I don't really feel that text requires the image restrictions. I'm thinking that there
may need to be something that would give a type of bonus simply in realism - that the CaC team will need to determine.
I personally find two main problems with card generators. Firstly, not only is it a shame in the art department, but it is a rip off to the other fakers that put hours into their work. I do not want to see some people enter a generated card that took minutes to make, while would take any true faker much more time than that. Personally I like the reward of working hard on an image card. Secondly, it showcases texts in the most
horrible way possible. Take Luis' winning entry. Bar the most important problem of [presumably] no AT generators, that text was creative and was worth enough to win. I liked it. However,
as soon as I see the exact spoiler on a fake card, I
immediately write the card off (through simply noticing the cheap fake) as something unworthy of wasting my time. Also, card generators are discouraged on PokéBeach forums so - uh - no point encouraging them through the CaC.
Fake cards rarely if ever look like a realistic and believable card (and obviously there is not attempt), so I don't really think it is worth keeping them. Besides, I know that I wouldn't want to judge a generated card (judging takes time and I wish not to waste time on such cards).
And, correct, you have until August the 6th! Plenty of time ^_^
I feel
exactly the same way you do; as I mentioned, generated cards are dreadful. They're ugly, completely disproportioned, use the wrong fonts often, and they're without a doubt less deserving of praise than cards from those who have their talent and methods to show their ideas, in addition of merely having the ideas in the first place (of which you have a lot here, and they
do win all the time).
But I also feel the same way towards just spoilers, lately; I
completely understand that some people like thinking the ideas of a card, and they may not want to dwell into the myriad problems related to image faking, but there's always the option to find a partner to handle that part, or do it yourself on a very basic level (after which you'll learn with the judging), and the site itself encourages people to try image faking for themselves by offering the blanks, resources and advice, does it not?
In addition to that, you said it, there's art, and a reward in the work, which is to have the product of your idea so the world can see it; if I have to make a design, I don't do scribbles and show it on the special "scribbles" category to get my "scribbles" grade; I do scribbles, refine them, pass them on to their final medium, and
then present it; spoilers are just the scribbles of a card, which shows the essential on a purely utilitarian view; it's great for some things like brainstorming, programming or translation, but shouldn't "create-a-card" involve, you know, actual
cards? even ones as horrible as generated cards?
My point was, I guess, not so much "please allow generators", but "if you allow spoilers, which take less time and effort to make than generators (not the thought behind them, but on how to showcase it) and don't even produce an image... why ban one but give the other its entire section of the contest?" the generators, awful as they are, at least have the same restrictions found on real cards and decent image fakes, restrictions spoilers do not have; no, of course they're not tricking anyone for believability, and as you said, there's no attempt; it's just a cheap and crappy way to present your ideas.
So, why would a spoiler be worth your time, while a generated card wouldn't be? what is the difference, as long as both cards are equally well thought out? I could enter the previous month's text winners on a generator; would you consider them any less good than they were when you judged them last month, just for the crappy presentation?
Thank you for your feedback, professorlight. I do think you have some good points, and I'm glad you've shared them with us. I don't foresee us ever allowing generated cards, though. Although it's only become an "issue" this past month, generated cards have never been allowed in CAC contests for longer than I've been involved in them. In regards to why we don't allow it, aside from the reasons that have already been stated, you hit the nail on the head pretty well yourself:
If something is awful, why should we allow it?
A generated card is really nothing more than a text entry slapped onto an background with an ugly font. As such, those entries correctly belong as text cards, not just dumping that text into a generator program because the text-based sign-ups are full and therefore automatically failing all of those categories that involve the image part of image-based faking. I do not actually know if this is currently taken into consideration or not, but perhaps it should be if it isn't. That's more for the judges to decide than me.
You are perfectly correct that image-based contestants have a lot of extra pressure and rubrics and, well,
work to do over the text-based contestants. That always makes it more rewarding, to me anyway. I love making my own art for cards, and I can't wait until I'm good and comfortable enough to start customizing blanks and getting more into that side of things. Image-based cards are really a completely different beast than text-based cards. While I'm grateful that we offer a text-based option for those who like making up card effects but don't have the skills/talents/software/time to make full image cards, I'll admit on a personal level that image cards are the only "real" fake cards in my mind, specifically because of the extra work that goes into them to make them completely.
In regards to your suggestions about having a category or set of points given out just for custom blanks and artwork, that's basically the entire purpose of the new "Aesthetics" section in the image-based judging. Entrants who make their own blanks and/or artwork are almost guaranteed full marks in that category.
As far as the judging difference between the spoiler-related aspects of image-based and text-based cards, I'd always assumed that it was due to text-based spoilers being judged a bit more harshly than image-based ones. The judges also work
very, very, very hard doing what they do already, and effectively doubling their work load by having them both judge all the entries would, well, likely make CAC an every other month activity instead of every month.
I hope this has helped to assuage some of your concerns. We do certainly welcome (even encourage) feedback to make sure the CAC contest is run as effectively as it can be, and it is to this end that we have been tweaking and changing things over the last few months. I hope I don't come across as dismissive regarding your thoughts about the generated cards, but I do honestly feel that's more of an issue with how text-based are (and should be) judged rather than an argument for allowing generated cards in image-based, and hopefully that's something that can be addressed.
Well, yes, they
are awful, but what makes generated cards different from spoilers? if anything, they take a minute more of work, since you need to work on your spoiler and then pass it over to the generator, to get a mockery of a card.
And see? you also share the opinion that the actual cards of the contest are the image cards; why not encourage more the text fakers to start in any way to make image cards? some may like it enough, because of the measly reward, to take up image faking as it
should be. After all, most people can see how horrid generated cards are, and want to do better.
I'm ignorant about it. but I'm not really sure how you judge differently two cards; if anything, I'd say that without space restrictions, text entries can afford to include multiple clauses and effects that image entries just cannot do (so they either fail the wording and explanation text, or do anything else, less creative), so I feel text gives more wiggle room than image for wording, believability and creativity. I don't have a doubt the judges work hard on it, I was just wondering if they could perhaps join the two contests (allowing generators instead of spoilers, if you want people who can't make them themselves to join), and split the work half-and-half, so they're more relieved, and just discuss when they have opposing opinions.
After all, aren't the ideas behind the card what is judged, regardless of if it's in spoilers, a crappy generated card, or a beautiful new blank with a gorgeous drawing? BBninjas could easily judge the ideas behind any image fake, even if he won't judge the image itself; so could heavenly spoon, or CMP, or reggie.
Anyway; I don't mean to insult text fakers at all with this, they have great ideas that would only be better on an image card. If what counts for the contest is the idea behind the card, like in spoilers, why have the image contest? and similarly, if what matters is
both the idea and its execution like in image, why allow spoilers as a separate category instead of encouraging all the participants to turn them into an image card, even if through a generator?
And, just in case I need to clarify, which I probably need to: I'm not arguing for allowing generators here, but for making the contest about image cards; I'm perfectly fine with banning generators (my eyes are very thankful that before this contest we didn't see many of those cards); I was just using them as the example of how text entries can be easily, effortlessly (and crappily) brought to the same playing field than image entries are, allowing you to merge the two contests.
