ZapruderFilm wrote:Map opinions are a pretty subjective topic. Not only would it be very hard to even get a majority of players to agree a map is suitable, but then the only opinions that will (for the most part) be submitted are the ones of the people who frequent the forum, which also is not fair.
It's not hard to sway opinions towards a general consensus regardless of agreement or not. The current system that you think is good because it involves more people to make a case also relies on the people who frequent the forum which inherently doesn't make it fair. The people on the forum isn't a large enough population to represent the community and thus relying on a minority instead of a larger section of the community is unfair.
Also relying on one single person aka Eric to speak for the community as to what maps are ultimately approved certainly isn't fair at all because his final choice can override and undermine the entire community's opinion if he wants. Riding along the community's opinion despite opposing it just to placate the community will also lead to groupthink which definitely isn't exactly fair. Elaborate how any of that is fair in the slightest.
ZapruderFilm wrote:If improvements were not considered for the system, then the new forum section would have never existed.
For an improvement to be implemented, it has to be practical and workable.
I meant improvements to this current system, not the forum section itself. The forum section itself is what allowed the current "system" to exist and isn't necessary to have. It's also exclusive from the system which itself has problems. The section simply contains these problems to a single place. My point still stands if the same problem-riddled system is still standing without changes.
Also, I've made my case on how this new "system" is nothing more but a cheap imitation and hollow shell of its former predecessor. This is barely an improvement to that predecessor system
ZapruderFilm wrote:For an improvement to be implemented, it has to be practical and workable.
The OP's suggestion is practical and perfectly workable. It has its flaws but it prevents random maps from being randomly approved within a couple days after a topic is made. Any of the flaws that exist in OP's concept can be worked out if the focus goes towards it and not defending the current system.
ZapruderFilm wrote:I'm not sure why you think/act like Eric owes it to anyone else (the community, map makers, etc) To run his website anyway except the way he wants to.
I'm not sure why you keep appealing to authority and use the excuse of running the website however desired to justify one person speaking for an entire community. He's not the entire community and thus he can't ever speak for it. No excuse can justify that. He can run the website however he wants because it's his website but he's not the community that keeps his website alive which is probably something you should realize first before continuing on with the topic.
ZapruderFilm wrote:Eric used to just pick maps he saw fit for approval.
That's not true. Eric wasn't the only one with approval capabilities back then. Some mapmakers also did contact Eric personally regarding approval of their map. This same counterpoint can be said for this current system you're eager to defend. Some maps get approved after a mere couple of days (which is a problem if the OP had to create a workaround to address that point) and some just don't get approved at all. This inconsistency can obviously be attributed to the fact that Eric has the final say to overturn community opinion when that shouldn't happen.
ZapruderFilm wrote:This new way of accepting applications finally gives a public reliable way to have your map in the drawing for approval, something that has never been possible before. I personally would call that a huge improvement, although you seem hung up on minor details that likely aren't going to change anytime soon.
It was very possible to include a map in the drawing for approval. This system you're keen to defend probably because you had a large role in making this sad excuse for a system from what I hear just publicizes the process that existed before anyone stepped in to conceptualize this "system." It's easier because it's public but publicizing it also highlighted its fundamental issues to the forefront. You seem hung up on rationalizing this system without properly understanding the flaws and lack of effort the system has which shows that you perhaps don't exactly know what you're talking about and that you need to develop a more constructed opinion in order to better understand the other side that you keep trying to dismiss just to placate and shield yourself from any criticism towards a system that most definitely needs a look at.
Publicizing a system isn't such a huge improvement like you think it is; it just wasn't necessary because the old system worked fine. If it was such a major problem, someone else would've done this a long time ago and you wouldn't be the one basking in the limelight defending this system fervently.
ZapruderFilm wrote:I might say there would be some reason for someone to be upset that anyone except Eric can't select approved maps. But this is not the case, and I am very confused on why you approach this as if the community is entitled to approve their own maps
So why is Eric entitled to approve the maps that he didn't make but rather the community? Because he has authority? Or because he has the final say and we need to approach him inevitably in the end? Don't appeal to authority because like I said, he can't speak for the community. The community makes these maps so it's fair enough that they get a say as to what happens to their own maps. There are times where Eric himself isn't a reliable source as to what approval-worthy mapmaking is. Perhaps you haven't seen the map removal topic for EGRW yet which, surprise, was a map Eric made and approved himself. Let me know how that community input you seem proud of "establishing" affected anything regarding the map because it only seems to solidify my point further.
Some people just happen to know better than Eric sometimes. This is the thing with judgment. He's not always right. Stop treating him like a god who always has the last word just because he has authority over everyone.
ZapruderFilm wrote:To say that the community deserves anymore participation than they're getting in the system is misinterpreting the point of the new system in the first place. The new system wasn't made to make the approval system an all encompassing community project, and nowhere was that even implied. The system was made so that anyone can give a case on any map they dislike/like, boosting its popularity on the forum, which makes Eric more likely to look at it.
You clearly misinterpreted what I said. Community participation can easily be discarded because Eric has the right and capability to do so. It can be argued that community participation almost doesn't even exist yet still because of this.
You're right that this new system isn't meant to be an encompassing community project but let me tell you something crazy: literally no one said it was. What's the point of giving a case if your case can be rendered irrelevant by one single person anywhere at any time? The community should be more involved by not only giving a case, but also a verdict regarding the approval status of a map. The community is the group that makes and plays these maps. It's better that they decide what is right for them rather than letting one person decide for them which will almost certainly lead to a major disconnect as it has been and is right now and will lead to questionable approvals that people won't approve of. Eric shouldn't be a key player at the table but rather someone that follows the overall consensus of the community. If the community through a majority vote thinks a map should be approved, Eric should do just that. If that decision proves to be catastrophic after a few days, it can always be overriden. This establishes a compromise that allows actual community involvement while allowing Eric to keep his authority status.
ZapruderFilm wrote:The system was made so that anyone can give a case on any map they dislike/like, boosting its popularity on the forum, which makes Eric more likely to look at it.
This is the funniest thing I've read so far today. It shows that community involvement is just reduced towards feeding a popularity contest which shows how big of a joke this "system" is.