I have to agree on some of the sentiments about the review process.
I don't want others deciding for me what a good mission is and what is not when it comes to UGC, that is subjective and should be left for me to make that personal opinion.
I should be allowed to play them all and make up my own mind for the most part i.e. within certain very easily defined limits of course as mentioned to some degree in the following paragraph.
As for the issue of profanity and the like, I can see stuff being screened out for copy right/trademark issues and things that are just down right inappropriate.
I have no problem with a review panel screening out obscene material and trademark violations, so long as they are not screening out content just because they do not personallly like the content.
While I did not specificly see that would be the case, I can still see a lot of the possibility that people will be deciding for me what is good and what is not outside the boundries of just screening for obscene material.
So yea, there is some worry on the review front to some extent.
If you are going to hand us the car, you need to hand us the keys to or it does not do any good.
It cuts both ways, what would be the point of making content if no one got to see it because some people got to decide for the rest of the gaming community that it was no good so it did not pass.
So call this a concern for the concern pile, even if it is unfounded.
You're forgetting a major part of the movie making process. Focus testing. Where they really do take random people off the streets sit them down in a movie theater and show them a movie. Entire films have been canned, endings re-written characters taken out entirely just from the opinion of "random unwashed masses". This is also a more fitting analogy to what you're talking about, as the missions you'll be publishing are finished and not still in the script approval stage.
An easy example being Star Trek Generations, where they had to go back and rebuild the entire Veridian III set for re-shoots because the people in the screening hated Kirk's death.
An easy example being Star Trek Generations, where they had to go back and rebuild the entire Veridian III set for re-shoots because the people in the screening hated Kirk's death.
So how'd the old version make it into release?
*ducks*
No, know that dropping a bridge on Kirk was the revised version, but it still kinda missed the point.
No, know that dropping a bridge on Kirk was the revised version, but it still kinda missed the point.
Heheh, yeah I know. They totally didn't understand what that audience was telling them. I'd actually rather have the version where he gets shot in the back. At least that wouldn't have had the whole bit where Kirk almost falls and Picard saves him...only to have him fall off later anyway.
A better example would probably be Little Shop of Horrors. They spent most of their budget on the last 10 minutes of the movie, where the plant was supposed to grow huge and go rampaging through the city. The people screening it hated it, and the whole thing was just outright scrapped.
While I fully understand your valid concerns about how the review process will work, I would suggest waiting to see exactly how it will be handled when UGC is actually released. For now I am reserving judgment until the panel and the feature is live or in beta.
You can't generalize everyone as unskilled, untalented, biased hacks. It's going to take a lot more ratings than five of your buddies to push through your mission, good or bad.
No, but the review process does present an opportunity for griefers to make authors' lives miserable. And they can be subtle enough in the griefing--if their reasons for rejection sound genuine--to get by without being punished and being removed as reviewers by Cryptic.
No, but the review process does present an opportunity for griefers to make authors' lives miserable. And they can be subtle enough in the griefing--if their reasons for rejection sound genuine--to get by without being punished and being removed as reviewers by Cryptic.
Look, you'll have to take criticism for anything you work on. This isn't the first grade where everyone has to say something constructive or nice. A lot of people, especially on the internet, aren't going to play nice. You're lucky if you get nice on most days. There are people out there who will be out there to grief you and the internet police doesn't exist yet to stop them. And if ONE (1) person who doesn't have moderation rights over UGC can single handedly stop the entire process, then apparently the system isn't going to work. And we should consider our alternatives.
Also, what's our alternative? Feel free to enlighten me but would you honestly feel better if a single judge at Cryptic said he didn't think your mission was worth releasing to the public?
Anyways, if you make a solid enough mission, the good votes are definitely going to drown out that minority of people who believe it's trash. If you don't want the responsibility to grade missions fairly, then obviously you should step down and let the rest of us who will, do so.
I can tell you right now that your angsty holier than thou art attitude will not get people to agree with you, even if they really do.
If YOU really care about the system, you'll moderate your tone and try to make constructive points instead of spitting venom. The alternative is to be torn apart by trolls, and whatever message you think you have will be lost in the flames.
Agreed. I do find it humorous that BECAUSE of this thread, people may try to game the system against him, while without it, they probably would not give a ****.
That is not currently a feature we are planning to implement, except the last part: you will have to pick the faction of your content before publishing. We expect that content will be written specifically for either Federation or Klingon players, and will not make sense for the other faction.
Later on, we would certainly like to use the Foundry to create faction-specific missions or social hubs, but right now we're focusing on the core feature set as much as possible.
I'm sorry to hear that. It certainly discourages me from making missions a great deal.
