Submissions

[BitBuster]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but is there an option for designers to submit their levels with a tag along the lines of "please consider for CCLP1 and all future 'official' CCLP sets"? Also, are designers allowed to say "even if you can't get in contact with me, you can still use/edit my levels for the purposes of the set"? Looking forward to future level packs, it might be useful to have these sorts of permissions from level designers (and it would, of course, be wholly optional to grant such blanket permissions). This would avoid situations such as a good level being omitted from the set because the designer fell out of touch with the community.

Thoughts? Again, I think this should be optional, but I'm guessing that a number of level designers would be happy to have their levels automatically considered for future level packs.

[pillowpc2001]

I think that's a good idea... I remember a few people actually specifying in their submission post that they wanted their sets considered for any future level packs too...

[quiznos00]

Also, are designers allowed to say "even if you can't get in contact with me, you can still use/edit my levels for the purposes of the set"?

Well, then a) the designer could possibly hate the changes and feel as if the level didn't stay true to the original and B) it would force the staff to either go through every one of these types of level sets and correct for busts and Lynx issues, which would be unfair to those of whom that are active and must fix their levels themselves, or just choose favorites and change the ones that they like. So I wouldn't really recommend giving staff control over your set, but it's always the designer's choice. The choice does have some positives though. Apparently, the CCLP3 staff knew that How to Get in Venice was slightly busted, but kept the bust in because they weren't sure if that is what Joshua Bone intended and since they could not contact him. Similarly, in Bolkonski also by Joshua Bone, they weren't sure if the intended solution was to use a glider or block to hit the toggle button near the end, so they kept in both solutions.

I did change Daniel Bouwmeester's sets to make all the levels Lynx-compatible with his permission, so I guess there already is some staff favoritism there, but a lot of people have stated that they enjoyed his sets and they're quite perfect for CCLP1, so fixing the set wasn't really a corrupt choice.

The CCLP1 staff does have plans to make sure some other good levels are not omitted, but I cannot reveal them yet.

[geodave]

Well, for the record, if in some future CCLP you can't reach me, ANY level or levelset of mine may be used, fixed, modified or adapted. As long as I get some sort of credit.

[Ida]

A problem that I see is that if all designers start submitting sets "for all future CCLPs", the pool of levels might grow too big because nobody ever takes any levels out of there (except the ones that get voted in).

Maybe there should be a separate pool for each CCLP, but a level(set) could end up in that pool by either A) the author actively submits it, or B) the level(set) is suggested for the pool by somebody else. (Provided of course that the author somewhere along the line has stated that the level(set) is available for any future CCLPs.)

Also, I think it is sort of more fair that the active members have bigger chance of getting their levels in, than if all levels ever submitted always is in each pool. By option B), "submission by proxy", we could still guarantee that there are enough good quality levels in the pool for making the set.

However, I suspect that any such rules will be changed during the years between CCLPs... even if it sure wasn't too long between CCLP3 and the beginning of CCLP1!

[BitBuster]

Well, then a) the designer could possibly hate the changes and feel as if the level didn't stay true to the original

I'm not a designer, so I have no stake in this (nor do I know what the general designer mindset is), but I'd assume that the designers who chose this option would put enough faith into the CCLP staff to stay true to the spirit of the level. If you're protective of your final creation, I doubt you'd check the "feel free to edit my work" box.

it would force the staff to either go through every one of these types of level sets and correct for busts and Lynx issues, which would be unfair to those of whom that are active and must fix their levels themselves, or just choose favorites and change the ones that they like. So I wouldn't really recommend giving staff control over your set, but it's always the designer's choice.

Wait...doesn't the staff check for busts and compatability anyway? The issue of actually amending a level would only come up if the level was voted into a set...or am I missing something here?

A problem that I see is that if all designers start submitting sets "for all future CCLPs", the pool of levels might grow too big because nobody ever takes any levels out of there (except the ones that get voted in).

That's a good point. I don't know how the CCLP voting process works; is it a basic "like/dislike" vote, or are the levels assigned numerical values (i.e., rate the level on a scale of 1-10)? Because if it's the latter, you could have scores "stand," without the need for reevaluating the levels every time the process comes around (unless someone wants to change their vote, or a new Chipster finds the level and votes on it...)

[quiznos00]

Wait...doesn't the staff check for busts and compatability anyway? The issue of actually amending a level would only come up if the level was voted into a set...or am I missing something here?

The staff does check them, but they don't fix them

[BitBuster]

...well again, wouldn't fixing the level only be a factor if the level was voted in AND the designer couldn't be contacted? I'd assume that the number of levels for which that would be applicable would be rather low, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

[jblewis]

I think each CCLP should have its own voting pool, and if a set has been in a pool previously, the staff or others can nominate it for consideration.

Interestingly enough, a few of us on the CCLP3 staff had a bit of a debate about what the intended solution for "Bolkonski" was - which is why we left it as it stood. Additionally, it took us a while to figure out what was intended on "Lichenstein," since the busts (yes, there were two!) were so easy to stumble upon. So, I took a night to examine the level and tried to come up with a solution that used everything and about which everyone could agree.

[BitBuster]

I think each CCLP should have its own voting pool, and if a set has been in a pool previously, the staff or others can nominate it for consideration.

That's fair enough. Still, it doesn't preclude, say, a "reserve pool" consisting of previously-submitted level sets.