1. Even so, that makes a lot of assumptions about the artist. Who's to say they couldn't improve if they wanted to?
2. Though I guess you are right, the bucket fill that you describe isn't a very good starting point, and they have become somewhat of a menace.
3. I could get behind a pinned topic showing what NOT to do in a resource pack, with bucket fills and default edits being high on the list, but I still am not fond of the idea of a forum rule change or mandatory moderator review. Of course, that would probably not be a very effective deterrent, but at least we'd have something to point to rather than just our personal opinion or experience.
I broke down your post into three points I will reply to:
1. While yes it is physically possible for an artist to improve, if someone did not put any effort in their pack to begin with why would they put even more effort into improving? They already shown they dislike effort, so why would they bother?
This thread is probably the most fun I've seen lately.
I agree, this is the most fun I had outside the PPNS section.
Edit: Would it be possible to throw some bucketfills in as plagarism? All bucketfills are roughly the same, minus a pixel moved around or so. So wouldn't someone uploading a bucketfill be the same as someone copying someone else work with slight modification? Much like that Coracraft scandal we had a week ago. If filtering an resource pack is bad, I am sure that near replicas are even worse. We just need to find someone bucketfill artist who states in his Terms of Use that no one should copy his pack, shouldn't be too hard.
Edit 2: As much as I hate it restricting content, I see it as a necessary evil. Every day I feel these forums take one step nearer to becoming Planet Minecraft. Do we truly want to have over seven thousand (PMC's worst days) bucketfills on these forums just so we can maintain an "post whatever you want we do not discriminate" community. Whether we like it or not, action needs to be taken because doing nothing will not work if this trend (more bucket fills every day) continues.
Now that action does not have to be preapproving topics or a blanket ban, but there does need to be an action lest we do take on the same rep that PMC has/had. We can all agree that our current method of trying to tutor these "artists" is not only not working, but with the continued rise of these packs, failing.
Edit: Would it be possible to throw some bucketfills in as plagarism? All bucketfills are roughly the same, minus a pixel moved around or so. So wouldn't someone uploading a bucketfill be the same as someone copying someone else work with slight modification? Much like that Coracraft scandal we had a week ago. If filtering an resource pack is bad, I am sure that near replicas are even worse. We just need to find someone bucketfill artist who states in his Terms of Use that no one should copy his pack, shouldn't be too hard.
I'm going to comment on this point in particular because I've thought of doing this as well. Here's the problem: It doesn't work for bucket-fills... but does work for simple packs. IE. The exact opposite of what we really want.
The reason it doesn't work on bucket fill packs is because of their inherent nature: as a single color per block. Emphasis on single color. It's impossible to copyright a single color, or restrict it's use through copyright*. The reason for this is obvious: if people started being able to copyright single colors there would quickly come a situation where large portions of the colors that displays can emulate were infringing works by their very nature. While this stops bucket-fill makers from putting a proper copyright on their work (those "Don't steal my pack" warnings you mentioned are meaningless), it also protects them from being called out for ripping someone else off since the entire premise of their pack is the use of un-copyrightable colors.
The second most common offender, the grid pack, also cannot be made to run afoul of this. Why? Because it relies entirely on a basic shape: the square. With no other details, a square is a square and because it's a basic shape also cannot be copyrighted in its own right. Now, squares in a certain arrangement can... but again we're talking about a grid which is itself considered basic geometry. Even if you claimed to copyright the concept of a grid, no court on earth (or at least in America) would back you on that.
Anything more complex than these two things is almost certainly going to be a unique work by some definition, and will be protected as any other unique work... though some come really darn close to ripping off OCD.
This is a really interesting thread. I've already said my peace, and stand by my position, but I do find the debate absolutely fascinating!
*Colors can be trademarked, however that only restricts the use of colors for certain uses. For example the infamous John Deere green cannot be used for marketing or branding... but is still fine to have as a color of crayon provided you don't actually call it "John Deere Green", which is another trademark issue entirely.
I broke down your post into three points I will reply to:
1. While yes it is physically possible for an artist to improve, if someone did not put any effort in their pack to begin with why would they put even more effort into improving? They already shown they dislike effort, so why would they bother?