This filtering method is totally unacceptable. There is no way, shape or form that I'm going to put weeks worth of research and creative energy into something that can get nay-sayed by a bunch of wannabe critics and over zealous Trekkies. This kind of review process is every type of wrong that you could possibly dream up.
I know for a fact that my missions will be awesome. I know this because I've spent over twenty years designing adventures for pen and paper roleplaying games and have even had some published. I know this because I put way too much effort into making them as good as they can possibly be. But I refuse to be judged by a bunch of amateur egotistical Star Trek snobs. I don't even care that I have a good chance of my missions getting approved. I do care that they can be shot down by a totally arbitrary body made up of illiterate nobodies with delusions of grandeur and no actual skill or objectiveness whatsoever.
If my missions get judged by the community in a star rating system as being TRIBBLE, that I could accept. But to have to be approved by a completely random selection of unwashed, uneducated, unemployable Internet tough guys, ****es me the Hell off.
Quite the arrogant sort, aren't you? If your missions are going to be so incredibly awesome than I'm sure it won't be a problem. Freaking relax. There needs to be a review process because I don't wan't to waste the precious little time I have to play the game on lousy missions. I'll be looking forward to playing through the high quality and highly rated missions that you provide. My sincere thanks in advance.
Agreed. I do find it humorous that BECAUSE of this thread, people may try to game the system against him, while without it, they probably would not give a ****.
I for one look forward to seeing the incredible genius that his missions will no doubt be thanks to his superior skill set.
Look, you'll have to take criticism for anything you work on. This isn't the first grade where everyone has to say something constructive or nice. A lot of people, especially on the internet, aren't going to play nice. You're lucky if you get nice on most days. There are people out there who will be out there to grief you and the internet police doesn't exist yet to stop them. And if ONE (1) person who doesn't have moderation rights over UGC can single handedly stop the entire process, then apparently the system isn't going to work. And we should consider our alternatives.
Also, what's our alternative? Feel free to enlighten me but would you honestly feel better if a single judge at Cryptic said he didn't think your mission was worth releasing to the public?
Anyways, if you make a solid enough mission, the good votes are definitely going to drown out that minority of people who believe it's trash. If you don't want the responsibility to grade missions fairly, then obviously you should step down and let the rest of us who will, do so.
This. One person with an axe to grind isn't going to ruin your UGC mission. Now fleets against fleets...if it comes to that, we might have some SERIOUS problems on our hands
No, but the review process does present an opportunity for griefers to make authors' lives miserable. And they can be subtle enough in the griefing--if their reasons for rejection sound genuine--to get by without being punished and being removed as reviewers by Cryptic.
I don't think you're allowed to reject a mission for quality purposes.
I think it's almost certainly a checklist of things like "Was there profanity?"
If you lie and say there was to get a mission with a lousy plot rejected, you'll probably lose your reviewing rights.
Approval is almost certainly not quality based. Ratings for approved missions will be where quality comes in.
If you lie and say there was to get a mission with a lousy plot rejected, you'll probably lose your reviewing rights.
I certainly hope thats the case. I'd even be agreeable to let people have 3 strikes since its possible to make a mistake when checking boxes. But after that, they should never able to review another mission.
I certainly hope thats the case. I'd even be agreeable to let people have 3 strikes since its possible to make a mistake when checking boxes. But after that, they should never able to review another mission.
Agreed, there must be consequences for gaming the approval system. notice I said APPROVAL, not REVIEW, since a 5 star system is mostly subjective.
I certainly hope thats the case. I'd even be agreeable to let people have 3 strikes since its possible to make a mistake when checking boxes. But after that, they should never able to review another mission.
This is why I think it's almost certainly going to be more than a box check. Presumably, you'd finish the mission, have to hit a button to flag it, select a category to flag it in, and then write a blurb about why, kind of like the bug reporting system we have already. That will reduce the "accidents."
This is why I think it's almost certainly going to be more than a box check. Presumably, you'd finish the mission, have to hit a button to flag it, select a category to flag it in, and then write a blurb about why, kind of like the bug reporting system we have already. That will reduce the "accidents."
That will also allow people to reject a mission for things like the plot not being to their preference. (ie. "A Klingon would never do that!" is not a valid reason to reject for approval purposes; by all means, give it zero stars when it goes live for that but rating and approval almost have to be two systems.)
The problems with griefers that people have mentioned has nothing to do with content. If a griefer says a completely innocent mission is offensive for x, y or z, that mission will probably get canned, just because someone was convincing enough with nonsense about an invented offense. I'm sure anything flagged as offensive will be reviewed, but still.
That will also allow people to reject a mission for things like the plot not being to their preference. (ie. "A Klingon would never do that!" is not a valid reason to reject for approval purposes; by all means, give it zero stars when it goes live for that but rating and approval almost have to be two systems.)
