[center][size=200]What should the purpose of the resources be?[/size] [size=150]AKA how should the QC choose submissions?[/size][/center] There have been complaints about the QC probably since the beginning of time. But over the last couple years, they seem to have gotten more serious. It mostly seems to be about inconsistency, and low standards. Bad stuff gets by, while better stuff can sometimes get declined. So, what should the purpose of the QC be? Here's my proposal: [b]Games:[/b] [list] [*] Does it work? [*] Is it more than just an engine clone or a game made from a tutorial without any significant modifications? [*] Does it meet content standards? (at the very least, no porn games) [*] Is it about Mario in some way?[/list] [b]Sprites, sound effects, etc[/b] [list] [*] Is it useful?[/list] Yeah that's it; useful. Not even necessary high quality, just "could this be used to make a fangame". [b]What do you think?[/b]

[font=Comic Sans MS]IMO the name "quality control" should be dropped. "Resource moderator" or something along those lines would be more fitting. Quality control is a name that not only opens itself to mocking but it just feels weird when you consider "quality" to be something that meets bare minimum standards for submission. Because of this I think people end up being a lot Meaner about things that Aren't Quality in their opinion being on the site, which isn't really fair to people submitting stuff to the site. (MFGG approves it, the forums mock it... a vicious cycle) From there the community should be allowed to rate and curate resources themselves and that be some additional filter options- that's where the real "quality control" comes in.[/font]

Content Curator is a good name. The criteria for games should be: -Running on most computers with minimum outside downloads required. -Virus, adware, spyware and phishing scam free. Important, can't just be lumped into the rules. -Rule abiding (no pornography or other forbidden content) -Contains at least one level at least two minutes long with a functional goal. The criteria for sprites should be: -Uploaded in a format that is not excessive in filesize (like .BMP) and does not contain any artifacts that render the graphics useless. -Does not contain a credit request stamp that exceeds the size of the resource content. -Does not beg for credit on ripped graphics. -Is not stolen. -No watermarks plastered onto the graphics themselves. -Contains enough frames of animation to be usable without much alteration if a character sprite. If a font, it must contain at least the alphabet, numbers and basic punctuation. If a tileset, should be broken up into tiles and not submitted as giant unbroken pieces. Tiles when placed together should flow correctly without obvious borders or patterns. -etc. Add on from there. Reviews should be: -Free of one liners, explaining the specific issues in each category. -Free of flaming, harassment and rude remarks.

Nice Ped, you added some really important stuff that you forgot. I'd like to see if anybody else has anything to add but so far I agree a lot with your rules.

If we added romhack support (and I think we should for the record): -Same rules for level length and content as games. -Must not contain the rom or instructions on where to obtain a compatible rom. You'd need to have some people experienced with romhacks on the Content Curator team though, like Yoshin.

I absolutely agree with what Mario said. I feel as though it's become too much of a misnomer that quality control controls quality. For sprites, sure, it doesn't hurt, but games tend to be treated a bit differently, from what I've seen lately. I've already had to rethink my stance on QC multiple times because even [i]I[/i] got confused by the name. A name change would help greatly. ROM hacks are the next logical step for submission types to be allowed on the site, I feel. Likewise, I feel as though Ped's suggestion for guidelines would be good ones.

How do people feel about "Content Curators"?

Content Curator seems closer to QC than Resource Mod. Resource Moderator to me seems to imply that they're just making sure nothing offensive gets through, but I could be wrong.

I think it's just a name change, the job is still the same.

[quote="HylianDev"]Content Curator seems closer to QC than Resource Mod. Resource Moderator to me seems to imply that they're just making sure nothing offensive gets through, but I could be wrong.[/quote] I don't think Content Curator implies anything close to QC. To curate means to collect, keep or select after all which is accurate given the role QC is meant to fill on MFGG.

I don't think the average member cares much about what the job role is called. I can't see many people stalking the "Staff" page on the website and seeing "Quality Control" and striding out with a scoff.

You are missing the point entirely. People already have misconceptions about what QC is for and the suggestion is that changing the name will end this misconception. There are posts that go over this here (such as Super Mario WTL's post) and in the Mors Rants About MFGG thread, please read them.

[font=Comic Sans MS]I think curator will have the same (or close enough) connotations as quality control that it should be avoided.[/font]

Resource Moderator just sounds funky to me but it's fine enough if there's no better option.

How about "Site Staff".

i'm okay with resource mod. are we gonna try to give main site comment moderators their own role or will that be lumped with QC? because in that case we might need to work around that. if it's lumped together tho resource mod works

[quote="Pedigree"]Content Curator is a good name. The criteria for games should be: ...[/quote] I pretty much agree with this whole post. Although, personally, I think sprite rippers should still be given credit for their work. A lot of sprite rips are tedious processes that require remapping to be usable for another game. Some games are easier to rip than others, though.

[quote="Willsaber"][quote="Pedigree"]Content Curator is a good name. The criteria for games should be: ...[/quote]personally, I think sprite rippers should still be given credit for their work. A lot of sprite rips are tedious processes that require remapping to be usable for another game. Some games are easier to rip than others, though.[/quote] I think the point is that it's not "Give me credit or I will burn down your house and slaughter your goldfish!!!!" type of thing of yesteryear, or a HUUUUUGE "CREDIT TO MARIOxHARUHI32177!" that takes up massive space. A small "Ripped by Kritter" is what the Resource Quality Control Assurance Curators would be looking for.

[quote="Mit"]i'm okay with resource mod. are we gonna try to give main site comment moderators their own role or will that be lumped with QC? because in that case we might need to work around that. if it's lumped together tho resource mod works[/quote] Separating comment mods and QC sounds silly to me and I think the two roles should be combined. More help with the site and its queue is fine. For the record, just calling all site staff "Site Staff" is fine to me too.

"Ripped by ___" is fine if it's not larger than the content in the sheet or threatening/begging for credit. Kritter's right on the money with that one.