A new take on the Level Portal.

[Doram]

This post by l.m was thumbed up by: 3

Doram (March 6th, 2016, 1:43 am) • Harmless (February 28th, 2016, 5:21 pm) • NanTheDark (February 28th, 2016, 7:19 pm)

[Charcoal]

You bring up a good point.

It's like Super Smash Bros: there are people who want to play it for fun and then others who want to get competitive and win tournaments. In this case the newer members just want to design for fun, whereas people like me want to win LDCs. Even competitive people wanted to play or design just to have fun and were novices themselves.

I will admit, I may have been too harsh with rating people's levels. I want to help them make nice levels, but now I feel like I'm force-feeding them to improve like I've been complaining about my friends' playstyles in Super Smash Bros. So, I apologize for acting critical; I'm sorry.
I'm going to back off a bit. What I'll focus on is not rating, but more of complimenting what they did well on and offer suggestions. Even if a level says "Hardest Level in the World", I'll work on being a positive influence. Rating 1/5 or 2/5 would more than likely ruin their day.

[Oranjui]

This post by Oranjui was thumbed up by:

npromin1 (February 29th, 2016, 5:40 pm)

[PositronWildhawk]

I think it goes without saying that this idea is genius.

Because we must learn from our mistakes. If someone submits a bad (for lack of better words) level, that doesn't mean it should be disapproved. Criticism is expected, and with constructive criticism comes improvements. If you disapprove the level just because it "doesn't meet standards" you're in a way not allowing constructive criticism.

So yeah, good idea FF.

[Supershroom]

You can actually imagine that I really disagree with "having a playground", if this is more or less equal to going back to the standards of the old portal and giving free hand to people like ovidiu, making their actions uncontrollable. The old portal was a sole mess and I'm glad that I've joined later than 2010 - 2011.

It really is somewhat easy to not fall through our approval filter as it currently is. Levels with horrendous lag, or eye-hurting cutoff all over the place, or of very little effort with less than 20 minutes of work, should stay disapproved. Back from my experience of the 1-hour duel with Peter I can say that the minimum time you should spend for your level is at least an hour. I can speak for myself and many others that we also don't wanna educate new designers so they can win 1st place (or let's say, a medal) in an LDC. I want them to show further possibilities of what they can do with the designer so they discover ways to have BOTH more respect / better ratings AND fun by themselves. With my level ratings, I'm always objective. I'm going by a set of standards in my signature that I feel finely covers all scales of quality in the tiny space of 1 to 5 stars.

I agree that there should be more interaction between our (only two currently, cough-cough) level mods and new users with disapproved levels. I mean, we have a very nicely written guide on the Wiki by Doram that tells them unambiguously what was wrong with their level. If this daunts them away, then it's only their fault, speaking that they are not mature enough. If they thoroughly read the critique they get, they'll eventually learn and become really awesome. There were enough people who this has finely worked with (recently e.g. FLUDD3001).

And lastly, don't forget what darthbrowser said. The more we lower our standards, the more we tend to keep the wrong people and scare away the right ones.

I can only say this, the more a mass of 1-star worthy level shows up, the less I'll be motivated to ever comment on one of those. And by the way I hardly recall myself shouting "how was this approved" in a PM or in the chat during the past few months.

[l.m]

You can actually imagine that I really disagree with "having a playground", if this is more or less equal to going back to the standards of the old portal and giving free hand to people like ovidiu, making their actions uncontrollable. The old portal was a sole mess and I'm glad that I've joined later than 2010 - 2011.

that doesn't mean level moderating will end forever

It really is somewhat easy to not fall through our approval filter as it currently is. Levels with horrendous lag, or eye-hurting cutoff all over the place, or of very little effort with less than 20 minutes of work, should stay disapproved. Back from my experience of the 1-hour duel with Peter I can say that the minimum time you should spend for your level is at least an hour.

no need to set even more guidelines, let the designer take the time they want

I agree that there should be more interaction between our (only two currently, cough-cough)

NO

I mean, we have a very nicely written guide on the Wiki by Doram that tells them unambiguously what was wrong with their level. If this daunts them away, then it's only their fault, speaking that they are not mature enough. If they thoroughly read the critique they get, they'll eventually learn and become really awesome. There were enough people who this has finely worked with (recently e.g. FLUDD3001).

