Super Mario Bros. X Forums

AeroMatter wrote:Question that needs to be answered: Why do we have people make one thread per level instead of one thread for all of their levels, and why do we have these fragmented threads moved into different forums to die in?

I think Level Moderators would help with the arbitrary matters as Nien said, but it still doesn't solve the activity part and discussion part. Would it not be better to just make the levels forum just like the Casual subforum, but with this organization instead? I keep referring to the Art board because that's the system there; you can't make a new thread for each drawing or comic you make, you make one thread as a home for all of it. It keeps a discussion flowing instead of split up among dozens of threads, and makes it much easier to keep track of comments and critique.

So you mean, each user can make one thread for all of their levels? Then the level rating sections would have to be removed... It's an interesting idea tho.

Yes pretty much. I said before that a sticky could be made to feature the more outstanding levels.

h2643 wrote:Linik lives in UK, so it SHOULD be at least decent...

Haha, how did you figure out where I live, you stalker? And about my English, it's pretty much perfect.

Linik wrote:

h2643 wrote:Linik lives in UK, so it SHOULD be at least decent...

Haha, how did you figure out where I live, you stalker? And about my English, it's pretty much perfect.

(It's in the description of your youtube channel)

I wonder why the criticism about your review style never reached you, though. Because honetly, there's no reason why it shouldn't have. Here are some points from a sceptical comment about your application:
"the reviews seem kinda inconsistent" (no specification)
"provide good feedback but don't encompass everything" (no examples)
"only focuses on gameplay and atmosphere when there are more things to consider" (doesn't give examples)
"scores are a bit too high"
>quote from a review of a level you gave 3.35/10

Kinda proving my point that when someone's turned down, they don't receive any feedback in helping them improve and get the position they're aiming for. This is a flaw if we really want to have a system where judges apply to review levels for a period of time. There aren't enough judges to get a good cycle of 'reviewing for a few weeks' --> 'demotion' --> 'repeat' going, which is what this system in its essence is based on.

Looking at that feedback, too, the inconsistent standards and opinions are highlighted. I think any review is legitimate as long as they don't go extreme in either direction due to their personal experience with the level. What people are looking for in levels varies from person to person and if we want judges, we should really have a standard.

Of course the easier alternative is to do what has been suggested a number of times: take away this role of judges which make people think that they're the only people which can constructively review a level but end up doing nothing apart from moderation themselves. Giving judges a special colour discourages people to give feedback even further unless they want to apply for the role as well.

This isn't a question about why to change, but rather one about why to keep using this system. I like the idea of restructuring the levels forum in a way where arbitrary scores and judges are dropped entirely and feedback is up to people who got a bit of free time on their hands. Arbitrary scores make the levels forum a competetive place while it should only be for sharing your creations. For competition we host an absurd number of contests.

I would like to hear some valid response from the defenders of the current system.

Enjl wrote:I wonder why the criticism about your review style never reached you, though. Because honetly, there's no reason why it shouldn't have. Here are some points from a sceptical comment about your application:
"the reviews seem kinda inconsistent" (no specification)
"provide good feedback but don't encompass everything" (no examples)
"only focuses on gameplay and atmosphere when there are more things to consider" (doesn't give examples)
"scores are a bit too high"
>quote from a review of a level you gave 3.35/10

Kinda proving my point that when someone's turned down, they don't receive any feedback in helping them improve and get the position they're aiming for. This is a flaw if we really want to have a system where judges apply to review levels for a period of time. There aren't enough judges to get a good cycle of 'reviewing for a few weeks' --> 'demotion' --> 'repeat' going, which is what this system in its essence is based on.

The reason I got stated to me was because there were too many judges at that point, so the reviews might not have been the prime reason for getting turned down. And yeah, what you brought up about reviewers not being told how to improve their reviews is a very valid point. I mean, I've been reviewing in almost the same way for years and have had no problems, so why would they suddenly start criticising my review style?

Nien wrote:1.- I never said i was specifically having problems with the level judges. In fact, the closest i got to that was the first sentence in my post. Which, funny enough, was the only part you didn't quote from me.

