Jury Discussion- POLL

[oaktown]

once you've served you're off the hook for a while - let's get everybody involved.

[iancanton]

once a map hits the Forge nobody looks at it anymore (which in my opinion is the way it should be - a map should be all but finished when it is thrown into the Forge).

i have to agree. this is all the more reason why mapmakers should not expect a stamp when they say that they'll fix already-identified small niggles only after they're in the final forge.

ian.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

We have something up our sleeves for the Drafting room, but not jury-related...

any spoilers/hints

[MrBenn]

Spoiler

No

[InkL0sed]

I'd be up for being on a jury, no problem.

[bryguy]

I'd be up for being on a jury, no problem.

same

[the.killing.44]

Spoiler

No

You crack me up. Now on to fix those badly drawn breasts …

.44

[yeti_c]

Spoiler

No

You crack me up. Now on to fix those badly drawn breasts …

.44

WHa?!??!

C>

[MrBenn]

Spoiler

No

You crack me up. Now on to fix those badly drawn breasts …

.44

WHa?!??!

C>

The breasts are a reference to his Korea map... the spoiler is my response to a request for a spoiler...

[Teflon Kris]

Big Long Waffle Version

Summary:
Okay, so we are having a discussion the new jury system.

The issue of subjectivity has been raised, and Darwin mentioned. Conquer Club is a large community, sociological experts may have some insights. We could go on discussing this for a long time.

Analysis:
Perhaps there are 2 issues:

(A) Subjectivity / objectivity: Whether the CC community will enjoy a new map, whether the map stands-up to current quality standards (graphics), and who decides those standards.

(B) How amendments are suggested and responded to (i.e. map-makers making a 'reasoned argument' to rebuff suggestions.

Ideas:
Issue (A) is tricky and being dealt with by the jury system which seems to keep the system working. The idea to get plenty of people involved, including non map-makers helps address issues people have raised about perceived subjectivity about graphics/gameplay opinions.

Issue (B), as oak says, is about constructive feedback. At work, I have meetings with some very vague managers (to put it kindly). The following generally helps meetings stick to the point and be concluded quickly: Prioritising and providing a list of actions. Simple!

Prioritising: With the foundry, perhaps if jury members raise points and state the relative importance of them (e.g. Important/Needs Good Consideration/Desirable/Minor Point) then the map-maker can prioritise his/her adjustments (this will also make it transparent if a map-maker is rejecting all points out of hand and also if a map-maker is given a number of Desiable/Minor issues then he/she will hopefully not feel bombarded).

List of Actions: Maybe also numbering the list of requested/planned adjustments may help keep forum threads on topic and easy for jury members to quickly assess the current state of play?

These 2 ideas are a bit business-like and retentive perhaps.

Just ideas though.

Maybe one of the jury members could be responsible for the clarity of the forum thread and it being on-task (i.e. regular re-caps on the list of actions / prioirities)? Success in the past is probably a lot to do with oak working this way.

*1 Democracy could be discussed for decades.

*2 Jury system addresses subjectivity concerns quite a lot. Good move.

*3 Ideas for jury member's regarding oak's point about constructive feedback: As oak says, giving a list. Maybe numbered bullet points (prioritising), and indicating the importance of each point made (e.g. Important/Needs Good Consideration/Desirable/Minor Point)? + Having a jury member responsible for clarity and the thread being on-task.

*4 My only other point has been mentionned by others before: discussions are to help map-makers. It's easy to mis-read when we have no eye contact, no body language and just words. That's probably how a lot of disagreement starts.

[sailorseal]

Spoiler

No

LOL

[Qwert]

In theory Jury sistem look good,but in real jury sistem can work very bad.

[yeti_c]

In theory Jury sistem look good,but in real jury sistem can work very bad.

That depends on your resistance to change?!

C.

[Qwert]

That depends on your resistance to change?!

nice joke

[yeti_c]

That depends on your resistance to change?!

nice joke

It wasn't.

C.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

Spoiler

No

Spoiler

k just gotta wait

[oaktown]

In theory Jury sistem look good,but in real jury sistem can work very bad.

So, you don't like the CA system. When a CA hands his stamp to the community you don't like that either. What do you suggest - that we just let everybody do whatever they want and quench everything?

There are other sites with similar games that already do that, and their maps look like hell.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

In theory Jury sistem look good,but in real jury sistem can work very bad.

So, you don't like the CA system. When a CA hands his stamp to the community you don't like that either. What do you suggest - that we just let everybody do whatever they want and quench everything?

There are other sites with similar games that already do that, and their maps look like hell.

how about we open when a map is getting ready to go into the FF, keep it open for like 2 weeks, have on option be
Yes
and the other...
No-(see comment)

[the.killing.44]

In theory Jury sistem look good,but in real jury sistem can work very bad.

So, you don't like the CA system. When a CA hands his stamp to the community you don't like that either. What do you suggest - that we just let everybody do whatever they want and quench everything?

