So help me out here...

[AndyDufresne]

As I mentioned, we are all adults (at least in terms of cartograhpy) and we can discuss big bananas. Examples most surely can help direct the discussion.

We are all well natured, and do intend good for the Foundry. We all just have different aims on how to do so, and we must respect that.


--Andy

[RjBeals]

This place is supposed to be fun. Which is why I will jack a thread with an occasional music link . This is not a job. I have enough stress with my real life. Just don't take the foundry so seriously. This is a free forum (not a private one) - so you're going to have a really rough time trying to have a controlled method of doing things. The map tutorials thread and the process & how to threads are great, but will never dictate how your map will progress. It all depends on who is visiting the foundry and looking at your maps at that particular time, and what feedback they decide to offer. You never know what you'll get.

Nothing moves fast here either. You are fairly new to the foundry seamusk. Did you see mibi's quote about his map being here a year? That's not far off from a lot of other maps as well. My Italy map was here for 10 months. And I worked on it a lot. Have some patience and fun. Don't take it personal. I didn't.

[AndyDufresne]

Soothing post, RJ. Lets all step away from this for a little while, clear our heads, eat some bananas, and come back ready to discuss productively.


--Andy

[mibi]

I want to see these big bananas that everyone is talking about.

[DiM]

I want to see these big bananas that everyone is talking about.

talk to gimil, he's the supplier. tell him i sent you

[TaCktiX]

I appreciate you considering my Stages official foundry canon, but it is not. It is also not strictly accurate as I assumed an ideal map with zero "we know this guy", zero prior experience, zero any of the "problems" you are mentioning with the process. It is meant as a guideline, and not to-the-letter.

I don't think that we need to resolve the issues you're raising in the ways you're suggesting. More rigid following of "the rules" will suck all enjoyment out of the process. More worrying about "fair treatment" will ignore an experienced mapmaker's expertise, typically insulting them. Consider that when you mentioned 90% of all maps in Map Ideas are really rough, notice that zero of those (save cairns' in-progress work on the Forbidden City) are by experienced mapmakers. They know the guidelines, and they release Idea-complete map drafts typically by the first or second version. And by your argument they're auto-moved to Foundry ASAP, when in reality they have to sit through more drafts that fulfill the requirements than the newer mapmaker who took 4 versions just to put territory names on the map.

I too would like to know of these examples, and no one will be offended. I can think of a couple that are breaking the "doable by current XML" clause right now, but they're so dang cool and original i don't care. That reminds me: the way the foundry is currently run, creativity and exceptional talent are rewarded. Maps that break people's expectations of what a map can do get massive support from the foundry, and are pushed through because we want to share more than anything, this or that cool map with the greater CC community. I would give examples, but it seems that that's taboo.

[seamusk]

More rigid following of "the rules" will suck all enjoyment out of the process.

Following the rules at all is the problem. They aren't applied therefore they might as well not exist. And I'm not talking about your informal stages post.

[DiM]

seamusk, stop hiding and give us proper examples. we're all adult here and we can handle such situations.
if you feel mapmaker X or Z has preferential treatment go ahead and say it out loud. i'm pretty sure where you see preferential treatment there is actually a logical explanation. but without examples we can't talk properly.
you feel you are being marginalized while the experience guys are being advantaged. pin point the exact situations where you were disadvantaged by a CA's decision and we'll discuss, then tell us when an experienced map maker was advantaged by a CA's decision and again we'll discuss.
i'm not saying you are right or wrong. but i'm saying just 2 things:
1. i'm sure nobody has something personal against you and your maps and if you believe that then you're just paranoid
2. i'm sure experienced map makers are a bit advantaged but as i previously stated i find this absolutely normal as long as it not hinders the actual foundry process and it does not decrease the quality of the maps

[seamusk]

seamusk, stop hiding and give us proper examples. we're all adult here and we can handle such situations.
if you feel mapmaker X or Z has preferential treatment go ahead and say it out loud. i'm pretty sure where you see preferential treatment there is actually a logical explanation. but without examples we can't talk properly.
you feel you are being marginalized while the experience guys are being advantaged. pin point the exact situations where you were disadvantaged by a CA's decision and we'll discuss, then tell us when an experienced map maker was advantaged by a CA's decision and again we'll discuss.
i'm not saying you are right or wrong. but i'm saying just 2 things:
1. i'm sure nobody has something personal against you and your maps and if you believe that then you're just paranoid
2. i'm sure experienced map makers are a bit advantaged but as i previously stated i find this absolutely normal as long as it not hinders the actual foundry process and it does not decrease the quality of the maps

DiM - I wish that were true but folks have clearly demonstrated in the various threads and PMs that they are not capable of managing such a conversation with a level head. I have personally been insulted privately even before I started this thread (part of why I took the conversation public) by defensive C-As who were not willing to talk on an even keel and deal with facts. I'm not prepared to be dragged into a debate over examples which I know they will drag on for 15 pages until the initial topic is forgotten.