2.- You actually somehow managed to respond to my post with the exact format that i was complaining about.

3.- If i wanted to post a level i'd do it with the intention of showing it to people, not to recieve a review from the glorious pink username masterrace. Your response actually made the level judges seem like superiors, which is what people are having problems with.

4.- Good job at ignoring literally every other response after mine btw

This has nothing to do with you personally disagreeing with the judges. I know you said you don't. What I was saying was that if one should disagree with the level judges reviewing their level, they shouldn't post it. Or alternatively post it on Casual Levels since those don't get reviewed. My point is that as long as there's not a notable outcry against the way we currently deal with levels (and I don't mean 5 people whining like in this thread, I'm talking the entire userbase rioting and refusing to post levels and making their own level board with a new system or something), we're not going to change it.

Valtteri wrote:as long as there's not a notable outcry against the way we currently deal with levels (and I don't mean 5 people whining like in this thread, I'm talking the entire userbase rioting and refusing to post levels and making their own level board with a new system or something), we're not going to change it.

http://www.strawpoll.me/10381721/r

Attitude so far is that the system is shit and you're not changing it out of spite rather than any rational reason.

Honestly I still heavily support Marina's original idea (and a lot of the current LJs do, too). Yeah, it's kinda like what we're doing rn but I think having a few trusted Level Mods that do the moderating and then have the LJs be a wider group (ie a lot of the Contest Judges aren't LJs). While they may not necessarily be that active rn, just giving them the opportunity to do it may help.

However, I think having too many LJs would also have a downside though: the single LJs may think that since there's so many of them they're not as responsible to review. And of course with like 2 LJs we can't really do anything either. In addition, the same may apply to users commenting with the intention of actual reviews, so how well the level will be received has to be judged by general comments and I just don't think that this will be too beneficial. Also, you claim that discussion will be generated naturally, but will there really be more? A lot of General Discussion threads (unless they're relevant like LunaLua) often die out pretty quickly, too, and I just don't see this being any different for levels.

Just my 2 cents tho.

Aeromatter was right again and makes smbx great again

I love how everyone was against AeroMatter at first but now it's the other way around lol

Personally, I'm divided on my opinion about this. I'm open to these three ideas:

• * Marina's idea
  * Aero's Artboard idea
  * We keep everything how it is

If we end up sticking with the current system, I would really like for there to be more judges. 8 just isn't enough, especially when some of them just use their position to moderate the section, and one or two don't even do anything at all!

Or we can burn the level forum :)

Spinda wrote:Honestly I still heavily support Marina's original idea

I don't understand how pushing the Level Judges' mod duties to Global Mods would help?

zlakergirl357 wrote:Or we can burn the level forum

Great idea! Problem solved! Now everyone can focus on all the other important stuff. .

Although, I don't know if we should do that. But, if we aren't doing that, I just want to say this:



Holy crap, guys! I can't stay away from the forum for a few days while I work on (STATEMENT REDACTED), and everything turns into a salt storm! Just...ST0P IT! Please. As far as I can tell, this has been a "STATE OF THE LEVEL FORUMS" debate with AeroMatter and PixelPest, and other users coming and commenting occasionally. Here are the arguments they're setting forth:

AeroMatter: "The level forum is flawed, and needs fixing. How about we abolish level reviewers, and hand the right of level reviewing to the community?"

PixelPest: "That won't work. The current system, while flawed, is better than what you're recommending, so we must stick to it!"


That's essentially what this thread is going to continue to be, until it fizzles out, or gets locked. Unless something drastic happens. So here's what my responses are to the entire matter:

Response 1. PixelPest (and Valtteri), if you're so absolutely sure that AeroMatter's method is positively flawed and will never work, here's what you should do: try it out! If what you believe is going to happen is true, then it will happen. The levels forum will burn, and we'll reinstate the old system. After the entire ordeal is over, if AeroMatter ever tries to bring his idea up again, you can say, "Don't you remember what happened last time?! ".

