Conquer Club

Foundry works good in this way!
125 maps isn't a big errors.

I'm thinking that for someone is too usual to give critics to other and to spend few time on his problems.

Foundry is perfect perhaps a little bit frustrating, but if this is the price for a quality map i think that it's good.

But probably a jury is a bit too.
There's no way to create some referral figures that follow a map for every steps in foundry to help CA?
But they have to suggest/check not to judify.
In this case i could help

But, in my opinion, there's more important to fix in foundry process than understand if someone could or couldn't judify a map.
In foundry there too people that elect themself as supreme judges.
Please don't create another one.

But i'm agree with this possibility:

incadenza wrote:I'm kinda with ed. I see the jury concept as a "last looks", "get a few people together to see if there's anything obvious we missed" concept, as opposed to ultimate arbiters of a map's future.

After having experienced the jury system myself (well, in fact I AM experiencing it right now) because I was called to be a member, I have some thougts about it. I will summarize them really shortly.

- I think that the jury is a good idea. Having 4 (maybe 5) members, 2 mods and 3 foundry members, is a good thing. It avoids depending exclusively on one person (even if he is a mod) but still guarantees that people who will decide about the map will have "qualified" opinion.
- But... the problem with the jury system is that it still needs to be defined a little more. It would be food if members (and also the map maker) new exactly what the jury makes, what the jury evaluates, and which power the jury has and why. By the way, looks like this thread is the perfect place to discuss that.

yeti_c wrote:Short and Sharp as that's all I have time for.

At the moment it seems like the CA's are getting it from both sides.

New Map Makers | CA's | Veteran Mapmakers

The CA's are doing a great job from both sides - people need to pull their heads out of their arses and let them get on with it - because guess what - creating topics and angst in the foundry actually means they have LESS time to do their (voluntary) jobs in the foundry.

C.

My views haven't changed...

C.

Part of me thinks that it might be too late to call in a jury AFTER a stamp for graphics or gameplay has been dished out... it would be much better to get the focused feedback earlier during development...

... for example the Korea map has just been launched from the drafting room into the main foundry - and I'm sure that the.killing.44 would appreciate feedback during this hammering out stage a lot more than qwert would for his map that has already been officially stamped for gameplay and graphics...

Maybe it should work like this:

once the graphics and game play stampers feel like the maps are close to a stamp or should be stamped, a jury should then be called, at the stampers' discretion, that is.

I say at their discretion to leave flexibility for different maps. Some maps may be long overdue for a stamp and clearly don't need any more discussion, while others may be in more of a gray area and require more healthy discussion that a jury would provide, in which case the stampers would want a jury.

InkL0sed wrote:once the graphics and game play stampers feel like the maps are close to a stamp or should be stamped, a jury should then be called, at the stampers' discretion, that is.

Agreed, that sounds very good.

And thanks for the promo/shout out Benn

.44

that sounds like a good idea, but i think that the maker of the map should also have something to do with the jury being called in, not exactly sure how though

Can I sticky this thread as it is kind of important discussion involving the foundry?

sailorseal wrote:Can I sticky this thread as it is kind of important discussion involving the foundry?

No, you can't. Only the CAs/Global Mods/Admins can do that.

.44

NO JURYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the.killing.44 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:Can I sticky this thread as it is kind of important discussion involving the foundry?

No, you can't. Only the CAs/Global Mods/Admins can do that.

.44

Your kidding right? Why would I ask permission if I can do it myself!?! I am asking them

GrimReaper. wrote:NO JURYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this is why I think it should be stickied

sailorseal wrote:our kidding right? Why would I ask permission if I can do it myself!?! I am asking them

No, you don't understand. You cannot change this thread to a sticky, physically.

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:our kidding right? Why would I ask permission if I can do it myself!?! I am asking them

No, you don't understand. You cannot change this thread to a sticky, physically.

.44

No you don't understand. I mis-phrased my initial request but then when I said "if I could I would" that means I can't

sailorseal wrote:I said "if I could I would" that means I can't

You never said that

Anyway I think this bumps itself quite regularly as not much happens in the Foundry Discussion, somewhat sadly.

