Submission Grace-periods

[legospencer]

So recently I submitted two icons that I soon found-out were not allowed on the Hive for not meeting the correct percentile of required freehand content performed on both Blizzard icons

All icons must be at least 50% freehand created. Non-freehand techniques include mirroring, cloning (or brute cloning, as in clear copy-paste), recoloring, resizing, rotating and tracing.

This makes perfect sense, and I am in no way questioning these rules.

However, after a little thought, I started to wonder if the almost instantaneous removal of my icons was appropriate.

IF THE RESULT PROVES TO BE EXCEPTIONAL, THE ICON MAY BE APPROVED EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT RESPECT ALL THE RULES ABOVE (In order to promote not only good artistic icons, but also useful ones.)

Alright, so this rule also makes sense: of course exceptions should be made on occasion, providing they are worthy of such an allowance. But I do question this concept partially: should it solely be up to a moderator's discretion whether or not an icon meets the perimeters necessary to be inducted into the Hive's archive as an exception?

That is why I believe making a submission grace-period would be very beneficial and more fair. Basically, all submitted icons that are submitted to the Hive that do not meet the Hive's standard would be marked as so, but the resource would stay displayed and available for download for a short amount of time*... perhaps 10 days at the most, give or take. During this period, users would download the resource and vote for approval or rejection. With this measure, a much more democratic participation would be encouraged in the approval of "too-simple" icons and would save resources that may be very useful to a great deal of users.

It may occur to you that I have just described what the Hive has already incorporated: the approve/reject button for new resources. I realize that this feature pretty much exists already, but I'm specifically addressing the moderation of icons that fail to meet the "too-simple" standards.

My thesis: Icons that have a chance of being considered exceptionally artistic and/or useful should be left for users to help approve or reject; the eye of an icon moderator can't always foresee what the Hive community would find extremely useful and what they would abhor.




_{*Moderation should not be completely removed: resources that lack gratuitous effort and half-attempts would still be weeded-out for obvious purposes. Moderator control is a good thing.}

 

[PurplePoot]

I would hope so. In dev resources which aren't truly atrocious are (or were, I haven't followed moderation in the last few months) given one or two weeks.

However, I don't think it should work the way you describe it. Rather, it should be a chance for them to update it (in which period it would still be downloadable of course).

 

[legospencer]

Well, my icons were outright rejected within a minute of each submission, which I started to think wasn't all that fair.

Furthermore, my submissions were hardly atrocious: they were edited Blizzard icons, and not badly edited either. Simple--yes, but perhaps extremely useful to the Hive, although that had yet to be seen.

 

[PurplePoot]

Indeed. The artists seem to mistakenly think that anything which is not freehanded is an abomination. We've tried to educate them otherwise, but apparently to no avail. While I'd like to see the rules changed, in reality they probably won't be.

 

[legospencer]

However, I don't think it should work the way you describe it. Rather, it should be a chance for them to update it (in which period it would still be downloadable of course).

What you propose is also reasonable, but in the way I described, there's nothing suggesting that updating a submitted icon to increase favorability would be hindered. I just stress the point that the users should be able to democratically deem exceptions, not solely moderators. That's all.

Indeed. The artists seem to mistakenly think that anything which is not freehanded is an abomination.

What do you mean by "artists"? It was a moderator who rejected my icon, not users.

While I'd like to see the rules changed, in reality they probably won't be.

That's a shame. I suppose the deciding factor is popularity of the idea, huh?

 

[PurplePoot]

What you propose is also reasonable, but in the way I described, there's nothing suggesting that updating a submitted icon to increase favorability would be hindered. I just stress the point that the users should be able to democratically deem exceptions, not solely moderators. That's all.

Or more accurately good CnP and recolours shouldn't be rejected at all. Your suggestion just seems like a hack to fix a larger problem.

What do you mean by "artists"? It was a moderator who rejected my icon, not users.

I refer to moderators, but in my experience most artists feel the same way (hence why those rules are in place in the first place).

