Context:

While map-making is a privilege granted to all Premium Members, it is universally acknowledged that some minimum standard of quality is necessary to maintain a fun gaming environment and a respectable public image for the site. 

As such, Wargear.net has instituted a policy of submitting game boards to a Review Panel for approval based on a minimum set of criteria. While there is always an unavoidable degree of arbitrary subjectivity inherent in such a Review Panel, these minimum criteria should at least provide that no map is unreasonably rejected. It should also guarantee that no map is unduly promoted.

While meeting the minimum criteria does NOT guarantee a pass, not meeting it does guarantee rejection.

To minimize the impact of subjectivity, and to prevent wasting the Review Board's time, the following minimum criteria should be met such that a map is to be promoted:

_____________________________________

Now, we need determine what that minimum criteria should be. If you, as a reviewer, want to abuse your power and have a set of minimums above those published, that's your prerogative. The rest of the Panel should police itself against extreme cases and purge problem members.

So, for one week, ending on Friday, December 11th at whatever time Yertle can get around to closing it, this thread shall remain open for suggestions and debate on what should be those minimums. Suggested rules should, if possible, be presented in a simple bullet point form.

If someone puts forth a suggestion that you like, quote the simple bullet point suggestion and reply with "Support As Is" or "Support as Amended". If amended, reword the suggested criteria in your reply.

Format:

_____________________________________

Posted by A

*A map should have no broken or unintentionally misleading borders as determined by the Review Panel

_____________________________________

Posted by B

[Quote A]
Accepted As IS
_____________________________________

Posted by C
[Quote A]
Accepted as Amended:

*A map should have no broken or unintentionally misleading borders as determined by the Review Panel

_____________________________________

... ad nauseum

_____________________________________

On December 12th, this thread should be locked while Yertle and tom sort through the carnage, pick out any collective agreements, eliminate redundancy, and otherwise bring the list of suggestions with support from more than 1 person into a digestible form. If a suggestion is supported with amendments, they should list those below it. Format: Yert

1) A map should have no broken or unintentionally misleading borders as determined by the Review Panel
    1a) A map should have no broken or unintentionally misleading borders as determined by the Review Panel
    1b) etc.

Yertle et. al shall have as long as required to accomplish this task, but should aim for no more than 1 week. Once the list is completed as shown, the thread shall be unlocked, and voting may commence. Any interested party is allowed to vote, so long as they vote completely. The vote shall be conducted according to the following guidelines: Each participant is granted exactly the number of votes as there are items. Yertle will announce that number when the thread is opened for voting. They may apply these votes to any item on the list (1, 1a, 1b, ... 2, 2a, ... 10z, ... etc.). Participants may give one particular item all their votes, or every different item 1 vote each. The voting period shall last for exactly 7 days from when Yertle unlocks the thread for voting. At that point, Yertle will tally the votes. Items receiving 0, 1, or 2 votes will be purged from the list. Items with 3 or more votes will be sorted and relisted in a new thread.

For three days from this point (I suggest starting on the first Monday after the votes are tallied), the thread shall be re-opened to debate. People can plead their cases one more time for their favored rules or against those they don't favor. Then, for two days, the thread will be used to vote on the latest list. Voters will again get a number of votes equal to the number of items to distribute as they see fit. This time, when the votes are tallied, the item in an amended bunch with the most votes will be the sole go ahead (e.g. 1) 3 votes, 1a) 4 votes, 1b) 3 votes -- only item 1a goes on). Again, items with 0, 1, or 2 votes only will not be included. The actual number of items to be included on the final list, and how the votes the received beyond 2 will affect their inclusion will have to be determined at that point.

For the sake of expedience, I'm laying down some Cram-law and saying that this system won't be debated. Let's just get going with it. For further expedience, if we can gather any degree of consensus before one of the above prescribed deadlines, we can move on.

You may also suggest rules regarding how to join and remain on the Review Panel.

So, on your mark, get set... go!

I'd be happy to help, but I'd need Forum privs :) (hinthintnudgenudge :P). Or Toaster/tom would be responsible for that piece (whichever works best!), assuming a Lock thread action is available.

More about the actual content to come later.

* A board should have no "broken", missing, or misleading borders.

* A board shall not use an image copied from another strategy gaming site without permission.

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

* A board shall not include scenarios which provide certain seats an unfair chance of winning.

Cram you've GOT to be an engineer with all those 'shalls' - write requirements much?!

weathertop wrote: Cram you've GOT to be an engineer with all those 'shalls' - write requirements much?!

Busted. I'm an engineer, but on the sales side of things; so I don't write them, but I read them all day.