1) do you really expect new users to read a ♥♥♥♥ of text right when they start designing

2) are you really blaming them for not being mature enough, even considering their age and the fact that people that enter the site are mostly young users? that's a really stupid thought

3) Haven't you really got the entire POINT of the post here? I'm basically asking people to give more positive and constructive criticism. But HOW are we supposed to give criticism for people that doesn't even get the chance to make it to the level portal?

4) Yes. Except no one is a clone of FLUDD3001. Or Jumbo101. Or FL. We're just giving chances to designers that are really talented, and that is the most critical error.

And lastly, don't forget what darthbrowser said. The more we lower our standards, the more we tend to keep the wrong people and scare away the right ones.

so are you saying that we should make our standards even HIGHER? And give no chance whatsoever to the new members? WHAT exactly do you mean by "wrong" people? This is a really flawed point of view. Or it's a really good point of view and you just interpreted it wrong. If, by wrong people, you mean users like ovidiu, then it is confirmed that you literally have no patience to deal with the level portal.

I can only say this, the more a mass of 1-star worthy level shows up, the less I'll be motivated to ever comment on one of those. And by the way I hardly recall myself shouting "how was this approved" in a PM or in the chat during the past few months.

It's fine. Just don't comment then. I'm pretty sure that most people that are active in the portal has a bigger amount of patience than you.

And no, I wasn't (surprisingly) directly referring to you about that.

---

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Does it really matter to wish a site where everyone can enjoy and have fun if we keep just blocking all the new members that aren't really talented and neglecting them? I'm really not okay with this. I'm pretty sure Runouw didn't create the SM63 level designer just so we could make a selective community based on placements or level ratings.

[Charcoal]

You can actually imagine that I really disagree with "having a playground", if this is more or less equal to going back to the standards of the old portal and giving free hand to people like ovidiu, making their actions uncontrollable. The old portal was a sole mess and I'm glad that I've joined later than 2010 - 2011.

It really is somewhat easy to not fall through our approval filter as it currently is. Levels with horrendous lag, or eye-hurting cutoff all over the place, or of very little effort with less than 20 minutes of work, should stay disapproved. Back from my experience of the 1-hour duel with Peter I can say that the minimum time you should spend for your level is at least an hour. I can speak for myself and many others that we also don't wanna educate new designers so they can win 1st place (or let's say, a medal) in an LDC. I want them to show further possibilities of what they can do with the designer so they discover ways to have BOTH more respect / better ratings AND fun by themselves. With my level ratings, I'm always objective. I'm going by a set of standards in my signature that I feel finely covers all scales of quality in the tiny space of 1 to 5 stars.

I agree that there should be more interaction between our (only two currently, cough-cough) level mods and new users with disapproved levels. I mean, we have a very nicely written guide on the Wiki by Doram that tells them unambiguously what was wrong with their level. If this daunts them away, then it's only their fault, speaking that they are not mature enough. If they thoroughly read the critique they get, they'll eventually learn and become really awesome. There were enough people who this has finely worked with (recently e.g. FLUDD3001).

And lastly, don't forget what darthbrowser said. The more we lower our standards, the more we tend to keep the wrong people and scare away the right ones.

I can only say this, the more a mass of 1-star worthy level shows up, the less I'll be motivated to ever comment on one of those. And by the way I hardly recall myself shouting "how was this approved" in a PM or in the chat during the past few months.

