I believe the screenshot rule should no longer be required, only encouraged.

Oddly enough, there was one production thread where the mapper actually posted a youtube video showing off his map but still posted a screenshot because of the rule. If anything, that says something about the rule being outdated in today's environment where video is becoming more and more prevalent.

This is how I feel about many rules, far beyond the screenshot rule. A lot of people who have been here for a long time are doing things that they should simply know better about about 3+ years. (I must admit I am guilty of this as well.) Then again, given the moderation environment in recent years, perhaps they actually don't know better...

As you say there are 1,8 map threads/month I would only encourage more proofs (screens, videos, etc), but not as a requirement - only recommendations.
There are too few maps to start adding more rules.

Ive not once found a reasonable reason for screenshots that a map exists, seeing how they can be easily created from OTHER maps that may have or have not existed prior to the development.

And as such, I have always worked around the rule by showing screenshots of trigger systems as proof the map exists, rather than terrain because A. my terrain is horrid, and B. terrain doesnt make the map 100%.

I say abolish the screenshot rule, and perhaps leave in a rule that may work, such as sharing the current map file (Even in an infant stage to prove it exists), or to have testers agree that the map exists. This one would take time though of course, but I imagine a 2 week period should suffice.

Again both ideas, both open to comments and concerns.

Since activity in the map production forum is now so low, and the ideas forum is now used for developments of new map technology and general conceptual work, would it even be bad to allow Map Production threads for map concepts/fantasies/whatever? Sure, maybe it's a little annoying to get involved with a discussion on a map only for it to disappear, but a) this happens anyway, and b) isn't having a map project in the design/pre-production stages to talk about better than not having anything to talk about at all?

On the topic of closing map production threads without screenshots, I don't see why screenshots == productivity. Many different things can equal productivity when creating a map, and there are many ways of portraying progress to readers of the thread.

A small set of simple guidelines should be available for anyone to see, these guidelines should detail what a thread should be like in order to portray a productive product. Some examples of what the guidelines could talk about: clear topic and map objective; clear goal of when the project will finish; detailed and practical steps of how to achieve a complete map; details on the inner implementation; details on currently implemented features; details on to-implement features; screenshots of action or terrain that can be used as highlights for your product.

As you can see, screenshots are but a singular section of what the guidelines for a good map production thread could contain.

Then from here moderators can make qualitative and subjective calls on whether to modify or close threads at their own discretion. This prevents the debate on particular rules, leaves no possibility for rules lawyers, and is more flexible overall.

That being said, there's a specific case I would like to delve into.

According to the law of the screenshot rule, http://www.staredit.net/topic/15428/ is now an acceptable topic. (Yes, I know I specifically posted something in there which the TC is disregarding, but that is something I posted in that topic specifically - IE not a rule that applies outside the topic.)

It has become okay because a screenshot of terrain was edited in. Terrain which was developed for another thread anyway. Here is what I know about the map:

- It is called New Gettysburg Chronicles and is a "free world map where anything is possible", which I assume means it is an open RPG or RP map.
- A trailer of GTA V is there, which implies that the map will be like GTA or have features from GTA. What these features are or how they will be implemented in StarCraft is not detailed.
- I do not know what differentiates this from other open RPGs or RP maps besides that "anything is possible", which seems to contradict my knowledge and experience of mapping. I interpret that as meaning that a large amount of various features will be in the map. None of these features are not detailed.
- I do not know any specifications of the map such as map size or number of players, though I do know from the screenshot that the tileset is Badlands.
- I do not know what is planned for the map or many details about the finished project. I do not know how much progress has been made on this map. There is no demo or information given on updates for the map.
- There is literally no text about the map within the topic post itself. It is just a trailer for a game that isn't StarCraft and a screenshot of terrain.

Yet, this topic is okay by the standard of the screenshot rule. (Well, actually, we can swing "2. Keep your original post organized and informative. [...] Include some basic information about your map(s). What makes your map so special?" from http://www.staredit.net/topic/8127/ around here.) Does the map exist? Probably. Does that topic tell us anything about it? No, it's next to useless for the purpose of giving us information about the map. Whether or not the topic was intentionally made that way to prove how the screenshot rule is ineffective, it does illustrate it.

TL;DR: The screenshot rule is stupid and has loopholes. It is not effective at setting quality standards and should be replaced by something that is.

---

Edit.

The new http://www.staredit.net/topic/8127/ have been drafted and are currently in effect. You may provide comments, criticisms, or concerns here or in PM.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 11:58 pm by Mini Moose 2707.