|
On October 25 2012 02:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +And if you have nothing positive to add, or an alternative solution, then the input you have to give not only doesn't help, it becomes unnecessary for you to even mention really, by your own logic. Just saying "don't do this it's not worth your time", but NOT saying what IS worth the time is why people jump on you. I do not see why you cannot have seen this for yourself if you have already been able to answer how this committee endeavor is going to turn out. I've said what must be done a lot of time. I still stand by that the NASL segment is the best hope. The thing is that people want this council to work in one way or another, but what must be realized that the council is a means to achieve faster map rotation. And I believe starting of smaller with the NASL segment is a better means to that end. Therefore I am arguing against the council and in favour of the NASL segment.
You say an NASL map-segment would be a better means to achieving progress, but it's just another stepping stone. For instance, how would we make our chances better of NASL even listening to us? Should we just go willy-nilly, without an organized voice, or should we take our time to organize and present them with a much clearer choice to make? I'm sure they'd be much more willing to listen if we took the time to explain that we're part of a Unity that represents TPW, a team whose maps they used for a short time, as well as ESV, creator of 2 current ladder maps, in addition to all of TL's other substantially skilled mapmakers. This is a process, the Unity is not a means to an end, it is a means so that we may have access to higher-order means, to achieve our true end.
Also, if you wish to continue beating your point into our heads, you will not be contributing anything to this thread. The thoughts have already been mentioned repeatedly, I'd say you're already bogging the thread down with spam. We understand exactly what you're saying, we've understood it since your first post detailing your thoughts on the matter. Enough is enough.
|
I will admit that I haven't checked on this thread in about two days, and thus I just skimmed through the four pages of text walls. Even though I didn't read every word, I'm beginning to think that people are becoming too optimistic about this idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw a lot of talk about rotating map pools, and organizing a unified map pool within the general sc2 community. Where these are by all means things that sc2 needs, imo, these are unrealistic goals for us to be setting our sights on just yet.
Once the this idea is formed and running into a real "union", publicity will be our top priority. This will be the case from pretty much the first 3 months or so, if not longer. Publicize, publicize, publicize until the "union" is talked about on SotG, tweeted about by well known names, etc. Once the general sc2 community has become aware of the "union", what it does, and what it can do with support, we can then start to strive for some of these goals.
Though, we still need to get the thing running. This brings me back to these questions.
On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote:
Some topics worth discussing:
-Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps?
-How many should be on the council? How do we pick them?
-Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available?
-Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate?
-What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
Also, I entirely support any ideas to rename the union, council, or w/e. There is no particular reason why I gave those names aside presenting the idea.
|
On October 25 2012 07:47 Timetwister22 wrote:I will admit that I haven't checked on this thread in about two days, and thus I just skimmed through the four pages of text walls. Even though I didn't read every word, I'm beginning to think that people are becoming too optimistic about this idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw a lot of talk about rotating map pools, and organizing a unified map pool within the general sc2 community. Where these are by all means things that sc2 needs, imo, these are unrealistic goals for us to be setting our sights on just yet. Once the this idea is formed and running into a real "union", publicity will be our top priority. This will be the case from pretty much the first 3 months or so, if not longer. Publicize, publicize, publicize until the "union" is talked about on SotG, tweeted about by well known names, etc. Once the general sc2 community has become aware of the "union", what it does, and what it can do with support, we can then start to strive for some of these goals. Though, we still need to get the thing running. This brings me back to these questions. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 16:52 Timetwister22 wrote:
Some topics worth discussing:
-Should the union promote maps for teams? Or should teams promote their own maps?
-How many should be on the council? How do we pick them?
-Website, writer, graphic designer: Are they available?
-Should we just turn motm into the monthly highlight? Or do we keep it separate?
-What other current community ran events could be merged under the union?
Also, I entirely support any ideas to rename the union, council, or w/e. There is no particular reason why I gave those names aside presenting the idea.
I think these questions assume a certain ontology for this union/council/etc. that has been called into question, namely, that the union should be used to highlight community maps. I think discussion has evolved to a point where we are questioning the fundemental goals of the mapmaking community and trying to discuss on broader terms what we want done, what needs to be done to do those things, and whether a union of any kind is necessary to achieve those goals.
