Merciless Wong wrote:I am waiting for AndyDufresne to respond on the political issue and on the points of order I have raised with regard to Moderator powers .I have received 1 new warning from Mr Benn, been edited for flaming and got a 24 hour ban (before the warning) so far which seems somewhat unjustified - given that I was totally correct in accusing the forum of having 'unwritten rules' with regard to new map makers on standards and quality.
I told you so but I would like to see Andy respond to this but I am not sure you will. Andy will come in here, write a short paragraph and all of your doubts will disappear in his incredibly well worded sentences. You will begin to feel better about yourself and your self esteem will raise. I promise. Andy is good like that
So a better option would be for the cc community to vote in their leaders?
...or even better yet, have Lack pay a graphic artist to create maps for him (like he did the old Classic and USA map), without any input from the community? Maybe 1 every couple of months - enough to keep it fresh in here.
Naa.. I think the whole map foundry is one of the gems of this website. You don't have to be on the "inside" to get a map pushed through the process. Anyone can do it. I think Oak & the group have already made that point above.
Doesn't matter anyways I have played my map a couple of times already so I ain't spending 6mths to a year for free for anybody. I want a reply because CC complaints promised me a reply from him and if he doesn't - I'm negotiating for a partial refund of my Premium membership.
Quote from Poison Rome (dead maps thread) by Cairnswk- I think it has a Moderator Complaint/Rules Change aspect to it and deserves to be added here. No sense leaving all this feedback in the deadmaps threads where no one gets to see it.
cairnswk wrote:I know why i am here. You probably all know why you are here too. I am here because for want of all the criticisms that i get from everyone about this or that not being right or good enough, i can still say to you that i enjoy this creative process, and for all of the comments that are given me, i attend to at least 95% of them to ensure that players get what they want when the maps are in development. I don't put myself above the process that has always been the foundry where everyone who makes a decent positive offer of criticism can expect to have something done about that offer. It's where the offer makes no contribution to betterment or is negative, or is out of timeline, that the process sticks in my throat, and i have seen this over and over again with nearly every mapmaker.
Each map we produce is done so on a volunteer basis to make this site better. It is also done with regard to developing our skills in whatever software were are using. We don't get paid (apart from a trifle premium whereby lackattack is doing very well out of our free hobby time). Therefore i have a view which i'll term the "project timeline" which is simply the alloted time that i will give freely to any map in development due to fact that we are not paid accordingly for going above and beyond.
With respect to that view, while i don't place myself above the foundry development process i am not going to spend one more ounce of my time in many situations developing further a map that i am not being paid for accordingly.
You and some others may have some grandeos idea that every map should be better, but i don't. And I'll tell you why. Since i have an artistic temperament, i recognise that not every piece an artist produces will be better than the last. I have a belief that when people stop commenting about artistic issues in a positive manner and their concerns have been dealt with in a positive manner that the time for the project to be completed is done. This may also coincide with the artist's feelings that either they wish to no longer produce anything on that project because it would undo what has been achieved or the artist gains fulfillment with what has been produced and they have spend enough time on this project. Over a lengthy period of time (many years) one would expect that the artist's skill would improve, but for the process here, some artists will produce many works to achieve that better place while others will do it irregularly and still others will produce it easily. Comparing my skills and ability to other mapmakers is irrelevant to me since they are in a different skills place to me.
MrBenn wrote:That aside, the thing that bothers me most about some of your recent posts, is that you seem to think you're above the process. Perhaps you are, because those of us who are in a position to force the brakes on a project rarely do so - especially when it has been on the road for a couple of months already... Anyway, I fully expect that you'll go ahead and berate me for not saying any of this sooner, or just simply ignore me. Either way, I expect this map will be quenched soon (even if I hope it won't). I don't expect to see you in any games on it, because this is one map that I intend to avoid playing.
Me think that i am above the process. No MrBenn. I don't think that i am above the process. If i was above the process, then i wouldn't have all these 22 maps quenched.
As for moderators forcing the breaks on projects, you were the one who moved this map to the Foundry, you only have yourself to blame when you didn't offer me a reasonable contribution when i contested why the map was still in Drafts. You then failed also to offer anything positive to it while it was in Foundry. Yet you have the gall to now criticise me for getting offended about some others' comments. I have been on about people getting into maps and making appropriate comments while in development stages ever since i did Cairns Coral Coast. This is nothing new for me and most people know that. If you can't give me the respect of placing a comment in my map while it is in development, don't expect me to be too obliging if you come in after I see the map as being completed.