EDITED to say that I appreciate the intent of your post but I just don't feel like being subjected to more of what I have already dealt with. I wanted to help but I think I'm not interested at this point.

[InkL0sed]

Alright guys, drop it then. If he doesn't want to provide examples, there's nothing to argue with.

[DiM]

DiM - I wish that were true but folks have clearly demonstrated in the various threads and PMs that they are not capable of managing such a conversation with a level head. I have personally been insulted privately even before I started this thread (part of why I took the conversation public) by defensive C-As who were not willing to talk on an even keel and deal with facts. I'm not prepared to be dragged into a debate over examples which I know they will drag on for 15 pages until the initial topic is forgotten.

EDITED to say that I appreciate the intent of your post but I just don't feel like being subjected to more of what I have already dealt with. I wanted to help but I think I'm not interested at this point.

i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

anyway inklosed is right, without examples the discussion is pointless.

without a proper starting point (the examples) we can't talk and decide if something really is wrong here. and so what if we'll get 15 pages of talking? if after those 15 pages we reach a conclusion then it's well worth the talk.

if you really want to help you'll take this discussion to the next level and beyond. if you really feel you are right then you will fight for your opinions no matter how hard it may seem or how slim the odds of success are.
andi'm not talking just about this matter i'm talking about all aspects of life. fight for your beliefs to the end. stop in the middle and you lose even if in theory you were right. don't be a quitter.

[seamusk]

[i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

WTF? Why would you doubt that? They made accusations they couldn't back up and I reported it to Andy privately. You have a lot of nerve.

[wcaclimbing]

[i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

WTF? Why would you doubt that? They made accusations they couldn't back up and I reported it to Andy privately. You have a lot of nerve.

what'd they accuse you of?

You realize that everyone posting in here has asked for you to post some evidence showing what you are saying?
Your "conversation" would actually happen if you posted a link or two.

Feel free to use Oasis as your example, if it is one of the ones you are talking about. I don't mind. I'm sure DiM wouldn't mind if you chose one of the maps he has made, either. We just don't even have an general idea of which maps you are talking to. even just a few hints would help.

[WidowMakers]

seamusk,
I know I was accused of getting a map into forge quicker than some others a while ago ( I can't remember what map though).
If anyone feels that I have, in some way, abused the system or that my worked has been fast-tracked, I would like to know.

So if it is me seamusk, if you have a problem with me, then tell everyone. I can take it. If it is true then I have nothing to hide. And I am pretty sure I speak for most of teh other cartos here as well.

If you really see a problem then lets all work together to fix it and put this whole mess behind us.

WM

[seamusk]

You realize that everyone posting in here has asked for you to post some evidence showing what you are saying?
Your "conversation" would actually happen if you posted a link or two.

It would never happen if I did that. If you've ever been involved in a situation where this where a staff person, volunteer, or forum contributor gets defensive the examples become distractions and they will defend until they are blue in the teeth. It is an easy straw man to use, but one need not get into the details of whether map x violates y to recognize the need for improvement in policies. Now leave it be already.

[wcaclimbing]

You realize that everyone posting in here has asked for you to post some evidence showing what you are saying?
Your "conversation" would actually happen if you posted a link or two.

It would never happen if I did that. If you've ever been involved in a situation where this where a staff person, volunteer, or forum contributor gets defensive the examples become distractions and they will defend until they are blue in the teeth. It is an easy straw man to use, but one need not get into the details of whether map x violates y to recognize the need for improvement in policies. Now leave it be already.

Give it a try.
I bet you are wrong.
I bet a lot you are wrong.

This thread is going nowhere without examples. Worst case scenario, it will still be better than what we have now, cause then at least we'd know what you are talking about, and we would be able to see it for ourselves.

[seamusk]

seamusk,
I know I was accused of getting a map into forge quicker than some others a while ago ( I can't remember what map though).
If anyone feels that I have, in some way, abused the system or that my worked has been fast-tracked, I would like to know.