"But," I hear you say, "What about all the levels that will be sacrificed when we go through the period of letting the new system burn out?!". That's a great question! They'll just have to suffer, and once the entire ordeal is over, we can go back to them, and properly review them.

Response 2. I think the levels forum will never be perfect because of one major flaw: the fact that anybody, veteran or new user or troll alike, can post in there. That's why it's so backlogged and why bias, whether it be designer, or screenshot, or rushed, is so hard to avoid. Literally, the forum is filled with tons of levels that will garner low scores and negative criticism, and whose designers we will (usually) see none or little activity from.

I propose that, in order to fix this, we have the rule that, in order to post in the levels forum, you must send a level or levels to a specified admin (whether it be global moderators or level reviewers), and he/she must approve of the quality of design. Once your level(s) pass(es) the test, you get permission to post. This would fix the major influx of crappy levels.

mariogeek2 wrote:

But then how would those users ever improve if they just keep being told that they're levels are bad and to not post? The issue too with this new idea is that we'd be going through a big process to make major changes that few people are aware of and even less people agree with them, to solely prove it's a flop

PixelPest wrote:

mariogeek2 wrote:

But then how would those users ever improve if they just keep being told that they're levels are bad and to not post?

Here: http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... f=32&t=739. New users need to be told this kind of stuff up front, instead of them posting in the levels forum, wasting people's time and energy, only to be told the same exact stuff that we could've told them earlier.

In fact, I'm working on "The New Users Comprehensive Guide to Super Mario Bros X and the Community". I've been working on it for quite a while. I'll probably have that posted up in the "General" forum later today.

The issue too with this new idea is that we'd be going through a big process to make major changes that few people are aware of and even less people agree with them, to solely prove it's a flop

Who says few people have to be aware of it? Can't we just shout it out through the forums, "Hey, we're changing the levels forum to prove AeroMatter wrong!"

Also, there's more than "less people than a few" who agree with AeroMatter. I mean, just look at his poll. That's more than "less people than a few".

mariogeek2 wrote:objectively wrong opinion

I hate it when everyone is able to share their creations on a platform built around sharing creations. Drains the fun right out of the concept, doesn't it?

The main flaw of food is that anyone can eat it.

Enjl wrote:

mariogeek2 wrote:My opinion

I hate it when everyone is able to share their creations on a platform built around sharing creations. Drains the fun right out of the concept, doesn't it?

So this is what it's like to be AeroMatter. Huh.
The problem is the platform is being filled with crap and then nobody wants to visit on that platform because it stinks.

SnoruntPyro wrote:The main flaw of food is that anyone can eat it.

Oh, so anyone should just be able to move in a country and do whatever without being approved first?

mariogeek2 wrote:

SnoruntPyro wrote:The main flaw of food is that anyone can eat it.

Oh, so anyone should just be able to move in a country and do whatever without being approved first?

There's a difference between getting approved to move into a country and having a policeman show up at your door so they can test the quality of the sandwich you made for breakfast.

mariogeek2 wrote:

Enjl wrote:

mariogeek2 wrote:My onion

I hate it when everyone is able to share their creations on a platform built around sharing creations. Drains the fun right out of the concept, doesn't it?

So this is what it's like to be AeroMatter. Huh.
The problem is the platform is being filled with crap and then nobody wants to visit on that platform because it stinks.

The levels forum should not be an elite selection of levels "approved" people have made. As we are a community we serve as a platform for anyone to share their creations.

Your argumentation "censor bad levels" is a hilariously bad statement which will do nothing but reduce activity on the forums. Lots of people will realise that this "open and friendly" community doesn't want their creations and will leave because there's nothing binding them to this place. It also completely goes against the idea of wanting to help people get better results at what they like doing.

If you really want a selection of good levels I suggest introducing something AeroMatter mentioned before (I don't remember completely but the idea is the same): Have the community's members vote for levels they think stood out each month and feature them in a list so they're easily visible to people looking for a good few minutes of fun.

Enjl wrote:Have the community's members vote for levels they think stood out each month and feature them in a list so they're easily visible to people looking for a good few minutes of fun.

I actually really like this idea! In fact, we could do this for episodes too. Oh wait...