New "Helper" User Group?

[-Kobas-]

Helper

User < Helper < Moderator...

What you guys think about this new user group created for all good and checked:
Map/Models/Skins/Icons... Reviewers/Checkers...

Maybe bad idea for icon section, but if you checked map sections, there are users with few mini moderator powers!
I explained this today to 1 users so I gained this idea!

Those users above already can mark post as map review, their vote count as 2 maybe 3, and so on!

Something like sub-moderators, guys that check maps and inform uploaders about rules, vote, report map and inform map moderators about resources!

Why I suggested this, there was above 900 pending maps 2 months ago, we cleaned all!

Numbers today:
Pending maps: 83
Average: +2.41 maps per day

Even with 2 moderators numbers constantly increase! Should we wait again until that number reach 1 thousand?

Please any suggestions?

*Sorry for 2 much used word map and map section as example, but here we can easily see how it works!

 

[Miss_Foxy]

Hmm... How about 'Assistant' or 'Contributer'? And maybe add some benefits for them too, like the ability to erm, add '2 Reputation' points to a person instead of just 1.

 

[-Kobas-]

Honestly I don't care about name
Cool idea, maybe even ability to give -1 rep once per day ^^

 

[Ironside]

Yes I highly support this idea, there have been just to many people lately that flamed me that I don't have the rights to write such reviews and contact moderators and such stuff....

Also, I really don't care about being able to give more +rep or anything, I just think that it would make users see that we have the right to post those reviews (which some doubt so much), etc...

 

[Deolrin]

No. Just no.

You ruined the map section. Many members can agree with me that the map section is far worse than before now, considering all you do is say 'rejected' or 'approved' without giving it a god-damn review. You reject maps based on the description or the filesize("not enough custom models. rejected."). The true way to improve the map section is to have some professional map reviewers who actually KNOW what they're doing(not like: "the map is awesome, but the description is bad. 1\5 vote for rejection +Rep"). Then task them with giving full reviews to any map they come across, and aid the moderators. The moderators should be skilled reviewers as well. A good map section is a section in which every map has a full review and rating so that people could know what they are playing.

 

[Ironside]

1. Why should we even review the maps without description, if they can't be approved without it anyway?
2. We Review the maps which don't break any rules.

 

[Deolrin]

1. Because the description is only optional. A good map reviewer will only mention it slightly in his review. Like put a little "Oh, by the way; your description can be improved." in the end.

2) You're supposed to review ALL maps. The ones which break the rules especially; otherwise, the submitter will never know how to improve his map in order to submit it in the Hive and have it approved.

Barathum, YOU do not review maps. You just write "Approved" or "Rejected". Your oh-so-official multi-color posts are not only annoying but also useless, considering you probably didn't even download the map; and if you did, you did not test it properly. And yes, that means that maps that require 12 players HAVE to be played with 12 players.

 

[Ironside]

1. Because the description is only optional. A good map reviewer will only mention it slightly in his review. Like put a little "Oh, by the way; your description can be improved." in the end.

2) You're supposed to review ALL maps. The ones which break the rules especially; otherwise, the submitter will never know how to improve his map in order to submit it in the Hive and have it approved.

Barathum, YOU do not review maps. You just write "Approved" or "Rejected". Your oh-so-official multi-color posts are not only annoying but also useless, considering you probably didn't even download the map; and if you did, you did not test it properly. And yes, that means that maps that require 12 players HAVE to be played with 12 players.

1. The rules clearly state that a description is required and maps do get rejected just because of it.

2. as said before, he'll get his review once all rules are met

I only wrote Approved/Rejected when the Map Clean Event was, currently due to lack of time, I just review the ones which break the rules mostly.

 

[Deolrin]

1. A description is required indeed. That doesn't means the description must be incredibly detailed and fancy with BB Codes and whatnot.

2. And how exactly, I would like to ask, he would know he broke some rules?

 

[Ironside]

Well, if he would have read the rules before uploading (which most of them don't) then it clearly says what needs to be done. (Description, author, type, category, etc..)

 

[-Kobas-]

Here we start again

 

[Boris_Spider]

The additional rep abilities are foolish at best. If the helpers want a special user icon, that's fine. Keep in mind that the helpers are little more than good samaritans. They aren't special users. Rather then create mini mods for the map section, create more mods.

Debode does have the point that maps need extensive testing. Whenever I get bored and randomly check out pending maps, I generally see comments refering to the description only. Occasionally someone actually starts the game to check out tooltips, build issues, etc. The best reviews I've read were from users who actually played the game, after looking at it.

