Welcome to SEN Let's Talk SEN #1, where we'll talk about various SEN issues and what to do about them because I am "fading out" and don't want to make the calls myself anymore! So, I want to try leading a discussion to see what people think about various things. Up for discussion on this episode is the screenshot rule for new threads in Map Production. Is it still applicable or useful to SEN? Should it be removed or changed?

The rule, as currently in effect, states:
This rule was created way back (v4, even) when lots of production threads were being created without any proof that the maps were really being worked on. This meant there was a lot of vaporware threads where maps never existed. Such threads about those maps hurt the quality of the forum by distracting from threads by mappers who were legitimately and actively working on and demonstrating their projects.

Arguments and relevant reasonings:

1. "We should dispose of the rule because there are not many threads being created there anyway."
IMO, this argument is sound by using measurable statistical evidence: if one displays 20 topics per page (which means 16 on the first page because of pinned threads) and sorts by start date, the threads in Map Production stretch back to February 20th. This means 16 topics in 6 months, or an average of 2+2/3 topics per month in the forum. Go to the second for 20 more threads that stretch back to January 2011. 36 topics / 20 months = 1.8 topics / month.

2. "Threads without screenshots should go in the Theory & Ideas forum."
IMO, this argument does not hold up because historically, this rarely happens. There are relatively few threads in that forum that are just basic but specific map ideas and discussion of general concepts are far more common. (I am discounting general threads such as "what would be cool for a zombie map?" because those are not idea threads for a specific map.)

3. "Maps are more about their triggers, systems and actual game play rather than a few pictures these days. If you want a picture, load up Draft. Then 192x192, Jungle, null terrain. You have 90% of my picture-able map. Then pick rectangular terrain, put the size to 19x10 and some walk-able terrain. Place that a few times. 99% of my picture-able map." -Loveless
A. The rule should be overturned because it is meaningless and requires little effort to get a screenshot of some terrain or a screenshot of TrigEdit saying it's processed 10,000+ lines of triggers.
B. The rule holds and such screenshots are unacceptabe because it specifies "screenshots that do not actually show us much about the map do not count and are not acceptable." To date, Loveless' production thread does not have a legitimate, meaningful screenshot under my interpretation of the rule as written. Perhaps the rule should be updated to specify screenshots should be "meaningful". (do we want to deal with ambiguity created by such a "meaningful" clause for screenshots to be legitimate?")

4. "It's okay for veteran and respected members to have threads without screenshots, they won't produce vaporware and we can trust them."
IMO, this argument should not hold because having exceptions to the rules for veterans is selective enforcement. Selective enforcement, from what I can see of public opinion, is not very popular or effective. Furthermore, new members will be confused as to when the rule does and does not apply to a person as it ambiguous, based on the individual judgments and biases of people and moderators.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2012, 5:50 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Number four is not a good argument...that is frustrating and kinda rude to the rest of the community.

I agree, but it's been brought up by other people in related discussion. My goal was to present different arguments, regardless of whether or not they are "good".

I think the rule is fine, but the problem that I personally have with it is that people rush to stamp that rule and its thread into other peoples' threads without even looking at the OP. It's like, "Oh, let's not look at the 5 paragraphs this person has detailing their map. They don't have a picture; it must be closed immediately." People are so quick to just point that out, even if the person who made the thread actually included a good deal of information. It also bugs me how aggressive some of the mods are with this rule. "You don't have a picture. That's against the rules. I'll give a day or else this thing's locked." There's no need to be that hostile. Not everyone gets on SEN everyday, especially the newer people who are, quite frankly, the only ones mapping. We should at least give the person a chance to respond before threatening to lock their topic.

I don't think that's a very logical place to put threads without screenshots. We're on SEN; we make breakthroughs that cause Blizzard to patch the game. I feel like Theories and Ideas should be a place for revolutionary discoveries, such as NeoEUDS, not for people to discuss the new Sunken Defense map they're thinking of making.

I think the rule is fine, but the way it's so quickly and heavily enforced is getting old. Most of the mappers are new people who aren't used to SEN's "strict" rules, such as needing a picture in their thread, so threatening to close the thread before even seeing if they have a lot of information definitely doesn't help us keep users. The rule should still be relative, but it shouldn't be the first thing someone looks for in a new thread.