There are other sites with similar games that already do that, and their maps look like hell.

how about we open when a map is getting ready to go into the FF, keep it open for like 2 weeks, have on option be
Yes
and the other...
No-(see comment)

No, for these ideas like FF polls are definitely not the way to go. People can pop in, vote and not leave anything. The jury system is good because the jurors are selected as trustworthly Foundry-goers.

.44

[oaktown]

It's still a young system, and it has only had three trials, but it is just bringing up what has long been a problem in our little map foundry, which is this...

Some people are responsible members of the community. They post in other people's maps. They take on responsibilities that promise no rewards. They want to see the best maps possible made for the site. They are here to serve the community.

Meanwhile, other people don't understand that they are part of a larger community, and lack awareness of the expectations and responsibilities that come with being a member of a group. They are here to make the maps that they want to make, as they want to make them. They spend 95% of their foundry time in their own map threads, and the rest of the time talking about how the foundry doesn't work for them. These people think that the Foundry is here to serve them.

The jury system will never work for this second type because a) they won't serve on a jury when called, and b) they won't respect the opinion of the jury when offered. They'll never be happy with the jury system, but then they were never happy with the old system either.

I'm going to take a few days off from all Foundry business, and come back to this with a clear mind.

[Teflon Kris]

Not sure if this helps but would a jury chair-person be of any use?

This person would collate the jury's opinions and summarise the findings - i.e. at regular times list the agreed amendments (and perhaps those that weren't agreed), how necessary/important they are and whether they have been acted on / if there is continuing discussion with the cartographer, or a stalemate scenario. Or, maybe that's oak?

Hey, no system is perfect, especially not in its infancy.

If you have a look at the Polynessian War thread, developments progressed fine early doors, in particular when a numbered list of developments were put forward. It all looks so simple. Maybe, in such cases, the jury discuss by PM and the chair-person posts their findings. Maybe that might simplify things? Just an idea.

[the.killing.44]

oak is the Jury head. He's the fourth and silent member, presiding over the actions.

.44

[edbeard]

I think it's a bit silly to put all this power to the jury.

In my opinion, the jury should only be about making sure the gameplay is balanced and the graphics are not going to confuse anyone (one purpose of graphics is to translate the gameplay into visual form). To have people say something like "until such and such changes, I'm not passing the map" is WAY too much power. If the person wants few bonuses that's his choice. If the person wants an objective to solely serve as a way to end the game faster and not be used as a legitimate route to victory, that's the mapmaker's choice.

opinions of is the map going to play this way or that way or will this be more fun or whatever are up to the mapmaker.

gameplay stamps are about balanced gameplay.

idea stamp is about whether the gameplay and graphical directives are interesting to the community at large and/or different/unique enough to be worthy of being a Conquer Club Map. perhaps graphical idea and gameplay idea stamps are needed. more stamps oh joy! if you change the direction of your map (graphics or gameplay or both), you need to re-acquire your stamps. this is how things SHOULD work. people redo maps but never get sent back to ideas. or I haven't seen that recently.


specifics should be left to the mapmaker as long as they fit the themes defined by the idea stamps. strongly encouraging change is one thing. requiring it is another. One thing that SHOULD be required is consistency. this affects many things. borders is one good example. there's no good reason to have good solid borders all throughout the map but then blurry/squiggly ones elsewhere. this is inconsistent and is not acceptable. there are other examples but I can't think of them. maybe colours is another good one. you have a map with continents in the yellow - red spectrum but one continent is blue. the example is a bit obvious and simple but "consistency" applies to almost everything.



it's all very difficult because the "I want it this way" argument works in some cases but not in others. There is no general way to say when it is acceptable and when it is not.

[oaktown]

one issue is that by assigning the jury so late in the process they aren't following the entire thread, so they're bringing up crap that has been settled. I've been thinking maybe we should assign a jury to each map as it hits the main Foundry; it would encourage those three community members to follow the life of the map, and will mean they are more informed when it comes time to cast a vote on the map.

The down side of this is that it will require way more jury members (there are a lot of active maps in the Foundry) and since it takes weeks/months to complete a map we may lose jury members along the way, making more work for me. I'm tired of doing more work.

Anyway, discuss... i'll pick up this discussion next week when I'm fresh.

[Incandenza]

one issue is that by assigning the jury so late in the process they aren't following the entire thread, so they're bringing up crap that has been settled. I've been thinking maybe we should assign a jury to each map as it hits the main Foundry; it would encourage those three community members to follow the life of the map, and will mean they are more informed when it comes time to cast a vote on the map.

The down side of this is that it will require way more jury members (there are a lot of active maps in the Foundry) and since it takes weeks/months to complete a map we may lose jury members along the way, making more work for me. I'm tired of doing more work.

Anyway, discuss... i'll pick up this discussion next week when I'm fresh.

Well, then, why bother with stampers, then?

I'm kinda with ed. I see the jury concept as a "last looks", "get a few people together to see if there's anything obvious we missed" concept, as opposed to ultimate arbiters of a map's future.