I will answer these questions in the context of where I understand the discussion to have led (anyone can feel free to correct my interpretations or add on if I am missing something).
-Some people think the union could be used to promote maps to the tournaments. But ultimately this assumes regular and somewhat frequent map pool rotation to be an accepted norm. This assumption causes some people pause on the relevance of such a union since the promotion of maps is not a role that currently bears much meaning.
-The number of people on the council is not nearly as relevant as having wide range of opinion in attempt to capture that of the whole community. This assumes the function of the union is that which in general can be argeed upon by the entire community. The role of promotion of specific maps, is not such a generally agreed upon, whereas the promotion of the rotation of maps is at least more agreed upon.
-I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find talent in the community, perhaps even amongst mapper -- I'm not sure how this is entirely relevant and has definately not been a major point of discussion.
-MOTM could become the entity which the union ultimately points to for promote a given set of maps. Again, this hinges upon certain assumptions about the union which have been called into question.
-The union could be involved in all sorts of tournaments based around new maps, taking polls, trying to virally market the idea of better map pool rotation, lobbying big tournaments and Blizzard, trying to get NASL to do a mapper/tournament segment, the list goes on. The question is somewhat vague, and I think closest to what is actually being discussed right now, but not in the way that I think you meant.
EDIT2 (the first was a clarity correction): tbh, I think it would be worth finding the time to read through the last four pages if you are going to maintain this topic.
|
When I think about it, a "union" would fit to have many people in it, maybe anyone who wants to join in will be allowed to, maybe giving some requirements such as making a few maps map or having X amount of posts in the map forum, but it should still accept most people who want to join to it. This will allow for much more work to be done, since every union member will care about the union and will try to publicize it since he will feel that he is part of it, and not as something he cares about but ultimately is only a helper and not a real member.
After we have a decent amount of union members we can start to do annual elections, maybe once per 6 months or so. But until the union gets big and known there should be a temporary council consisting of important mappers and community figures and maybe a representative from each team (?). This will be the best way to go once the union sets its goals and really forms itself since it feels very professional.
|
I propose you call it a Mapmaking Cooperative. It has less stigma associated with it than a union does and it fits better with what you want the organization to be.
|
I'd just like to comment that for those truly interested in pushing this, you'll have an incredible uphill battle. With the release of hots, the absolutely last thing blizzard would want to do is throw in community maps. And by relation, you have all the pros practicing on ladder on these maps, and they same old arguments will get thrown around on why they won't play customs. So yea.
|
On October 26 2012 01:41 MarcusRife wrote:
I propose you call it a Mapmaking Cooperative. It has less stigma associated with it than a union does and it fits better with what you want the organization to be.
That and it's exactly what role it should have, at least if it means the same thing as in French.
|
Updated the original post with a more open ended approach to the topic.
|
I hate to double post, and I apologize. However, since there hasn't been much discussion on this recently I come with a proposal with the intent of re-sparking the discussion and moving the idea as a whole forward.
I have come up with a council choosing method that can be viewed as half dictatorship and half democracy. First, we would need to compile a list of those willing to be on the council. So if you'd like a seat, you'd either post here or send a PM. Second, the mapping community would have to entrust me, or someone else if decided, to pick around 10-15 people that they deem worthy of being on the council out of those who said they are willing. Lastly, of those 10-15 chosen, the community would vote for their 7 favorites via PM. The seven with most votes would get a spot on council. Since ties could very well happen, we'd need to discuss potential tie breakers.
Have thoughts on this proposal? Please share!
|
I think we should first come up with a distribution of types of people that we would want on the council, i.e. 4 mappers 2 players and 1 caster or whatever. Then go about asking who would be willing and selecting 15 between all three types of people (I think more is better so that those who are not voted for do not feel as bad about it) and then voting on which of these in each category should be seated.
|
I think mappers are much more important then players and casters, it should include mostly mappers, with a good spokesman and maybe 1 caster and 1 player, maybe Morrow and Doa if they want (they are the most map caring casters and players I think).
|
Do we have a Map maker channel on sc2 chat
?
|
There is a MeleeMapTesting channel, which I and a few others hang out in when we're on ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