I'm just putting my two cents in on the issue.

The reason I think it's silly (if anyone else wants to know my argument) is because you look at vets like Voy or Will...and starting a new map thread will probably excite a number of people. But will anything happen from it? It would be very frustrating as a new member to the mapping community to start a thread the right way, get an unfavorable response, and then see someone who is (mostly) elusive sign on and get instant gratification without as much proof...whether or not they actually end up making the map, and whether or not the map is good. I know the favoritism thing will still happen regardless, but I think allowing special provisions like this is unnecessary.

1. I agree with this, but it would still be nice to require some proof of production...

2. I don't think I understand. If it is for a map in production, it's a map production thread. If it's for a map idea, it's an idea.
(EDIT:
I agree with this.)

3. ... As I was saying in 1, this screenshot of triggers shows significant production IMO. So I agree with the "meaningful" part, but maybe call it something else?

4. No. Partly because I don't trust any mapper, regardless of ability, respect, or anything, to never produce a vaporware map.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2012, 6:20 pm by FaRTy1billion.

In my moderation/admin experience, I have always thought it best to interpret rules as guidelines rather than law and always ask the question, "does this make sense?" before I enforced anything. And when I did, my approach was to PM the person with the problem and see if I couldn't work it out by just talking, but if it persisted or if it was blatantly disregarding the rules then I would start pulling out the mod tools and ban hammer.

With regards to pictures, I think a moderator should especially ask whether or not it makes sense to enforce it. Perhaps the more appropriate question to ask is whether or not the user has put something substantial into their opening post. A picture isn't necessarily something substantial in content, and could just be displayed text on a black backdrop. A picture with a few words like "lol pls play my map" should be unacceptable; and likewise, a post with no picture, but is well-organized and presents a good bit of content should be acceptable.

TL;DR: recommend people to put pictures in their threads, but don't make it a requirement.

This is basically what Sac said which is my stance as well.

The argument is that it's too easy to fake a trigger count screenshot. Faking terrain is more difficult and requires at least some amount of work on the map.

@4. No. And I think this has never been argued in LL's case. What has been argued is that the thread doesn't look like it's just a fake.

I looked through the first page of threads in that forum for examples of the aggression by moderators which you described and didn't see any solid examples. The only aggression I really see is from backseat moderators. Their posts are generally deleted some time afterwards.

Agreed. This has also been the historical usage of that forum.

The last topic locked for violation of the screenshot rule is from July 2010. I would like to see evidence of this as well as the aggressive moderation.
Unless your point is about moderation going after backseat moderators and people being dicks about it, which I am completely okay with. They should be reporting posts and letting the moderators do their jobs.

Then perhaps the rule should be something about requiring a demonstration of meaningful progress and details on the map, regardless of what form(s) that may take.

If it it rarely, if ever makes sense to enforce something, why bother keeping it as a rule?
Also, keep in mind that if we were to enforce bare minimums, a rule is unecessary because the base requirement for any thread on SEN is that it is (somewhat) useful and makes (some sort of) contribution. Threads that are not up to standards and are just bad or clearly lacking in effort can already be deleted on those grounds in any forum, including Map Production.

A worthy suggestion.

It really doesn't. Maybe a minute or two more than copying and pasting triggers to get 10k+ lines, but that's about all.
Example of two minutes work: This map I'm working on is an RPG about a lone hero who was exploring the sea and had his ship crash outside some ruins and an ancient temple...

Actually, it has been. Just not in the actual thread or any of its deleted posts, but it was brought up in the shoutbox.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2012, 7:24 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Why would you fake it? And if you are trying to fake production, then that seems like a separate issue all together.

Yes, it has. By you, even.

You have personally seen to it that LoveLess not be required to follow the forum's rule about thread requirements. You have removed the reports and deleted the posts regarding it. Still, no action has been taken, and the thread remains open, clearly in violation of the forum rules.

