[swag] Re: Summary of Submission Guidelines
- From: Bob Rodgers <bobjrodgers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: swag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Well, I really dont see this as much of a problem
because if someone is good enough to get into the
guild, then it means they have talent and , from what
I've always seen, people who take their work seriously
hold themselves to a fairly high standard...so the
situation you are talking about would have to be a
pretty darn extreme dip in quality to bring up the
concern.
However, should this, for whatever reason happen (such
as someone is goofing off or testing our
patience)...and they turn in someting so horribly bad
that it looks like a 3 year old scribbled it down, and
we all agree it bites, I have no problem personally
tossing it back to the artist and asking them what the
frig is going on and why are they all of a sudden
turning out crud.
I'm fair...but can be a hard-a$$ if need be, (no one
said being Baron Administrator would be easy ;-)
Hope that clears it up.
Bob
--- Derek Jones <algorithm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bob, this raises, I think, a very important
> question. I agree that
> member art should be high caliber, which I why I
> think the 5 of us on
> the Membership Council should do our jobs and
> actually consider these
> apps with seriousness--possibly even requesting
> additional art from an
> applicant before rendering a decision.
>
> However, what if someone whom we accepted into the
> guild is suddenly
> churning out Crayola and Spyrograph goodness as
> submissions? Do we just
> reject the individual artwork that the Inquisitors
> feel is outside the
> bounds of SWAG, or do we convene the council to
> review that applicant's
> status as a member?
>
> Derek Jones
> -Nafai
>
> On Sunday, June 2, 2002, at 05:21 PM, Daniel
> Falconer wrote:
>
> > --- Bob Rodgers <bobjrodgers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
> >> ...
> >> Oh and Rev...you mentioned the Submissions
> >> Inquisitors
> >> being the ones to inform artist's that their
> work
> >> has been rejected- if you want I can take care of
> >> that
> >> duty, simply because it will relieve you guys of
> the
> >> unpleasentness and also I would rather an artist
> >> have
> >> a beef with me than with the three of you or
> anyone
> >> else in SWAG...Ive got a pretty tough skin.
> Anyway,
> >> thats just my offer to be a vessel of your
> decisions
> >> and critiques.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the generous offer Bob,
> >
> > but I kinda figured that was part of our job as
> > Inquisitors, so I'm happy to retain that aspect of
> it.
> > Actually, I look upon it as an opportunity to
> provide
> > some helpful critical feedback and advice, so it
> isn't
> > really a chore in my book. I doubt there will be
> any
> > unpleasantness providing we maintain a
> professional
> > and polite manner, and remember to encourage at
> every
> > opportunity.
> >
> > Thanks all the same though. Besides which, I
> think
> > you're going to be a pretty busy man yourself.
> I'm
> > sure the three of us can handle it.
> >
> > How do the other Inquisitors feel about this?
> Ronen,
> > Ghost?
> >
> > regards, Daniel Falconer (Reverend Strone).
> >
> >
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> --- Chris Zaragoza <czaragoz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>> Well I have to say I more agree with the high
> >>> quality less requirements aim
> >>> than the "we take any old crap you want to
> >> scribble
> >>> down as long as it's
> >>> original and not pornographic" bit....
> >>>
> >>> Just seems that if I was looking for artwork for
> >> my
> >>> game and I found a site
> >>> making claims to be the end all answer to this
> >> need
> >>> and it was 75% crap I'd
> >>> look elsewhere from then on.
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Daniel Falconer" <falconernz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: <swag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:05 PM
> >>> Subject: [swag] Re: Summary of Submission
> >> Guidelines
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Well,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm of the opinion that we want to keep this
> >> site
> >>> as
> >>>> high quality as possible, both for Guild
> members
> >>> and
> >>>> casual submitters. The difference I see
> between
> >>> these
> >>>> two categories is that casual submitters aren't
> >>> bound
> >>>> to any regular committments or the Online
> >> Journal
> >>>> reqs. The higher the standard of work on our
> >>> pages,
> >>>> the more likely we'll be to attract better and
> >>> better
> >>>> artists. I don't so much see it as being
> >>> exclusive,
> >>>> as just aiming high. We can always lower our
> >>>> acceptance standards if we feel down the road
> >> that
> >>>> we're being too stingy, although I think
> >>> consistancy
> >>>> from the outset is always preferable.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I do see the validity of the
> arguements
> >>> being
> >>>> expressed for the opposite policy, relaxing the
> >>> expert
> >>>> reqs for casual submitters, and I am happy to
> >>> yield to
> >>>> that, as it seems to be the popular view. As
> an
> >>>> Inquisitor, my position has to represent the
> >>>> philosophies and standards of the whole team at
> >>> SWAG,
> >>>> so I'm completely cool to go with the majority
> >> on
> >>> this
> >>>> one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Daniel Falconer (Reverend Strone).
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.sold.com.au - The Sold.com.au Big
> >> Brand
> >>> Sale
> >>>> - New PCs, notebooks, digital cameras, phones
> >> and
> >>> more ... Sale ends June
> >>> 12
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> >> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >>
> >
> > http://www.sold.com.au - The Sold.com.au Big Brand
> Sale
> > - New PCs, notebooks, digital cameras, phones and
> more ... Sale ends
> > June 12
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
