CNP substandard section?
That's gonna be bullshit to navigate through and you know it.

Hive 2.0 already made it tedious to search for resources and now you wanna make it even more complicated?

 

[Cuore]

So, we'd have "normal" Icon Section, substandard Icon Section, CNP section and possibly a CNP substandard section?
That's gonna be bullshit to navigate through and you know it.

Hive 2.0 already made it tedious to search for resources and now you wanna make it even more complicated?

Set sail, and navigate through the current simple edit resources thread. Compare it to the resources database and you'll change your mind on your comment, rest assured.

However, going beyond its manners, in principle the post makes for a very important point. Whatever new database section will be added, searching through it shouldn't be made tedious or unintuitive or the whole point of the measure would be lost and we'd be better off with the old messy simple edit threads.

 

[Chaosy]

A simple solution is:



[searchbar]
[x] Approved Icons
[x] Substandard
[x] CnP



All those should be checked by default and you can uncheck whatever you do not want on demand.
It will not complicate the search -too- much that way.

Or, put stuff like this in user settings so we can set our own default options.

 

[deepstrasz]

So, we'd have "normal" Icon Section, substandard Icon Section, CNP section and possibly a CNP substandard section?
That's gonna be bullshit to navigate through and you know it.

Hive 2.0 already made it tedious to search for resources and now you wanna make it even more complicated?

No. Let's have the categories mixed up as a general approach, like the pending resources are together with the approved. If you then want to use the filters for a specific category, e.g. artisanship, then you can tick that and whichever filter you like.

Yeah... what @Chaosy wrote, basically.

 

[Naze]

A simple solution is:



[searchbar]
[x] Approved Icons
[x] Substandard
[x] CnP

I'd have substandard unticked by default though. But this should work

 

[Chaosy]

Preferably your preference should be saved in the cache anyway so it does not really matter.
But if that is not the case, I'd rather have them all checked by default.

Because if I search for "Ralle nudes" I would rather find a substandard one instead of none.

 

[Ralle]

So, we'd have "normal" Icon Section, substandard Icon Section, CNP section and possibly a CNP substandard section?
That's gonna be bullshit to navigate through and you know it.

Hive 2.0 already made it tedious to search for resources and now you wanna make it even more complicated?

Ha! No. It should be separable but still easy to show all as one.

 

[Kyrbi0]

First off, on a meta note I am very glad to be seeing this kind of topic/poll; this is what Site Discussion is all about. I think there's several issues that could really be hashed out here.

To the topic at hand: I am definitely a modder, not an artist, and so my opinion comes largely from that viewpoint. I really resonate with the "results matter most" concept: as Ralle said when I'm looking for the right asset for my map, it doesn't matter so much to me whether it's entirely 100% freehand or whether it's a recolor of a Blizzard icon. This is similar to how I feel about custom models; a 'simple' geomerge/rewrap can excite me just as much as a fully custom one.

(In fact, I might go so far as to say that I prefer the former in both cases... As a modder nearly everything I do is made to "fit in" to Warcraft, and the Warcraft style can be hard to do. Geomerge/rewraps are very easy to make fit, while fully custom models often have either too much or too little detail. To be honest, with icons, I've learned to basically ignore the custom resources on the Hive; too few of the assets there really feel like they fit. An influx of re-bordered Blizzard icons, recolors, and stuff like [URL='https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/murder.301718/this[/URL]... Well, honestly it would give me a reason to check the Icon section.
(I want to be clear, this isn't a slight on all the talented icon artists on the Hive; there's some incredible talent around here! But I think we can all agree that Blizzard games have a certain 'style', and that style is, in my opinion, hard to mimic for some people)

