imo this adds another layer of complexity and mandate to the contest. Each entrant has to make sure they manually describe which of the three stances they want, and then TTV has to keep track of it. I think an informal system would be easier in which consent for any given part of the MOC is automatically denied unless the MOCist specifies. This also allows the MOCist to allow for revisions to more than just the weapon or mask — such as armor, neck placement, etc.
3 Likes
Uh that’s significantly more complicated and invalidates the MOC portion if people vote for a MOC that doesn’t specify to anything. Additionally we also need to replicate whatever the winning MOC and art show. If the artist can move around anything they want, then there’s no way to make sure anything is replicatable.
Personally, I think we only need the consent system for the sword.
Mask is placeholder, and the weapon is locked in unless the moccist gives consent to change it.
@Mechronus you might want to reread that again…
8 Likes
Helryx and Arthaka were fine without a consent system. The hagah were special cases. Tuyet, with regards to her weapon, is not a special case.
Do we really need a consent system?
5 Likes
I’d argue it is, since the Barbed Broadsword is more defined and detailed than just a “spear” or “hammer”.
Not saying moccists can’t build it, just that it would be good to draw too. But if a moccist makes a complex build or 3d model, they can choose not to change it.
6 Likes
This is the whole of my reasoning. If a builder wants to go out of their way to say they’re okay with a part being changed, they can go for it, but it should not be an inbuilt part of the contest that every builder has to specify their stance on.
And to address @Racie02’s concern… if a builder really wants to take the effort to build a MOC and then waive all rights to Tuyet’s appearance by allowing the artist to change everything, and people vote for that knowing full well what it means… honestly at that point just let it happen (or shut it down for being a joke entry).
This really only refers to the MOC. Not only does the art not necessarily need to be replicable, in some cases it flat out isn’t replicable or deviates from the MOC — Nikila and Helryx for example.
3 Likes
I feel like allowing the consent to change is only needed for the big details, the unique and important details. Like, how many people really care about what type of feet she has, to the point they’d go “yeah, the moc has Mata feet, but they consent to change it, so I’m going to draw a new foot piece that doesn’t exist”?
The mask has to be placeholder, since mask shapes are unique. Otherwise, moccists are stuck with two options, obtain and use a 3d print, or make the official appearance of the Mask of Intangibility a Hero Factory helmet or some such.
6 Likes
Swordless won’t happen considering TTV’s stance after Greg’s answer but a placeholder sword is being considered.
Edit: On the consent discussion. If I enter a tuyet with a custom sword I wouldn’t want that design be replaced by what essentially will just become a 3d printed part after the art for example. That’s why I think a consent system would be the best compromise here.
1 Like
Yeah I know, just referencing my previous reasons.
I agree. Allowing only for the weapon and mask to consent to be changed makes sense, as it keeps the over all aesthetic of the character intact.
Also one way to make it easier is make the part where they consent in Bold text, making it easier to see.
I consent to only the mask being changed, not the sword.
As for:
I will agree that the artwork isn’t 100% accurate, however it still stays 90%. We shouldn’t change the overall look of the winning model too much, as it basically defeats the point of the MOC portion. Like why bother making a physical model if it doesn’t at least look 90% like the winning art? Like the liberties taken with Helryx are fine because you can still tell it’s the same character.
1 Like
As someone who is upset about the TYQ tools thing because it invalidates several cool ideas I’ve seen, I would really like to get some sort of commitment from Greg that he won’t canonize any more details about future canon contest characters until the winners are submitted to him, so that the contest entrants can decide those for themselves. Otherwise this situation could happen again in the future, and invalidate more perfectly good MOCs.
I don’t think this is fully true. Someone could send Greg a MOC of, say, Kojol, asking him to canonize it, but his chance of responding to that is basically zero. But if Kojol appears on the second canon contest list and TTV sends him the winning MOC, he’s all-but-guaranteed to respond, because it’s TTV specifically. The entire source of TTV’s legitimacy as contest-runners is that Greg responds to them consistently. Questions sent by TTV to Greg are a lot more significant than questions sent by random fans. I’m frustrated that TTV staff often falls back on “well, we’re just fans like you” when they really do have more power to shape canon like this.
14 Likes
I’m gonna throw an idea out there that will make people hate me, but it’s worth considering.
What if we do the opposite? Get a list of all the hard facts for all planned characters via community discussion, lay it out in a simple list, send it off to greg, and basically ask “are we missing anything?”, but word it in a way where it’s clear “nothing” is an acceptable answer.
If he intended something specific for these characters, like TYQ toa weapons, we should honor it, but getting all the potential curveballs done early will give people a chance to plan their mocs possibly years in advance.
7 Likes
That’s honestly a really great idea. While it would make some people initially angry, in the long run it stops people from spending a significant amount of time on something, only to scrap it in seconds. Additionally, we shouldn’t get mad at Greg for telling us how something’s always been. Like Lariska was a huge out of the blue moment for a lot of people but the fact is it’s spawned hundreds of great MOCs that are now more accurate.
Like if tomorrow Greg said that Nidhiki’s scythe is one sided, sure I’d be initially be disapointed but after the shock went away I’d adapt.
4 Likes
That’s kind of exactly why I think a consent system isn’t necessary. By default, no consent should be given to change the MOC. If an artist feels like specifying otherwise, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be mandatory to list consent or not. It should just be considered a restricted MOC by default.
