ARIEDONUS'S PROFILE

author=Link_2112
I wouldn't think this kind of system is needed for tutorials/articles. There doesn't seem to be any problems with the quality of stuff coming through there. It's much easier to read the whole thing quickly and evaluate it as a whole, as opposed to playing a new download for 30 mins and trying determine it's overall goodness.

The main issue appears to be game pages(games). The only problem I see with this system is that some people just aren't experienced enough, artistically inclined....trying not to sound elitist(wait, do I care if do?)....some people just can't be trusted in their opinion. They don't know what having standards means, they don't fully understand what constitutes a good game as a total package. They think that just because they had fun with a terrible looking game and laughed at it's vulgar immature jokes it deserves 5 stars. Any game, no matter how fun and innovative, that has terrible MS paint scribbled graphics does not deserve 5 stars. I can accept 4 stars, but not 5. 5 means absolutely perfect, cannot be improved upon. Not that I have a specific example, but there are a few games with 5 star reviews that after a second opinion from someone who has proven they know a thing or two about games scores it really low. Some kids just don't understand the implications of giving 5 stars to a sub-par game.

That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree. I would be more comfortable in a community that has appointed judges who know what quality is to perform quality control. Even if that means we come off as elitist jerks. I don't think it's a good idea to change the system to allow for lower quality stuff to stream in based on popular demand. I know I'm not the only one that likes to be surrounded by competent people and sheltered from noobish kids who have yet to figure out how to be a functioning member of a community.

I agree that it wouldn't be a good idea for downloads, I'm suggesting it for everything else. It's not really about whether it's needed, so much as it is about fulfilling one of the main goals (as I have always understood) RMN strives for. Also, it will increase community involvement, but I'll touch on that later.

I definitely see where there could be reason to worry about a bunch of nooblets coming in a up-voting shit games. That's where the voting power and the staff reviewing comes in. The nooblets will quickly lose voting power and will (ideally) grow into someone with an educated opinion, because they wanna be cool. The staff would have the option (if we choose to implement it) to rectify games that get lame votes, whether it gets the game accepted or rejected, to keep the system in check. Kind of similar to how the Supreme Court tells lower courts when they're full of shit.

Yeah, I don't exactly mind the current system either, because I've never had a problem with it. I have never had my submissions rejected, with only a vague idea why. This system would get more people involved in peoples' profiles, exposing them to good and bad games, so they can figure out what quality is. Plus, it means more traffic for games, leading to more input and people playing games.

That's the kind of input I want from you guys. There's no sense in implementing a system everyone would hate, even though it's likely the majority of the site's users don't post on the forums.

author=Fallen-Griever

Fun fact: VX's copy and paste tool can copy (and paste!) a shit load more tiles than 2k3 could.

> Opens 2K3
> Selects "select map elements" tool
> Presses CTRL+A
> Presses CTRL+C
> Has just copied the entire freakin' map.

Derpderp2k3can'tdoanything=/

Bad wording on my part, as I was confusing the standard tile selection from your chipset junk, which would only let you pick 6x6 tiles at a time. Irritating when trying to put giant Suikoden trees and shit like that on your map, but you can't select all of it. VX fixed that, although RM2k3 and VX are technically on par when it comes to what Drakonais is referring to.

Fun fact: VX's copy and paste tool can copy (and paste!) a shit load more tiles than 2k3 could.

Welcome to RMN! Make sure to take time to get yourself acquainted with forum (reading the stickies and shit like that) and have a good time. :]

I have actually been thinking about this for quite some time, but in light of recent events, I feel that this is an appropriate time to bring it up.

The idea I am proposing will shake up how submissions work around here. Yeah, it'll require some more coding and all that fancy hooplah, but I think it has the potential to bring RMN closer to what people envision it to be.

Correct me, but from what I've always understood, it was a goal for RMN to be an organic site that more or less runs itself. That's why the staff don't have shiny names anymore, the amount of shiny people has gone down, and why those who are shiny don't flaunt that they're shiny. The idea I'm proposing would take this a step further and make RMN even closer to being "user-run," while (hopefully) reducing the amount of Blockland incidents around the site.

This idea is stolen borrowed inspired by another website that's really badass: Newgrounds. They have a submission format that works and could be a great feature for our site as well. Keep in mind that this is not my proposed plan, but the way Newgrounds runs it. Certain factors I feel would need changing and there's probably junk I'll completely overlook. (That's where your feedback comes in.)

For those of you who aren't familiar with how Newground submissions work, let me break it down:
- Users submit their shit in and it enters the submission queue, much like how it goes here. Difference is, the queue is public, so everyone is going to see the new submissions as they roll in.
- Other users check out the submission through this special queue. After reviewing the submission, the user gives it a rating based on its merits.
- After a submission receives a number or ratings, it is accepted or rejected based on its score. Anything that receives a decent score is accepted. (Honestly, I haven't been frequenting the site much recently, so the details on this part are probably fuzzy.)
- Users are able to comment on the submissions at this time, as well, so ratings don't go without some wordsy feedback.
- Finally, and possibly most importantly, users who are dipshits with their ratings and downvote or upvote everything they come across will slowly lose voting power. Basically, if you're too nice or too mean, it will reflect in your voting power based on what happens to the submission (accepted or rejected). This encourages users to really vote based on its actual merits instead of lame shit. This voting power is public on a user's profile, so everyone knows if your definition of quality work is screwy.

I believe that covers pretty much all there is to the system, as far as I can tell. Thing is, RMN is not Newgrounds and what works for NG will not necessarily work for us. Changes will have to be made to make sure this system suits the site and the community, otherwise it'll just be a detriment to the goals we have.

Changes/Alternatives That Have Come To My Head As I Typed This Up:
- Ratings can be kind of arbitrary at times. I know some people are not a fan of the star system attached to reviews, so it may be more appropriate for games in this queue to have a different format. Instead of a star rating, users could either vote "Accept" or "Reject" with the option of attaching a comment to their vote.
- With Newgrounds, the game's creator and score is completely public. With the goal of making people vote as fairly as possible, it may be a good idea to make submissions anonymous and to keep the games current submission score/comments hidden.
- Even though this will make the site more organic, I'm not suggesting the elimination of staff. Having staff around to keep an eye on things is still a good idea. One of the modifications I would make to NG's system to accommodate our site's standards is having whoever still messes with the submission queue just look over submissions, make sure they meet the bare minimum (three screenshots, one paragraph, whatever that shit is), and send it to the public queue for judgment.
- Going along with the staff thing again, it might be a good idea for them to review the more "deviant" submissions that receive an excessive amount of good or bad scores. They would basically make sure that 20 jerks didn't get to the game at once, preventing its chance at a fair judgment. If the deviant submission is really worthy of whatever judgment it received, though, the staff would just clear it off their list and whatever happens happens. If there is a chance that the submission did just have shitty, shitty luck, the game could be kicked back into the queue for another chance. (Obviously, limits would have to be put into place to prevent staff from potentially abusing this extra life for submissions.)

I believe that just about covers everything I wanted to suggest. It is pretty late, though, so I may change this post to add/fix shit as I figure it all out. Have at it.