Hiveworkshop 作者身份与模型评分标准讨论

Semantics doesn't help. We can't have different opinions on objective reality. As others implied before, it's quite simple, either it's an author or not. We don't define what an author is based on preferences or trends or whatever variable suits.

Since we share the same viewpoint, I'll assume for now that you're simply lacking patience. Now, take a deep breath and let go of your emotions; that's pointless. Let me tell you what Footman16 and I were discussing. What I wanted to say was that when we need to determine whether a sponsor is an author, we need clear, verifiable criteria. So when Footman16 told me they were developing relevant documentation, I considered that we had reached a consensus, and the conversation ended.

Why do I necessarily need a standard that everyone can see? Because everyone has their own standards. Let's add C, a model reviewer. When C rates A or B's work, as long as it's not Useful/Simple, no one can say C is unfair because there's no standardized announcement for ratings like Recommended, High Quality, and Director's Cut. So how can we judge whether C has achieved an objective evaluation? We can't judge. Unless, there's a document, a document that every resource publisher should know, a document that every reviewer knows, containing detailed rating criteria—a standard that everyone knows. So, by simply comparing the standards corresponding to the resources with the final evaluation, we can determine whether C evaluated the model solely based on its quality.

I don't know if you noticed this sentence, but I'm willing to repeat it many times: I'm not wasting anyone's time on a potential issue; I'm seeking a solution to a long-standing problem. I don't believe this viewpoint can be denied, because by simply opening the Director's Cut and High-Quality model sections, you can see many models that shouldn't be there, but because there's no standard for rating, they're all there. Therefore, you can easily find some recommended models that perform better than those in High-Quality, and some High-Quality models that perform better than those in Director's Cut.

Why has this problem existed for so long, but I haven't commented on it before? I reiterate my point: once a model is approved, it's visible. So, although for many years our review process didn't respect the authors' work, and didn't consider a model's unacceptable quality rating a negation of all authors' work, it was still acceptable. But this time is completely different; HIVE is now stripping away the author's identity. Let me remind you how my conversation with Footman16 started. Without my or aiyugalan's knowledge (I've confirmed with Baiyugalan), I couldn't find our collaborative work in Baiyugalan's resources. This behavior is killing a creator; I don't want to discuss which one, because the result is the same for everyone.

Therefore, I acknowledge that HIVE has its own standards for judging creators, and all I need is for those standards to be clearly written down. So I'm happy that Footman16 and the model maker discussed these standards together. Only a creator who has made models, made many models, and made many high-quality models, truly understands the difficulties in model making and what helps in judging the quality of a model's final appearance. Having the idea of doing things well isn't enough; you also need the ability to do things well. That's why HIVE has so many members, but only they participated in the creation of 'Forsaken Kingdom'.