Holy crap, there's a lot of stuff here. I tried to read it all, but only made it through half of page two before my eyes glazed over.

Having not read everything discussed here, I'll keep my comment brief.

I generally treat asm's minimum requirements as the threshold for submitting a board to review. If a board doesn't meet those, I'll fail it immediately. However, I don't think that meeting the minimum requirements is always enough to pass a board.

Take Rent is Due Again, for example. Sure, it's playable and the graphic looks nice, but the graphic doesn't link all that well to the game play, leading to confusion. As a reviewer, I know that Risky has a lot of map-making experience and the graphical ability to design really great maps (e.g. Risky Kong, Angel Problem, Gauntlet, etc.), so maybe my expectations are a little higher for him than for a newbie. That version of Rent is Due was sub-par for Risky, and there was no reason that a few small graphical edits couldn't vastly improve it (e.g. adding doors, or even just openings in the walls to indicate where rooms connect). And that's what I told him, and why I supported failing it in that round.

Which brings me to the point that a key question is whether or not review is about pushing for a little more from people, or whether it's just about rubber-stamping. I believe in the former, but it seems that others believe in the latter, which is something that requires continuing discussion (e.g. the previous three pages).

One final thought. Live boards are not writ in stone. They can be updated and revised with new versions, allowing for improvement and fine-tweaking over time. I think this is good, and takes a lot of that pressure off of the Dev and Rev players.

Kjeld wrote:
One final thought. Live boards are not writ in stone. They can be updated and revised with new versions, allowing for improvement and fine-tweaking over time. I think this is good, and takes a lot of that pressure off of the Dev and Rev players.

As a Ranked game player, and to have a "fair" system, the Live boards shouldn't change all that much IMO.  Fixing borders/continents to what they should be is okay IMO, but significant changes to graphics/gameplay/starting scenario shouldn't be recommended, even small fine tweaking can become questionable (ie Cram putting the max on the capitals of his Castles board almost come close IMO).

Just for the record, this post has been in my opinion :P

Yertle wrote:...

Just for the record, this post has been in my opinion :P

Do you have a habit of sharing opinions other than your own, that we would need a public record of when you aren't?

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:...

Just for the record, this post has been in my opinion :P

Do you have a habit of sharing opinions other than your own, that we would need a public record of when you aren't?

good point, I dunno why I use it so much

Yertle wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:...

Just for the record, this post has been in my opinion :P

Do you have a habit of sharing opinions other than your own, that we would need a public record of when you aren't?

good point, I dunno why I use it so much

Probably because you are a nice guy, and don't want to offend people (some people are easily offended).

I think we are being too lenient as a review board. Boards are making it out with flaws and boards are being passed before the review games are finished, and different boards are being held to different standards. I think we should lay down some minimum ground rules that are basic requirements, as in, no inherent flaws, or clear advantages, and then some additional rules which are a little more lenient. I also don't think boards should be changed much once they are live, though I agree that it's a nice to have the option.