Thus, I have voted "I agree".

~~~

Now that being said, I can understand those who feel the introduction of less-than-100%-freehand stuff to the Icon section would devalue the truly-freehand stuff (both the old & the new). I don't share @Murlocologist 's concern that a deluge of lame copy/pastas will flood the section & scare away all the "real" artists... But I understand some of the concern.

So here's my suggestion: we allow basically "anything goes" for the Icon section, as long as we do something to make clear the distinction between the general quality of the work (something beyond the current Ratings system).
(Most all the following thoughts would involve some signifier that shows up on the main Resource section screen & could be Searched for (i.e. a User could select to "only Search for icons with X").)
Some ideas:

• Introduce a new classification for submitted (icon*) resources that are (sufficiently**) Freehand. A 'badge' or 'emblem' of sorts, independent of the rating, affixed to the proper resources.
• Since "sufficiently freehand**" is tricksy business to determine, maybe instead of trying to use a Boolean we have a system of gradation. Resources truly exist on a spectrum of 'from-scratch-edness'; reflect that with a big glowing "X%" that is determined by the Mod/Reviewer upon acceptance of the Icon. Searchable by %, of course.
• Since it's really just to hard to determine how freehand something was with any level of objectivity, simply utilize the existing system: the Substandard section. Put them there, and we can all rest easy knowing they are already natively supported by the Hive, as well as being separated from "the good stuff".
  Note: With this suggestion, I will add that I think a rebranding is in order; I've said it before & I'll say it again: "substandard" may be denotatively accurate but it is connotatively depressing. Might as well call it the "Junk section". At the very least, I'd suggest "Simple/Substandard", so as emphasize things better. Perhaps also/instead "Low-Grade", "Second-Class", or the like.
  OR! Here's an idea! In order to avoid the negative connotation, we call the current "Substandard Icon" section, simply the "Icon" section... And then rename the current "Icon" section to something great like "Icons of Merit", "Superior Icon", "First-Rate Icon", "Handmade Icon", "First-Class Icon", "High-Grade Icon", "High-Caliber Icon", or the like.

Notes

*: While I suggest this for the Icons section, I kinda wonder if it couldn't be extended out to all the custom resource sections; especially models. Why not separate the geomerges from the fully scratch-made/animated/textured stuff in this same way (because a similar argument exists in that realm)
**: I recognize that this might be a tricky line-in-the-sand to draw. Do we bestow the Badge for only 100% hand-made stuff? Do we do it for (per the current Criteria) 75%? And how is that determined; as it always has (arbitrarily by some random Mod/Reviewer, since there's really not a lot of clear objective guideposts in this kind of endeavour)?

Now granted, I don't know the technical cost of pursuing any of these; I invite Ralle to speak on the challenges these might present. But I have the feeling it can be a relatively straightforward matter (the implementation).

 

[Ralle]

I extended the poll to run forever.

I am not sure about percentages, level of freehand, etc. I think it's better to have a few requirements. If we allow 'anything goes' we can be much more strict with the requirements for the scratch made icons. While modders might not want another place to search, I think it makes sense to sort of add a badge and allow to filter for only "Hive Creations". This might also be a good place to emphasize that these are the creations that Hive as a whole is proud of. The hand-drawn home-made creations shared on Hive by their creators. Those are the ones we want to push for when showing off while the others are ones the modders can still get when they need them.

It's not only about the method. The icons @MindWorX referenced wouldn't be CnP, they would be imports. Hand-drawn probably, but not made by a Hive member. So we want to emphasize the resources hand-drawn by the submitter on Hive. That makes the most sense. We want to emphasize them enough for it to make sense for our artist side of the site. But we need to know what makes sense for them.

 

[Freddyk]

As a modder who makes both kinds of ressources:

• Hand-made resources that I share on Hive database
• Import / CnP resources that I make for my own projects and don't share individually

I would agree with the "2 categories" solution. As an artist I would hate seeing my hard work merged with CnP resources, so it's important to keep them separate, and in my opinion the CnP category should be disabled by default to draw more attention towards artist work (if users don't find what they are looking for in artist work, then they can extend their research to full database)

This is valid for all categories (icons, models, skins...)

 

[Kyrbi0]

When we're talking about "separate categories", let's be clear; do you mean an entirely separate repository (ala the "Hive Simple Model Edit" thread mentioned earlier), or subsections like we currently have it (see image of modeling section, for example)?

~~~

Because the thing is, I think as we've already discussed, the former is an untenable solution; spreading out the resources makes it harder to find & less accessible to the general modding public. The latter could work, as long as it's all Searchable at once (like you can with "regular" & "substandard" (ugh))... But even still I'm not sure Ralle wants to add another category to that line-up.
I honestly think it could go right into the regular approved section, as long as there's a signifier of some kind; a badge, a rank, a little icon, something. (either on the 100% freehand icons to 'emphasize' them, or on all the copy-pasta to 'warn you away')

 

[Freddyk]

From my point of view this category should be at the same level as approved/pending/substandard. But personally I don't like how these categories are handled, I would like to have checkboxes for them to filter my research as i want (and default would not be all checked, but substandard and CnP unchecked)

 

[Ralle]

People already hate how to find resources, so maybe that ultimately is a different problem to solve?

 

[GhostThruster]

(Former) artist AND modder here, as well as one-time icon reviewer.

I vote yes, with concessions.

Firstly, Murcologist's point is moot. The icon section is a resource section. By definition, the purpose of uploading things there is for modders to use. The Hive is not deviantart. It's not your personal art gallery. One can argue that the section should be for showcasing artworks, but that's another argument. That feeling of pride and motivation that you get from uploading a cool freehand work of art should be secondary to the sense of accomplishment you get from knowing someone out there finds your icon useful.

Secondly, precedent for it already exists. Geomerges are the model equivalent of icons using CnP, yet there's no negative stigma against them. Several skins, particularly UI textures, are approved with CnP/recolouring. So I ask: why the double standard against icons?

IMPORTANTLY, however - and I do believe @Ralle implied this - minimal standards should still exist. Just like with geomerges, or CnP textures, the quality needs to be sufficient. And no, this is not for the purpose of making artists feel secure and prideful - it's, again, for the purpose of useability for modders.
I also don't believe icons should be uploaded in which anyone can create them with GIMP and the Button Manager - basic recolours, straight CnP of an existing artwork, uploading WoW icons. These unnecessarily clutter the section, and their usefulness is outweighed by the ease in which any odd user can create them.

