I feel like copying some images off of a google search and resizing them all to 100x100 is a pretty minimal effort. I think the default cards should really just be considered placeholders. The idea behind keeping a review committee around was to prevent a bunch of boards that make the site look bad from getting out, and not having cards that thematically match your board is lazy and makes the place look bad.

Personally, I make cards even for boards I don't intend to be played with cards just in case someone modifies the rules. I don't even think that's a rule that can be changed by a game host on this site, but its an old habit -- and a good one.

If you want to enforce that then there should be no default cards and the game shouldn't publish without them. I don't know that I agree with you, but that's how to do it.

M57 wrote: If you want to enforce that then there should be no default cards and the game shouldn't publish without them. I don't know that I agree with you, but that's how to do it.

Default cards come in handy for the DEV period of a map's life and for people who want to make a map for their own private consumption. Also, if someone makes a modern-military themed map, there's no reason the default cards couldn't work.

The review committee is there to save us from the absolute rigidity of having things hard-wired.

Notice I used the word "publish".  Ahh, but then you say the default cards are OK? 

M57 wrote:

My Fall of Rome cards are over-sized

I agree.

Cramchakle wrote: The idea behind keeping a review committee around was to prevent a bunch of boards that make the site look bad from getting out, and not having cards that thematically match your board is lazy and makes the place look bad.

I agree with Cram's intent above, but not so much about the cards (they should match the board, be appropriately sized, but if they are descent resize google images, then okay).  On TOS, there were lots of boards that were terrible to look at (sometimes offensive), had nothing to offer in terms of game play and for the most part seemed to be thrown together without a lot of thought.  I would certainly like to keep the review team around to prevent this from happening here.

M57 wrote: ... and you can (for better or worse) leverage this power to nix boards that (for whatever reason) you don't like on technicalities.

I really do not see anything wrong with this.  If there is someone who feels that a member of the review unjustifiably nixed their board, then they should bring it up so it can be discussed and a consensus could be made.

Alpha wrote:
I would certainly like to keep the review team around to prevent this from happening here.

The question here, as with the second half of your post, is something the members of the review board have debated quite a bit already: what is the minimum? I think that's the question at the heart of all of these discussions. Everybody fundamentally agrees that the review team is here to be fair evaluators and to keep boards below a certain level of overall quality off the site. It just comes down to what is that basic level of overall quality that we want to avoid. My standards when it comes to that are pretty high.

Mine too (referencing asm), that is what I was trying to hint at in my response to M57. I have certainly seen some boards come up for review that looked uninteresting and had less than par graphics, but for the most part I will give a board a shot and give suggestions to the designer on how to fix the problems to meet my standards. As I see it, that is the responsibility of the review team. If a designer is unwilling to meet my suggestions or argue their case against them, then I think failing a board is in order.

*edit: I believe on larger boards (more players), these are less of an issue as the review team discusses concerns in game and a consensus can be made then.  On small boards, this is where things get muddled in my opinion, but I do understand there are larger things in question here that should be discussed.

Alpha wrote:

M57 wrote: ... and you can (for better or worse) leverage this power to nix boards that (for whatever reason) you don't like on technicalities.

I really do not see anything wrong with this.  If there is someone who feels that a member of the review unjustifiably nixed their board, then they should bring it up so it can be discussed and a consensus could be made.

I agree with you, but I was nevertheless trying to word my comment in a way that was non-judgmental.

What's interesting about the review process and the help files associated with helping your board get passed is that it mostly talks about things that will fail a board. It never says anything about 'your board will pass if...'.

It only takes a single person to pass a board, but it still takes a single person. If you board has no obvious fatal flaw but it fails in the artistic department, there's nothing forcing anyone to actually pass it. It might not get failed, but it's not going public.

So there's no real need to spell out the artistic part. If you can't produce a board artistic enough to entice a single reviewer to pass it, then that's the bar, and you failed to reach it.

So with 1 v 1 games, you're at the mercy of 1 person?  ..It's rhetorical.  I know the answer, but you get my point.

That's a completely separate issue that needs to be addressed, maybe. I'm guessing the mapmaker who is advanced enough to develop a decent 1 v 1 game is not going to run into issues with the graphics.

An argument could be made for having the entire Review Pool have the ability to fail/pass a board after the review game is over.

Speaking as someone who has had a board fail review, I think the people on the Review Board basically know what they are looking for. I didn't agree with the review board but I also didn't fault them and ended up doing what they asked (after a delay period for pride's sake). I don't like the final version of the map in question, but they had valid points so I did what was required.
It's always going to be a question about what is the minimum and personally, I don't think that one exists. Everything is judged individually. I trust the people on the commitee to make the decision so I have no trouble sending something to review. I also try to follow all of the prerequisits by having the map tested before a few times and using the review process to get a finished product Live, not to weed out other issues. I was sure that a recent map of mine was grapically good, borders all there and gameplay interesting, but I continued to test with multiple numbers of players just to be sure. That review game is done but there is no decision on it yet (which is one part of the review process I don't like, everyone thinks someone else will do it and we have to campaign).
Anyways, my point here is that I don't believe that there is a static quantifiable way to say what is the minimum but there are enough maps on the site so there should be some examples map makers can use as examples. If it is an issue of using software to do things the review board can help lead them in the right direction or direct them to Cram or myself who are usually willing to help people out with stuff like that (first suggestion, use paint.net, it's pretty user friendly).
Oh and as for cards, I don't think that cards are that big of a deal. Yes, your map is better with good cards, but if Cram's Big World map had the default cards, would it make it any less pretty or playable? I don't think so. On the other hand sometimes a certain map maker (who shall remain nameless) just uses cards as either shots at someone, inside jokes or puns and I really think that is just wrong and in no way benefitial to the community and that person should be spoken to harshly!
P.S. Free Lindsey!

