Two questions: In cases where consent to change spearheads is not given, can the size still be altered in the final art? For instance, a piece like a Kopaka Nuva skate looks cool, but will likely be way oversized compared to the other spears. As long as it’s clearly reflecting the same part, could it be shrunk down a bit? Or, for parts that already have long axles attached, like Kiina’s trident, could the artist recolor the silver axel to black, leaving just the tip metallic, to fit better with the rest of the team?
Second, why do Stud.io renders make Metru blue look so dark? It’s really hard to tell what are supposed to be Gaaki entries and Bomonga entries sometimes. The colors aren’t that close in real life.
I think so (or if the original creator said they’ve used placeholders that need replacing). If we look back at the prior contests, artists were only allowed to change placeholder elements or very minor things, like Helryx’s hands changing from black to blue. The current implementation of the consent rules allows artists to get away with things that would have disqualified them in the prior contests.
The main difference between the prior contests and the Hagah is that we’re designing a team, and the consent rules were added to counteract the otherwise severe shortcomings of the normal voting system. They should serve their purpose without allowing exploitation.
I see you have it backwards Hazash. More specifically you seem to have a wrong idea about what the actual reason behind implementing this rule was.
I should know, because after all, I am the one who suggested it in the first place. Here is the discussion topic with the poll were it is explained: Toa Hagah Canon Contest Survey and Final Q&A
As you can see the reason for this rule was specifically so that final group shot artists could NOT alter your work on a whim. Steering incosistencies was not the purpose, but a mere bonus in case you allow for the changes to be made.
If not for this rule everything would be under risk of being changed and the creative vision of the first stage mocist/artist jeopardized.
So that is the real explanation for this rule. The reason it is not here is because it was already thoroughly explained and discussed on the topic Iinked and TTV did not want to repeat themselves here.
…
Also this “consistency” you are talking about is not really there to begin with, there are only preferences certain people have. Some want there to be just two metallic colors, some three, others one for each Hagah, and the rest do not care. There is no actual consistency to be witheld.
Wathever the final combination of Hagah and/or consents will be, that is what the group shot artists will have to work with and everyone will depict what they believe to be “consistent”. And then there is still voting. Ultimately the final winning artwork will reflect what people consider “consistent”.
That is why the current rules work well and what you suggest could not be properly implemented because there is no way to define what is consistent. Some external factor would need to define that first.
While you probably couldn’t get away with shrinking Kopaka’s skate to the size of a minifigure weapon, no one’s going to be breaking out the ruler to check exact sizes either.
Do someone have a Knights Kingdom Studio pack? I wanna use some shoulders armor pieces but I don’t have them in Studio. Maybe a 3D object that I can import to Studio.
… what? I know exactly why it was implemented. My point is Eljay’s wording in the rules above makes no mention of those reasons, or the fact of whether artists can / can’t change things for reasons other than what the rule was implemented for.
Most people won’t have read the previous discussion. And if it’s already been said before, why is it so hard to reiterate it here?
Well, no, because we don’t know what the four other Hagah look like yet.
Consistency = an equal ratio of metallic colours, or some other justifiable pattern. E.g. 1/1/1/1/1/1, 2/2/2 or 3/3, 5/1, 4/2, etc. I don’t see how that’s complicated.
So what’s the plan when we get to the art portion? We just say “You can change the colours, the mask or the spear. We don’t care why, but people probably won’t like it if you change something for no good reason”? That doesn’t seem rigorous enough. Who’s to say someone completely redesigns one of the Hagah for reasons other than preventing duplicates or inconsistent colours, and it gets quite far in the polls simply because the art is really good? Some people would rightfully be cheesed off that the consent rules are being twisted by the artist for solely their own benefit.
This is something I’m willing to concede on because I consider it less of an issue, but I’ve seen no good counter-argument so far.
As for clarifying in the main post what the consent rules were put in place for, I’m probably not going to concede on that. It’s a complete no-brainer to just add this to the consent section:
That’s why you can give a no to the consent, assuming people don’t have any form of respect for others work is quite rude.
Don’t vote for it, if you think the artwork don’t do the moc justice then don’t support it.
When the topic was created there was a typo in the title, and since you can’t quote titles I had to rewrite the title in a custom quote. Eljay very quickly after I pointed it out changed the title and this issue was resolved.
Having had time to reflect, I understand what @ToaKebaka was perhaps getting at. Maybe someone’s definition of ‘consistent’ is a metallic colour split of 2/1/1/1/1/1, where Norik and Bomonga have silver as leaders. Someone else’s definition of consistency could be ‘all silver except Iruini’, because it’s partly consistent with their Rhotuka colours in the Rahaga sets.
So, if people have such diverse definitions of ‘consistency’, it could be difficult to look at every group artwork and determine whether the artist genuinely tried to create some form of consistency or if they’re using it as an excuse to inject their own preferences into the designs. This is a logistical issue which I’m willing to accept isn’t worth the effort.
But having conceded this, I think it’s even more important to do this:
People who haven’t been following this discussion might not be aware of the repercussions of not consenting to changes - repercussions which they themselves might consider detrimental. Naturally, this needs to be reiterated when we get to the group art portion as well.
So again @Eljay, my question is this: what’s the downside of putting this addendum in the main post?
Eljay will no doubt respond, but for me the reason for not adding it is that the statement is simply not true, because the main reason behind implementing the rule was what I explained. I do not rule it out as a partial utility for some correcting, but the original prompt had nothing to do with it.
It’s also wrong, because it was not implemented for those reasons. The consent solution was implemented as a compromise between MOCists and Artists and the impact they could have on each other. It was intended to allow each to potentially influence the end design without compromising the artistic integrity of either creator.
Further, I’ve grown quite tired with this incessant need to dictate and influence the decisions of voters the way this subliminally would. We have rules and guidelines to abide by canon and keep the contest as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. If you want people to consider these things, it’s your responsibility to make them aware of them, not ours.
This conversation is over. We’re done. We’re not adding that, we’re not changing it. If this continues any further, we will consider staff action.
Ok I see the confusion now. I was under the assumption the colour rules were implemented to allow artists to act upon the concern of those who would prefer some form of consistent colouring. That’s what it sounded like when Meso suggested the colour rule; and reading back over his message, he doesn’t explicitly say why the metallic colour consent rule was added, as far as I can tell. I will take partial blame here, but only partial. Please reflect on the fact that this whole debate could have been avoided if you and Meso had been clearer.
To be very explicit: my suggestions have in no way been intended to subtly influence voters that would have otherwise not cared about consistency. Rather, I wanted to give voters who do care about it ample ability to vote in that regard, and for entrants to be fully informed on the pros and cons of consenting to changes.
I maintain the addendum is useful (with the correct explanation of why the consent rules were added) but, well, I value my account too much to go on. Never thought I’d see the day when I’d be threatened with a ban for being unreasonable. I pride myself on being the opposite.