Here's my issue in that regard: how often are builds going to be added to the HoF? Personally, I don't think event builds should get that free pass into HoF nominations, but without knowing when or if the HoF will be updated, that might be their only chance to get in(and like you said, some of them are really amazing). Then again, there have been a lot of builds nominated that really shouldn't have been considered.

Well, I think there are a few inherent limitations to the building event format that may affect quality, even if there are no explicit rules that govern the way submissions are meant to be viewed.

Events have a window of what, four weeks or so? Maybe as many as five or six in some cases, and often less for people who join late. Personally, I usually take a LOT more time than that to conceptualize, draft, playtest, revise, re-test, write-up, format, and publish my builds.... That's why I've never participated in an event; the time limit would cause the quality of my submission to be below my usual quality, which ultimately I couldn't accept. I know some people can work faster than me, but this is still a valid concern on a general level.

Another limitation is in the nature of the event themes. Using themes restricts what authors can do, and may also reduce relevance to the game or to general interest. For instance, on a personal level, I normally wouldn't be interested in a crossworlds themed build on sheer principle, unless it was absolutely masterfully done.... But for the sake of events, I read them all and "Like" most/all of them as well.

On the one hand, using themes helps add a challenge to the building process. Which is a good thing. But that can only be said to make a build more impressive to me if the author masterfully overcomes that challenge. In the vast majority of event build submissions, I do not feel that is the case. Yet I still "Like" them and give feedback in the spirit of supporting the event project.

Also, the fact that event builds haven't been ranked to this point means that users can and have applied different criteria when distributing their "Likes", as I have attested to doing. So in terms of audience individual criteria, there may be changes that don't necessarily show up in the event rules.

Yes, but considering he created this project and designed the rules for it, I think he deserves some say in any changes that the current hosts are considering. It's a matter of courtesy.

What do you mean by rank tags ?:)

Like Rank:Bloodworks or the like

Mason is no longer among us. Period. If he were here, we would take his advice in consideration. Right now there's only three of you against this decision. It is because of this that I want to make a poll. Some people are for this, some aren't. I just want to see what does the majority think of it.

Aah okay well in events I don't see whats the point but outside of the event only the most liked event build gets a free pass into The HoF? So lets say there is 3 builds out of 15 with the most likes then they can go to the HoF without restrictions? Or you make like a poll where people vote 3 of the event builds to go in it?:)

Ok, what do you think of this kind of poll then?

Should Event Builds have Rank Tags?

A) Yes;

B) No;

C) Only event builds from Crossworlds and future events should be ranked;

Can you specify what would happen if event builds get tags ?

As I said on the previous page, I'm leery of putting this to a poll. If you want user input, I think it makes a lot more sense to use discussions like this one to hear our opinions and concerns on the matter, then based on those, reassess your decision internally (preferably after conferring with Mason to hear his thoughts).

Putting this to a poll is not ideal because there's no way to police whether voters are aware of all possible ramifications of their vote. People will vote "No" because they want their build to be ranked, or they want event builds to get that leg up. But they won't realize that in implementing this change, it will harm non-event builds.

I doubt more than about 5% of the people likely to vote in this poll will have read my arguments in this thread, and/or considered the same things I've brought to the table. So they're likely to fall into the same trap that the hosts did when discussing this change: If no one is there to argue the devil's advocate, a lot of valid concerns will be totally overlooked.

As I said before, I think this is one of those things that is better left to the hosts to decide. However, when you make the decision, you should be cognizant of the arguments I and others have made, you should err on the side of caution, and you should get some input from Mason as the creator of the project and the original implementer of the rules you seek to change.

Also, I'm still against simply adding tags with no other changes. Your poll doesn't give an option that satisfies my suggestions. As Ben suggested previously ITT, and I submitted a quick mockup proposal to support his suggestion: I think if you add ranks to [future] event builds, you should take away some or all of the benefits they currently receive to compensate.

I'm not going to copy/paste the suggestions Ben and I posted as they're only a couple pages back and I assume you already saw them. But if you disagree with my reasoning against posting a poll, I hope you at least consider what I said about ensuring that EVERY and ALL possible poll option avoids potential negative impact to existing non-event builds. The poll you just posted doesn't meet that hope, and therefore does nothing to assuage my concerns. If anything, it makes them worse, because I trust the hosts to make a better informed decision than the average user. I just believe you guys weren't fully "informed"/aware of the potential drawbacks when discussing this change.