So if it is me seamusk, if you have a problem with me, then tell everyone. I can take it. If it is true then I have nothing to hide. And I am pretty sure I speak for most of teh other cartos here as well.

If you really see a problem then lets all work together to fix it and put this whole mess behind us.

WM

I knew nothing of your situation until it came up today. And yours did get through mighty quick but I know nothing about it so I would never comment on it beyond acknowledging that. And it isn't the speed I'm commenting on. It is the lack of meeting the basic requirements for getting the stamp. Whether a map has been a year or two days in there isn't the point. If it is ready it is ready. I'm fine with that.

[edbeard]

[i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

WTF? Why would you doubt that? They made accusations they couldn't back up and I reported it to Andy privately. You have a lot of nerve.

I think you're the one with the nerve. Saying things are wrong and refusing to back it up is idiotic. Either give specific examples of how things are wrong or don't even bring it up.

I hope you either stand by saying you are going to leave it be or actual progress and give examples. Stop straddling the line and being a *censored*. That's what you're doing.

[seamusk]

[i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

WTF? Why would you doubt that? They made accusations they couldn't back up and I reported it to Andy privately. You have a lot of nerve.

I think you're the one with the nerve. Saying things are wrong and refusing to back it up is idiotic. Either give specific examples of how things are wrong or don't even bring it up.

I hope you either stand by saying you are going to leave it be or actual progress and give examples. Stop straddling the line and being a *censored*. That's what you're doing.

what part of drop it don't you understand? Hammering away at the same point the way you would hammer at any examples I gave you until the point is lost? There is no point to it so drop it.

Andy please lock this thread. It is serving absolutely no purpose the way it has been spammed to death until the very topic has become completely buried. Good job folks.

[edbeard]

so we have to drop it but you don't have to do that.

got it.


andy should delete the thread altogether because it serves no purpose except allowing seamusk to blow off some steam and make a fool of himself

[wcaclimbing]

seamusk, you don't have to post in here if you want the thread to die. The mods will see what you said about locking it either way. but thats not to stop us from posting in here.
if there really is a problem, I want it to be fixed. cause that makes the foundry better, and a good foundry makes good maps.

anyway, I've re-read the first post. I'll edit my comments into this quote:

It would be most helpful if folks would provide meaningful insight into this post. But it is time for the map foundry to review the map approval process as applied, as written, and as it should be. In the interim, I think that the map handbook ought to be pulled because it does not described the map approval process for conquerclub.com as it is being applied currently.

1) The cartographers are applying a requirement that new map makers achieve some ambiguous criteria to prove their worth before the actual "Official How to Make a Map Handbook" and "Stages of map development" criteria are actually applied. Either a process and criteria for becoming an official stamped cartographer ought to be developed or this requirement needs to be dropped. There is a stated need in the foundry for new members. The How to make a map handbook was not very helpful to me I know because the criteria as desribed were not implemented.
There are and will always be exceptions to the rules. Little things that, while not specifically written in, are still needed. And foundry regulars know that, so they will be able to post those things if anyone asks why they aren't getting a stamp.
2) Apply the criteria to all maps. I am not interested in picking on particular map makers, but it should be clear these are all requirements for maps:

1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.

There are several maps that are repetitive by all three of these but have moved ahead. In some cases, the maps are by the same map maker.
Are we talking about all the simple maps, that work just like regular risk? Lots of people like traditional risk-style games. I can't think of any two maps where the location was the same, except for the pile of World/earth maps out there.

2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engines currently usable XML.

We have maps moving along that don't even have defined gameplay.
I think the idea here is "its not compatible with the game engine now, but it will be by the time my map is finished. Thats how many people have done it.

4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.

Sound advice is ignored by experienced map makers and it is ok. Sound advice is applied by new map makers and they still don't care. The anti-new map maker bias hurts this site.
I agree with you on the first part, if a mapmaker rejects an idea, they should tell why. I disagree with the noob-bias, though. If the kid knows what he's doing and has a good image, it doesn't matter if he's a noob. he's a regular mapmaker. If you are referring to noobs that don't know how to make a map, then I think its a good thing that its biased. If we had the same expectations of a noob that we have of some of the experienced mapmakers, such as Carnswk or Quert, that would be kinda rediculous.

5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.