Berat you, i wouldn't do that MrBenn. But i will give you decent feedback that i think there are three aspects in this production process that are flawed. 1. Final Forge should be only for the XML development and centering. 2. All graphical issues should be ironed out in the Foundry to the best of the foundry's ability and that high expectations of mapmakers should be developed and persuaded in both Drafts and Foundry. A map shouldn't be stamped and then people asked to comment on it by others who have not bothered to contribute to the map. This has been on-going for ages with regard to many developments. If people choose to make minor details comments about a map after it has been quenched then it can be fixed during the beta process which is where gameplay & graphics come in for a hammering from all who play the map. 3. More often than not CA's don't bother to reply to mapmakers who answer CA's comments because CA's don't have the want or desire to continue a decent discussion with a mapmaker who simply wants answers.
If you altered the Foundry rules to state that: "all graphical issues must be ironed out in a positive manner before a map reaches final forge" this would go a long way to assist mapmakers.
I have removed the maps for the time being from the Foundry to the Dead Project Bin, because of three factors. a. I was incensed with your comments MrBenn. b. I am doing uni studies at the mo, and don't have a lot of time to devote to answering anymore. c. I also feel that i need a break from the foundry to reflect on some changes that might come about during my absence.
My maps will be returned when i am ready to return. Others who have posted since will be answered shortly when i have more time.
I'll be honest, I only read the first post of this thread, 'cause people wrote a lot, and I have no time, but all I have to say it; I really likes that map. I thought it was very good and really didn't have much against it graphic wise either. I don't know what guidline it broke (once it got going, of cource and it wasn't just a modified classic art) and I thought is should have been made an advanced draft, not sent to the bin. People's only complaint was that it didn't show the idea of influence in the city, but I think it did very well. It would be easy to see once you were playing how you are like a politician of sorts, and as you spread throught the city getting support you become more powerfull, and by having your influance over all of the upperclass that is a bonus and you get more armies to fund your climb to power in the city. I say, make it an advanced draft and resume work on it.
Last edited by captainwalrus on Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
captainwalrus wrote:I don't know what guidline it broke
Drafting Room Guidelines:
b. the willingness to consider and respond appropriately to critical feedback c. the ability to make multiple changes based on ongoing feedback d. a solid understanding of the Foundry standards and process.
Merciless Wong wrote:What you don't get is the fact that this is a business. My individual contribution is irrelevant. But....
The impact of having the map making function controlled by a narrow (but talented) group of graphics-focused people is:
1-Slower map creation 2-Bias in map creation towards complicated maps and more and more geographic subdvision 3-Lots of volunteers who spend 1-10 hours then discover that the process is closed to them (or idiots like me who spend 20-30 because they've always wanted to learn a proper graphics software) and who can walk -Some really great maps (of the type favored by the forum) produced for free
I'd like to respond a few of these points.
1. As pointed out, Lack could hire graphic artists to make new maps for the Community to play on---and from hearing things through the grapevine, good quality maps could be produced roughly in one-two weeks.
But, one of the greatest things about Conquer Club is the fact that people get to contribute to a Community, to be a part of a Community. I'm sure we could have a speedier process, but at what cost, and what loss to the Community?
2. I'd like to dispute bias towards mostly creating Complex maps. Lets look at the actual facts. The last 6 Months of maps, dating to around November:
In this list, I'd even argue that WWII Europe, Wales, Holy Roman Empire, and maybe even Rail Australia are somewhere in between, but for your argument, I'll include them in the Complex List.
So what does that leave us for Standard-esque maps?
That is 11 Maps, not including the USA Map pack. Add that Map Pack in, that bumps it up to 17 Standard Maps in the last 6 Months.
How does this compare to the Complex list? The Complex Sample had 9 in the last 6 months.
Now I know grouping maps can be problematic, but take this example, this sample, and it's numbers for what it's worth.
Now, lets take a look at the numbers for maps currently in any stage of Live Production (Draft, Main Foundry, Final Forge): (I've excluded a few that haven't had recent updates, but the sample is a good one anyways)
I've been generous, and included a few maps that are "barely complex." Anything with bombardment or objectives or additional bonus structures, etc. I'd argue that Regioni, England, Atlantis, Treasure Map, Caste Lands aren't really that complex, but like I said, I've kept them in the Complex List anyways. So thats 14 Maps.