3 Likes
Unless a character has a predetermined mask with a known shape (e.g. Chiara’s Volitak), a consent system seems largely redundant imo. I understand the merit of putting one in place, but art should remain faithful to the winning MOC otherwise anyway.
4 Likes
And I think Helryx art piece and to a very minimal degree Arthaka’s art is a perfect example as to why that isn’t obvious to everyone entering the art portion.
We have this rule. However its ambiguous as to what is considerd modifying the asthetic in terms of builds.
If we take it literally as per the Hagah contest, Helryx art piece would not have been allowed to win or enter the contest as it removed 2 armor pieces, changed the way the legs were attached to the torso changed, colors of the hands were changed and it omitted several of the tubes. Some of which I would argue were pretty significant to the models astehtic. Now correct me if I’m wrong but this rule should have stopped the artwork, right? but it didn’t nor did it seem clear to the entrant that changing the mocs astehtic through removing pieces would be consideredm a rulebreak or they did not consider that the moc had parts of it restricted from change.
Which means that unless the vetting improves similar instance can happen again and that is why a consent system should be implemented as it clearly conveys to artist and voters what details of the moc could still be up in the air. Which also convinently also just in general smooths out the vetting process as any major changes outside of the consentual changes is going to be easier to spot.
2 Likes
This is TTV staff’s (and as of recently, the contest auditors’) job to determine and enforce. If they find the modification to be within acceptable boundaries — as they did when they reviewed Helryx and Artakha — then it clearly falls within that rule. If the vetting allows that and you disagree with it, that doesn’t mean the vetting didn’t occur sufficiently.
To discuss the necessity of “consent system,” I believe it is beneficial to understand the history of the system. The consent system was formalized for the Hagar contest: a contest involving four MOCs with highly contentious features. Debates abounded regarding acceptable coloration for the Toa’s armor, whether the armor colors should be coordinated within the team, what variety of spearheads were considered acceptable, etc. TTV decided that the best way to simplify the contests would be to add a system of consent. That way, a voter could look at a MOC and understand whether that MOC could be reasonably expected to change color, spearhead, etc. or not. This allowed voters to, potentially, vote for MOCs based on what grouping of MOCs allowed for the color coordination, spearheads, etc. that they wanted.
This differed significantly from, say, the Artakha contest, where it was a given that the Kanohi would change and that the green on the MOC would be altered to the sand green that Artakha canonically has despite the shortage of LEGO pieces in that color. Consent to change the color or make minor aesthetic alteration to the MOC was a nonfactor because the existing rules of the contest already stated that such changes were not allowed.
If, say, a Helryx MOCist for some reason gave explicit permission to alter Helryx’s mace significantly, then the MOCist gave that permission. Otherwise, by default, it was understood that no such permission was given. No formalized system was needed because there was not such a contentious discussion surrounding the color coordination of four MOCs.
4 Likes
Except it wasn’t seeing as the artist for the winning Helryx piece deviated from the mocs build. Even though the moccist never gave any permission to change his moc in anyway.
TTV letting it through is on them but the artist still made changes to a mocs build without permission. Which makes your point fall flat.
You said that people would naturally be able to distinguish that a moc may not be changed without permission.
Yet clearly the artist for the Helryx art piece clearly didn’t. Call it an oversight, TTV being loose on the rules or whatever but the fact that it happened means that we can’t for certain say that similar things will not happen again or that it is clear to everyone that major changes in builds in the art isn’t allowed.
You also said that, because it was naturally obvious a consent rule was not necessary
Yet the artist for the helryx canon art depiction clearly did not find it clear that he couldn’t change the aesthetic of the moc. Which is a lack of communication between rules and entrants. Since the communication of the rules haven’t changed the issue is likely to reappear.
A consent system is a different way to communicate what changes are or aren’t allowed better than each moccist leaving individual consent at any time that may or may not be traceable by moderators.
I was just proposing for Tuyet weapon to have a consent to be changed, since it could be hard to make the BB with pieces and maybe someone don’t know how to make it. That way everyone can participate even using a Tahu sword or something else. If someone has a design for the BB (Lego or 3D), that would be the design. Changing the sword should be the exception, no the norm.
But this just for her. Future contests should work just like Helryx and Artakha, with only the mask as a place holder and the final design of the mask is defined in the art portion. Choosing the mask in the MOC portion would be unfair for everyone without access to a 3D printed piece and would make the art contest less interesting.
5 Likes
Yeah I should have worded that better. I agree with you that the mask should be a place holder on the MOC, as you pointed out that it does give an unfair advantage to certain entrants. I agree on the weapon stuff as well and want to point out something I just thought over. Varian, Chiara and Nidhiki all have known masks and shapes (debatable for Chiara), so their contests would be just the MOC and art contests.
Now for Varian, it’d be really difficult to say her armblades were placeholders, as from personally experience it’s hard to build an arm connection that works for a different blade.
Nidhiki and Chiara however could use a weapon consent rule, allowing for more entries to be submitted.
Now for the weapon consent, could other MOC creators and artists offer their weapon design as an option or would it have to be original designs for that portion of the contest?
3 Likes
Are you not trying to read what I wrote or just ignoring it? Here, I’ll paste it for you.
This is TTV staff’s (and as of recently, the contest auditors’) job to determine and enforce. If they find the modification to be within acceptable boundaries — as they did when they reviewed Helryx and Artakha — then it clearly falls within that rule. If the vetting allows that and you disagree with it, that doesn’t mean the vetting didn’t occur sufficiently.