[swag] Re: Summary of Submission Guidelines
- From: "Dan Swensen" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <swag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 15:25:20 -0600
If I understand it correctly, the whole point of having a members /
non-members division was to push the good stuff as far to the forefront as
possible, and the "bad" or mediocre stuff back out of immediate sight --
thus avoiding the "75% crap" effect you speak of. I think people should have
to dig through SWAG to find not-so-great art, while the good stuff is right
there in front of them when they visit the site.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Zaragoza" <czaragoz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <swag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: [swag] Re: Summary of Submission Guidelines
> 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
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