So that is 16 Maps the are very basic in gameplay. If I were to add maps with bombardments and objectives and additional bonus structures (since they are described in the Instructions of the website), it'd bump the number up to 20-23.
=============
So what's all this mean? Well, the numbers seem to suggest that "Complex maps"---that are departures from very "Classic/Standard-esque" game play---do NOT make up a majority of the maps of the last 6 months (in fact for ever 1 complex map there were 2 standard maps), and in the Foundry Complex maps do not make up a majority either, even when I tried to include relatively easy to understand maps like Castle lands, Treasure Map, Atlantis, etc.
3. Lets again take a look at the numbers, instead of just talking about points. Maps that have failed recently, including Vacations since sometimes vacations are indefinite, but not taking into account the reason, just look at the pure numbers...I got these from the 1st page of the Recycling Bin, taking into account bumps. Most are recent all the way back to January, and maybe a few from December and November are in there, but within the last 6 months:
So that's 31 maps. A pretty good sample. In the last 6 months, for every map that failed, for whatever reason, using the data gathered earlier, roughly 1 map succeeded (a little less, but only a 5 map difference).
Now, out of those, for fun, lets look which were Complex and which were Standard.
There were roughly 26 cartographers I count. For most of the maps, it seems there was initial and general interest, but the cartographer did not continue to update. If you'd like, I could PM every cartographer and ask them why they stopped production on their map, but I reckon that most of the answers would be they lost interest/things came up in real life. It doesn't seem the like the maps stopped production because of any "inherent bias" in the Foundry, but rather issues on the cartographer's end.
I will report to you on the alternative you don't want discussed - simply because if it gains market share (and the network effects of having a broader base of players), it is a problem for the owners of Conquer Club - who may want to consider copying a play popularity based process for vanilla maps as a separate line to the Foundry.
If some of the dead maps around here (with creator permission) end up elsewhere and do well.. the broader CC community and owners should be rightly concerned about the direction of the Foundry.
People are free to take their maps, and ideas elsewhere. We have a great community here, and if some don't want to participate---that's fine, but we'll keep trucking along just fine.
I am waiting for AndyDufresne to respond on the political issue and on the points of order I have raised with regard to Moderator powers .I have received 1 new warning from Mr Benn, been edited for flaming and got a 24 hour ban (before the warning) so far which seems somewhat unjustified - given that I was totally correct in accusing the forum of having 'unwritten rules' with regard to new map makers on standards and quality.
I don't like airing dirty laundry. But since you brought it up, lets look at your Disciplinary History:
Gimil has been largely busy outside the Foundry, and Oaktown was cooling down for his retirement. Iancanton is around, though he usually sticks to his duties of gameplay, and that is fine. Thus, that is why those you receive the most Disciplinary Actions from was MrBenn and Myself. Your Warnings were mostly in response to your vendetta-trolling of map topics, namely England, Poison Rome, Foundry Staff Changes, and a few others I recall.
The Disciplinary History looks standard, Warnings, 1 Vacation, additional Warnings.
Have I missed anything? Let me know. I'd be happy to respond---and keep in mind this out of my personal free time, I'm off the clock. I planned on doing other things tonight, but this was what I ended up working on.
What is time from draft to foundry for new mapmakers versus repeat mapmakers? What percentage of failed maps are from new mapmakers?
Saying that the mapmaker caused it by not updating is not much of an excuse if new mapmakers have a clearly tougher process and give up as a result.
Other thing, I'd love for you to consider is what percentage of maps are actually played? I'm sure Lack can give you the data for 1 week of games and that would quickly show that complex maps make up less play than their share of the foundry that you estimated above.
On disciplinary actions:
I think we've established that there is no route of appeal when you are uncomfortable with moderator bias. I wrote to you on Mr Benn quite some time ago and you responded that you had spoken to him and had full confidence in his ability to continue in an unbiased manner. I wrote again when things got worse and got no answer, then racked up disciplinary actions when I challenged the moderator to get the issue out in the open. I think the number of disciplinary actions is sign of the fact that the forum has no check or balance on poor moderator behaviour rather than any sign of the invalidity of my criticisms. Citing that instead of looking at the specific instances of behaviour is a quick way to avoid discussion on Mr Benn's behaviour.
