From the help page on board review and tom's original post on the topic, these are the minimal criteria a board must pass to pass review:

- Playable

- No missing borders

- Not a ripoff of someone else's design (e.g. from another site)

- Based on a family friendly image

From what I can tell, the review process is mostly going well, maybe a bit lax, but in accordance to this principle (that I like) put forth by asm:  "The review system is intended to keep the total dreck off the site, not to make the board browsing page a `my personal favorites' page."

Recently, a board called "Rent is Due Again" was rejected.  The board passes the help page criteria and by asm's principle, it should have passed cleanly.  I'm not calling out the reviewer, because there is an objective criterion that the board actually does not 100% meet and it was failed according to this communicated criterion.   However, there is a very good counter (which I will supply upon request) as to why the board should not be changed.

So my question is this:  Should resubmissions without change be allowed?  If so, what is a good procedural way to handle this?  It would seem that after a fail, a resubmission with no change should be accompanied by a good counterargument, and that later reviewers would have access to the various points and counterpoints.

-Hugh

quotes from:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/112/New_review_system_now_live

Thanks for the compliment but I don't think I said that.

Did Rent Is Due get failed? By whom? Please consider this a request for your counter-argument because I effing love that board.

I'd say that under our current system, resubmissions without change should not be allowed. Of course, I'm on record saying that we need increased accountability for individual reviewers passing or failing a board. For precisely this reason.

asm, see Page 7, post 122 of

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/112/New_review_system_now_live

for the quote. It's even better in full context :)

asm wrote: 

Did Rent Is Due get failed? By whom? Please consider this a request for your counter-argument because I effing love that board.

It is a very well-liked board, which got me to thinking that we may need to start adjusting the system a bit.

The rejection, as far as I understand, is based on unclear borders.  In a Dev game, I guessed at some borders and paid for it, so I think there is a valid point here.  It's just not grounds for failure, and here is why:

Main point:  It is a smallish board with no advanced features.  You can go to the Design tab, click around a bit and get the "logic" of the borders.  Things far across the room don't border, but diagonal and near is okay.  When in doubt on an important turn, it's easy to consult the Design tab because the board is small.  Did I mention the board is small and uncomplicated?  Even through ignorance you'll make border mistakes in at most two games and never make them again.

Artistic points:  Putting in clarifying arrows or lines or even text on the side will make the board considerably less visually appealing.  It is a visually appealing board, so this is an unacceptable sacrifice to make.  With lesser graphics, we could make that sacrifice.  Also, we are fighting in an apartment, not over some geographical terrain.  So, even if lines were visually okay, it makes no contextual sense to have them.

In principle, one should be able to "maximize clarity" on a board, but here that comes at too heavy a price.

My only thought on the borders is to maybe blurb/disclaimer in the About saying how you should click around in the Design tab to get a feel for it and consult it when necessary.  Thoughts?

Without a link to the board in question I have no thoughts on the matter.

IRoll11s wrote: Without a link to the board in question I have no thoughts on the matter.

Review game of Rent is Due:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/11412

Guess it's time to make a decision about unclear borders then isn't it. We got on Cram about his infection map and forced him (suggested very strongly) to make artistic changes to make the borders clearer. For Rent is Due Kjeld is absolutely correct, some borders are not intuitive.

I also agree with failing it for this, if only to force us to decide for all boards going forward whether all borders need to be clear and intuitive based on the map image alone. I don't think this is an area that we can compromise on either, it's either:

1. Yes. Make them clear of fail.
2. No, checking borders should be up to the player.

I usually hate yes/no decisions, but I'd narrowly have to decide on 2, with backwards apologies to Cram for bitching about his Infection borders.

The borders in Infection were unclear. But there was no good reason for not having clearer borders. Obviously, a decent looking fix was within reach. Also, the entire concept of Hording is entirely dependent on knowing what borders what. Further, its a big map with lots of territories so you may not check the details at the start of a long Sherman march and make decisions along the way which were dependent on your interperetation of the map... only to get 3/4's of the way there and realize that Island A doesn't attach to Island B. It's a bigger deal on a bigger map.

On something like Rent-is-Due, there's less abstract freedom to graphically represent borders. Plus, the map is so small, that I'd say the burden of lazy falls on the player for not checking if two territories border rather than on Risky for not coming up with a way to show them in an appealing way.

In short, context is important.