Everyone has been making this generalization that bucket fill creators put zero effort into their work, and are only doing it for attention or some other reason like that. I still think this is making a lot of assumptions about the artist, and I don't like to jump to conclusions like that. Sure, to us it may not look like there was any effort put into it. But for a 12-13 year old kid for example, there's actually a lot of work involved. They had to learn how to set up a resource pack, and then hand-edit all those textures. The end result may not be fantastic, quite the opposite sometimes. But people always forget that even if it is all flat colors and default edits, some work had to go into it.
Another assumption that people always make about bucket fills is that they are created solely to get attention and praise for the artists. I would argue that no one who desired any kind of positive attention or feedback would knowingly create a bucket fill. No one is going through the forums, finding old bucket fill topics, reading the replies, and thinking, "Wow, people really like this. I bet if I made one, they'd like it just as much." No one thinks that because the reaction to them is always mostly negative. So, it follows that anyone who creates a bucket fill, even if it is just for attention, is doing it because they are new here and didn't know any better. People who are trying to get everyone to like them are not going to go around posting things that everyone on the forum hates with a passion, now are they?
Not sure where you got the impression I was a newb at the art portion when I first came on the forum...
Actually, after thinking about it, I don't know either. Huh.
Sorry about that.
@SamohtJ
Well, I can't argue with that, but the number is small enough that it really wouldn't make a noticeable difference.
Well, I really don't like the idea of outright banning posting a certain genre of packs, largely because there is bound to be collateral damage.* Even with the small number that slips through that barrier, is it really worth it risking them? I'm not saying to not do anything about bucket-fills, because they are getting out of hand, but I don't think a blanket ban is the right thing to do.
*That Papawer pack being a good example. At first glance, it really did look like a bucket fill, you'd have to actually pay some mind to it to realize that it wasn't. That would fall under 'collateral damage.'
I was just on the PPNS section and it hit me that there was a post requirement on there, 25 to be exact. As a last ditch effort for a compromise why not add in a post requirement here. In order to make a thread in this forum, you need to have 25 posts under your belt?
Why this requirement? Most bucket fills are posted by fresh out of the water accounts, if you add a post limit they can stalk the community first to gauge what is acceptable and what isn't.
I was just on the PPNS section and it hit me that there was a post requirement on there, 25 to be exact. As a last ditch effort for a compromise why not add in a post requirement here. In order to make a thread in this forum, you need to have 25 posts under your belt?
Why this requirement? Most bucket fills are posted by fresh out of the water accounts, if you add a post limit they can stalk the community first to gauge what is acceptable and what isn't.
The only problem with that is it encourages people to spam other parts of the forum with tweet posts just to get that magic number. I'd prefer a time based restriction over a post count. (Your account has to be a week old for example.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
The only problem with that is it encourages people to spam other parts of the forum with tweet posts just to get that magic number. I'd prefer a time based restriction over a post count. (Your account has to be a week old for example.)
I do not know about that, PPNS is rather tame and to my knowledge no one has ever spammed these forums to get in. Then again we do not have a line of people wanting in. Time restriction is better though, you are right.
Perhaps the lock only extends to making new threads also this we can still have people comment on their favourite resource packs and ask questions on the resource pack tutorials. The goal is to only limit the bucketfills after all, not the community.
I just think that I should state my opinion, (I'm sure that some of this has been said before)
We shouldn't limit peoples creations, although I dislike bucketfills, it is necessary for the continued growth of the texturing community. Bucketfills are often a way to get into digital art for younger people (or older) so instead of just removing their packs we could instead give them constructive criticism, if we act hateful and such they might turn their back on digital art and texturing.
So in my opinion we shouldn't ban bucketfills, we can just hope that they become less frequent.
I just think that I should state my opinion, (I'm sure that some of this has been said before)
We shouldn't limit peoples creations, although I dislike bucketfills, it is necessary for the continued growth of the texturing community. Bucketfills are often a way to get into digital art for younger people (or older) so instead of just removing their packs we could instead give them constructive criticism, if we act hateful and such they might turn their back on digital art and texturing.
So in my opinion we shouldn't ban bucketfills, we can just hope that they become less frequent.
Bucket fills are useful yes in introducing one to resource pack making much in the way finger painting is useful in introducing someone to painting, yet you do not see any finger paintings in a museum (and no, "modern art galleries" do not count). The same thing applies, let the masses make all the bucket fills they please, just do not let them go releasing it as a finished pack when they haven't even created anything even remotely resembling tolerable. Maybe as "where do I go from here" or "how do I start shading" thread (anyone remember my first attempt at making a dirt texture, if not: good!), but to release them as a finished pack expecting us to, as Taiine put elequently, "worship the flat colored ground they walk on" then I have a problem.
