Mortal Design Reviewers

by Estarra

Back to Common Grounds.

Xavius2010-01-25 02:38:16
QUOTE (Doman @ Jan 24 2010, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's a brooch made of salt, isn't there?

I believe the brooch in question was snowballs, but same idea.
Xenthos2010-01-25 02:39:29
QUOTE (Xavius @ Jan 24 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe the brooch in question was snowballs, but same idea.

A brooch made of snowballs sounds rather ridiculous, heh. What were they using to keep the things from melting? Powerstones?
Arimisia2010-01-25 02:42:45
It was a piece of furniture. 300 commodities listed. half of that was gold commodities and the other half was gems. To say it was not the only reason the design was rejected it was the first one listed.
Unknown2010-01-25 02:51:06
As we've now got mortal reviewers could designers see what guidelines they are using when they review a design? Would probably help designers look over their design and review it for errors before they submitted it and would help them understand why their design got rejected. Also, if a design got rejected for a reason that obviously is not something mortal reviewers (or even divine reviewers) should be rejecting for then they can file a issue and help weed out poor reviewers.
Razenth2010-01-25 02:53:26
Issues and stuff take time to resolve, don't they? What do we do about editorializing right now, where a poor mortal reviewer can completely stonewall designs intended for the Beauty Seal?
Aoife2010-01-25 02:55:52
QUOTE (Razenth @ Jan 24 2010, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Issues and stuff take time to resolve, don't they? What do we do about editorializing right now, where a poor mortal reviewer can completely stonewall designs intended for the Beauty Seal?


Personally I would flag it no mortal review and message the Charites that it's for Beauty, etc.

Maylea2010-01-25 04:32:49
QUOTE (Romertien @ Jan 24 2010, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd suggest that if you can use shorter words, do so (the Mortal reviewers). I had to ask the Octave what some of the comments on my designs meant... sad.gif

EDIT: As I understand it, was rejected for having an extra line at the end, which also seems a bit over-the-top.


It's always been standard to reject for an extra line at the end. It makes objects created from that design look wrong when probed.


QUOTE (Arimisia @ Jan 24 2010, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have a question about all this. In DESIGN COMMS (trade) it gives a list of how many commodities you must have in a design, most people for for the minimum number especially when using metals and the like. I seen a design get rejected telling the trademaster to add 150 more commodities than what the comm list required. I have never had this happen before, maybe suggest a different commodities if I missed something but never telling me I had to have more.


Any rejection asking for more commodities than the design type calls for will be done by the Charites, without exception. We don't really want to stifle creativity, but sometimes a design comes in that's really very complicated... the usual number of commodities is a baseline, after all.


QUOTE (Razenth @ Jan 24 2010, 08:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Issues and stuff take time to resolve, don't they? What do we do about editorializing right now, where a poor mortal reviewer can completely stonewall designs intended for the Beauty Seal?


The Charites will be going through the list of Beauty submissions personally to make sure that they all get approved in time. Trademasters should make themselves available to correct and return rejections, especially after the 28th, but you shouldn't worry about their not getting done.
Eventru2010-01-25 04:34:14
Don't file issues with your concerns over mortal reviewers. You can message the Charites, and they'll handle it.

Issuing simply means it's going to be passed to the Charites.

And I think most of our Reviewers are doing a smashing job! Cheers for our reviewers. smile.gif
Mirami2010-01-25 06:16:36
QUOTE (Othero @ Jan 24 2010, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As we've now got mortal reviewers could designers see what guidelines they are using when they review a design? Would probably help designers look over their design and review it for errors before they submitted it and would help them understand why their design got rejected.


This would be wonderful.
Xiel2010-01-25 07:17:53
I just use comments if I want to question the decision of an approver and re-submit. With the new dandy setting capabilities to make something a wedding band or masterweapon, etc (wub.gif this new mechanic, though not sure if they added in something to make a recipe into a delicacy yet, but I'll probably have to idea it when I log back in again), comments are fairly free.
Xavius2010-01-25 07:59:06
QUOTE (Xiel @ Jan 25 2010, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I just use comments if I want to question the decision of an approver and re-submit. With the new dandy setting capabilities to make something a wedding band or masterweapon, etc (wub.gif this new mechanic, though not sure if they added in something to make a recipe into a delicacy yet, but I'll probably have to idea it when I log back in again), comments are fairly free.

That mechanic is not actually a new mechanic. You could always make any recipe base noun into any cooking skill's item using that syntax.
Lendren2010-01-25 13:15:05
It's just become more important because mortal reviewers can't change types, so they therefore can't process a design that needs its type changed without the Charites helping. The command was always there but a lot of people didn't know about it, so getting the word out is now more important to keeping things moving.
Shaddus2010-01-25 15:20:02
QUOTE
This tower shield is cunningly created by banding pieces of steel
together in a criss-cross of metal, forming several layers between the
wielder and a foe. Each steel ribbon is around five centimetres in width
and run from one edge of the shield directly to the other side, running
in and out of the ribbons around it to make a tight weave. The
arrangement of the metal gives the shield the appearance of being
covered in diamonds, though it is merely diamond shaped areas of steel.
The shield itself is almost perfectly square, turned at a fourty-five
degree angle from the ground to put a point facing the ground as well as
the sky and each side. Set into the backside of the shield is a
requisition number as well as a lot number, showing this shield to have
been designed by a Hallifax master forger.
Comments:
The Charites have returned your proposed design for further revisions. See DESIGN LIST . The following comments were made regarding the design:
In the second sentence, 'run' should be 'runs', as you are referring to 'each ribbon'. 'Fourty-five' should be 'forty-five', and 'Hallifax' should be 'Hallifaxian', or some other suitable adjective. Thank you!



Really?
Xavius2010-01-25 15:28:23
QUOTE (Shaddus Mes'ard @ Jan 25 2010, 09:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Really?

Those aren't trivial points. Those are straight wrong.
Shaddus2010-01-25 15:29:51
QUOTE (Xavius @ Jan 25 2010, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Those aren't trivial points. Those are straight wrong.

"runs" might be wrong. Fourty-five is acceptable as is Hallifax master forger.
Xavius2010-01-25 15:31:59
Fourty-five is never, ever right, unless you've been drinking lots of Canada beer.
Unknown2010-01-25 15:32:33
Nope. Wrong.
Shaddus2010-01-25 15:33:52
QUOTE (Zarquan @ Jan 25 2010, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. Wrong.

Is that at me, or Xavius?
Kante2010-01-25 15:34:22
QUOTE (Shaddus Mes'ard @ Jan 25 2010, 10:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"runs" might be wrong. Fourty-five is acceptable as is Hallifax master forger.

I'm going with the reviewers on this one.
Xavius2010-01-25 15:45:16
QUOTE (Shaddus Mes'ard @ Jan 25 2010, 09:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is that at me, or Xavius?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fourty

Also, subject-verb conjugation and the parts of speech are things normally grasped by, say, age five. It's one thing to typo them. It's another thing entirely to insist that "the ribbon run" is good English and that nouns = adjectives.