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Agreed with an amendment:

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, illegal drug use or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Might also have a clause about controversial content which would include overt or derogatory religious and political commentary. While we don't want to ban those themes entirely, we should be clear that this site is not a soapbox for broadcasting personal opinions on such topics. Most people get this, but there are always the exceptions.

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not include scenarios which provide certain seats an unfair chance of winning.

I would restate this as:

* If a board has a starting scenario, that scenario shall provide a fair chance for all seats or teams to win. An unfair starting scenario is grounds for rejection.

Kjeld wrote:

Might also have a clause about controversial content which would include overt or derogatory religious and political commentary. While we don't want to ban those themes entirely, we should be clear that this site is not a soapbox for broadcasting personal opinions on such topics. Most people get this, but there are always the exceptions.

As one who may be seen as "broadcasting personal opinions" (because that's what I am doing :)), I do agree a Board tag as Religious/Political could function nicely, with the ability for players to filter those from his/her queue.  I would like to bring my first Cross map from WF here (I have worked on an updating the graphics) because first it does say something about me and who I am and I think that can help with the community aspect and second I did try and actually create a good gameplay map and didn't just look to put circles on a google image with my message.

Of course then does a map of a Christmas tree get thrown to that tag?  Could be semi-tough to distinguish (unless you have Holiday tags as well).

In short: Clause yes, complete ban No, board tag Yes.

Kjeld wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Agreed with an amendment:

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, illegal drug use or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Might also have a clause about controversial content which would include overt or derogatory religious and political commentary. While we don't want to ban those themes entirely, we should be clear that this site is not a soapbox for broadcasting personal opinions on such topics. Most people get this, but there are always the exceptions.

Amended further:

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, imagery that glorifies violent crimes or other illegal things.

Kjeld wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not include scenarios which provide certain seats an unfair chance of winning.

I would restate this as:

* If a board has a starting scenario, that scenario shall provide a fair chance for all seats or teams to win. An unfair starting scenario is grounds for rejection.

Like this as is...

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not use an image copied from another strategy gaming site without permission.

Should it be amended to something thusly:

* A board shall not use an image copied from another source without permission.

source could be gaming site, blatant RL board ripoff, etc...

weathertop wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not use an image copied from another strategy gaming site without permission.

Should it be amended to something thusly:

* A board shall not use an image copied from another source without permission.

source could be gaming site, blatant RL board ripoff, etc...

My only thing about this, is that I don't want to get too close to just saying "copyrighted" material. Cause we all know we're just going to ignore that annoying hurdle. But yeah, your amendment still keeps it pretty much as "don't copy another board game, be it real or internethereal."

Kjeld wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Agreed with an amendment:

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, illegal drug use or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Might also have a clause about controversial content which would include overt or derogatory religious and political commentary. While we don't want to ban those themes entirely, we should be clear that this site is not a soapbox for broadcasting personal opinions on such topics. Most people get this, but there are always the exceptions.

Sure. The whole Nazi thing is one that comes quickly to mind. Some people might be horribly offended by a map with a swastika on it. Other people recognize that in context, the map could be historically interesting. Context is important.

* A board shall have at least one completed test game on it prior to submission.

* A board shall be in a completed status, the Review process is NOT a feedback center.

Yertle wrote: * A board shall have at least one completed test game on it prior to submission.

* A board shall be in a completed status, the Review process is NOT a feedback center.

Amen to both

Cramchakle wrote:

Kjeld wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: * A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Agreed with an amendment:

* A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content; including but not limited to pornography, discrimination, illegal drug use or imagery that glorifies violent crimes.

Might also have a clause about controversial content which would include overt or derogatory religious and political commentary. While we don't want to ban those themes entirely, we should be clear that this site is not a soapbox for broadcasting personal opinions on such topics. Most people get this, but there are always the exceptions.

Sure. The whole Nazi thing is one that comes quickly to mind. Some people might be horribly offended by a map with a swastika on it. Other people recognize that in context, the map could be historically interesting. Context is important.

A board shall not incorporate illicit or especially offensive content. i think that's where it should end.

 i don't think that there should be any mention of things that are illegal (what countries laws are we going by anyway?)

the review panel can have the responsibility to fail graphic content agreed! ...but are you expecting to limit all drug content, my cookie monster VS the Stoner map may have to be thrown away if that's the case :(

RiskyBack wrote:

Yertle wrote: * A board shall have at least one completed test game on it prior to submission.

* A board shall be in a completed status, the Review process is NOT a feedback center.

Amen to both

This guy's a nightmare: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/5114

I <i>tried</i> to be nice (which is hard for me): http://www.wargear.net/games/view/5048

And then he seems to have just re-submitted the same completely f'ed-up board.