Forum:Proposal for the Elimination of Warrior Nominations

Hi guys. I bet you're sick of me sticking my nose in, but here I go. I'd like to propose that you completely eliminate the nomination process to become a warrior. That's right. Completely eliminate it. I propose the following: New artists join as apprentices and, on completion of their first independent project (a piece of character art where none of the actual artwork is handled by any other artists) they are immediately passed through and accepted as full warriors as the project. I feel that this would be a valuable change to the project for the following reasons:


 * 1) Devaluing the title "PCA Warrior", thus decreasing desirability and cutting down on the number of low-grade project applicants.
 * 2) Re-empowering artists and eliminating the kowtowing need to bend and accommodate every little change that is requested, regardless of the actual value that change brings to the price of art. If it's posted, the artist should have it to a state where they're ready to defend it and only take truly good suggestions that actually bring more to the work (not this "change the ear pink by making it half a degree cooler" rot that seems so prevalent nowadays).
 * 3) Elimination of an exclusionary process. It should not be difficult to become a member of this project if you're a competent artist.
 * 4) Elimination of work for project staff.
 * 5) Elimination of edits that bring no value to the wiki (and frankly, Warrior Nominations for PCA bring nothing to the wiki but a feeling of elitism).
 * 6) Return "Warrior" level membership to being the bulk of the project, as it should. Warrior should be the typical rank. Not unproven apprentices.
 * 7) An increase in project turnaround and project quality as the need to "get a comment in on this piece so that I get more exposure and do better in my nomination" goes away.

There it is. Laid out and pretty plain. Do with it as you will.

02:43, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

...Well....i dont say i agree....i mean....some Apprentices need the experenice, and thats we vote for them to be warriors....'cause we think that they deserve the rank. Getting ONE charart approved, doesnt mean you should be a warrior.... But, thats just me. Maple♥ pool  Mischief brewing 02:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * But, the point of thise project isn't training artists. If they can make art that gets accepted on their own, why should they have to be voted for? Why shouldn't they be made a proper part of the project? What more is there to earn if you do a decent bit of art? One of the Charart problems, one of the reasons you get so many incompetent apprentices who are not capable artists already is the artifical desiability of membership as a warrior in this project. I say devalue the begeepers out of the title "PCA Warrior" and eliminate the glory for getting it. Save the glory for becoming a Senior Warrior, a truely accomplished and well proven member of the project. 02:51, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well how do you know if they have enough experience and is ''acitve? ''That's the most important part. It should be approved by like, the leader just not a vote maybe... 02:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Even though it caused my warrior nomination be declined, I think that there should still be somewhat of a time minimum. Apprentices should prove they can stick around. ~Breezewhisker~ 03:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * What does time have to do with anything? You have idle-member removal processes for a reason. Put your time requirement on Senior Warrior, where it belongs. There should only be one hoop to join this project as a full (warrior) member: Prove you can contribute acceptable artowrk. 03:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is true. I forgot about the idle-member part. I suppose by that the time an apprentice has gotten a charart approved, they've already been here a good portion of that two-week time span before removal. ~Breezewhisker~  03:27, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to mull this over in my head. 03:01, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. On nominations, people can differ between thoughts. Some people might propose valued reasons why some user could not become a warrior, but the majority votes for it as a go. The leads could all gather on our IRC meetings and discuss who might be nominated for a warrior anytime soon. And Sandstorm, we know who has good experience and is active because we watch them edit, and we know if their edits are meaningful. 03:03, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

{C Huh, that looks like what you proposed when we decided to eliminate the kit rank. I agreed with it then, I agree with it now. Less complicated than making a system to demote people, and it'll allow us to be more efficient in making chararts. Honestly, we have chararts on the approval page that have been there a month because the artist can't seem to get the right tone of ear-pink or doesn't know how to properly blur shading, and we have new apprentices that know nothing of the project policies posting chararts multiple times for characters that don't even have descriptions in the books.

I'm tired of this. The mentoring program is helping, but either we need to go with Kit's idea or make it so that problem apprentices can be made to take on a mentor. I'm already doing something similar to what Kit's suggesting with my apprentice: I assign her chararts to make through my email and critique her from there. She's really made a lot of progress. Maybe if instead of one charart apprentices will have to make multiple chararts of different pelt types, maybe one that has altered line art?