 

[legospencer]

Or more accurately good CnP and recolours shouldn't be rejected at all. Your suggestion just seems like a hack to fix a larger problem.

Not necessarily. Rejection could still occur, just depending on enough negative feedback and votes cast as rejection. Perhaps the larger problem hasn't been clearly enough enunciated for me to understand: what is the larger problem? A loss of user representation?

I refer to moderators, but in my experience most artists feel the same way (hence why those rules are in place in the first place).

You make a valid point why the rule is instated, but such a freedom--and all freedoms in general--should be granted and protected. Without this hypothetical rule, many icons with bright, bright futures may be lost.

 

[PurplePoot]

Not necessarily. Rejection could still occur, just depending on enough negative feedback and votes cast as rejection. Perhaps the larger problem hasn't been clearly enough enunciated for me to understand: what is the larger problem? A loss of user representation?

You make a valid point why the rule is instated, but such a freedom--and all freedoms in general--should be granted and protected. Without this hypothetical rule, many icons with bright, bright futures may be lost.

My point is that the icons wouldn't be lost if the senseless ban on CnP/Recolours was lifted either, so why not just fix that problem rather than trying to add a hacked-on and convoluted solution to the same problem?

 

[legospencer]

I see now. Well, I suppose the only reason I didn't advocate that in the first place was because I thought that seemed a bit extreme. Believe me, it really would be nice to have such a rich icon archive to sift through, but I don't see that entire rule changing, like you yourself already said.

But I do agree wholeheartedly.

At the very least, I suppose the percentage of required freehand could be lowered... maybe to 30% or something?

 

[PurplePoot]

It's extreme in the sense that it won't happen except over most artists' dead body, but it's normal in the sense that it makes sense. If the freehand percent changes, I doubt it will go anywhere except up; most artists have the irrational idea that the amount of freehand on a resource somehow relates to its quality, and that the "skill" of the artist relates at all to the quality and utility of their work. I've had more arguments with them than it's worth and the number has gone up every time anyone said it should, but has never gone down when many said it should, because "we aren't artists and thus don't know what we're doing". Of course, when you become skilled you generally want to shit on others like you've been shit on, and thus the people who were once screwed by the rule grow to support it because they had to go through it and now "they want to be recognized for their hard-earned skill".

 

[legospencer]

It's extreme in the sense that it won't happen except over most artists' dead body, but it's normal in the sense that it makes sense. If the freehand percent changes, I doubt it will go anywhere except up; most artists have the irrational idea that the amount of freehand on a resource somehow relates to its quality, and that the "skill" of the artist relates at all to the quality and utility of their work. I've had more arguments with them than it's worth and the number has gone up every time anyone said it should, but has never gone down when many said it should, because "we aren't artists and thus don't know what we're doing". Of course, when you become skilled you generally want to shit on others like you've been shit on, and thus the people who were once screwed by the rule grow to support it because they had to go through it and now "they want to be recognized for their hard-earned skill".

A tragic tale. If only these eyes could weep. And since when has the definition of art on this site been warped? If your resource is messy, unfinished, or bugged, it's one thing, but it's quite another if your resource is solid yet an edited version of a preexisting icon. Pray your icon not meet the gilded pen of "they who choose what is talent".

What a blatant stereotype, too.

 

[PurplePoot]

A tragic tale. If only these eyes could weep. And since when has the definition of art on this site been warped? If your resource is messy, unfinished, or bugged, it's one thing, but it's quite another if your resource is solid yet an edited version of a preexisting icon. Pray your icon not meet the gilded pen of "they who choose what is talent".

I can't even tell who you are attempting to support with this. The entire paragraph is laden with sarcasm and yet you seem to be mocking the idea that CnP/recolour is automatically bad.

What a blatant stereotype, too.

As much as stereotypes are often offensive, they also aren't often drawn out of thin air. They tend to make sense within the context in which they are created (for example, we say that Asians are unusually good at math in the west because the ones who aren't don't generally move here, and the ones who are do, whereas most other ethnicities are fairly fixed or immigrate for other reasons).