My biggest clash with Mr Benn is over the fact that one standard exists for new mapmakers and one for connected mapmakers (witness the differences in moderation between Prince of the CIty and Conquer Mart, how come Conquer Mart doesn't have to justify its theme to get out of draft). I think this is pretty much agreed upon in this forum as forum practice.
I racked up disciplinary actions, effectively forcing the forum to admit what it actually does and coming clean on its 'unwritten rules'. I hope future new mapmakers are properly forewarned from here on.
I appreciate the fact that you are a volunteer but the question here is whether one group of volunteers is allowed to behave in a subjective manner to other volunteers without appeal. If you refuse to look at Mr Benn's actions, you are not building a community, you are building a clique by making quite clear that questions will be retaliated against and backing that retaliation.
Merciless Wong wrote:My biggest clash with Mr Benn is over the fact that one standard exists for new mapmakers and one for connected mapmakers (witness the differences in moderation between Prince of the CIty and Conquer Mart, how come Conquer Mart doesn't have to justify its theme to get out of draft). I think this is pretty much agreed upon in this forum as forum practice.
Wow, way to completely blow your own theory out the water. I've been around the Foundry for over two years, and I'd never heard of the guy making Conquer Mart until I recently stumbled into his thread for the first time. I don't even know his name.
The biggest difference between you and the Conquer Mart guy is that when somebody makes a comment in that thread he responds thoughtfully; when somebody makes a comment in your thread you react defensively.
If you're really curious about how long it takes veteran mapmakers to make a map versus new mapmakers, why not crunch the numbers and try to prove your theory?
Sure, pm me Lack's e-mail and I will contact him directly for data.
oaktown wrote: The biggest difference between you and the Conquer Mart guy is that when somebody makes a comment in that thread he responds thoughtfully; when somebody makes a comment in your thread you react defensively.
If this is a process of checking graphical or gameplay quality, that should have nothing to with it. Like I said this is a process of unequal standards and any attempt to question the process is classified as "not accepting feedback" to stifle discussion. I note that blanket clause was used to justify action on me and on that cairns guy who is clearly graphically very, very good.
I will note that moderators (and former) can take a while to get to a map update but are lightning quick to pile in on any question of the foundry process. It doesn't signal that you welcome this discussion.
I think we've established that there is no route of appeal when you are uncomfortable with moderator bias. I wrote to you on Mr Benn quite some time ago and you responded that you had spoken to him and had full confidence in his ability to continue in an unbiased manner. I wrote again when things got worse and got no answer, then racked up disciplinary actions when I challenged the moderator to get the issue out in the open. I think the number of disciplinary actions is sign of the fact that the forum has no check or balance on poor moderator behaviour rather than any sign of the invalidity of my criticisms. Citing that instead of looking at the specific instances of behaviour is a quick way to avoid discussion on Mr Benn's behaviour.
I understand you had problems with MrBenn. After you contacted me, I corresponded with him both via PM and via Live Chat. I came to the conclusion that I still had---and do, mind you---full confidence in his abilities, insight, and map facilitation.
When things "got worse" as you say, I chatted with him once again. I don't believe he was ever intentionally holding you, or any other cartographers, back from any part of the process.
Your opinion of poor moderator behavior is subjective, as is everyone's. My opinion of Benn, Iancanton, and Gimil, and our recently departed Oaktown---all the work has been fantastic and this by far has been a terrific group of C.A.'s. The amount of input, comments, feedback, and over all shaping of the Foundry and Map facilitation by those C.A.'s has been an amazing amount work.
Infact, in part why all the above mentioned are C.A.'s---they have conducted themselves in their map topics, and the map topics of others, in a stellar manner.
And we here at Conquer Club do have checks in place---and you have currently been involved in a number of ways: Contacting MrBeen, contacting myself, posting discussion, etc. If you'd like to further check this, you may contact Optimus Prime, as he is our Volunteer Coordinator here at Conquer Club, and his role is to oversee our the conduct and actions of our Volunteers.
=========================
On a slightly side note, Merciless Wong, you can, and often do, make excellent feedback posts. I'd like to think that these are the real you, and not the above.
I think I'll leave it at this point and go back to my cc role as a player. Any map energy I have is better directed elsewhere.
I will say though that due to the threat of retaliation by moderators against map making efforts and the fact that various 'subjective' standards on feedback responsiveness, quality, what is a flame, etc. can be imposed to rationalize any behaviour........ you are never going to get honest feedback on the direction of the foundry by anyone who has a map he needs to get through. The pm's I have advising me on how to play the political issues and some of the public responses indicate that this is a politicized process, but no one is willing to say so.