Define community. Because there are maps with community support not getting moved and maps without it getting moved.
Community support is just one part. Each map has to fill all the other requirements too, before it can be moved. I don't know about maps moving without support. I remember a big debate a while back about Quert's Ardennes map, but nothing other than that.
3. Test plays should be mandatory. Obviously a test play section would be ideal. But I see all these maps get into the main foundry that aren't even playable. Furthermore, test plays would help folks to understand that players see things differently than map makers. A lot of maps need less pretty and more clear communications.
The problem is that with only mapmakers commenting, the issues that regular people have go unnoticed. With more community involvement, being worked on by the Foundry Newsletter, more new people means more people that can help fix the issues.

4. Moderation needs to follow moderation. Moderators should be less concerned about what maps they want to play and more concerned about what is good for the community.
As long as I've been here, the rule for the mods was something like "member of the community first, moderator second". Just cause they are in charge doesn't mean they have to pay equal attention to everything. Remember, these are volunteers running the foundry. If they were being paid, I might agree with you, but they do all of this for fun.
5. I recommend that it be more clear why maps are moved forward and held back. A simple modofication to the process would be helpful instead of leaving the map maker guessing. For example, when a map is moved from one stage to the next it should be justified. Not a long detailed report, but a short description of why that map meets the criteria for that stage. Similarly, when doing periodic reviews I recommend that cartographers use the written criteria. If they want more criteria they should ask for it through an amendment to the map making handbook and stages of production (which should be pinned if it is gonna be followed). Otherwise, keeping it professional and clear. If there are 4 criteria, let the map makers which ones are pass/fail. But a clear rationale would be helpful and more conducive to success and the idea of encouraging new map makers.

6. What does "I hate this idea" (or "I love this idea") actually contribute to a map thread? Why do you dislike it? Is this just a personal preference or do you think one that will be commonly held by cc? (I honestly am mored interested in input geared at the target audience). Why do you like it? or don't like it? If you don't want to say than you are not providing constructive feedback. Constructive feedback should be mandatory
I like those kinds of comments (the i love this idea comments, not the hate ones). It shows me how popular my map is, and keeps me working on it, because I know that some people out there really like it, and really want to play it. On the other hand, a lot of "I hate this idea" would make me consider dropping a map and trying something else.
7. Adopt another process. What is the point of having multiple stages of some map makers are required to meet criteria of stage V in stage I and others aren't even required to meet stage I requirements in Stage III?
Yeah, it can get kinda strange sometimes, but overall it works out.
A simple suggestion would be to get that test area up and running. And allow it to maps that have quality xml and graphics regardless of whose they are and let the test play process result in stamps. Or do a better breakdown of having an ideas stamp actually be relevent to the idea. But a trial by fire is probably the best way to streamline this process

8. Adopt a process that is accessible to our target audience (the 99.9999% of cc who never come here). They are our target audience. And if they are not your target audience something is wrong with you. I don't make maps so that map makers can play them. I make them for everyone. Poll them to get ideas approved or something.

For what it is worth, I'm willing to help with a re-write. I know some of these concerns initially led to the FAQ, but the issue is as long as the map handbook and stages criteria aren't followed they either need to be updated or the process needs to be amended to conform. Or a combination of both.

o well. this thread can die, or it can stay alive. it seems like there is enough other support to actually try to talk about this.

[DiM]

[i doubt CAs insulted you via PM, i have been here much longer than you and not once have i seen a CA insult another user. even when i stepped over the line of decency and thrown harsh words at others and made a mayhem in the foundry i have been talked to only with respect and decency.

WTF? Why would you doubt that? They made accusations they couldn't back up and I reported it to Andy privately. You have a lot of nerve.

why do i doubt it?
for 2 simple reasons
1. you presented no proof
2. without proof i can rely only on my previous experiences with CAs and all point to the fact that they are decent people.


it's like a total stranger comes to me and says my father killed somebody but brings no proof. i'm not an idiot to instantly believe him because i know my father would not do that.

[t-o-m]

to be honest seamunsk, this isnt anything personal or anything, but:

You're the one saying that things are not going like the how to make a map handbook says, but you're also the one saying that you will get to work on the XML for your map, which is in the map ideas! and has only just been sticked!!
if anyhting that basically tells us that you dont know how the foundry works completely to go around throwing accusations and things around.

[AndyDufresne]

I appreciate the enthusiasim of discussion, but with the enthusiasim we also must take care with what it is said, and how it is also.

Lets move away from the examples argument. Lets go a different direction. To the Map Handbook.

Is there a way we can clarify, add, delete, change, the wording of certain areas or section to make it better represent the actual workings of the Foundry?

