I don't volunteer any longer. And this isn't a 'passionate community', it's a lot of bitches that want to bitch. Myself included.
I'm not going to apologize for calling things as I see them. Bye.
I'd like to think it's a little bit of both :^)
This community has such amazing people, but if there's anything I've learned from my mother's wisdom it's that there will always be a-holes no matter where you are.
One other possibility @Ranah is to use precedent.
Find a published design that uses whatever you are trying to use successfully and cite that.
For example I know merian flesh (scales) have been used before in a design. If my viscanti flesh design was rejected on that basis of no viscanti flesh I would cite the previous design. Except in the case of the leather armor amusement it will work.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
One other possibility @Ranah is to use precedent.
Find a published design that uses whatever you are trying to use successfully and cite that.
For example I know merian flesh (scales) have been used before in a design. If my viscanti flesh design was rejected on that basis of no viscanti flesh I would cite the previous design. Except in the case of the leather armor amusement it will work.
Or, it will make the Charites notice things that have slipped through, and all offending designs may be unapproved. Be careful when you try to skirt the rules or get decisions overturned.
And just a note, the Charites are probably the least strict of approvals you can get, save grammatical and spelling errors or overly nonsensical and obscene items. If they've rejected something, I would do a bit of research before you go back to them, but they are reasonable, and if you message them, they will happily clarify or review it once more.
As always, if you are unhappy with a decision, you can also email Support@Lusternia.com and let them know, but that should DEFINITELY be a last resort, in this instance.
Which, yes, I submitted a fresh one with the word changed, although your snarky idea doesn't actually address the issue of rejections due to stylistic choices (which it is, camps are divided over the term and phrasing) and the lack of documentation.
My thanks to those of you who were capable of providing some sort of useful input and feedback. I do appreciate it.
Edit: Thanks @Manteekan. I have done research on this.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Easy to do, but given how design submission works, once a design has been rejected a couple of times (sometimes even one rejection), it can end up sitting waiting for approval for a rl month+. I read most of the frustration in the original complaint being due to that fact. "Give me more information so I know up front what issues will be, so I can try to avoid any rejection at all". That part of it is, indeed, very frustrating. Note that I think it has kind of spiralled off track in the discussion since then and is drowning out the originally stated root issue.
There's only a certain subset of the population that abuses it and those people will get their kumuppins. I always find it humorous when someone snubs me, especially if it's to get in the last word.
So many things I want to name "kumuppins." I'm pretty sure they are a type of avenging brownie that live in public buildings doing mean tricks to people who deserve them.
One other possibility @Ranah is to use precedent.
Find a published design that uses whatever you are trying to use successfully and cite that.
For example I know merian flesh (scales) have been used before in a design. If my viscanti flesh design was rejected on that basis of no viscanti flesh I would cite the previous design. Except in the case of the leather armor amusement it will work.
Or, it will make the Charites notice things that have slipped through, and all offending designs may be unapproved. Be careful when you try to skirt the rules or get decisions overturned.
And just a note, the Charites are probably the least strict of approvals you can get, save grammatical and spelling errors or overly nonsensical and obscene items. If they've rejected something, I would do a bit of research before you go back to them, but they are reasonable, and if you message them, they will happily clarify or review it once more.
As always, if you are unhappy with a decision, you can also email Support@Lusternia.com and let them know, but that should DEFINITELY be a last resort, in this instance.
Manteekan that is news to me. I was NEVER informed precedent was trying to skirt the rules.
After all, that's what I've used in real life in both science and law.
And because I was never informed that was an attempt to "skirt the rules" the rules need to be CLEARLY defined up front. Which is the origin of this problem.
What happens behind the scenes is that various people get assigned Charities and the new Charity often has a different idea of what is acceptable than the old one. Or a rule is changed (see for example the permission of adding 'wet' or 'dry' or 'a small glow' to a design by including essence into the materials. This was not permitted previously).
Sometime, for example in the past six months, the new Charity arbitrarily decides there is a new standard and retroactively changes all the designs in the database.
Which is why a cast in stone set of guidelines should be provided, particularly when a company is courting multi-year customers and they see their hard work which was perfectly kosher a day before changed by whim.
This is analogous to making changes to combat without providing patch notes.
I'm sorry you're frustrated, @Ranah. Anyone who ever designs ever has been there at some point.
However, 'comprised of' is grammatically incorrect, and that is why it was rejected. It's not a stylistic choice in this instance. And @Kaalak, if you can find a design that used comprised of that -hasn't- been rejected and ammended I will be highly surprised. Rejecting for it in this case is the precedent. It's not uncommon. I myself didn't even realise the differences between comprise and compose until my first rejection, and upon looking at the meanings I understood better.
(PS Don't always assume because it's American spelling or grammar that it will be correct. If in doubt, look at a UK dictionary like this one - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ )
Oh I feel I should point out that I am not a reviewer anymore and thus had zero to do with it; but this error comes up from time to time and has always, always been rejected.
Maybe I'm wrong here (I'm by no means a grammatical expert as several people like to point out when I misspell things, like @Maligorn) but 'to be made up of' and 'make up something' seem pretty damn similiar to me.
Maybe I'm wrong here (I'm by no means a grammatical expert as several people like to point out when I misspell things, like @Maligorn) but 'to be made up of' and 'make up something' seem pretty damn similiar to me.