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:I said "if I could I would" that means I can't

You never said that

Anyway I think this bumps itself quite regularly as not much happens in the Foundry Discussion, somewhat sadly.

.44

I essentially said that but I agree nothing happens so little posts, things get done but they take forever

Sailorseal and .44, please stop filling foundry topics with spam. It's annoying to read. Keep it to PMs.

On the issue of whether this should be stickied: no. There's no purpose to it being stickied. It's as important a discussion as everything else in this forum, not more imortant.

As for juries themselves, I am more in agreement with what Ed outlined than anything else. Juries should give a final once-over for the whole map and suggest changes, but should not have the power to force mapmakers to accept these changes. If the gameplay or graphics are horribly flawed, the map should not have those stamps anyway. Ideally, by the time a jury is convened, the map will only have minor, subjective changes left to make, not major important ones.

ZeakCytho wrote:Sailorseal and .44, please stop filling foundry topics with spam. It's annoying to read. Keep it to PMs.

.

We only fill the ones we make and I would keep it to PMs but he blocked me from sending him PMs as a joke

I REFUSE TON SERVE ON JURY DUTY
'NO JURIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STRIKE
STRIKE I SAY

GrimReaper. wrote:I REFUSE TON SERVE ON JURY DUTY
'NO JURIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STRIKE
STRIKE I SAY

Why?

GrimReaper. wrote:I REFUSE TON SERVE ON JURY DUTY
'NO JURIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STRIKE
STRIKE I SAY

then you don't have to

I am opposed to the jury system very strongly, however I would change my mind if there were a simple check added: any cartographer will override the jury.

This means that the jury still functions and helps the map improve, but if the jury says the map should go on, but a professional cartographer disagrees, then the map stays.

The Neon Peon wrote:I am opposed to the jury system very strongly, however I would change my mind if there were a simple check added: any cartographer will override the jury.

This means that the jury still functions and helps the map improve, but if the jury says the map should go on, but a professional cartographer disagrees, then the map stays.

Please define professional cartographer

In my opinion, the jury will be filled with people who have proven themselves capable of understanding and evaluating maps. A jury should never be used to alter the purpose or original intent of the map. It should be there to focus and direct an y last minute tweaks and cleanups that would make the map better.

If a jury could be overridden by a "professional cartographer" then they serve no purpose.
Thats like asking the defendant if they like the jury's verdict. If they don't (i.e. guilty verdict) they can ignore it and decide for themselves.

May i remind you I was on a jury

WidowMakers wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:I am opposed to the jury system very strongly, however I would change my mind if there were a simple check added: any cartographer will override the jury.

This means that the jury still functions and helps the map improve, but if the jury says the map should go on, but a professional cartographer disagrees, then the map stays.

Please define professional cartographer

In my opinion, the jury will be filled with people who have proven themselves capable of understanding and evaluating maps. A jury should never be used to alter the purpose or original intent of the map. It should be there to focus and direct an y last minute tweaks and cleanups that would make the map better.

If a jury could be overridden by a "professional cartographer" then they serve no purpose.
Thats like asking the defendant if they like the jury's verdict. If they don't (i.e. guilty verdict) they can ignore it and decide for themselves.

You are going by the assumption that all juries are good, are capable of evaluating maps etc. What if they are not? then will we have some map that still needs some fixes get quenched?

Also, what if the jury can be overridden by the mods (or some people like you and cairns)? That does not mean that they will be ignored on everything they say. The jury makes some decisions, proposes some changes to the map and does their job. But what if the cartographers know that one of the changes makes the map worse? Does the fact that they veto that one change to the map make the jury useless?

The way I am proposing is that the jury's job is to look at the map, find the problems, and propose solutions. The reason the jury is good is because the people in it actually spend time looking at the map and writing comments on everything they see. I do not, however, visualize a jury as in control of the map and when it gets moved etc. I visualize them as a group of people who are asked to point out the problems in a map and offer solutions, but that does not mean that if the cartographers disagree that their word has to be followed.