DiM wrote:the point is, do we have a democracy where the majority decides? or do we have a sort of elite dictatorship where only a few foundry members can decide if a map is good enough for the quench?
Y'know, I keep hearing all of this talk about a democracy, and I'm tired of it. Let's settle something. CC is not a democracy. Neither is the Map Foundry. It's an autocracy, and it will never be anything else. lack and Andy are extremely kind and are interested in making the site and the maps the best they can possibly be, so they actively seek input from anyone who feels like giving it - and we appreciate this, and occasionally abuse it. But in the end, the only person who can quench a map is Andy, and the only person who can put it on the site is lack. STOP TRYING TO ELEVATE YOUR OWN IMPORTANCE! You're a member of a community, true. But it's a community that only exists because of one person, and while your contribution is important - and appreciated - you don't carry final authority. The popular masses that de Tocqueville wrote about don't carry final authority here. They carry authority, but only because lack/Andy (who depends on in what sense) is willing to listen to you, and them, in the quest for a better site.
Now, with that out of the way, there are a couple of important points which have been raised here.
1) What is playability?
2) How many people need to be interested in a map to make it worth the time and effort necessary to make the map feasible as part of the site?
1. This is a question I really don't want to deal with, because (as has been mentioned) there are different standards, and mine happen to be well beyond the minimums demanded by the mods and the foundry in general. But it's still a fair question.
2. This is a question that should be settled by the mods, not by us. They're the ones that have to put in the effort to put the map on the site. The mapmaker puts in effort, but if the mapmaker really thinks it's a good idea, they'll do whatever they need to do, no matter how few people like it. So in the end it's up to the mods.
That said, there is one more thing I'd like to say. People are stupid, and have stupid ideas. We know this. Large masses tend to reduce the amount of sheer stupidity because someone can often play the voice of reason and point out sheer stupidty. We know this too. But we know one other thing: people can be stupid in large masses. It doesn't happen as often as individual stupidity, but it happens. So a setup where the majority rules every time will result in stupidity. It's much better to have a system in place that makes determinations based on reason, not numbers. This is what the current foundry process does. In most cases, popular opinion is able to eliminate stupidity - like DiM's map idea, which was shot down with remarkable speed by a practical suggestion which was quickly recognized as intelligent by everyone. But in those few cases where reason is being drowned out by popular demand, or what appears to be popular demand - see qwert's slanted polls - the person in charge needs to be able to say "No." And we need to stop whining because they can do it.
The only reason anyone should be objecting to Andy's authority in the Foundry (or any other Foundry leader's authority) is if they think he is refusing to listen to reason before making his decisions. I don't see that. The only objection I see is that Andy doesn't cave to mobs. GO Andy. As long as Andy is willing to hear and consider your point before discarding it, you got nothing. So stop moaning.