Okay, we can't really have a "perfect" portal. We can't prevent 1 star levels completely. Besides, we can't expect them to be that good at designing on their first try just like you can't expect a 1st grader to know how to read a chapter book very well on their first attempt at it.

Allow them to make mistakes. Allow them to make 1 or 2 star levels. You can't expect them to be as good as MP3 or Jumbo.
Yes, the Wiki might help, but some of them probably aren't interested in looking at it.

Not everybody, especially kids, has an understanding of what's right and what' wrong. When you're telling them "There's cut-off and lack of scenery. You need to work on that", some of them may not know what you're talking about. The only thing they might understand is that score. That 1/5 score. They'll see that and feel bad. That's like playing Mario Kart or a board game with them and you keep beating them at the game. They're not going to have fun that way. They're not going to have fun when they see 1/5 on their levels. They don't want to design anymore if that keeps happening. Allow them to mature. If them maturing involves making the crappiest levels in existence, then okay. Let them have fun with designing.

I understand you're concerns Supershroom, and I can see your logic behind what you say; but some of those things just seem too utopian to me.

[Supershroom]

What I definitely don't want is a tyrannic system of segregating out all designers who don't indulge a passion of some sort. What I want is a good balance between enough liberalism on the portal and enough convenience for everybody else. And regarding to that I feel it's fine now. Referring to darthbrowser, I'm also not sure if an increasement of strictness is apropriate or not. Thing is just that we may have a couple of SM63 lovers outside who want to make levels with passion and on a quality level, and then see a larger amount of poor levels and might get turned away. That is exactly what he's describing.

And for the wiki, it's not about trying to force anyone to read this before posting level. It's about that they read this after posting level so they understand as to why it was disapproved or given a 1 star. Then they will know what to do to avoid this, so they won't think that they'll never get a chance to have a level approved or get a decent / good rating. And by staff interaction with newbies I mean that the lemods shall give an explicit reason for disapproval through PM, not through e-mail (because that's less likely to be noticed), and make them show that they do have a more than realistic chance to get their levels into the portal, and that they have it all in their own hands for that.

I also didn't try to set further guidelines for approval / disapproval. I only worded our current guidelines explicitely to show what it is which can make other people pissed if they see such a level.

I will continue rating the same way I do earlier, and mostly also reviewing the same way, just eventually trying to find nicer words. Constructiveness is important, but "positiveness" in ratings is just wrong because it leaves the border of objectivity and fairness to everyone. Some encouraging words like "try this and your levels will be better" or "you have potential" should be spoken when it makes sense. I will allow everyone to make 1 or 2 star levels but if I rate this way, it's not my personal fault if they're pissed from it, it's the fault of their level deserving this rating on an objective scale.

Doram says that the level portal needs nurturing instead of culling. This doesn't contradict at all with rejecting levels that simply have a too large amount of embarrassing faults and are unbearable to play, like the way we do until today. This basically focuses on how we treat new designers in our reviews, and on that we can all work and learn, me included.

And the "wrong" people are generally the ones that don't contribute to the community, who neither post decent levels or do good stuff on the other forums in general. People which either vanish quickly or refuse to learn. The "right" people are those whose first levels already show a certain standard of trying to do well, and they're the people who will eventually become an active part of the community overall. This is also not supposed to be a black-and-white distinction into two classes, but still contains a significant statement.

To propose a solution to the antithesis between objective ratings and user's reactions to them: Why not adding another line of vine red "Forum rules" saying "If you're not sure about why your level was disapproved or given a low rating, or you're just seeking tips, go here [--> link to wiki]"?

[l.m]

Well yeah that's the point. Your logic would work if we were in a portal where everyone would be as mature as you, in the same mental age, where everyone is just okay with criticism. But that is utopic. It doesn't matter if you care or not: They will be confused with your ratings, and their motivation to level design will just slowly end. Refer to Veso's post, it explains exactly what I'm trying to say.