When I pointed out in the thread the clear issue with choosing not to moderate some people based on how much you like them (the example at the time being, LL's thread stays open when it would have been closed if it was a new member's), you replied to me via PM that it wasn't because you like him more, but because you "respect" him more.

You cannot deny the existence of selective enforcement. Look at the forum rules. Look at the thread. It is breaking the rules. You are selecting not to enforce those rules. That is selective enforcement.

I find it disgusting that some members of the staff, some even self-admittedly, are purposely overlooking undeniable acts of breaking the rules committed by some people, while they choose to enforce rules hyper-zealously against other people. On one hand they will let someone get away with anything and say it is their right as a moderator to judge the intentions of the rules, and on the other hand they will deal out 2 severity for every perceived slight and say it is their duty as a moderator to uphold the rules exactly as they are written.

What is the point of even having rules? With the extremely high prevalence of selective enforcement (only the most extreme rules are being enforced consistently) in all areas of the forum, even the shoutbox, the "rules" are little more than a way for bullies and oppressors to legitimize their actions against people they dislike or feel "deserve" punishment.

With the relatively low level of activity this site has dwindled to, and the community being so sparse relative to what it once was, I think the number of actively moderating staff members is far too high. Some of them are simply looking for arbitrary excuses to exercise their powers against, instead of for, the active members of the community just to continue justifying their own existence.

That being the case, I fully support just removing the rule requiring proof of a map's progress. It isn't being enforced fairly by the moderators, and the moderators have no accountability whatsoever in exercising their powers fairly, so the rule's existence is nothing but detrimental to the community at large.

Also, I kindly request that you take some of the related points I've made here into consideration when deciding what topic to bring up in your next "Let's Talk" thread.

Next can we talk about all the teenage girl drama going on in the shoutbox!!

For the record, I will state that posts about the rule itself and discussion of the rules themselves belong in this forum. (and for this particular rule, this particular thread) I also note that the preceding statement is not one on whether or not you've raised a good point, only about the place to make points.

This will be for a future topic.

Possibly another good future topic, but for me to respond to this here and now would become off-topic.

That's exactly the point. By tackling a relatively small and non-offensive issue first, I can build enough faith in SEN to actually do something about the bigger issues. Truth be told on a larger scale that I am not pleased with what has become of SEN and what has started and continues to go on here over the years. I've contemplated just walking out - deciding that SEN is just not what it used to be, that I've outgrown it, that I want better things in my life. But, I realized that perhaps I should actually try getting involved first and discover what here is still worth involving myself with and investing my time in. (Side note, I've taken that approach to real life, too. It's cost me some friendships, but none that I regret losing.) So, I've come forward to lead this discussion and hopefully some future discussions to figure things out and maybe make SEN a bit better.

If only that were the only issue there. But, I do plan on bringing that up in a later talk.

I think the purpose of the Screenshot requirement is to act as a sort of "bar" or "line" for people so they do not rampantly post their vaporware maps onto the threads.
It works to a certain extent, though it can be easily abused (ex. LL), and I think it has its place.

If we remove that requirement, we need to add another one, maybe even better, in order to make the distinction clear.

Personally, I think the screenie requirement is an elegant way to stop people from posting random threads. It's not the best, but it's not too foreboding and excessive. Plus, it welcomes and encourages people to advertise their maps by posting interesting moments of their game.

I PMed my basis for ignoring the report to you in the first PM:When I was talking about respect in my 2nd PM I must admit I was not very considerate (seeing as it was only an accessory comment on your stance). I let myself pull into your train of thought and rebuked the statement that he gets better treatment because he's liked. I should've said it's because that there's no indication for his thread being vaporware. So the staff is not playing favorites.


If you mean, that I'm not blindly following rules but look at the case and then decide what's best for a smooth operation of SEN, then yes, I am selectively enforcing rules. Problem is not every rule fits every case so I have to base some decisions on reason. That's what the spirit of the law rule is for. But luckily we're just in the process of weeding out one of those problematic rules to make it easier for everyone.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2012, 11:14 pm by Roy. Reason: Removed flaming

I think this is primarily a perception issue. I remember saying something in the Introduction topic along the lines of "You don't need to end all your posts with a 'Warm Regards'; we're not nearly that formal here. " and one of the members responded with "Why are you shoving Sen's rules down everyone's throats? And that rule is stupid!" So it seems that almost any mention of the rules can be interpreted with the hostility Demon describes.