SECTION 1

OFFICIAL how to make a map

Before starting your own map it is recommend that you read and understand the following to ensure that the process is as enjoyable and efficient as possible for you and the community at large.

Title Requirements
1. The page with the latest development of production. (I.E. ‘Update – Pg 3')
2. No use of [brackets]: use (parentheses), --dashes--, or “quotes” instead.
3. For every stamp you recieve the appropriate tag should be included in the title. [I, Gp, Gr, X]

I = Idea
Gp = Gameplay
Gr = Graphics
X = XML

Information Requirements on the first post of a maps thread
1. The number of territories currently on the map.
2. The number of continents. (If this makes sense for your map)
3. Descriptions of any unique features or areas.

I don't think there was any contention with SECTION 1, was there? Perhaps we can all agree that Section 1 is accurate and fine.


SECTION 2

General Rules
1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.
2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engines currently usable XML.
3. A maps content must be the original work of the cartographer unless consent to use copyrighted works is gained. This is your responsibility.
4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.
5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.
6. Host the image using Photobucket.com, imageshack.us, or something similar. The type of image file must be PNG, GIF, or JPEG.
7. For a map to be used for live play the cartographer must agree to the Conquer Club copyright agreement*. One cartographer must declared the "legal owner" of the map.
8. All maps should be posted using [bigimg] tags instead of the standard [img] tags when posting map drafts.
9. A map must work within the following map size restrictions:

1. SMALL MAP: WIDTH up to 630 px; HEIGHT 600 px
2. LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 840 px ; HEIGHT 800 px.
3. SIZE DIFFERENTIAL: A large map must be noticably larger than their small map; 9% larger is required but 33.3% (1/3rd) is recommended.
4. NOTE: Mapmakers are encouraged to make their large maps smaller than the maximum size limits when possible to eliminate scrolling to attack/read the sidebar info.

===================

Now, except for the Size Requirements (which I know is in contention but for different reasons, so forget that discussion for another thread), this area I believe it was mentioned could use some clarification or changes. Lets discuss?


SECTION 3

How a Map Progresses Through the Fondry

Map Idea
All maps start life in the foundry as an idea in the "Map Ideas" sub fourm. Here maps must gain their ideas stamp before being moved into full production in the main foundry.

Main Foundry
Here is where the bulk of a maps development takes place. Gameplay and graphics will go under discussed at this point to ensure that:
• Gameplay is balanced
  
• Graphics are of a suitable foundry standard.
Final Forge
To reach final forge you must aquire two further stamps in the main foundry for gameplay and graphics. Once your map has these stamps it will be stickied to the main foundry to under go review by the cartoes to ensure there is enought support for a map to go to the next level. Both large and small maps must be present before the final forge stamp can be given to a map.

Once moved to the final forge sub forum a maps XML should go under development (Although theres nothing stopping a cartographer starting their XML earlier in the process) and nit picking of the map will be begin.

Quenching
After a map recieves it stamp for XML and all nit picking discussion has been concluded the foundry foreman will stamp the map as quenched to complete the process.

Congratulations! You have just complete your map, enjoy!

***Note*** Any errors found during the map’s live play on the site must be attended to promptly or else the map will be taken down until said errors are fixed.

***Link to old 'How maps progress through the Foundry' topic***

======================================

Are there some areas we could better explain and write in Section 3? Let discuss.


SECTION 4

*The Copyright Agreement
The author retains copyright on their work, and gives Conquer Club permission to use the imagery free of charge, for as long as Conquer Club sees fit on the Conquer Club website. Conquer Club cannot sell, lease, or lend the right to use the images to anyone else. The author swears that their map is their own work, or a legal derivative work and by submitting it, do hereby claim all responsibility for that being true.

I'm afraid that Section 4 will probably not go under any alterations, for obvious reasons.

===============================================

Once we've figured out this first post, we can move onto the Stamp Posts, one by one.


--Andy

[t-o-m]

just a quick note that i think you could add to the map ideas section.

How a Map Progresses Through the Fondry
[list]Map Idea
All maps start life in the foundry as an idea in the "Map Ideas" sub fourm. Here is where the maps gain their feet, once they're almost ready to enter the main foundry they will be given an [adv. idea] by a CA and will be stickied at the top of the sub-forum. After they have been assessed by a CA and thought to be foundry-ready, they will be moved to the Main Foundry.

i edited the underlined bit

i think we should just add a little more onto there.

because this is where all map makers/maps start off so there must be a good explanation for it.