There is no reason to release a bucketfill pack. Post a bucket fill texture or two for advice yes, but not as a finished pack.
Hence why I am supporting either:
-A flat (no pun intended) ban (extreme option so consider it my last choice)
-A post/time restriction (this way the newbies can get the feel of the community)
Ignoring the problem and letting it foster will not do the community any good in the long run. More of these packs will come, which will in turn shoo away people who want a quality resource pack (I already avoid PMC like the plague, although it has gotten slightly better).
I don't really see an issue with a time based topic-creation limit. Though, I generally stalk a forums to see what is acceptable regardless of any rules, so perhaps I'm not the best judge on that. This likely does have a good chance to push people away, but it's certainly nowhere near as drastic as a ban, decided by a mods fleeting wish at the point of judgement, or an approval process, which makes us look a bit elitist...
I don't really see an issue with a time based topic-creation limit. Though, I generally stalk a forums to see what is acceptable regardless of any rules, so perhaps I'm not the best judge on that. This likely does have a good chance to push people away, but it's certainly nowhere near as drastic as a ban, decided by a mods fleeting wish at the point of judgement, or an approval process, which makes us look a bit elitist...
Might make a seperate thread in a week or so with a well detailed suggestion of a time limit, along with the pros and cons.
This is probably THE most heated debate on the Minecraft Forums - I love it!!! Also I don't think Bucket-Fills should be banned because some people - me - sometimes like these packs! I think it would be a good idea to have a sub-forum for Simple or the less revered Bucket-Fill packs. If people don't like these packs just don't click on it's thread - it's that simple. Since they ARE spam if you see a bucket-fill just say the the creator to not make these kind of packs or put it in the hopefully added sub-forum for simplistic packs. Peace out!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 37: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. This is a Social experiment.
It's been said before in this thread, but my 2 cents:
Yeah, i don't like bucket-fill (or default-edit, or lazy "realism" etc.)
But having moderators judge quality is a lot of responsibility, a lot of work, and a lot of chance for things to go wrong.
But the main thing is that bucket fills would quickly sink down into the forums except for the fact that grouchy people usually leave a bunch of comments complaining about that pack. It doesn't help the artist and it keep the thread on the top for a while.
It's been said before in this thread, but my 2 cents:
Yeah, i don't like bucket-fill (or default-edit, or lazy "realism" etc.)
But having moderators judge quality is a lot of responsibility, a lot of work, and a lot of chance for things to go wrong.
But the main thing is that bucket fills would quickly sink down into the forums except for the fact that grouchy people usually leave a bunch of comments complaining about that pack. It doesn't help the artist and it keep the thread on the top for a while.
I see many people say that, it puts it into "moderators hands" so they could make the wrong choice.
In my 1st post on this thread, I stated that they shouldn't be banned, but put somewhere as a "staging area" and then get moved into the main texture section (so you can't directly post there) if they meet originality requirements and the rules. The WIP section could be this area.
I know people don't like this idea, but it's the only fair one. With this, bucketfill packs still are allowed on the forums, and moderators can't "snuff out" packs that are a little under-detailed, the best they can do is leave it alone. This means that with such a diverse team of moderators, if one sees it and decides it shouldn't be moved, another may also see it later and decide that it's not a bucketfill (or has improved beyond that) and should be moved. So if it is original enough, chances are a moderator would move it.
My post here explains my stance on this more, such as most bucketfill people won't improve. To add on that, which relates to the "this site isn't made for content" thing, I'll say that posting in a main content section is a privilege, not a right.
If you have a "true" bucketfill pack, you've not made something original, you've just made default worse. When compared to other resource packs that are fully original content, it's clear that they shouldn't be in the same place. Bucketfills ARE default edits, are just like filtering, and shouldn't be in the main content section.
As you said, bucketfill packs usually only get to the top of the board because of arguments or suggestions. This shouldn't happen in the main section, as the main section should be for at least semi-complete work that people find worthy to use, and that the creator knows how to improve, and will do it. The main content section should not be a place where you need to tell the creator what shading is, or that their idea of a pack is in bad taste and most people don't like it.