As for the rule in question, I like it because it introduces a base level of quality in a production thread. Sure, a production thread can be of high quality without screenshots, and it can be of low quality with dozens of screenshots, but it would be of even lower quality without those screenshots. If someone puts forward the effort of creating an amazing production thread, they almost assuredly have thought about providing some form of visual aid. Not feeling like adding any images is indicative that you are either uninterested in your project or find it unimportant to present it, and if that's the case, you should be considering whether you want to make a topic for it at this stage of development, anyway.

Since maps in production often don't have anything to play with yet, I like to see what's actually going on. You can always describe something in a text wall, but that's way more inefficient and ineffective than an actual screen capture. Even if the rule were not in place, I'd still ask for screenshots for projects that I have an interest in.

The whole "prove this map exists" thing doesn't seem like it's an issue at present, and if that's the only reason this rule is still in place (not to be confused with how the rule originated; it could have gained meaning since then), then yes, I say we should remove it. However, if it's stuck around because it's providing a higher standard of quality to the maps presented in the forum, I see no reason in removing it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2012, 2:21 am by Roy. Reason: aide != aid

There is nothing wrong with this rule. It provides enough medium for the proof of work to be expressed, it doesn't explicitly say "screenshot of terrain" or "screenshot of triggers". Clearly the problem is Azrael's complaint about selective enforcement, not the rule itself. Personally, I don't think selective enforcement with respect to this particular rule is a bad thing. Now if it was selective enforcement in SD, whole different ball game. But for this forum, it should be obvious to the moderators that Tuxedo Templar making a new map production thread is different than Ygg (member ID:27, last active august 2007) making a map production thread. Its common sense to give Tuxedo a few days to bring his topic up to scratch, because he has a history of completing good maps, whereas no one's ever heard of Ygg before. If Tux fails after a few days, BAM moderation. If Ygg doesn't get his game together quickly, BAM moderation. If it turns out Ygg is actually working on his map, he can always PM the moderator to have it reopened.

Is this method unfair? Yes, but:
Leave it to the moderator's discretion.

Is it practical? Yes. Anyone who gets butthurt over this rule needs to find a new calling in life (something other than being butthurt over stupid computer game forum rules, and I suggest being butthurt over politics, because they're largely the same game, but you get paid a lot more).

I hope you guys know that this topic is probably going to give Devlin a hernea. He's already under IRL stress. He doesn't need this too. Why can't we all play nice?

I'm not a mapper but I'll give my thoughts.

1 - This does not hold because quantity shouldn't have any impact on quality. People should be expected to produce some degree of proof that they have actually done something. It's showing some degree of commitment. If people can't even show a simple screenshot, which takes all of 30 seconds to capture and upload and link, then I fear for their project as a whole.

On the flip side, since no one mapping is introducing custom graphics, there isn't much to show out of any given map. They all look the same. I propose that, instead of a screenshot, the poster can opt to show a demonstrational video that is casted to explain their project. But there should be some kind of bar to prevent people from posing one-liner threads with no content. Be it a video, a screenshot, or a combination, the proof is up to the poster that the project is not vaporware.

2 - Theories and Ideas are kind of different from actual projects. If someone has a project but isn't willing to show a screenshot, it isn't really an idea or theory, it may just not be ready to show.

3 - This is basically #1.

4 - Veterans should have no leniency. I've been working on projects for 13 years and all of the stuff on the latter half of those years failed harder than the first half. Experience has nothing to do with presentation, nor does standing. If anything, the burden should be even higher for people of stature to present a meaningful OP.


To me, this subject is really simple and I don't see a need to have a discussion about it. If you're going to make an OP about a project, include more than just a few lines saying about how great it will be. Show it in action. If it's not ready to show in action, it's not worth talking about. If you want to talk about ideas, you have Theories and Ideas. Present a project only if you're ready to present it. If putting up a screenshot is considered a hassle, it's not ready.

This is really smart.