They could still do that on a checkbox setup just as easily by "accidentally" clicking "yes" on something. Then a Dev would have to go through the whole mission to find out what, if anything, it was flagged for before they could rescind the flag. If you have to put in a reason, and your reason is something like "A Klingon would never do that!", your flag can be tossed out rather easily.
The problems with griefers that people have mentioned has nothing to do with content. If a griefer says a completely innocent mission is offensive for x, y or z, that mission will probably get canned, just because someone was convincing enough with nonsense about an invented offense. I'm sure anything flagged as offensive will be reviewed, but still.
I think it may delay things but that griefers will get canned faster.
I mean, if a rejection requires:
- Profanity
- Trademark Infringement
- Racist/Sexist/Language that discriminates against or disparages a real group of people or individual
- Typos
Then it should be a pretty cut and dried matter to go back and review for these things. If these things are not present, the reviewer gets a warning and their review removed from that game. Say, three warnings on an account and you lose your reviewing rights.
The problems with griefers that people have mentioned has nothing to do with content. If a griefer says a completely innocent mission is offensive for x, y or z, that mission will probably get canned, just because someone was convincing enough with nonsense about an invented offense. I'm sure anything flagged as offensive will be reviewed, but still.
no because they have said there has to have a certain number of people review it (number to be decided) so if one person says its offensive and nine other say its fine, then its fine.
if someone then flags the game after its got past the review stage a dev or GM will look at it and see for themselves.
Then it should be a pretty cut and dried matter to go back and review for these things.
Yeah, it "should" be. But do you remember the who "dervish" thing? Some people genuinely felt that was inappropriate. There will undoubtedly be plenty of that even though theres no real way to say their "wrong".
Yeah, it "should" be. But do you remember the who "dervish" thing? Some people genuinely felt that was inappropriate. There will undoubtedly be plenty of that even though theres no real way to say their "wrong".
You ignore those people unless it's a clear violation.
You ignore those people unless it's a clear violation.
I think you misunderstand. When I said "there will be plenty of that", I mean people saying somethings inappropriate when its not really a clear violation.
I think you misunderstand. When I said "there will be plenty of that", I mean people saying somethings inappropriate when its not really a clear violation.
And I'm saying that you strip reviewing credentials from reviewers who are too strict.
I don't think you're allowed to reject a mission for quality purposes.
I think it's almost certainly a checklist of things like "Was there profanity?"
If you lie and say there was to get a mission with a lousy plot rejected, you'll probably lose your reviewing rights.
Approval is almost certainly not quality based. Ratings for approved missions will be where quality comes in.
Profanity can be picked up programmatically. You don't need reviewers for that. Plus standard players wouldn't be good for that, anyway.... how will normal players know what words are profanity in other languages, for instance?
Comments
I don't want others deciding for me what a good mission is and what is not when it comes to UGC, that is subjective and should be left for me to make that personal opinion.
I should be allowed to play them all and make up my own mind for the most part i.e. within certain very easily defined limits of course as mentioned to some degree in the following paragraph.
As for the issue of profanity and the like, I can see stuff being screened out for copy right/trademark issues and things that are just down right inappropriate.
I have no problem with a review panel screening out obscene material and trademark violations, so long as they are not screening out content just because they do not personallly like the content.
While I did not specificly see that would be the case, I can still see a lot of the possibility that people will be deciding for me what is good and what is not outside the boundries of just screening for obscene material.
So yea, there is some worry on the review front to some extent.
If you are going to hand us the car, you need to hand us the keys to or it does not do any good.
It cuts both ways, what would be the point of making content if no one got to see it because some people got to decide for the rest of the gaming community that it was no good so it did not pass.
So call this a concern for the concern pile, even if it is unfounded.
An easy example being Star Trek Generations, where they had to go back and rebuild the entire Veridian III set for re-shoots because the people in the screening hated Kirk's death.
So how'd the old version make it into release?
*ducks*
No, know that dropping a bridge on Kirk was the revised version, but it still kinda missed the point.
Heheh, yeah I know. They totally didn't understand what that audience was telling them. I'd actually rather have the version where he gets shot in the back. At least that wouldn't have had the whole bit where Kirk almost falls and Picard saves him...only to have him fall off later anyway.
A better example would probably be Little Shop of Horrors. They spent most of their budget on the last 10 minutes of the movie, where the plant was supposed to grow huge and go rampaging through the city. The people screening it hated it, and the whole thing was just outright scrapped.
Yeah, I used to say the same thing until she came out of the bathroom dressed in shiny leather carrying ******** clamps. "wince"
While I fully understand your valid concerns about how the review process will work, I would suggest waiting to see exactly how it will be handled when UGC is actually released. For now I am reserving judgment until the panel and the feature is live or in beta.
