2020 M&M Election

That's not my final post, so you're going to have to wait a little longer.

Wouldn't it have been better to have two different threads for discussion about each proposal?

This thread is already hard to follow and half of it, not that constructive. Maybe keep the discussion about the actual election to discord...

@scytale said in 2020 M&M Election:

Wouldn't it have been better to have two different threads for discussion about each proposal?

I'm okay with making a seperate thread. I had written my post in such a way so that I could hide most of it in spoiler tags, reducing the absolutely asinine size when posted. This forum doesnt allow spoilers for some reason.

I'll let other peopls weigh in on that first, however.

I just wanted to note for those reading this that the list of map authors that Morax said he would day-1 approve for his whitelist is a small minority of mappers with a clearly biased list (I don't want to name names here out of concern that that could start tangential flamewars, but feel free to pm me if you want to ask). Even if he doubled or tripled that list, it would still be a small minority of mappers. So, Morax's plan to remove the regular 'most recent' maps list would make it harder to find/discover the large majority of maps on FAF. It would also disincentivize many potential new mappers from getting started with map-making.
I also wanted to point out that Morax's claim that the average not hidden or removed map on the vault that isn't showcased gets "10 or less" plays is just blatantly wrong. (I don't know where he got such a baseless claim. I've looked over the play-counts of thousands of maps on the vault, and the average is much higher.) However, if the 'most recent' maps list is removed like Morax wants, I could easily imagine his claim of most maps getting 10 or fewer plays becoming true, unfortunately....

Why is there a 46 post thread just for two people to post their applications? I don't want to read all this shit.

I think posting your ideas in simple bullet points would be easier at this rate. Going back and reading this from top to bottom would take an hour best case scenario. So if possible please clean this up and make it easier to read.

I'll make it simpler to follow, use a separate thread. If folks and biass are okay (which I think he is) with it.

We can use this thread as a panel to ask questions for candidates.

Penguin, sure, but I don't have any feedback other then that's what I believe in. If you have a direct question, let me know.

I am not entirely sure why this whole thing is complicated. Have a minimum standard for maps - textures, naming, balanced etc. and that is it.

Improve the search feature and there you go. Players will play a map they enjoy more than once, ones they do not enjoy, they will not play.

@Morax said in 2020 M&M Election:

We can use this thread as a panel to ask questions for candidates.

If that is the case, then this thread needs a clean up.

I am not entirely sure why this whole thing is complicated. Have a minimum standard for maps - textures, naming, balanced etc. and that is it.

That's literally what we already have. Both of them mention why that doesn't work and why they are suggesting other things...

I'd say thus far that both interests have been applied and questions of content have the base material present to ask about. As such, without further detail of observation, I'd say in regards of the interest the general idea of direction is reasonable, but still seeming to maybe lack an interest in which I can respond to in detail without further observation of detail to say.

My take on maps tends to be different than others and as such the interest in which they could be handled at a time take a different priority. I understand that the quality of content is questionable for interests of interest and that the reasonability of the specific is usually only determined by the detail to say in which is covered. Assessing what is assigned than assigning the assigned still seems the reasonable over in which there is still to have, process as such is what question(s) there are for the interests.

If an accord can be agreed in which there is to elect without the lack of decree, then the efforts should say still retain their tenure, with or without any further chore.
If such, I hope to take the observed into greater detail and perhaps reply in due kind, but I wouldn't hold my breathe if I was you, but time may allow though of course, don't get me wrong.

If you can't understand what I said, that is o.k., for the time is all the same at the time really.

Thanks

Curiosity got the better of me and spent some time going through the FaF M&M discord and whatever else has been going on. There is what I could only describe as a lot of "not okay conduct". It really doesn't seem like a space that encourages new map makers, at times the direct opposite. I am not okay with this process being a closed election. The entire process should involve the community much much more.

It really doesn't seem like a space that encourages new map makers, at times the direct opposite.

I've been on there for a while and mostly just see people being helpful when someone asks how to do something? Really would like some actual examples, because that's a completely different impression than I have.

Also, the "closed election" thing has already been discussed; if you have new ideas share them and tell us how you want to accomplish them. Otherwise this complaint is just a waste of time.

Locking this thread due to recent developments.

To go to the new election thread please visit:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/236/2020-m-m-election-part-2