Topic: Revising the Submission Process

Through what I've seen to this point, I think it's time we consider making this a little more 'community-based'.

When somebody submits something, I suggest that instead of just saying whether it's wrong or incorrect or 'doesn't feel right for the level' to post things regarding specifically why this happens. Just saying 'it doesn't feel right' doesn't tell the artist anything about how they can improve their work (if that doesn't 'feel right', what does?).

Also, I suggest we make it so that everyone gets a word on the submission and if it fits the game. Not just a few select people. So... I suggest from here on out, we work this out democratically. What some feel that isn't right for the level, others think does. This difference is important, as you can never please everybody. But by taking votes, we'd have more accurate numbers for or against the submission, whether it be art or music.

So I propose this.

Each time somebody submits something, when commenting on it, put at the end 'Vote: Yes' or 'Vote: No'. Once the submission has had at least three votes going either way, then it can be determined whether it will indeed fit the game or not. This ensures that the community itself agrees. I can't help but think it's becoming a lot of 'do it the way I want' and that everyone should be able to have a say in the matter of how it needs to be.

We need to work together.

Thoughts? Counter Proposals?

Re: Revising the Submission Process

No. There has to be a lead.

The problem with the approach you're suggesting is that, as many people can have very different visions of what a final product might be - regardless of what is documented in the wiki -, the sum of all forces is likely to be null, and the final game is likely to be mediocre. This project was started in August 2008 with the goal of being one of the best open source & free software games. I will not let go of this dream, even if it costs me some disagreements with contributors. I prefer to aim for an excellent game, taking all the implied risks of that (maybe even failing the project), rather than delivering a mediocre product.

A very fine trait of our generation is asking for democracy in the workplace, and I understand that. However, I also understand that successful entrepreneurships have a lead. Contributors must have the ability to influence decisions - and they do in here -, but I also believe that critical decision-making must not be collective, as conflicting visions tend to decrease the overall quality of a product.

I understand that you and your friends might be unsatisfied with the denial of the music for Sunshine Paradise. We asked for improvements giving very clear references of what to do. Yet, I was told yesterday via IM that the references were crap. We asked for the source file of the music, so we could remix it. Yet, we have received a rude response. In my belief, that was counter-productive. I was not asking for perfection, but given all the talent that our contributors have, I'm convinced we are capable of making a great product.

As you all are seeing with your own eyes since 2009, the community has a great impact on the game by making suggestions, giving ideas, writing feature requests for the engine, submitting and criticizing content, etc. Some are accepted, some are not - based on technical, administrative or vision-based grounds. Nonetheless, I still read everything that is posted here. Maybe not everyone agrees with this system, but at least we have a direction in which to move to, and I strongly believe this is far better than having to make a poll for every single decision we make.

I'm sorry, but I'm not changing the tatics or the strategy of this project due to one disagreement. My answer is no.