Yes they have very similar meanings. But comprise already means 'made up OF'. So you could say it's composed of and mean the same thing, or say comprising, also meaning the same thing but being grammatically correct,
I feel your pain, @Ranah, I really do. I know you've heard me bitching on Hogwash about "bs rejections." At the same time, I remember that you designed your very own lute - on I think your first or second day here - and the thing was in your hands about 12 hours later. The system's not all bad.
When something crops up that I want to fight as a matter of principle, I appeal to the Charites directly. (After grumbling to whoever will listen, cause I super-hate design rejections.) You can msg them, or add comments to a design submitted for god-only reviews. Unlike mortal reviewers, who are generally just doing their best to obey the guidelines before them, the Charites has the power to make judgement calls - and they're usually pretty reasonable.
In 2015, many media outlets, starting with Backchannel, reported on Bryan Henderson, a Wikipedia editor who manually removed instances of "comprised of" from the encyclopedia.[44] Some coverage praised the work as a uniquely focused effort for correctness,[45] but others criticized it as grammatically misguided.[20][46]Geoffrey Pullum expressed approval of the principle mingled with doubt about its practicality: "I’d be happy for Bryan Henderson’s clarifying mission to succeed. However, I wouldn’t bet a dime on his success."[22]
To echo Manteekan's post, citing precedent to the Charites is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Mostly because the position does occasionally change hands, and what one admin might allow, another will not.
Secondly because yes, passed designs have indeed been deleted when a player gets sassy and cites some other design that slipped through the cracks. I'd prefer for my designs not to get deleted, thanks.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
To echo Manteekan's post, citing precedent to the Charites is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Mostly because the position does occasionally change hands, and what one admin might allow, another will not.
Secondly because yes, passed designs have indeed been deleted when a player gets sassy and cites some other design that slipped through the cracks. I'd prefer for my designs not to get deleted, thanks.
I've never heard of designs getting deleted. When and where.
Edit: And that actually supports my point that the rotating door of Charity leadership is not a good thing because it leads to inconsistencies such as this.
Always remember that the Charites aren't out to get you. Their job is really just to try and maintain a set of standards for our designs, and they're doing this when they also have other work they should be doing. The best way to react if your design is rejected by Them is to send them a single, polite message explaining why you think your design is acceptable, preferably with citations and clear explanations. Not precedent.
@Kaalak: there have been others, but for instance, Pectus designed a white chocolate ice cream once that wasn't technically chocolate, and then sort of used that for precedent for other white chocolate stuff.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Always remember that the Charites aren't out to get you. Their job is really just to try and maintain a set of standards for our designs, and they're doing this when they also have other work they should be doing. The best way to react if your design is rejected by Them is to send them a single, polite message explaining why you think your design is acceptable, preferably with citations and clear explanations. Not precedent.
@Kaalak: there have been others, but for instance, Pectus designed a white chocolate ice cream once that wasn't technically chocolate, and then sort of used that for precedent for other white chocolate stuff.
I agree with "Their job is really just to try and maintain a set of standards for our designs, and they're doing this when they also have other work they should be doing. The best way to react if your design is rejected by Them is to send them a single, polite message explaining why you think your design is acceptable, preferably with citations and clear explanations." @Shaddus.
Once, I did have to use real world citations as well as giving more than one example (ie precedent) of designs accepted in the past that it appeared the reviewer was unaware of. Upon review the charity accepted the design.
Because this worked for me in this instance I gave it as advice on these forums.
This is not being "sassy". This is not "skirting the rules" as no rule was clearly documented which stated if you refer to other designs as guidelines when you make your own you are being a dick.
I'm aware of the "there is no chocolate" thing in Lusternia but not of the specific event so thank you for the clarification.
Comments
And just a note, the Charites are probably the least strict of approvals you can get, save grammatical and spelling errors or overly nonsensical and obscene items. If they've rejected something, I would do a bit of research before you go back to them, but they are reasonable, and if you message them, they will happily clarify or review it once more.
As always, if you are unhappy with a decision, you can also email Support@Lusternia.com and let them know, but that should DEFINITELY be a last resort, in this instance.
Easy to do, but given how design submission works, once a design has been rejected a couple of times (sometimes even one rejection), it can end up sitting waiting for approval for a rl month+. I read most of the frustration in the original complaint being due to that fact. "Give me more information so I know up front what issues will be, so I can try to avoid any rejection at all". That part of it is, indeed, very frustrating. Note that I think it has kind of spiralled off track in the discussion since then and is drowning out the originally stated root issue.
So many things I want to name "kumuppins."
Vive l'apostrophe!
Vive l'apostrophe!
It makes me slightly amused of the select individuals (myself included) that agreed to this statement.
When something crops up that I want to fight as a matter of principle, I appeal to the Charites directly. (After grumbling to whoever will listen, cause I super-hate design rejections.) You can msg them, or add comments to a design submitted for god-only reviews. Unlike mortal reviewers, who are generally just doing their best to obey the guidelines before them, the Charites has the power to make judgement calls - and they're usually pretty reasonable.
Vive l'apostrophe!
Removal from Wikipedia[edit]
Secondly because yes, passed designs have indeed been deleted when a player gets sassy and cites some other design that slipped through the cracks. I'd prefer for my designs not to get deleted, thanks.
@Kaalak: there have been others, but for instance, Pectus designed a white chocolate ice cream once that wasn't technically chocolate, and then sort of used that for precedent for other white chocolate stuff.
Once, I did have to use real world citations as well as giving more than one example (ie precedent) of designs accepted in the past that it appeared the reviewer was unaware of. Upon review the charity accepted the design.