Perhaps if more people played the maps, they'd get a general idea of what the game is about. Then they could advise the poster on points to highlight the game. It could be they simply don't know how to describe it. These 'helpers' rarely do more then dictate that maps must have colorful/pretty map descriptions. I haven't seen any helpers do more then that, but I assume the ones that do typically become mods.

@Barathrum: If you are aware that most people don't read the rules, then the failure rests on THW and not the uploader. (There are uploaders who repeatedly ignore rules, but you deal with those on an individual basis)

THW needs more map mods. The helpers can help if they so desire, but don't reward them for half-assing reviews. If they do a good job, then help them reach mod status. If not, appreciate their enthusiam.

//\\oo//\\

 

[PurplePoot]

TL;DR minimods.

Let's not.

 

[Crabby_Spider]

First problem: The rules required more effort to find than they should have.

Solution: When a member submits a map have a simple checklist pop up with the requirements for submission, and a link next to the rule to click on for clarification. I'll explain more during the second problem.

Second problem: Rules are arbitrary and/or vague, it's no wonder you got backlogged in the first place, and you're creating unneccesary work/problems for mods.

Original Work
Maps must be significantly worked on, or entirely created, by their submitter.


This is what I mean by vague. My suggestion:

Original Work
Map must be submitted by the author. Any use of resources by others must be identified and credited in the 'Quest' menu under the title "Credits". (This is followed by a link with a how-to on creating a credit section under the 'Quest' button)

This is clear, specific, and allows the mod to check a specific place in the map for compliance. It doesn't allow any opinion for "originality". When a member uploads the map a mod simply checks the author is the submitter, and in game go to Quest and verify credits are present and identify custom units, icons, spells, etc. are used. Then, during gameplay, note any discrepancies. If there are none, it is approved in regards to this rule.


Gameplay
Maps must be fairly fun and decently balanced.

This is absurd. How is a mod going to decide what's fun? And for that matter, why should they? That should be up to the downloader to decide. The term decently balanced can be a subjective one as well. There are very few games out there that can actually claim they are balanced, which is why they post updates. Again, you create unneccesary work for a mod, and seriously create problems between them and members with this. My suggestion:

Gameplay
Map must function well in Warcraft, no lagging. The script must be free of leaks. (This is followed by a link describing causes of lag/leaks and how to fix them)

Again, this is clear and easily verifiable. It doesn't involve someones opinion, and reasons for rejection can be accurately described to the submitter. If no problems are found, the map is approved in regards to this rule.

Presentation
Maps must have adequate spelling and grammar. Maps must contain a valid author and map name. Maps must contain a proper description of what the map is about.

Here lies the area of greatest contention regarding approval. The first point stands (grammar) and the second one (author) is addressed in the revision I suggested. Any time you involve opinion by the mod you are going to create problems between them and the submitter. Outline specific requirements for a description and keep personal preferences out of the approval process. My suggestion:

Presentation
A) A description of Gameplay must be provided and include the following:
1) Map Style
2) AI present? (Can I compete against the computer?)
3) Object of Game
4) A description of how to begin game (What are the first things you need to do to get started. Can include a brief background story)
B) Proper spelling/grammar

This is a concise list of requirements. A potential downloader would have a general idea if the map is one they might be interested in, and there is enough information for them (and the mod) to get started once the download is complete. If these are present, and the information allows the mod to get started when game opens, then it is approved in regards to this rule.

Allow the members to decide if a map is worthy of play. The only thing a mod should be doing is making sure the downloader is getting a playable map, not passing judgement on it. If people like it, they'll get others to play it. If they don't, they won't. On the other hand, if the mod feels the map deserves attention, then allow them to give it a higher rating/ranking to draw attention to it.

The pop-up I suggested would come up at the time a submitter presses upload. They have to check a box next to each rule before continuing, and have a link to follow if they don't understand the rule. No opinions are involved with this approval process, so it is faster and avoids contention.

 

[jk2pach]

Gentlemen,

If I am allowed to give my opinion as an uploader of resources (some rejected, some needing fixes, some approved) I think the current rules are fine. Here is the suggestions I would like to add:

1-Instead of writing a book with 500 lines of rules, make them easy to understand, especially since THW is an international website. The more simple rules are, the more it is easy to respect them and the less uploaders will feel frustrated if their resources are rejected.

2-Remove the "originality" rule. It's really stupid on Warcraft 3. Maybe it's a strategy of the website, but asking people to be original in a 10-years old game is unfair. After all, if a map is good, even if its the 25083rd version of Dota, why reject it? More, remember original maps are NOT played a lot. Then, if a player makes a hero siege, and the map is playable, that's enough, no?