1. I see Kjeld and weathertop's points about the potentially unclear borders on Rent. It didn't bother me when I played a DEV game, but I've played 100 games on that board so it just seems obvious. I like that they also suggested a solution that would work really well and still look nice.

2. Whether I'd have failed the board or not... that's pretty borderline IMO. I think that with a gun to my head and forced to choose an extreme position from 11's options I'd choose #1 for sure.

3. This is exactly why I've been pushing for more reviewer accountability forEVER. You guys always say I'm being dumb about it, but I really wish I'd known that Rent was failed and by whom and for what, rather than having it randomly come up as an example for a point Hugh wants to make.

asm wrote:  but I really wish I'd known that Rent was failed and by whom and for what,

Should have received an email that it was Failed and by whom it was failed, although it is tough to get back to that game though to see the messages (would be nice to be able to filter the Review list to a Failed/Withdrawn list).

That's true, I should have. I feel like I'd have remembered that. Hm.

I have tried to make the changes to the graphics and I don't like them at all. I have asked for other suggestions and tried them and don't like them either. Until I make some changes I will not be resubmitting it. I disagree with the borders being so confusing but I made the map so that may be why.
I'm not changing around where stuff is in my apartment just because the borders would be clearer or something.
The games I have played on the map have all been fun except for the one game where Hugh beat the crap out of everyone. I have it on my profile for open beta play if anyone wants to play it and I start games on it whenever I don't have one going. I like the map as is and unless I can think of a way to show the borders without craping up the look, it just won't be live. I also won't go against the opinion of the review board and just resubmit it until it passes. I'm a prick, but not in this case.

You didn't like the softened footsteps on the carpet idea?

I do agree that you need doors going from the kitchen - dining room - living room for example, the old image had that and I never realized that was unclear til just now.

i was the one who failed it. i thought the workaround for the kitchen was doable and didn't mess too much with the aesthetics. i also think i posed to Risky that he resubmit and i would stay out of the next one. but he pointed out that I did exactly what i was supposed to do: fail it if i didn't think it met with my 'high' expectations. he didn't want to game the system just because it worked against him in this attempt.

i stand by my failing of it. i understand that those that have played it often don't have a problem with it, but i'm not here for just the old gang crowd. i do agree it is a small board and visiting the design page (which i strongly encourage everyone to do all the time) is enough to get around. but i have 'high' expectations and think that a small tweak to that one area makes it that much better, that much less confusing (still need to visit the design page for the main living room), and relatively simple to enact.

I have tried to make the changes to the graphics and I don't like them at all. I have asked for other suggestions and tried them and don't like them either.

that sucks RB...sorry to be a pain!

but i'm glad you're man enough to take it like a man and with integrity too!

and i didn't like the footstep idea either, altho it would be neat to see, i didn't think it needed to go that far...

When I did the footsteps or paw prints (tried both) it looked too busy. I didn't like it at all.

Perhaps the map just doesn't work. So what. I have plenty that I have made here that aren't released because they didn't work. Suburban Sewers, GrayHawk, Cylon Assault, Wargear Wrestling Federation and Battle School. All of those were maps that I didn't think worked and never got submitted for review. I only submit things for review when I have finished games on it and also I like them and think they are good.
Anyways, I don't really understand why this is a thread. The map didn't pass for whatever reason and that's how the site goes. I'm given the ability to still play it and so that's really all I care about.

RiskyBack wrote:
Anyways, I don't really understand why this is a thread. The map didn't pass for whatever reason and that's how the site goes. I'm given the ability to still play it and so that's really all I care about.

IMO, it's a thread because I'm not sure all Reviewers agree that it should have Failed Review.  What happens then? 

Also, I think there is some merit when a board is as is due to the Board Designer wanting it how it is.  Does that make sense?  Of course there is a limit to that, so that is tricky as well.

If I come up with something, I'll fix it. Just to make something clear, however..... I do NOT want someone else trying to update the graphics and sending it too me. This is my map and I'll try suggestions but I don't want anyone doing the work for me because they have more talent or whatever.

I just want to make that clear because some people have offered but I would rather have this map be all Risky or not at all.
Thanks to you guys you are defending the map. I appreciate it and if you want in on a DEV game, I just started one.

The circle version on WF was a hoot. If the graphics are unclear then why not connect black lines between objects? That was done on WF. Takes away from the pretties but adds clarity- a net plus in my book.