 

[legospencer]

I apologize for my unclear jestings. Yes, I was in fact mocking the idea that CnP/recolors are automatically bad.

As much as stereotypes are often offensive, they also aren't often drawn out of thin air....

Which was exactly what I was going to mention further. Sure, its true that with less restriction more shoddy icons would spring-about, but those who would submit such icons would be the ones who bring the bad reputation about and drag the big-top down... and ultimately did, seeing how this rule is tangible and still exists today. I haven't been here for quite a long time, but I rest faith in guessing that there was an early time long ago when restrictions were soft and resources flew-in, many times devoid of effort or usefulness.

Anyways, the fact of the matter is, there is some merit behind these stereotypes, no matter how gritty and unfair.

 

[PurplePoot]

Restrictions were soft because it was a site with little moderation ages ago, and it seems like THW has tried to do anything possible to distance themselves from that site's resource scheme (wc3sear.ch to be exact), venturing deeply into the irrational. The actual restriction was more or less originally made due to laziness—those who made truly bad CnP/recolours whined when others' (better ones) were accepted, and thus rather than properly deal with the issue by telling the idiots off the staff decided to just start rejecting all of them (this was years ago now). The rules have become stricter since.

 

[legospencer]

So I have noticed. Venturing deeply into the irrational is a very good depiction of what this site reflects in terms of rules and guidelines. It would appear you yourself was on the Hive's staff for a duration. I suppose you tried to suggest more liberal corrections while you had the higher-power to. A good deal of it to a deaf ear and a blind eye it would seem... rather, all to some pretty tenacious staff members.

It's interesting to think that the Hive tabooed wc3sear.ch in terms of policy and file collection. The rules have become stricter since no doubt because of the lessening of community resistance, no?

 

[Ralle]

TBH I would have no problem as long as the icons look good.

But then comes the problem, what about credit? If you copied Blizzards stuff, they should get the credit, shouldn't they? And from then on it just starts to get messy I think.

 

[PurplePoot]

So I have noticed. Venturing deeply into the irrational is a very good depiction of what this site reflects in terms of rules and guidelines. It would appear you yourself was on the Hive's staff for a duration. I suppose you tried to suggest more liberal corrections while you had the higher-power to. A good deal of it to a deaf ear and a blind eye it would seem... rather, all to some pretty tenacious staff members.

Indeed. I was actually the development director for quite a while (and a moderator for a few years), hence my experience talking to the art mods and being rejected for not being an artist. I wouldn't say the experience was entirely different than public discourse on the issue with regards to opinions of various groups though.

It's interesting to think that the Hive tabooed wc3sear.ch in terms of policy and file collection. The rules have become stricter since no doubt because of the lessening of community resistance, no?

Not at all. The community to an extent supports it (otherwise it wouldn't happen); it's just that wc3sear.ch has become the scapegoat which almost no one was around to see and yet everyone remembers as terrible just because stories get exaggerated with time.

TBH I would have no problem as long as the icons look good.

But then comes the problem, what about credit? If you copied Blizzards stuff, they should get the credit, shouldn't they? And from then on it just starts to get messy I think.

I think credit to Blizzard is kind of implicit when making wc3 stuff. Anyhow, another big problem is that while a lot of freehand looks good, the style just doesn't fit into Warcraft, while CnP and recolour (if well done) does. In the end, many maps end up using mostly recolours and ingame icons unless they want to do a full makeover icon-wise due to stylistic problems.

 

[legospencer]

I think credit to Blizzard is kind of implicit when making wc3 stuff. Anyhow, another big problem is that while a lot of freehand looks good, the style just doesn't fit into Warcraft, while CnP and recolour (if well done) does. In the end, many maps end up using mostly recolours and ingame icons unless they want to do a full makeover icon-wise due to stylistic problems.

Absolutely. That's why I do modification in the first place: I need congruency in art style. Personally, I tend to shy away from many freehand icons for this reason unless I need a very particular icon that only an artist can create for me, which is very rare.

And by the way, so much for no chance of change. I mean, if Ralle is offering to help change some things, then perhaps all is not lost, yeah?