And no, there's a really low chance that new users will read those guides, to be completely honest. Sure, Wiki pages and Help topics are helpful. But they're all just general. The REAL opportunity of a designer to really improve and do better is through ratings, because the rater knows what is wrong, and knows how to help.

Also, it's like I said in the chat. The portal shouldn't be a place with standards, more than just a place for users to post their levels and receive criticism. Sure, if the situation is really bad and the intentions are obvious, Level Mods will take action. That's why they are there anyways. I just don't see the point of not allowing the new designers to post levels and deleting this important chance. Because, believe me, as much as you read guidelines and wiki posts, it still takes time and practice. And little changes on the layout or additions to a red bar on the top of the topic won't have the same effect.

Now, if you want to go on with your ratings, then sure, go on. Nobody is preventing you. If you read the subtitle of this topic, it says that it's MY new idea, MY new take of how to deal with the level portal, and I'm proposing it to everybody, and from what I could gather people are okay with that. Patience and faith - the keywords of this concept, and also the keyword for everything community-related. The user might not be serious about level designing. He might not even be serious about posting levels and just do it for spam.

But does it mean that we shouldn't give him a chance?

And also, your idea of wrong or right people still doesn't fill in. From the beginning, it is really hard to identify and separate that people. I say that because I am an example. I posted spam levels on the portal, yes, but people still had hope. They still gave me the opportunity to improve. And it would not happen if a Lemod appeared and deleted them all.

And last, do not take level designing as a professional concept. It's a game. It's not like real life, where your morals do actually make sense - you should do your best and be better from the very beginning. It's just a place where everyone goes to have fun, because they're tired from real life.

That's what I have to say. I am trying new ideas and you guys are discussing it, but we won't be the judge of that. If it's a bad idea and the site turns into total chaos then sure, a step backwards will be taken. But maybe what we all needed from the beginning is a little bit more of flexibility.

[Charcoal]

What I definitely don't want is a tyrannic system of segregating out all designers who don't indulge a passion of some sort.

Making levels in general is a passion. The passion doesn't have to be all decent levels. If they're having fun just putting random items here and there and posting it, let them have fun that way.

I also didn't try to set further guidelines for approval / disapproval.

Uhh...the way you're saying things seems like you are wanting to set guidelines. You're wanting to see this happen or that happen or no bad levels.

"positiveness" in ratings is just wrong because it leaves the border of objectivity and fairness to everyone.

Some encouraging words like "try this and your levels will be better" or "you have potential" should be spoken when it makes sense.

Compliments are positive, and they aren't even wrong at all; and they'll always make sense in some regard. Tell them some good things about the level. Be encouraging. THAT'S what's going to help them grow.
Kids aren't that mature enough to handle getting 1 star ratings and learn from them. They're brains and bodies are still developing. They don't care about your criticism. They see that low rating, and they're going to be sad. If you were watching a non-professional kid play Super Smash Bros Melee, would you just watch them and then tell them they suck because they aren't L-canceling or wave-dashing? That's going to make them feel bad.

And the "wrong" people are generally the ones that don't contribute to the community, who neither post decent levels or do good stuff on the other forums in general. People which either vanish quickly or refuse to learn.

Some kids just don't want to learn; they find learning boring. Just let them have fun. When they are willing to learn, then you can effectively give your criticism to them because by then they are mature enough to learn.

The "right" people are those whose first levels already show a certain standard of trying to do well

Not quite. Have you even seen my first levels when I first joined here? I ripped off SK's (or Asterocrat's) Glitch Castle, and made frustrating and boring levels. My levels didn't have a whole lot going on in them. Don't believe me? Go take a look at my levels with 2 stars on them. I can guarantee you that I was a "scrub" back then.

Just let kids be themselves. I have a younger brother that I have played Yu-Gi-Oh with. I have been too critical and impatient about him learning how to properly play the game. Just be patient. They're not going to magically become decent from your ratings in an instant. It takes time.