News / Site Changes

I don't want to be on the panel.

just because you can't build a good quality park doesn't mean you don't know what one looks like.

Just read the announcement... all those changes make perfect sense to me. Good stuff guys.

Stop picking on Sam. IMO theres no reason he shouldnt be on the pannel, I talk quite a bit with Sam and he's a intellegent guy who knows what he's doing. Its been said before that you dont need to be a great artist to appriciate great art.

As far as the panel goes I think its about as fair as it can get and Gee/Posix have done an amazing job with it. I have submitted a few things recently and they have all been judged what i would call fairly. Being someone with a style whos is never going to be liked by everyone I have got used to negative comments and feedback on my work.

I also agree that its important that the panel represents a cross section of the community and includes some less experienced guys. Otherwise you can lose focus and alienate the new guys.

on a side note:

I may not always agree with how people grade my work but something I really like about this panel idea is that you recieve an e-mail with how people scored you. Then you can take the name of who graded you badly and get direct/personal feedback as to what they didnt like.

In my opinion as a parkmaker you should always be striving to improve your work to the upmost degree and the panel is a great tool for that.

All solid ideas. Nothing I have a problem with. As usual the right decisions have been made.

One thing that would be nice is to have the park pages feature comments again. Like just a paragraph or so from a couple of the panelists.

Agreed. If they have the opportunity to see the communities greatest parks before anyone else I'd expect a few guys to sum the park up in a paragraph as a mark of respect.

This is is what annoys me you let no one have an opinion on what they think if he's involved. Like this time you doen't let me think that you shouldn'y be in the AP, you get angry when i don't add colour, it jst seems like you think everything is perfect in your world and everyone has to do the same as you, obey every command you set.

...Seriously? No, really. Are you serious right now?


It's a fucking game, guys. Sure, it sucks when you get graded poorly, but lighten up. It's not going to mean a thing in the end.

It's a fucking game, guys. Sure, it sucks when you get graded poorly, but lighten up. It's not going to mean a thing in the end.

I agree, but I do think a short paragraph should be included by every accolade judge for both winners and losers and what they liked/didn't like so we can get a sense of why someone gave a score of 16 or 1, just so we know.

I'm sure you remember that we DID have the 'panelist comments' once. We had to take them away because no one would do them. And if then it were always the same people. We are very concerned about how long it takes from submission to release and we get stressed easily when something takes forever to go out. We just hate to make people wait. This is why gee and I have been working on a bunch of new process designs regarding release preparation, hoping that it will drastically speed up everything. I would like to advocate for leaving comments out for now and if we see at some later point that we have enough time to allow more work to be done for release prep we can consider the comments again. If you really really need to know why someone voted you the way he did, pm him, or ask him in public in your release topic. If you win an accolade you can see all voters on the release page so you know who voted what. If you win Honorary Mention you will see you voted what in the notification email about your score being ready that we send. I kinda feel like some of you are saying that the voters are hidden so they don't have to justify themselves for votes too far from the mean ...

^ Why not require a short description when they send their scores in?

If you need an extra guest judge for RCT2 on occasion, PM me.

didn't i explain exactly why?

most do.
i dont as often as i could, but i would be more than willing to give time for a short comment.

didn't i explain exactly why?

Yes you did, BUT why not require it? Say I am a judge and I tell you or post, "Park X gets a score of 14 from me. I liked the design of coaster 1 and coaster 2. The scenery was well planned. I thought the asian section of the park was a weak point because it didn't look themed correctly. blah blah blah."

I don't think a few words when a score is sent would be too hard. If a judge takes too long on a regular basis, then drop him or her as a judge.

When I was in the Air Force, I was a supervisor and had to write annual reports on my troops individually. They were scored on a scale of 1-5. Anything less than a 5, I had to write a justification letter as to why they didn't get a 5. It's not a hard thing to do.

Like I said, if you want me to judge some RCT2 work, send them my way (my RCTLL is in storage in Sacramento. I'm in Virginia so I don't have those yet).

Mike Robbins, NEW KING of the accolade panel, cause he didnt get his own way.

it works how it is now, the writeups are spectacular by themselves, alot of time is put into them, and they are mostly done to the full capacity of the writers to honour the parks they are representing.

i think you should stop trying to get the panel canned and trust us, we are compitent.

let him vote on one of the submissions so he can see how the process works.

its not that easy

I don't think every accolade needs additional comments from the panelists, but Spotlights do for sure.

Mike Robbins, NEW KING of the accolade panel, cause he didnt get his own way.

Sorry Mike, this is really how you're coming across. I feel for you, I really do, but you're overreacting to a system that I think has proven itself in the long-run. My suggestion is to use this as motivation, come back better and prove that you deserve this if you really want it.

Mike, you DO realize you're talking about the whole panel in the way you do, and by that quite a large portion of this site's core members?

Personally I feel kind of offended by your posts, as you're trying to say the panel, or some vague distinguished portion of the panel who scored your work too low in your opinion, doesn't function well..

Also, you wrote an example of how you managed your squads in the Air Force, but you do realize we are not judging on a professional basis, and we are sacrificing some of our free time to thoroughly look through the submissions (at least I do)?

Also, personally, I try to post as much feedback into the voting topics. I'm not sure that information is send to the particular creators, or the topic is just put away.
Maybe that's also the reason you don't see many reviews of accolade panelists in the release topics, as the topics are put away and we can't find our reviews/posts about the submissions back while we had reviewed them already..

SF

I see no need for guys on the panel to give their comments. If I gave you a 1 or a 5 or 16 I think its pretty evident what I think of the submission. If something particularly amazing or terrible stood out then I might throw that out there, sure. But if an average submission comes in don't expect everyone to say "yeah hey that wasn't too bad I liked the ride" because we're busy enough as it is just looking at the parks let alone have time to explain ourselves. We're explaining ourselves in the vote we make. It's that simple. Hell, if it were up to me, I'd even get rid of the write-ups on the pages we make, especially on Bronze winners at least. I don't care how this makes me look but really, I think we could use the time spent on writing them on something more productive. I digress, though.

Point is: ... well, honestly, I don't know what the point is. Point is everyone needs to stop bitching and just make some parks and have a cuddle or something; its getting way too dramatic in here for a topic about positive change.

i dont mind any personal attack at myself

Mike Robbins, NEW KING of the accolade panel, cause he didnt get his own way.

Nobody ever said by name who should or shouldn't be on the panel and who the inexperienced people were yet you came out all defensive. I definitly didn't name any names. I never said you shouldn't be on the panel. I'm entitled to my opinion, especially on a forum where everyone here gives opinions all day long. Personally, I don't give a crap what you think of me, my work or anything else. My life doesn't revolve around the words of a 13 year old British child. Sorry. I was merely giving my opinion of future possible changes. Past changes on this site have always gone by the words of the public. I think you are fine on the panel, just don't get so defensive if anyone thinks you shouldn't be. It's their opinion.