--Cirdi :cool:
No, but the review process does present an opportunity for griefers to make authors' lives miserable. And they can be subtle enough in the griefing--if their reasons for rejection sound genuine--to get by without being punished and being removed as reviewers by Cryptic.
Look, you'll have to take criticism for anything you work on. This isn't the first grade where everyone has to say something constructive or nice. A lot of people, especially on the internet, aren't going to play nice. You're lucky if you get nice on most days. There are people out there who will be out there to grief you and the internet police doesn't exist yet to stop them. And if ONE (1) person who doesn't have moderation rights over UGC can single handedly stop the entire process, then apparently the system isn't going to work. And we should consider our alternatives.
Also, what's our alternative? Feel free to enlighten me but would you honestly feel better if a single judge at Cryptic said he didn't think your mission was worth releasing to the public?
Anyways, if you make a solid enough mission, the good votes are definitely going to drown out that minority of people who believe it's trash. If you don't want the responsibility to grade missions fairly, then obviously you should step down and let the rest of us who will, do so.
Agreed. I do find it humorous that BECAUSE of this thread, people may try to game the system against him, while without it, they probably would not give a ****.
I'm sorry to hear that. It certainly discourages me from making missions a great deal.
what an TRIBBLE. No wonder you made this thread.
Quite the arrogant sort, aren't you? If your missions are going to be so incredibly awesome than I'm sure it won't be a problem. Freaking relax. There needs to be a review process because I don't wan't to waste the precious little time I have to play the game on lousy missions. I'll be looking forward to playing through the high quality and highly rated missions that you provide. My sincere thanks in advance.
THEY ALL MISSED THE POINT! in the immortal words of Plinkett:
"Star Trek Generations is the stupidest movie ever made. It ruined everything, and not just Star Trek movies, but EVERYTHING!"
I for one look forward to seeing the incredible genius that his missions will no doubt be thanks to his superior skill set.
This. One person with an axe to grind isn't going to ruin your UGC mission. Now fleets against fleets...if it comes to that, we might have some SERIOUS problems on our hands
I have no doubt that he's probably a talented person, and will make some good missions. Doesn't excuse his attitude, though.
I don't think you're allowed to reject a mission for quality purposes.
I think it's almost certainly a checklist of things like "Was there profanity?"
If you lie and say there was to get a mission with a lousy plot rejected, you'll probably lose your reviewing rights.
Approval is almost certainly not quality based. Ratings for approved missions will be where quality comes in.
I certainly hope thats the case. I'd even be agreeable to let people have 3 strikes since its possible to make a mistake when checking boxes. But after that, they should never able to review another mission.
Agreed, there must be consequences for gaming the approval system. notice I said APPROVAL, not REVIEW, since a 5 star system is mostly subjective.
This is why I think it's almost certainly going to be more than a box check. Presumably, you'd finish the mission, have to hit a button to flag it, select a category to flag it in, and then write a blurb about why, kind of like the bug reporting system we have already. That will reduce the "accidents."
That will also allow people to reject a mission for things like the plot not being to their preference. (ie. "A Klingon would never do that!" is not a valid reason to reject for approval purposes; by all means, give it zero stars when it goes live for that but rating and approval almost have to be two systems.)
They could still do that on a checkbox setup just as easily by "accidentally" clicking "yes" on something. Then a Dev would have to go through the whole mission to find out what, if anything, it was flagged for before they could rescind the flag. If you have to put in a reason, and your reason is something like "A Klingon would never do that!", your flag can be tossed out rather easily.
I think it may delay things but that griefers will get canned faster.
I mean, if a rejection requires:
- Profanity
- Trademark Infringement
- Racist/Sexist/Language that discriminates against or disparages a real group of people or individual
- Typos
Then it should be a pretty cut and dried matter to go back and review for these things. If these things are not present, the reviewer gets a warning and their review removed from that game. Say, three warnings on an account and you lose your reviewing rights.
no because they have said there has to have a certain number of people review it (number to be decided) so if one person says its offensive and nine other say its fine, then its fine.
if someone then flags the game after its got past the review stage a dev or GM will look at it and see for themselves.
Yeah, it "should" be. But do you remember the who "dervish" thing? Some people genuinely felt that was inappropriate. There will undoubtedly be plenty of that even though theres no real way to say their "wrong".
You ignore those people unless it's a clear violation.
I think you misunderstand. When I said "there will be plenty of that", I mean people saying somethings inappropriate when its not really a clear violation.
And I'm saying that you strip reviewing credentials from reviewers who are too strict.
Profanity can be picked up programmatically. You don't need reviewers for that. Plus standard players wouldn't be good for that, anyway.... how will normal players know what words are profanity in other languages, for instance?