And Breeze, we used to have the kit system. Kits had to stick around for a month and do nothing but comment, and that was also counter-intuitive. It discouraged people from applying, which made work go slower. We need just as many users, but we need a way to make sure our users know what to do and how to make quality chararts. With the kit system, kits could not really practice chararts, only watch. 03:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Being honest, I hate the mentoring system. This project isn't for training artists. If you're not competent, you shouldn't qualify for entry and should go practice on your own time. (I think it would be a good use for the dA page, frankly.) As for what they have to show they can do... Why do they have to be tallented at all fur types? Shouldn't a user whose never done a tabby either be ready to work extra hard before they post it for the crit (art that's posted should, frankly, be 99% done, or better. The artist should think it's perfect) or simply not claim a peice of art outside their skillset? We don't limit contributers on articles simply becuase they're not stellar writers. Why shouldn't a person who can only do basic color and white markings not be eligible simply because they don't have a broad-range skillset? They can pursue other practice on their own time, but contribute as a full member of the project while they do that. 03:18, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm not active in the project anymore (understatement) but I support this. It is fun to name the ranks after the Clan hierarchy, but I think we sometimes get carried away with that. I wasn't here to see this process get implemented, but in every other project during my time here, a warrior simply meant a user who knew how the project worked and made some level of contribution. The only rank that required a greater commitment and had to be nominated for was Senior Warrior. There's really no need to try and buff up the Warrior rank to require discussion or nomination, I think all it does is put new members down and make the Warriors feel more self-important. If there's any sort of graduation from apprentice to warrior, it should be a fair, clear-cut requirement as Kitsu suggested, such as one approved charart. (I think back in the day when I was in the project it was completing three, but I think that's a taller order now that there's far fewer cats left undone). Anyways, that's the opinion of an ornery, old-fashioned user like myself. Take it how you will. 03:23, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're right, Kit. I do agree with your idea, and with your proposal of the elder system (I actually brought up the idea of instating an elder system while we discussed making a demotion system).


 * Honestly, the mentor system was brought up as a small patch for this situation we're in, where many apprentices don't seem to be making progress. We can't kick them out of the project, we thought trying to teach them would be the best solution. It's worked a little (as I said, my apprentice has made good progress), but at the same time we can't force apprentices to get a mentor. Being fair is being counter-intuitive in this situation, but there was little else we could do. 03:29, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * A simple workaround would be to put a timer on how long you can be an apprentice without getting art approved. Even if that means making a special approvals board for apprentices only (which would make tracking apprentices qualifying for warrior easier anyways) so they don't have to get stuck in waiting for a regular approvals opening. Frankly, if apprentices can't qualify in a reasonable amount of time, they should have to go and train on their own. Right now PCA has a glory that it shouldn't, and a desirability that it shouldn't. It'll always be the only project with a barrier to entry (digital art skill), but we should keep the entry bar as low as possible, to avoid excluding members and fostering the "ZOMG! MUST HAVE RANK!!" that exists with this project. Eliminating the exclusivity will help the project run smoother, simply by decreasing the "shininess" of membership. Frankly, the project can duff apprentices out. Anyone (even non-members) can contribute art. Only reasonably competent artists should be joining. We shouldn't have to train artists. 03:47, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree. I mean, there's so many limitations and stuff, and some apprenices join for the heck of it, not knowing how to do anything but still being accepted. Also, I think it's a good idea, but changing everything would take some time. Now, I just joined, so don't think I'm trying to be all "leadery", or anything, but I agree.
 * I also think there should be some sort of qualification type thing instead of "Okay you're in" with no requirements. They might have to post an example of their work, but it will be judged on a lower level then, say, "super good." But it will have to be at least aquedate, at least be able to start from somewhere, I wouldn't really accept someone with a lineart with brown scribbles all over it, blue scribbles for eyes and rough triangles for earpinks. That's just my opinion though. :3 04:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * As mush as I may not have to say about this idea, I do support it. I feel it may give some apprentices and maybe even myself what they need, because if they are a good contributer and do a good job at what they should be doing, they shouldn't have to wait until two months or something like that goes by to be...prasied would you say? -- with a promotion. As little as I had to say, as a member of the project and an apprentice myself, I thought i'd throw it out there. . 05:14, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree at all, honestly. There are some apprentices in PCA, who don't even try. If those users become warriors, I can become a senior warrior, but those ranks are earned by trying and being devoted to PCA. 05:30, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should go back to the way it was before we had nominations. If an apprentice had 3-4 images approved, and proved they were able to make solid critiques on images, they were promoted to warrior by a lead. No nomination, no ceremony (idk), or whatever. Sort of a meet-in-the-middle thing if you were. 05:40, December 4, 2011 (UTC)