Part of this goes back to originality and design. Look at something like oCd, people actually use that. Yes, it's flat, but it has original designs. Not only that, it has a limited amount of shading (like the ores, dropper, dispenser). The point is that mostly flat packs that have original designs have more appeal than full bucketfill packs. And I honestly do think that original "flatpacks" are extremely more likely to listen to feedback and try to improve.
As said on my previous post, I think there is a clear mindset difference between someone who makes something that is bad and original compared to someone that just makes something else worse. Imagine if someone took something like Dokucraft or Glimmar's Steampunk and just reduced the detail (in a horrid way), is that the sort of mindset we should allow? I don't think being the vanilla resource pack helps here, it is still just modifying someone else's work.
Any sort of "filter rather than ban" approach allows people to improve, and make something worthy of being moved. Just because you make something, doesn't mean people will like it and that it deserves to be in the same place as everything else. Being in the WIP section would signify that things need to improve, that just because they exist doesn't make them something that people will want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Personally I don't agree with banning bucket fill texture packs, my main reason is that it puts some person, or people in charge of deciding what art is. There are many examples of pieces of art in the real world which you could classify as bucket filled. For example take a look at this piece of modern art. http://images.artnet...d09-26-06-2.jpg
It's literally just a giant canvas painted one shade of red with one small blue stripe at the edge. To be honest I see no difference between this, and and a bucket fill pack, but pieces of modern art such as this are well respected and sometimes sell for a lot of money. Don't get me wrong, I frankly consider the piece of modern art I mentioned to be completely ridiculous, however I don't think I, or anyone else has the right to decide what art is and isn't. If the creator of that "artwork" wishes to show it off in public for all to see, then that's his business. The same goes for the artist of a bucket fill pack.
That isn't art. Simple as that. If a 5 year old can make it, it isn't art. Nothing anyone says can qualify that as art in any way, shape, or form. "Modern art" is an umbrella categorization people use in order to call this kind of crap, art.*
If a 5 year old can make it, it ain't art.
* Not trying to degrade all things labeled as "modern art", as there are plenty of great examples like architecture, which take a great deal of skill to create.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
We should have a bucket-fill challenge to see who can make the best bucket-fill pack. It might be interesting based on really good color schemes.
Especially now that we can actually override some of the hard coded colors. Don't have to worry that the birch trees will clash with the rest of the palette.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
Althrough I do get your point, my 8-year-old little brother, who had never done textures before and also didn't know what is a "good" pack, made a bow texture that I was seriously amazed by. Yet still, some people who are much older (about 99% of posters), and they still make bucketfills and default edits. Duh.
If a typical child of 2014 and of 5 years in age can make it, it isn't art.*
*Generally speaking. With special exceptions to the freaks of nature who actually know what they are doing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
I broke down your post into three points I will reply to:
1. While yes it is physically possible for an artist to improve, if someone did not put any effort in their pack to begin with why would they put even more effort into improving? They already shown they dislike effort, so why would they bother?
2. No comment as I already agree with this
3. We already have a thread like that so far it hasn't done much good.
I agree, this is the most fun I had outside the PPNS section.
Edit: Would it be possible to throw some bucketfills in as plagarism? All bucketfills are roughly the same, minus a pixel moved around or so. So wouldn't someone uploading a bucketfill be the same as someone copying someone else work with slight modification? Much like that Coracraft scandal we had a week ago. If filtering an resource pack is bad, I am sure that near replicas are even worse. We just need to find someone bucketfill artist who states in his Terms of Use that no one should copy his pack, shouldn't be too hard.
Edit 2: As much as I hate it restricting content, I see it as a necessary evil. Every day I feel these forums take one step nearer to becoming Planet Minecraft. Do we truly want to have over seven thousand (PMC's worst days) bucketfills on these forums just so we can maintain an "post whatever you want we do not discriminate" community. Whether we like it or not, action needs to be taken because doing nothing will not work if this trend (more bucket fills every day) continues.
Now that action does not have to be preapproving topics or a blanket ban, but there does need to be an action lest we do take on the same rep that PMC has/had. We can all agree that our current method of trying to tutor these "artists" is not only not working, but with the continued rise of these packs, failing.
