Conquer Club

I don't understand what your saying. Do you like the jury idea or not?

sailorseal wrote:I don't understand what your saying. Do you like the jury idea or not?

I do, but not what you suggested. You said that instead of having a different jury on each map, have one jury throughout the system. That's basically what the CAs are today — getting opinions, mixing them with their opinions (which have +1 more power … not saying that's a bad thing), and making decisions.

.44

What is the problem? There is absolutely no need to change a good process because of several complains.

The map-makers have been doing a good job at stamping map and moving them along through the foundry. They have handled plenty of maps, and have become very specialized and efficient at what they are doing. One map maker does their job, then another takes over just hours afterwards, and this system of dividing up labor so that each map-maker is focused only on new maps, or only on graphics, or only on the xml etc. is the best you can get.

There is absolutely no need to get rid of the professionals and replace them with random people.
Who thinks that they can do a better job than one of the map-makers? (I highly doubt many people think this.)
Then why would several of those people (a jury/court) do any better of a job?

The Neon Peon wrote:What is the problem? There is absolutely no need to change a good process because of several complains.

The map-makers have been doing a good job at stamping map and moving them along through the foundry. They have handled plenty of maps, and have become very specialized and efficient at what they are doing. One map maker does their job, then another takes over just hours afterwards, and this system of dividing up labor so that each map-maker is focused only on new maps, or only on graphics, or only on the xml etc. is the best you can get.

There is absolutely no need to get rid of the professionals and replace them with random people.
Who thinks that they can do a better job than one of the map-makers? (I highly doubt many people think this.)
Then why would several of those people (a jury/court) do any better of a job?

Aw, hell, I agree. I guess jury isn't the way to go. But I do think there should be some subordinate power — not something with the power to stamp/advance maps (this excludes the 'Lickers) but to bring it to a CAs attention that a map needs to be moved without (or almost w/o) quarrel.

.44

The way the first jury has worked as it is to decide if Oaks map moves to the FF, not to override the CAs power just to help them out a little

I think it is a good idea. There have been too many times in the past that a carto has had issue with the CA. Now if the jury has issue with the map, the carto has no choice but to make the changes (if they are justified).

WidowMakers wrote:I think it is a good idea. There have been too many times in the past that a carto has had issue with the CA. Now if the jury has issue with the map, the carto has no choice but to make the changes (if they are justified).

Or it just means that the carto has more people to bitch at... the whole "mapmaking by fiat" concept makes me a touch leery.

Incandenza wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I think it is a good idea. There have been too many times in the past that a carto has had issue with the CA. Now if the jury has issue with the map, the carto has no choice but to make the changes (if they are justified).

Or it just means that the carto has more people to bitch at... the whole "mapmaking by fiat" concept makes me a touch leery.

I agree with this. Far too often the point where the current Foundry system break down is when a mapmaker accuses (often falsely) that X C.A. is out to get them and just being cruel for not awarding a stamp immediately. Stick a jury on it and likely "there's a conspiracy brewing". So instead of wasting one person's time, 3-5 people's time is being wasted. Constant violation by mapmakers of Rule #4 of the Foundry (accept all suggestions unless you logically rebuttal them) is the main problem here, and the C.A.'s are having to take the brunt of it.

Very true, Tac. Just look at the last few pages of the Peloponnesian War thread — perfectly exampled there.

.44

The Neon Peon wrote:What is the problem? There is absolutely no need to change a good process because of several complains.

The map-makers have been doing a good job at stamping map and moving them along through the foundry. They have handled plenty of maps, and have become very specialized and efficient at what they are doing. One map maker does their job, then another takes over just hours afterwards, and this system of dividing up labor so that each map-maker is focused only on new maps, or only on graphics, or only on the xml etc. is the best you can get.

There is absolutely no need to get rid of the professionals and replace them with random people.
Who thinks that they can do a better job than one of the map-makers? (I highly doubt many people think this.)
Then why would several of those people (a jury/court) do any better of a job?

I agree with this Neon Peon. and look before i go ranting off, i have to say that i am not without fault here, but then neither are a few other mapmakers.
I think the current system - changes required by peer group majority - works very well.
All it takes is for the CAs to remind the mapmaker what the rules are and have them applied.
I think adding another level of administration to this area would be a night-mare and lead to the above reasoned "conspiracy theory".

The Jury has made great comments on Oak's map, just go and look

For starters, the jury I put in place for my map was just a test case, and the timing was convenient because I can't stamp my own map anyway.

My hope behind the jury idea is to address some of the points made above...

First, it gets more folks involved in the critical feedback end of the process. When that thread was stickied it sat for 48 hours without a peep, but now suddenly everyone has an opinion about the map. Some of the suggestions made had already been discussed and shot down earlier in development, but that's just part of the Foundry process and I can deal.