RiskyBack wrote:
That review game is done but there is no decision on it yet (which is one part of the review process I don't like, everyone thinks someone else will do it and we have to campaign).

Agreed. This is something we should think about changing/updating in my opinion.

Anyways, my point here is that I don't believe that there is a static quantifiable way to say what is the minimum but there are enough maps on the site so there should be some examples map makers can use as examples.

True, but then you get into arguments like baseball HOF discussions. Just because Jim Rice is better than some of the worst players already in the HOF doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, you know?

On the other hand sometimes a certain map maker (who shall remain nameless) just uses cards as either shots at someone, inside jokes or puns and I really think that is just wrong and in no way benefitial to the community and that person should be spoken to harshly!

Oh come on Risky. Don't be cruel and leave us hanging.

IRoll11s wrote: That's a completely separate issue that needs to be addressed, maybe. I'm guessing the mapmaker who is advanced enough to develop a decent 1 v 1 game is not going to run into issues with the graphics.

An argument could be made for having the entire Review Pool have the ability to fail/pass a board after the review game is over.

Just as example I actually pulled Arm Wrestle (1v1) from the review because of Vataro's suggestions to change the graphics.  But I am really tough on myself to get the look just right.  So I guess it is a good thing that I am not on the review board. 

I would be in favor of at least three people looking at every board regardless of the number of players.

I think we should pass everything better than preposterous (Anybody remember that webcam picture of a head with 5 territories placed on it?). If it collects dust on the board page then so what? Once we have an active community who rates boards and a refined rating/sorting system things will work themselves out naturally. We also don't want to discourage new designers because the boards don't stand up to our math or graphic design degrees. Case in point: Pappy's one-way. It's not eye-popping, but it works. It has one way borders, but not much else. It plays fine.

The point: Encourage involvement from new designers, generating the kind of baby step boards necessary to bring the world map lovers gently into our wonderful realm.

Another mean way (once there are more people on the site) of justifying more boards to pass is having a wall of shame or recycle bin page that holds maps that do not have a game started (by someone other than the designer) for 3 months + low number of plays overall. I'd also like to see some "tenure" feature to prevent such boards from being dumped- Something like 100*(average number of players per game).

Mongrel wrote:

The point: Encourage involvement from new designers, generating the kind of baby step boards necessary to bring the world map lovers gently into our wonderful realm.

Actually, in the couple games I've participated in review, I'd say we covered a lot of ground with direct feedback on stepping up a map from just preposterous to actually pretty good. Of course, it'd be nice if we could have covered that in the DEV stage, but the review is nice in that at some point you have to do it, and are forced to face that feedback. If we took the lazy way out and just let it slide, then the mapmaker would not have improved at such a rapid pace, and the site would have one more barely tolerable map clogging it up. One of the great complaints/struggles at Warfish was that there were literally hundreds of ungodly awful maps clogging up the system, making it hard for people to find legitimate gems. And, even the rating system was constantly gamed so that some of those utterly crappy maps still sat up in front of some really good ones.

So, I like the review group having a little bit of resistance. I don't want a lot, because its annoying when someone(s) has some idea they want to see on your board and holds it ransom for the thumbs up.

tl;dr: Lots of good has come of constructive criticism at the review stage, for mapmakers who dont even know how to use the DEV stage. Continuing to stop maps there and force improvements is good for everyone.

RiskyBack wrote:
Oh and as for cards, I don't think that cards are that big of a deal. Yes, your map is better with good cards, but if Cram's Big World map had the default cards, would it make it any less pretty or playable?

Playing a nice looking map and seeing a default card pop up is like getting a pretty girl home and then finding warts.

You grown ups know what I mean.

Cramchakle wrote:

Mongrel wrote:

The point: Encourage involvement from new designers, generating the kind of baby step boards necessary to bring the world map lovers gently into our wonderful realm.

Actually, in the couple games I've participated in review, I'd say we covered a lot of ground with direct feedback on stepping up a map from just preposterous to actually pretty good. Of course, it'd be nice if we could have covered that in the DEV stage, but the review is nice in that at some point you have to do it, and are forced to face that feedback. If we took the lazy way out and just let it slide, then the mapmaker would not have improved at such a rapid pace, and the site would have one more barely tolerable map clogging it up. One of the great complaints/struggles at Warfish was that there were literally hundreds of ungodly awful maps clogging up the system, making it hard for people to find legitimate gems. And, even the rating system was constantly gamed so that some of those utterly crappy maps still sat up in front of some really good ones.

So, I like the review group having a little bit of resistance. I don't want a lot, because its annoying when someone(s) has some idea they want to see on your board and holds it ransom for the thumbs up.

tl;dr: Lots of good has come of constructive criticism at the review stage, for mapmakers who dont even know how to use the DEV stage. Continuing to stop maps there and force improvements is good for everyone.

Rules within reason. Agree. I just don't want to scare away talent simply because their board isn't a visual masterpiece (and honestly why I consult on boards instead of making boards).

By the way, per your sig request, just started watching Archer. Brilliant. The Aisha Tyler character is perfect- Usually you laugh at the crazy b*tch, not with the crazy b*tch.

Cramchakle wrote:

RiskyBack wrote:
Oh and as for cards, I don't think that cards are that big of a deal. Yes, your map is better with good cards, but if Cram's Big World map had the default cards, would it make it any less pretty or playable?

Playing a nice looking map and seeing a default card pop up is like getting a pretty girl home and then finding warts.

You grown ups know what I mean.

Maybe, depends on the warts.