3-Fake moderators: of course you are allowed to give your opinion. I remember for RC601 when Cweener, before being a moderator, made its review. You know what? For once, it was a REAL review: when I pmed him, he answered me. Example: "Bad terrain". Okay, cool. You spent 1 month on a terrain, a man says it's bad. Cool. This will really help. A guy like Cweener, after my question, answered something like "use less symmetry, more doodads, more diversity in objects on the map". This is a good advice.
But to all fake-moderators, when you vote for rejection, explain why.
And "Bad description, bad gameplay, vote for rejection" is noobish. People doing this are just stupid guys. They are not better than noobs.
So, what I propose in this 3rd point is: moderators please moderate fake moderators which just flame when lazy and do NOT contribute to the improvement of a map.

4-Because they are a lot of users which just read the description instead of testing the maps, stop to concentrate only on the description. Warcraft 3 maps are made to be played, not read -_-.

Have a good day,

Edit
Okay, now, I'm really bored to read the comments on the map section. Dudes, seriously: stop to FLAME a map creator and vote for the rejection of the map if the guy did not make a description with 250+ bbcodes items. This is stupid.
A description should just...say in a few words what the map is about. If you want to test the map, PLAY IT. Other things are bonus. Not more.

Example: a dude uploads a tower defense. Voting for rejection when the guy put in description an update log + 3-4 lines is incredibly stupid. If you think the description is not showing you how the map is, that's NORMAL. To test the map, PLAY IT. On the other side, it's not because this guy did not write the complete description of the towers available in the map that the map is good.

Just play to review, stop read. That's annoying to see how a lot of people just look at the design of a description instead of looking the map itself.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Funny thing is that maps without description have more comments (by these mini-moderators) than properly described maps, which are most of the time commentless, while on maps without proper description at least 10 minimods are hanged immediately with OMFG LOLZ REJECTED N00B TROLOLO!!!!111 Every n00b user can see the map has poor description immediately, but knowing about is the map about takes more effort and often I prefer some short review instead of tl;dr description.

 

[Lich Prince]

I completely agree with Debode. The rules don't state that a huge-ass highly detailed description should be made. I also agree that the "great purge" wasn't as successful as we hoped it would be.

So no, this idea is ridiculous.

 

[Ironside]

No, the rules don't say it must be highly detailed, but there are many maps which have a description up to 5 sentences, which breaks the rules.

 

[Lich Prince]

My friend, if those 5 sentences describe what the map is about and clearly tell what you will encounter in it then it deserves a review instead of "Bad description, violation of the rules" as a first comment.

BB codes are optional.

 

[Ironside]

The fact is, 5 sentences never describe a map (a credit list alone could be bigger than 5 lines), also you'll find no one of the Map Reviewers group that will let you get away without a proper description.

 

[Lich Prince]

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Let's play it your way: Example A - Example B.
These are 2 maps made by Ralle himself. One is described with the use of 1 sentence and small list while the other with just a simple list.

These do not break any rules. Also, credits may be mentioned only ingame.

 

[Ironside]

Maps from 2006 didn't require any description, this rule appeared much later.

 

[Lich Prince]

The maps' descriptions do not break any current rules. Same applies to any similar description.

I'm done here.

 

[Ironside]

They do break the rules currently (I think), but maps already approved from back then won't get re-reviewed anyway.

 

[-Kobas-]

Even approved maps can be rejected if they can't b played on latest game patch!
There are few other things that can reject approved map but this one is main problem!

 

[Ironside]

Well in that case, but more than not they don't get checked again.

 

[Deolrin]

For fuck's sake guys. The description should be completely up to the map's creator. You shouldn't force people to make huge shiny descriptions. Descriptions are completely irrelevant to the map's quality anyways.

 

[Ironside]

I disagree with this, I like the rule about the description. It gives a 1st impression if the creator even cares about the hive rules. And it also gives a 1st detailed overview of the map, so that a visitor can know if he likes the map without having to play it

 

[Darkzealot_128]

Guys, there are only lots of pending maps because not enough of us use the vote for rejection or approval buttons.

 

[Ironside]

Guys, there are only lots of pending maps because not enough of us use the vote for rejection or approval buttons.

Besides that, 20 votes for approved/rejected is way to high, even with my vote weight of 10... A map usually desn't even get over 5 reviews, so vey few maps got approved/rejected with votes.

