Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

What is it you remember exactly? The funny thing DS is that I looked up to you and all you had done on this site, then you didn't do anything to control your new poster boy for the C3V, Caps who was given a free seat in the SoV because there was no position available in the C3V at the time.

This site has all but died because no one in the C3V comments on or gives a crap about anyone else here. You all just want to feel like you are in power of creating "official expansions units" and expect others to do the dirty work of testing with no credit. There is no fun in that.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

I don’t have anything to add here. I was sorry you left and sorry for the bad blood but I won’t air those grievances here. Thank you for the kind words and your criticism is fair and I appreciate the feedback.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

I was around 4 years ago, privy to much (maybe not all) of the relevant discussions, and I don't understand the grief qt has. :shrug: The best I can come up with is that he assumed deeply malicious intent behind actions that were taken in good faith. It's unfortunate.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

It's also unfortunate that dirty laundry was aired publicly and he decided to retaliate. Please, people, speak well of each other.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

I don't know a lot about the incident, other than that it was the reason Kantono Daishi was removed after receiving 5 yea votes. (apparently there has been drama today as well which I have missed)

As someone on the outside, I and several others that I have spoken to on various occasions have felt that both the C3V, and SoV can be kind of cliquey at times. I realize this is because certain members are more experienced, and will present a more balanced, and well tested unit to the SoV, than most of the rest of us would likely be able to in the same amount of time. It is unfortunate, but it can seem like input from outside the group, unless coming from a well known/popular member, is ignored at times.

I guess my point is that, the C3V, and the SoV from the outside looking in, often appear self centered. Even if this is for a good reason, such as maintaining the quality, and feel of Classic Scape, not everyone will understand that, or see it that way. There have points where several of us have felt that you simply handled a situation poorly. (I am not referring to what happened today when I say that. I wasn't here for it, I don't have enough information to make an opinion on that) I will not give examples so as not to incriminate anyone. You have all become figure heads of sorts. Everyone looks at you with an expectation of near perfection, regardless of how fair that may be. Your every public action is watched and judged by the rest of us.

All that said, the majority of us, including myself, have a good opinion of the C3V and SoV, even if we think you are sometimes cliquey. We appreciate what you do, and we look forward to your future releases.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

Well, his feedback, and yours, is well taken. There are certain things baked into our existence, and one of them is the privacy of the workshop. Constructive criticism is always appreciated, and - as dok said - we are taking steps to be a bit more open.

Thank you all - every one of you - for your interest and your guidance as our fans.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

I am fairly certain it is all Bats' fault. :)

I never intended to go down this road and I apologize for my part in derailing the thread.

Peace...

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

Well said. I echo these statements.

I have mad respect for the C3V and SoV even despite the occasional air of superiority. The folks involved are very good at designing and critiquing units and are confident in those abilities. To us outsiders, that confidence and closed-door approach can convey a bit of pretentiousness at times. As I've gotten more involved with the boards I've realized it is unintentional and does not seem true to the character of those people or the group as a whole. As the internet always goes, this is not a face-to-face environment, so patience and tolerance need to be applied in heavy doses by everyone.

Shout out to @Scytale for his work with the SoV. Those statistics were great to see and a testament to the great work being done. I appreciate your dedication to the project. For a project to succeed as much as the SoV has, it is proof of good leadership. Keep those statistics growing!

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

It saddens me a bit to hear that the SoV can be seen as pretentious or cliquey. It makes sense for the C3V--the whole idea behind it is a closed group of invite-only members. The SoV is a public project, however, and I prefer to run it with a mind to openness and honesty, as much as makes sense anyway.

It certainly is true that the view from the inside is different from the outside. I can say that from personal experience, and I'd bet that every Judge who has joined the team can say the same. From the outside we look like a council of grouchy elders who believe it is our mission to reject the plebeians for their slightest missteps. On the inside we're a group that's wants to and is trying to expand our beloved game, but we need to do so with the utmost care the product deserves. Becoming a Judge feels like hoisting up a heavy weight to carry; the gravity of the responsibility forces a change in perspective--a necessary change from simply enjoying customs to critiquing them from every perspective to uncover any imperfections. Still, our goal is acceptance, not rejection, and it's always disappointing when a submission doesn't meet standards. Honestly it's difficult to reject submissions without a sense of detachment; we all know how much effort and love goes into each one. My 24th Nay review was as troubling to me as my 1st.

I will boldly say that the members of my team treat submissions impartially. I do not consider the creator or submitter when reviewing a unit, and I'll go out on a limb to say that the other Judges don't either. Even top-class custom creators like dok and have had their units rejected while some relative unknowns have had their units get inducted. I don't care who made a unit; if it's good enough to be added to the game for everybody (note: not just for me, not for you, not for any one gaming group, but for everybody), I'll happily vote Yea. If it's not, it's my duty to reject it.

We have certainly been accused of favoritism or otherwise sown distrust from people. All I can say to these people is to ask you to share your grievances, either publicly or privately to me or another Judge in a PM. I believe feedback is important, even if its based on misunderstanding or downright malicious intent. We can only address problems we're aware of.

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

Also, how can we be grouchy elders if some of us are only 21? :razz:

Re: Soldiers of Valhalla - nominations and discussion
 

To be fair, my comments really were mostly about the C3V, which as you mentioned is not surprising given how it operates. I've begun to view it more of a nature of the beast. The SoV is naturally more open and is an enjoyable process to follow and comment on.