Reject resources if authors don't want to correct them?

[Chaosy]

I dare say the map section got a bit to work on.

They are being looked at by reviwers/mod but most of them are set to awaiting update and then nothing seem to happen.

 

[Shar Dundred]

They are being looked at by reviwers/mod but most of them are set to awaiting update and then nothing seem to happen.

I assume you want to suggest that those maps get rejected after a certain amount of time?

 

[Chaosy]

Pretty much.
Or if the reviewer deems that it's a lot of work required to get it up to an acceptable level then it might be rejected instead.
I can give an example or two of such maps in the current submisison pool, but I don't want to point fingers if possible.

 

[Shar Dundred]

I think in most cases a rejection might be the better choice in order to keep the Hive's standards.
However, I'd say something between 30 and 90 days (perhaps 60 days? should be a fine time for
maps to stay in the Awaiting Update section.

For your examples, I'd suggest making a post in the Staff Contact or writing a PM.
It's better than pointing fingers in public. ;-)

 

[Chaosy]

Tbh awaiting update should be used for somewhat minor updates that take a week max.

 

[Shar Dundred]

Perhaps, but I don't think we should make such a short deadline as in a single week.
Real life and all can prevent you from instantly dealing with such issues - well maybe not you personally, but you get my point here.

 

[Chaosy]

Maybe. But still 90 days is too extreme.

 

[Shar Dundred]

That's why I suggested 60.

 

[Chaosy]

I could develop a map by modding during my lunch break within 60 days :-/

 

[Shar Dundred]

So?

 

[Chaosy]

So why would someone need 60 days to make slight updates?
They could use their lunch break and do it within days.

Those who need 60 days are either retarded or don't want to commit. Because you'll find time if you really try to.

 

[MasterBlaster]

As someone who is nearly ready to add my first map ever to the workshop, I think it should be decided on a case-to-case basis depending on how much work the map reviewer thinks applying the suggested changes would take. However, I believe a minimum wait should be 31 days (a full month).

Also, if a map is rejected and the user later goes back to the project, updates it significantly, can't he just submit it again?

 

[IcemanBo]

Is there even sense in discussing it atm, when we not even have the status "rejected" anymore?

 

[Warseeker]

People are not robots!.

 

[Chaosy]

People are not robots!.

No shit.

 

[Heinvers]

People are not robots!.

You don't say.

 

[edo494]

People are not robots!.

If you are given 60 days to update something, then theres no reason to not deliver, or at least say "I will not be available for next few weeks, so I will be unable to update this", otherwise yes, rejection imo is the proper course of action

 

[Warseeker]

It's not fair to reject someone's map for an injustified reason.

 

[Shar Dundred]

You think it's fair that an author's resource sticks in the pending section for all eternity instead?
I disagree.


Still saying 60 days are very fair for map makers.
Also, nothing stops you from updating a rejected resource to make it become pending again.

 

[Chaosy]

Is there even sense in discussing it atm, when we not even have the status "rejected" anymore?

I did not realize that by the time this was posted.
That's just.. bad..

 

[Shar Dundred]

Is there even sense in discussing it atm, when we not even have the status "rejected" anymore?

The fact that rejected resources are now available to public, is no reason for the pending and rejected sections no longer requiring to be sorted.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

what is there instead of rejected?

 

[MasterBlaster]

what is there instead of rejected?

The "Substandard/Too Simple" thing I guess

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Gay

but I agree with chaosy's idea

 

[blancfaye7]

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I remembered reading the rules in submitting the map; that's why it had a lot of versions before I submitted it to the Maps Section; probably because I don't want to waste people's time reviewing my broken implementation as of early stages of development, and thus that's why Map Dev forum exists.

Reading the rules also seemed like a command, which is good.
I suppose some people just don't know how to read and doesn't take it seriously. They just click "yes, I have read the rules" like some license installation thing... lol.

 

[IcemanBo]

Shar Dundred, sure, but at first there have to be these categories again, which I would definitly prefer as well.

 

[Shar Dundred]

@IcemanBo I agree, but that sadly doesn't belong here, I think.

 

[IcemanBo]

How you want sort out rejected submissions from awaiting update submissions without making an other category? Or I misunderstand here something?

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

how about adding a count down timer that resets whenever someone updates. meaning until your map is approved, it will always be on the chopping block of rejection.

my makes been on since January and yet it has neither been rejected or approved. personally I believe it's headed for rejection and fear that possibility, yet I also feel neglected....

 

[Eagle XI]

The opening of 'substandard' section is an step in the right direction, please dont backpedal from this.

 

[Chaosy]

how about adding a count down timer that resets whenever someone updates. meaning until your map is approved, it will always be on the chopping block of rejection.

Seems like a good idea in theory.
However it's impossible.

Because I can just re-upload the map and the system will think I've updated it.

The opening of 'substandard' section is an step in the right direction, please dont backpedal from this.

No.
Really poor submissions should be rejected and deleted.