 

[Zombie]

Let's just sticky the post -Kobas- keeps spamming into every introduction thread and resolved.

No need to have a title for the sake of having a title, you can help people without having one too.

 

[-Kobas-]

Let's just sticky the post -Kobas- keeps spamming into every introduction thread and resolved.

Ha ha I asked as you told me a while ago and they didn't want to do that

 

[Ironside]

Yeah, but something should be done regarding this...

 

[PurplePoot]

TL;DR minimods.

Let's not.

Why are you guys still discussing this? It was tried before and it was bad.

--

About the map description rules argument, up until recently the map rules disallowed descriptions such as the ones on the linked maps (if I recall correctly) but it seems the rules have been dumbed down a lot since then (basically they just took 3 of the points from the old rules and deleted everything else) and they now allow basically anything that in some way, shape, or form describes the map.

 

[Coolty44]

Although I like the idea of minimods, PurplePoot is right. Its a failed system that needs to have HUGE restrictions on both minimods and mods, because if the mini's start giving out smaller reviews and don't pay much attention to details that mod should, they aren't really reviewing it. Case example would be most of the reviews that are posted.

This system also allows mods to slack off, relying on the mini's reviews as a way to moderator an entire map and make decisions off of them, rather then open the map and look into it themselves, which already has/is happening in other sections, and isn't always fair to the uploader. Plus, when this system fails(again, and it will fail) the mods wont remember how to do a good job, and will read a review and go off of that.

 

[Zombie]

Why are you guys still discussing this? It was tried before and it was bad.

As long as the ability to gain +1 post to your counter stands, internet debates will never cease.

Yeah, but something should be done regarding this...

Yes.

 

[Ironside]

1. Well before I proceed, I think the maximum the mini mods could/should get is an icon (we already have the increased Voting weight and Mark Review function), anything else could turn out bad. I'm against any -rep ability for mini mods and as said before, the icon should be all if anything at all, because 2 mini mods are able to Reject/Approve the map (at least if I understood the weight increase to "half of what is needed to approve/reject a map" correctly.)

2. Now then any ideas what should be done?

 

[PurplePoot]

Why would you even give an icon? It's just begging for people who think that being a mod is all about a cool title and icon and not about moderating.

 

[Ironside]

My only reason for an icon is just because I get to many of complains that I write comments that "only moderators should", and just to many users think that only moderators can review maps here.

If it's not worth for such a simple reason, then I'll agree with no icon.

 

[PurplePoot]

I think the bigger problem in that case is that people aren't interested in constructive criticism, only a big "approved" stamp.

 

[Zombie]

My only reason for an icon is just because I get to many of complains that I write comments that "only moderators should", and just to many users think that only moderators can review maps here.

Maybe you should disclose your review only to the moderator then?

 

[Ironside]

I think the bigger problem in that case is that people aren't interested in constructive criticism, only a big "approved" stamp.

This is true

 

[Traxamillion]

TL;DR minimods.

Let's not.

This.

It's the same shit as mini-mods. No.

 

[Deolrin]

I think the bigger problem in that case is that people aren't interested in constructive criticism, only a big "approved" stamp.

I am one of the people who complained about Barathum's so-called 'Reviews'. They really ARE just a big 'APPROVED' stamp. Just look at them yourself.

 

[General Frank]

I just think that Tobas is just trying to help. Which is good.
But on the other hand I also think that dear Kobas just wants a staff position.
No offence intended, it just struck my mind.

 

[Zombie]

But on the other hand I also think that dear Kobas just wants a staff position.

Yup.

He doesn't realize it's not about the icon simply either.

 

[Ironside]

I am one of the people who complained about Barathum's so-called 'Reviews'. They really ARE just a big 'APPROVED' stamp. Just look at them yourself.

Were at the Map Cleaning event, as you'll see now, I provide the reasons.

 

[Fussiler1]

Nah.

Besides, I've gotten the impression that this was mainly proposed to get higher in the hierarchy.. but then again, I can be wrong.

 

[Lich Prince]

Nah.

Besides, I've gotten the impression that this was mainly proposed to get higher in the hierarchy.. but then again, I can be wrong.

It actually is a main reason.

My only reason for an icon is just because I get to many of complains that I write comments that "only moderators should", and just to many users think that only moderators can review maps here.

 

[Kwah]

0)Map section????

1)

TL;DR minimods.

Let's not.

2) The icon is totally worth it.

3) Closed. Been there, done that. It doesn't work.

Further proposals can be brought up in AC if necessary, but it's really not necessary.