I noticed there's a member of the review team who is a "standard" member, and not much of a participant in the forums (8 posts as of this one).  As a designer, I have to admit I'm a little uncomfortable with this.  For all I know this person rarely reads the forums, and has little understanding of the board's implicitly understood set of standards (there isn't much way in the way of clearly presented explicit ones other than one page in the FAQs that are pretty general).

To be fair, this person has also written 8 reviews, some of which point toward a level of competency in terms of assessment and the ability to impart constructive criticism, but that's it. She (I'm pretty sure she's a she) hasn't designed any boards.

I realize that it's possible that the person is more than qualified to be on the board (to the degree that there's such a thing as being qualified), and that her active involvement with the site falls out of the scope of mine. Maybe someone could drop me a PM and speak for him/her, ..putting my paranoid mind at ease.

Here's some related reading..  Among other things, the "qualifications" of a reviewer is discussed..

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2122p1/Review_Board_Membership

PM sent.

Thanks O,

Just to be clear ..and I mentioned this to O,   There's absolutely nothing personal about my post. I realize that it's tough to get enough reviewers.  I think for the designers' sake, it's important that reviewers are competent.  I think the ad hoc nature of the process now (and I'm talking about the guidlines that reviewers follow) also needs tweaking.  I hate it when I have to suggest to a designer that their board needs more work because I think the player colors are too close, or borders are too ambiguous, when technically I don't have a leg to stand on.

> I think for the designers' sake, it's important that reviewers are competent.  I think the ad hoc nature of the process now (and I'm talking about the guidlines that reviewers follow) also needs tweaking.  I hate it when I have to suggest to a designer that their board needs more work because I think the player colors are too close, or borders are too ambiguous, when technically I don't have a leg to stand on.

100% agree with this.  Maybe it really is time to set some standards/guidelines.  It would be useful to me as a checklist too.  I know sometimes I get through review only to later realize some of my color choices are not good.

Ozyman wrote:

100% agree with this.  Maybe it really is time to set some standards/guidelines.  It would be useful to me as a checklist too.  I know sometimes I get through review only to later realize some of my color choices are not good.

There is this: Board Review, but the thing has always been as to how "good" (normally in regards to graphics) a Board should be to Pass review.  Balancing between being new designer friendly and having some regards for good looking boards is tough.

... I mean, I've never reviewed a board, but some stuff comes to mind right off the top of my head.

Some things are simple and would be easy to start with if you're making a checklist:

1. Spelling and grammar in description is correct

2. Description can be read and understood by all member of review team

3. Continents all produce bonuses

4. Borders follow logical play format or are otherwise notated or explained

5. Continents and bonus structure is adequately described (on board or in description)

6. Board is fun to play [this is a dodgy requirement, but should be thought about]

7. Graphics follow clean, easy to view format

8. Board looks good, plays well in both players on multiple operating systems/browsers

9. No definitive order advantage

10. Play is balanced

Heck, ask thingol, I think he's put like 4 or 5 boards through just recently.

Nah, not me, lol.  I get cranky when asked to make changes to my maps even when the counsel is correct.  Just ask Yertle or Risky or Kjeld.  I tend to agree with Ozy's assessment of what is required to pass review and I'll leave it at that.

I would have assumed this was already being done.

Informally, I think it is... kind of.

Korrun wrote:

I would have assumed this was already being done.

It's not codified.  There's no list like Ratsy's; At least not a complete one.  There have been numerous conversations concerning ethics, guidelines, responsibilities, protocols and even conventions observed by board members, but they're scattered all over the place.

The page that Yertle refers to is a start, but it's written more for entry level designers.  As a result, the beginning designer learns by fire.  At least the intermediate Dev process can make things smoother.  My earliest boards were submitted sans Dev games, and the reviewers were very kind about letting me fix things while in review.  If I submitted some of them now (the way I did back then), they would be rejected. But that's getting OT.

As an alternative to the Board Review page, which is written for designers. I wonder that if there were published guidelines for reviewers, that might actually be more helpful for designers.

I think the most we're going to get is a list of general guidelines akin to Ratsy's, given the high diversity of board types that are submitted--for example, everything from go-geared to world maps to the lorax. It's extremely difficult to come up with hard and fast standards that are applicable in all situations (and non-trivial).

That said, I like ratsy's list just fine if that would help reviewers and designers get on the same page. I'd also add #11 - has at least 1 dev game played.

I'm not sure that its "just fine."  In the past, many of the reviewers have taken part in detailed discussions in an effort to get a better sense of how to deal with subjective issues.  Take, for instance #10. 

9. No definitive order advantage.

..I assume this means the game is fair, which also ventures in to subjective territory.  In a 2-player game does this mean an anticipated 50/50 win/loss ratio, all other things equal?  ..is 55/45 acceptable? ..60/40?  ..worse??

Now that designers have the ability to force starting bonuses by seat, should reviewers insist on its use when they feel it's applicable?

For that matter, what types of things is it acceptable for reviewers to insist on?

4. Borders follow logical play format or are otherwise notated or explained

I don't know that I agree with this.  Take the following example, a board currently under review..

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/233228

The reviewers are focusing on this very issue.  Personally, I don't like it when borders are not explicitly made clear on a board, and especially those that are defined by proximity.   I like to see an attack line, or even the hint of a border.  Now I'm not saying I would insist on it.  If a majority of reviewers disagreed with me (which it looks like would be the case here), I would feel compelled to let it slide.

There are probably few more things that could go on the list..

12.  With boards that employ non-Risk-like mechanics, reviewers should be looking at the production scheme and be on the lookout for possibility of stalemate or draws as a result of factory mechanics, etc..

I understand that its probably unreasonable to go into great detail on each item, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to go into a little more with each item.  There are other considerations.  Perhaps there could be a requirement that a "seasoned" reviewer be involved in every review.  Another approach might be to include in the list links to previous chats or relevant reviews that give perspective.

It might not be a bad idea to list some protocols and conventions, some of which might still need to be resolved..

Should two player games be able to pass with just one review game/ one reviewer?.. Or perhaps there could be one game / two or more reviewers, if tom eventually makes it so that reviewers could see a game from the perspective of one player or sans fog.

In principle, I agree that reviewers instructions should not be voluminous, but I wonder that there should be more resources than a list of one-liner suggestions.

For the very reasons you brought up, M, this would be a list of guidelines, not a hard and fast set of rules. Clearly there are exceptional cases and a still outstanding need for reviewers to use their best judgment of when to disregard a guideline.

I made a list to get you started, and have something to discuss.  It's by no means complete, exhaustive or, dare I say, entirely relevant. 

But such a things should indeed be created, and should be agreed upon, just as Kjeld says, to guide the thinking of the review team, give the designer something to strive for and begin to define the quality standards for the site in general. 

It also gives you the things to consider for a board... just thinking about the borders is a consistent thing with boards - making sure they are all there, are understandable, are complete -