If I were Optimus Prime, an anonymous poll should be periodically put up to allow a parlimentary style 'vote of confidence' on each moderator in the foundry. e.g. The following questions on an annual basis
1. Are moderators showing bias in there approval/disapproval of maps?
2. Do you object to this bias?
3. Do you feel any moderators should be removed from duties or suspended?
Merciless Wong wrote:I will note that moderators (and former) can take a while to get to a map update but are lightning quick to pile in on any question of the foundry process. It doesn't signal that you welcome this discussion.
Actually, I very much welcome this discussion, which is why I've been posting in here so frequently. And you'll notice that when you had a concern with the language of the Guide I offered up a change.
Merciless Wong wrote:Like I said this is a process of unequal standards and any attempt to question the process is classified as "not accepting feedback" to stifle discussion. I note that blanket clause was used to justify action on me and on that cairns guy who is clearly graphically very, very good.
There are a number of different Foundry issues addressed this quote. All are not new issues.
First there is the question fo unequal standards. I think that some mapmakers have been able to get their maps through the process more quickly, even if their maps aren't top-notch. But I don't think it happens because veteran mapmakers are given a free ride; at least, I certainly don't feel like I do, and I've made as many maps as all but two or three CC users. I think that some mapmakers have figured out (1) what makes a map get through the Foundry faster, and (2) how to best work the system that we in place. The "squeaky wheel" mapmakers who fire up quick updates, PM the stampers, keep the discussion going in their threads, and attract attention to their maps get their maps finished quickly... cairnswk and qwert are both good examples of this. And I don't say that to put down their maps, but to applaud their hard work and style.
Second, there is the question of mapmakers who do not respond well to criticism. Anybody who has been around for a while has seen projects come through that look like dung, yet the mapmaker and two or three of his friends insist that it's the best thing since the Classic map. The community expresses concerns, and the concerns are ignored or refuted. Then the mapmaker questions why the map isn't advancing, gets upset, accuses the foundry of bias, demands his premium membership fees back, issues threats against the site and the moderators, etc.
What does the community do with these cases? Do we admit that our collective, subjective view could be flawed and quench the map, regardless of what the community thinks it looks like? Do we tell the mapmaker where to stick his map? Do we spend countless hours trying to help the irate mapmaker cool down and try to coach him into improving his map? None of these options is ideal, so if anybody has a better one I'm all ears.
The third issue that you raise is that of "action" being taken against members. I don't believe that any official "actions" have been taken against cairnswk as you have said. Rather, members of the community expressed concerns about his map and his mapmaking style. Yours is a different story... but your posts in other map threads, including mine, suggest to me that you're a reasonably intelligent, capable, and thoughtful guy, so I am going to out on a limb and suggest that even you recognize that you've done some baiting recently.
Finally, you said way back in this thread that CC is a business and should run itself accordingly, to which I will say that it is. There are many, many sites out there that offer a game similar to this one, so the goal of this site's owners should be to find a lucrative niche and fill it. In my opinion what makes CC superior to landgrab or any other site mentioned above is that (1) the maps here look good and play well, and (2) the forums here offer experiences that aren't found elsewhere. As a customer I have played a few of these sites, and I chose to spend my time and money here. I know that while change comes slow to this site, lack isn't entirely deaf to the demands of his customers; but he has to weigh the value of making a major change. If we drop the requirements for creating CC maps, what would the net gain be? How many loyal customers would he lose, versus how many new customers would he gain?
Is the Foundry cliquey? Perhaps, but I don't think it's cliquey in the way you accuse it of being. You argue that there is a group of mapmakers who push each others' maps through and hold back new mapmakers, and I think that this argument is full of holes. Qwert and I both have about 10 maps in the back, yet we rarely see eye to eye. Cairnswk is the most prolific mapmaker here, yet he was just sent packing. Edbeard and I went a few rounds recently, and DiM made great maps but always found a way to get on the Foundry's bad side. Meanwhile we have a crop of relatively new blood that has taken over the stamping duties, many of whom haven't even quenched a map yet.
Ooh, fast-posted by wong! I'd be curious to see what the results of your poll questions are, though I think that the last one should be dropped - it'll just lead to mod baiting in the thread. I'd be ahppy to work with you - or anyone else - to put together a Foundry Climate poll.
I planned on doing other things tonight, but this was what I ended up working on. 