The reason it doesn't work on bucket fill packs is because of their inherent nature: as a single color per block. Emphasis on single color. It's impossible to copyright a single color, or restrict it's use through copyright*. The reason for this is obvious: if people started being able to copyright single colors there would quickly come a situation where large portions of the colors that displays can emulate were infringing works by their very nature. While this stops bucket-fill makers from putting a proper copyright on their work (those "Don't steal my pack" warnings you mentioned are meaningless), it also protects them from being called out for ripping someone else off since the entire premise of their pack is the use of un-copyrightable colors.
The second most common offender, the grid pack, also cannot be made to run afoul of this. Why? Because it relies entirely on a basic shape: the square. With no other details, a square is a square and because it's a basic shape also cannot be copyrighted in its own right. Now, squares in a certain arrangement can... but again we're talking about a grid which is itself considered basic geometry. Even if you claimed to copyright the concept of a grid, no court on earth (or at least in America) would back you on that.
Anything more complex than these two things is almost certainly going to be a unique work by some definition, and will be protected as any other unique work... though some come really darn close to ripping off OCD.
This is a really interesting thread. I've already said my peace, and stand by my position, but I do find the debate absolutely fascinating!
*Colors can be trademarked, however that only restricts the use of colors for certain uses. For example the infamous John Deere green cannot be used for marketing or branding... but is still fine to have as a color of crayon provided you don't actually call it "John Deere Green", which is another trademark issue entirely.
Everyone has been making this generalization that bucket fill creators put zero effort into their work, and are only doing it for attention or some other reason like that. I still think this is making a lot of assumptions about the artist, and I don't like to jump to conclusions like that. Sure, to us it may not look like there was any effort put into it. But for a 12-13 year old kid for example, there's actually a lot of work involved. They had to learn how to set up a resource pack, and then hand-edit all those textures. The end result may not be fantastic, quite the opposite sometimes. But people always forget that even if it is all flat colors and default edits, some work had to go into it.
Another assumption that people always make about bucket fills is that they are created solely to get attention and praise for the artists. I would argue that no one who desired any kind of positive attention or feedback would knowingly create a bucket fill. No one is going through the forums, finding old bucket fill topics, reading the replies, and thinking, "Wow, people really like this. I bet if I made one, they'd like it just as much." No one thinks that because the reaction to them is always mostly negative. So, it follows that anyone who creates a bucket fill, even if it is just for attention, is doing it because they are new here and didn't know any better. People who are trying to get everyone to like them are not going to go around posting things that everyone on the forum hates with a passion, now are they?
Actually, after thinking about it, I don't know either. Huh.
Sorry about that.
@SamohtJ
Well, I can't argue with that, but the number is small enough that it really wouldn't make a noticeable difference.
Well, I really don't like the idea of outright banning posting a certain genre of packs, largely because there is bound to be collateral damage.* Even with the small number that slips through that barrier, is it really worth it risking them? I'm not saying to not do anything about bucket-fills, because they are getting out of hand, but I don't think a blanket ban is the right thing to do.
*That Papawer pack being a good example. At first glance, it really did look like a bucket fill, you'd have to actually pay some mind to it to realize that it wasn't. That would fall under 'collateral damage.'
Why this requirement? Most bucket fills are posted by fresh out of the water accounts, if you add a post limit they can stalk the community first to gauge what is acceptable and what isn't.
Politics Philosophy News and Society (now science)
It is a sub-section of off-topic.
I do not know about that, PPNS is rather tame and to my knowledge no one has ever spammed these forums to get in. Then again we do not have a line of people wanting in. Time restriction is better though, you are right.
Perhaps the lock only extends to making new threads also this we can still have people comment on their favourite resource packs and ask questions on the resource pack tutorials. The goal is to only limit the bucketfills after all, not the community.
We shouldn't limit peoples creations, although I dislike bucketfills, it is necessary for the continued growth of the texturing community. Bucketfills are often a way to get into digital art for younger people (or older) so instead of just removing their packs we could instead give them constructive criticism, if we act hateful and such they might turn their back on digital art and texturing.
So in my opinion we shouldn't ban bucketfills, we can just hope that they become less frequent.
Bucket fills are useful yes in introducing one to resource pack making much in the way finger painting is useful in introducing someone to painting, yet you do not see any finger paintings in a museum (and no, "modern art galleries" do not count). The same thing applies, let the masses make all the bucket fills they please, just do not let them go releasing it as a finished pack when they haven't even created anything even remotely resembling tolerable. Maybe as "where do I go from here" or "how do I start shading" thread (anyone remember my first attempt at making a dirt texture, if not: good!), but to release them as a finished pack expecting us to, as Taiine put elequently, "worship the flat colored ground they walk on" then I have a problem.
