I was talking with Thomas this morning, and he wanted me to review a submission of his before he posted it. I said no, he should post it for the whole community to see. The following is what we discussed after that:
We seem to have reached a stage where there are two kinds of submissions: those that have no peer review (Zack's/Uso's come to mind) and those that do (my armor submissions, for example).
For some, peer review might not help -- Zack's stubborn, after all. But it might, and it certainly helps the rest of us.
But is that the way it should be? If we get stuff peer-reviewed by, say, Fred/Kotori, the submission might not go through much trouble. It could be fast-tracked to approval without the chance for the community to say otherwise.
There's also the concern of an "evolving" submission, which we've had enough of. If Thomas/Zakalwe wants to edit something, or make something better, he thinks he can't because the process bogs it down.
Does anyone have any reactions to this feeling? Does the review process hamper a submitter's ability to have what they want approved?
(11:08:15) osu_kiai: I simply try to make sure that it isn't rubished on the early stages - because if it is then no matter how many refinements I make it makes it less likely to be approved.
(11:08:51) osu_kiai: Normally I suffice with Orion, but he's not around - and I really like rationed feedback on my stuff. Not if it's possible - but if it's good.
(11:09:22) Jun: Hmmm.
(11:09:36) osu_kiai: And Orion's always going to say nice things about my stuff - we both support Elysia.
(11:12:01) Jun: I suppose.
(11:12:32) osu_kiai: And once you post in on the boards you can't really modify the design - like adding new rooms and weapons.
(11:12:43) osu_kiai: At this stage creative criticism actually matters.
(11:15:27) osu_kiai: I consider this a 'peer-review' stage.
(11:16:47) Jun: Hm.
(11:17:00) osu_kiai: Do I make a competant argument?
(11:19:19) Jun: You do. Which is troubling.
(11:19:34) osu_kiai: Don't worry about it. Arguments are my forte.
(11:19:42) Jun: No, that's not what I mean.
(11:20:30) Jun: Basically, you're saying that it's more advantageous to talk to a few people, refine something, then post a mostly-finished product because if you post something more raw, it won't get approved.
(11:20:46) Jun: Something I was doing with Yamatai's tech, but that's because I was designing for Wes.
(11:21:17) osu_kiai: Indeed.
(11:23:01) Jun: Should it be that way?
(11:23:19) osu_kiai: I don't think so.
(11:23:28) Jun: Neither do I.
(11:23:44) osu_kiai: I chose people that I think know what they're talking about and get my tech reviewed.
(11:23:57) osu_kiai: ^choose
(11:24:36) osu_kiai: For example - I sent my Elysian Destroyer to Rune. He said it needed more internal detail, so I've been giving it more internal detail.
(11:24:47) osu_kiai: If I'd post it I'd have never had the chance.
(11:25:03) Jun: *nods*
(11:26:07) osu_kiai: And that's the way I think development should be.
(11:26:47) Jun: You should be forced to have peer review?
(11:27:00) osu_kiai: Forced? Not neccesarily.
(11:27:11) osu_kiai: Just I think it's a good idea.
(11:27:24) Jun: Because if you don't, shit won't get approved. Right?
(11:27:35) osu_kiai: Or not in the best form.
(11:27:44) Jun: I want to copy this conversation into a post and bring it to everyone's attention. I don't like this vibe.
We seem to have reached a stage where there are two kinds of submissions: those that have no peer review (Zack's/Uso's come to mind) and those that do (my armor submissions, for example).
For some, peer review might not help -- Zack's stubborn, after all. But it might, and it certainly helps the rest of us.
But is that the way it should be? If we get stuff peer-reviewed by, say, Fred/Kotori, the submission might not go through much trouble. It could be fast-tracked to approval without the chance for the community to say otherwise.
There's also the concern of an "evolving" submission, which we've had enough of. If Thomas/Zakalwe wants to edit something, or make something better, he thinks he can't because the process bogs it down.
(11:36:58) osu_kiai: Simply put - once a criticism starts it's impractical - it means everyone has to review again. It completely changes the nature of the submission.
(11:37:23) osu_kiai: When I post something it is 'This is what I want to approve, what do I have to change to make sure it reaches that hallowed state.'
(11:37:42) osu_kiai: It's not the time to continue its development.
Does anyone have any reactions to this feeling? Does the review process hamper a submitter's ability to have what they want approved?