Lastly, I've created several freehand icons, a couple of scratch-made models, and one scratch-made skin. I feel like I have some relevance in saying that if you're uploading 64x64 pictures for the purpose of artistic glory, you're on the wrong forum and in it for the wrong reasons.

 

[Murlocologist]

Don't assume my view on practical purpose of the sections. Motivation behind posting is irrelevant and your whole argument is based on icon and texture section not being gallery. Irrelevant to discussion.

What matters for this subject is fair play. Icon section is a resource section and resource section is a part of the community. My job is to ensure all participants in this part of community are rightfully and equally treated. That means that effort, skill, time, interaction/feedback are qualities that are not to be bargained to fit anything goes.

 

[GhostThruster]

Don't assume my view on practical purpose of the sections. Motivation behind posting is irrelevant and your whole argument is based on icon and texture section not being gallery. Irrelevant to discussion.

What matters for this subject is fair play. Icon section is a resource section and resource section is a part of the community. My job is to ensure all participants in this part of community are rightfully and equally treated. That means that effort, skill, time, interaction/feedback are qualities that are not to be bargained to fit anything goes.

Okay. You've addressed one point - that I accidentally strawmanned your view of the section. That's fair.
But not exactly my "whole argument".

What about the comparison to geomerges? And the fact that you can still enforce certain standards, while allowing for tracing/CnP to occur?

 

[Murlocologist]

What about the comparison to geomerges?

Models don't equal to images. Therefore, both model and icon section have rules shaped to fit the nature of their segment. I won't even enter this sort of debate because to my understanding it is a field of common sense.

And the fact that you can still enforce certain standards, while allowing for tracing/CnP to occur?

What standards? What fact?
Quality control? No one will crop/CnP low quality image in the first place.

Review/feedback equality? CnP ''authors'' will almost never be dealing with constructive review, either because they CnPed quality image or because they simply would have no clue how to manipulate image within software to apply requested changes. Those who make legit works would however be in inferior position as their works still would be subject to reviews, therefore awaiting update status and so on.

Source? Most of the time those who make CnP resources will not care about license, they will just use random google image.

Result is a fair play challenged environment, which for me is not an acceptable situation.

 

[GhostThruster]

Models don't equal to images. Therefore, both model and icon section have rules shaped to fit the nature of their segment. I won't even enter this sort of debate because to my understanding it is a field of common sense.

What standards? What fact?
Quality control? No one will crop/CnP low quality image in the first place.

Review/feedback equality? CnP ''authors'' will almost never be dealing with constructive review, either because they CnPed quality image or because they simply would have no clue how to manipulate image within software to apply requested changes. Those who make legit works would however be in inferior position as their works still would be subject to reviews, therefore awaiting update status and so on.

Source? Most of the time those who make CnP resources will not care about license, they will just use random google image.

Result is a fair play challenged environment, which for me is not an acceptable situation.

If you're not willing to enter that debate, you've lost it.

If you're so certain no one will crop/CnP poor quality images, take a good look through the Substandard icons category. I put some of them there by myself.

You're also doing what I did btw, building a strawman. If you read the entirety of my post, I did specify I don't think cropping an existing image and chucking icon borders on should be allowed.

If an author can't do the requested changes to bring the icon up to par, the icon should be rejected - just like with any other icon. I don't know what this vague buzzword of "fair play" entails, but it's not like all of a sudden standards go out the window and all the icon section will be flooded with Warhammer 40k concept art plus purple Grunt icons. At least, not if you do your job properly. Btw, screenshot icons have been a thing for ages - has that ruined "fair play" in the icon section?

 

[Kyrbi0]

Models aren't the same as images, sure. But can you draw a clear line between the comparison of "scratch modeling/geomerging", vs. "hand-painted icons/CnP+Filters"? What is truly different about those two dichotomies?

//EDIT// - Better way of saying that: "I fail to see how 'CnP+Filters' icons (as compared to 'hand-painted' icons) are any different from 'geomerged' models (as compared to 'scratch modeled/animated). Is one more or less 'art' than the other? Same goes for textures, actually."

 

[MindWorX]

Source? Most of the time those who make CnP resources will not care about license, they will just use random google image.

This is the real straw man, since if people can't provide a source for the license, it'll just be an automatic rejection. The point of allowing remixed art is because there exists tons of resources that allow remixing, and it'd be nice to have some of those ready for WC3 as well.

 

[Murlocologist]

You're also doing what I did btw, building a strawman. If you read the entirety of my post, I did specify I don't think cropping an existing image and chucking icon borders on should be allowed.

Then you are commenting in the wrong thread because here the subject matter is exactly that: allowing anything goes, allowing unedited, cropped, straight CnP images.

"I fail to see how 'CnP+Filters' icons (as compared to 'hand-painted' icons) are any different from 'geomerged' models (as compared to 'scratch modeled/animated). Is one more or less 'art' than the other? Same goes for textures, actually."

Models and images are obviously enough entirely different mediums, only connection is that both are made by manual work.

If one would try and compare image and model, geomerges would be collage. You take them and mix/adapt to fit the composition. You don't take single piece of geomerge and call it a model. Therefore there is certain amount of ''freehand'' work involved, otherwise model would be reviewed as too simple and be sent to substandard.