Second, it does indeed give the mapmaker more people to "yell at," but it's always easier to point the finger at one person than a group. If one person tells me that something is the wrong color it is easier to ignore than if four people do. Concerns raised at this point need to be taken seriously and addressed, because once a map hits the Forge nobody looks at it anymore (which in my opinion is the way it should be - a map should be all but finished when it is thrown into the Forge).

Third, it makes that stamp more meaningful. The Forge stamp that I've been handing out for the past two months is little more than a formality - you get the gameplay and graphics stamp, sit atop the Foundry for two weeks with nobody saying anything, then you move on. And some maps move on with flaws, which we then hear about (why the hell was this map Forged??).

Clearly the system isn't perfect. The jury members need more specific guidelines (I gave them none just to see what would go wrong), and there will be bumps down the road. But it's worth toying with.

oaktown wrote:Clearly the system isn't perfect. The jury members need more specific guidelines (I gave them none just to see what would go wrong), and there will be bumps down the road. But it's worth toying with.

Just to add on in defense of the Jury, I really did not have a full grasp of what Oak wanted. When I got the PM, I thought oh no "Jury Summons", what kind of trouble am I in. After reading the PM, I felt like he wanted feedback then a vote on whether or not it should move on. I had many small comments to make but I still thought it should move to the Forge. Then I learned I had to choose one option so I was forced to say I think it needs to stay in the Main Foundry. I would prefer to go with a "both" option but if it's one or the other I have to vote to keep you in the Main Foundry Oak...

sailorseal wrote:When I got the PM, I thought oh no "Jury Summons", what kind of trouble am I in.

You weren't in trouble then, but now that you've voted no on my map...

sailorseal wrote:After reading the PM, I felt like he wanted feedback then a vote on whether or not it should move on. I had many small comments to make but I still thought it should move to the Forge. Then I learned I had to choose one option so I was forced to say I think it needs to stay in the Main Foundry. I would prefer to go with a "both" option but if it's one or the other I have to vote to keep you in the Main Foundry Oak...

right - the whole idea is that if somebody in the FOundry still has questions or concerns about a map, it shouldn't be Forged yet. Once a map hits the Forge the mapmaker should be free to complete the XML and map coordinates, which is impossibleto do if you're moving things around and changing bonuses.

That particular map (Eastern Hemisphere) has received more feedback in the past two days than it had in the previous two months. If nothing else, the Jury Duty process would bring in a few new fresh eyes to look at a map.

oaktown wrote:

sailorseal wrote:When I got the PM, I thought oh no "Jury Summons", what kind of trouble am I in.

You weren't in trouble then, but now that you've voted no on my map...

Sorry Oak but you need to make a few more changes...

so is this jury thing still active, or did it die out after the test drive, i think it is a good idea, and it would work to have a different group of jurys for different maps, just wondering if it was going to continues or not

I see that the jury is still active, but just wondering, there is a jury for moving maps from main foundry to final forge, but is there, or will there be one for moving maps from the drafting room to the main foundry, because i think that would help

We have something up our sleeves for the Drafting room, but not jury-related...

MrBenn wrote:We have something up our sleeves for the Drafting room, but not jury-related...

ok, i'll trust you on that one MrBenn

While we are, indeed, planning some other changes around here, I still want to press on with this jury idea. Here's what I sent out as the last Jury Summons:

Dear members of the Foundry,

You have been summoned to appear on the jury for the _____ map. The map has received stamps for Graphics and Gameplay, but it is up to you - members of the community - to decide if this map has met the standards of the Foundry and is ready for inclusion as a Conquer Club map.

Your duties are as follows: visit the map thread and inspect the map with a critical eye; no concern is too small at this point, as we would rather fix problems now than after the map has reached the Forge. If you have any concerns or criticisms, post them in the thread with constructive suggestions for the mapmaker. If you have no concerns and feel that the map is play ready, please give post in the thread that you give this map your approval to advance.

There are three of you sitting on this jury, with me on the side as a fourth and silent member. It will require the approval of three jury members for the map to move on the Final Forge. If there should arise any conflicting opinions or if a jury member is unable to fulfill his duties, I reserve the right to be the third voice of approval.

Thank you for your continued service to the Foundry.

This is how I would like to proceed for the time being - if it's not working out we can certainly tinker. My question for all of you is whether or not you would be willing to sit on such a jury for future maps, and if the expectations above seem clear and reasonable.

Do you just randomly pick out people and ask them to be on the jury, or is there some process of thought involved where you look to see how constructive that person's comments have been previously?

The Neon Peon wrote:Do you just randomly pick out people and ask them to be on the jury, or is there some process of thought involved where you look to see how constructive that person's comments have been previously?

I was just going to put together a list of everybody and go through the list - if you're active around here you will be called on to serve. In fact,just by posting here you've volunteered, neon!

I'll try to put at least one quenched mapmaker on each jury and one relatively new voice, as we don't want to load any one jury with three newbs or three crotchety old-timers.

Crotchety … what a word. Anyway I'd love to serve

.44

i'm in for whatever jury u want me in (if any)

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:i'm in for whatever jury u want me in (if any)

Same here