I see both sides of this. Mapmakers sometimes just need some feedback from the community to turn crap into gold. Other times, the process is hopeless and wasting everyone's time.
But once a draft is submitted, perhaps it is worth trying to address the weaknesses before dismissing it outright?
If a map has a very nice style/look, but poor gameplay concept - give it a trial in the gameplay workshop to see if that can be fixed by input.
If a map has a great concept, but looks terrible, give it a trial run in the graphics workshop to see if the community can help or if another designer wishes to help.
If, after the trial period, the primary issue has not shown progress, then it can be recycled.
That seems like a good way to keep crummy maps from spending too much time in the Drafting Room, but will keep open for the possibility that the proposed map is solid, but just needs a little direction. I think the people who have the best minds for Gameplay or Graphics probably spend the bulk of their "map-time" in those respective sub-forums and maybe pay little mind to those maps in the infant stages of the Draft room. But giving maps with some potential (but serious flaws) a quick look-over by those folks would be just what is needed?
I've had a couple maps get stalled in the Draft stages. They were well received (well Human Body anyway), but in that sub-forum, the suggestions for addressing issues was... limited. I wonder if the same people that