There is no reason to release a bucketfill pack. Post a bucket fill texture or two for advice yes, but not as a finished pack.
Hence why I am supporting either:
-A flat (no pun intended) ban (extreme option so consider it my last choice)
-A post/time restriction (this way the newbies can get the feel of the community)
Ignoring the problem and letting it foster will not do the community any good in the long run. More of these packs will come, which will in turn shoo away people who want a quality resource pack (I already avoid PMC like the plague, although it has gotten slightly better).
Might make a seperate thread in a week or so with a well detailed suggestion of a time limit, along with the pros and cons.
Yeah, i don't like bucket-fill (or default-edit, or lazy "realism" etc.)
But having moderators judge quality is a lot of responsibility, a lot of work, and a lot of chance for things to go wrong.
But the main thing is that bucket fills would quickly sink down into the forums except for the fact that grouchy people usually leave a bunch of comments complaining about that pack. It doesn't help the artist and it keep the thread on the top for a while.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
I see many people say that, it puts it into "moderators hands" so they could make the wrong choice.
In my 1st post on this thread, I stated that they shouldn't be banned, but put somewhere as a "staging area" and then get moved into the main texture section (so you can't directly post there) if they meet originality requirements and the rules. The WIP section could be this area.
I know people don't like this idea, but it's the only fair one. With this, bucketfill packs still are allowed on the forums, and moderators can't "snuff out" packs that are a little under-detailed, the best they can do is leave it alone. This means that with such a diverse team of moderators, if one sees it and decides it shouldn't be moved, another may also see it later and decide that it's not a bucketfill (or has improved beyond that) and should be moved. So if it is original enough, chances are a moderator would move it.
My post here explains my stance on this more, such as most bucketfill people won't improve. To add on that, which relates to the "this site isn't made for content" thing, I'll say that posting in a main content section is a privilege, not a right.
If you have a "true" bucketfill pack, you've not made something original, you've just made default worse. When compared to other resource packs that are fully original content, it's clear that they shouldn't be in the same place. Bucketfills ARE default edits, are just like filtering, and shouldn't be in the main content section.
As you said, bucketfill packs usually only get to the top of the board because of arguments or suggestions. This shouldn't happen in the main section, as the main section should be for at least semi-complete work that people find worthy to use, and that the creator knows how to improve, and will do it. The main content section should not be a place where you need to tell the creator what shading is, or that their idea of a pack is in bad taste and most people don't like it.
Part of this goes back to originality and design. Look at something like oCd, people actually use that. Yes, it's flat, but it has original designs. Not only that, it has a limited amount of shading (like the ores, dropper, dispenser). The point is that mostly flat packs that have original designs have more appeal than full bucketfill packs. And I honestly do think that original "flatpacks" are extremely more likely to listen to feedback and try to improve.
As said on my previous post, I think there is a clear mindset difference between someone who makes something that is bad and original compared to someone that just makes something else worse. Imagine if someone took something like Dokucraft or Glimmar's Steampunk and just reduced the detail (in a horrid way), is that the sort of mindset we should allow? I don't think being the vanilla resource pack helps here, it is still just modifying someone else's work.
Any sort of "filter rather than ban" approach allows people to improve, and make something worthy of being moved. Just because you make something, doesn't mean people will like it and that it deserves to be in the same place as everything else. Being in the WIP section would signify that things need to improve, that just because they exist doesn't make them something that people will want.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
That isn't art. Simple as that. If a 5 year old can make it, it isn't art. Nothing anyone says can qualify that as art in any way, shape, or form. "Modern art" is an umbrella categorization people use in order to call this kind of crap, art.*
If a 5 year old can make it, it ain't art.
* Not trying to degrade all things labeled as "modern art", as there are plenty of great examples like architecture, which take a great deal of skill to create.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
A whole thread of dozens of bucket fills?
Although I am intrigued to see if anyone could make a good bucket fill.
If a typical child of 2014 and of 5 years in age can make it, it isn't art.*
*Generally speaking. With special exceptions to the freaks of nature who actually know what they are doing.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4