Jury Discussion- POLL

[oaktown]

I've been playing with an idea, and since I should be willing to be the guinea pig I'm testing it out in my own map thread...

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48581&p=1829524#p1829524

[Incandenza]

I've been playing with an idea, and since I should be willing to be the guinea pig I'm testing it out in my own map thread...

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48581&p=1829524#p1829524

Not to hate on ya, but that just seems like stamping writ large.

I know, I know, I should be here bringing solutions rather than shooting down other people's suggestions. But here's something I said in that DiM thread that 44 so graciously dug up: the foundry has become a victim of its own success. It's as true now as it was then. There have never been this many maps in production, ever. Naturally public sentiment is going to be spread much more thinly, though new people have come in and provided welcome new voices (like the aforementioned 44).

I've always thought of mapmakers like Stephensonian Dwarves, people who toil in darkness and obscurity making objects of great beauty (anyone who's read Cryptonomicon will know what I'm talking about). The fact is that the vast majority of CCers simply have no interest in or curiosity about the maps they play on. New maps are brought by the stork, and the best time to raise objections is after a map's been loaded for live play.

The amazing thing is that there are still thousands (if not millions) of potential killer map ideas out there, from the oft-attempted Japan to the Battle of Sekigahara, from a baseball stadium to a cartographic representation of "how a bill becomes a law". Hell, cairns is doing a map of a bloody family tree, all of whom have been dead for two thousand years, and I can't wait to play it. There are niches aplenty that need filling, I was bemoaning to cairns the lack of a legitimate huge classic-gameplay map to compete with 2.1. Larger maps in general would be nice (personally, I think we could institute a 6-month moratorium on maps with fewer than 30 terits save in case of extremely bitching gameplay, but that's neither here nor there). More complex maps would be fantastic. New gameplay features *hint hint lack* would be the absolute shiznit, as the kids are calling it these days.

Of course, the bar gets raised higher and higher, perhaps too high for some people. Maybe it's time to institute some sort of Extreme Sanction, a three-member Supreme Court (to tag along with oak's jury concept) that decides the fate of a map, perhaps when it's time to move from the drafting room to the main foundry, or when it's time to stamp a map with advanced drafts. This Supreme Court would deliberate and give their final judgment on whether or not a map was good enough to proceed. Only if they reach unanimity can a map essentially be killed off. "But Inc, that's so unfair to the mapmaker!" I hear people saying. But is it really? Wouldn't it be kinder to basically pull the person aside and say, "Look, we appreciate the work you've put in, but this simply isn't going to cut it in its present form" than let the damn thing rot in the drafting room until the person eventually loses interest?

I'm not even sure this is a good idea, just kinda weakly lobbing it in everyone's general direction.

[oaktown]

Wouldn't it be kinder to basically pull the person aside and say, "Look, we appreciate the work you've put in, but this simply isn't going to cut it in its present form" than let the damn thing rot in the drafting room until the person eventually loses interest?

I've done thins dozens of times, but generally the response is "well, I like the idea so i'm going to push on anyway." Don't believe me?

i hear ya, and i think i'll take my chances, if it starts to turn bad, i'll know your right

You can lead a mapmaker to the trash can, but you can't make them pitch.

But I'm on board with the Supreme Court idea. I've been tossing such ideas around with the CAs for the past week, and every version has flaws. As always, my ears and mind are are open, foundry.

[sailorseal]

Oak, maybe instead of random selection for the court you take a few people and make them a permanent court, that way the decisions are consistent.

[the.killing.44]

Oak, maybe instead of random selection for the court you take a few people and make them a permanent court, that way the decisions are consistent.

I don't like this. It would be too set, and more like the system we have in place now. It would be the Foundry people feeding the jury, just like we feed the CAs opinions to advance maps today. I think as long as the juries consist of people with good Foundry opinions, we're good.

.44

[sailorseal]

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

[the.killing.44]

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

[The Neon Peon]

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.killing.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?

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

[sailorseal]

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

[WidowMakers]

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).

[Incandenza]

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.

[TaCktiX]

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.

[the.killing.44]

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

.44

[cairnswk]

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".