Sorry, we can't accept NC licensed stuff due to it being incompatible with free software.  Would you be willing to remove the NC restriction?

Thanks!

Bart

What's your email address and (intended) username?   I can confirm your account manually.

Bart

Yo. :)

I played for a little while, and at this point my main comment would be that the javelin-throwing goblins are a bit overpowered.  Even at level 3 it was difficult -- I could take them on one at a time, but if I happened to aggro two at once, I was pretty much boned.  I haven't gotten to the zombies yet, but I'm looking forward to it. :)

Wow, lots of good responses here.  Robin asked some good questions, so I'll try and address those first, starting with:

How many editors concern themselves with a single art piece?

Preferably not too many.  As an art submitter, it's important that there be some kind of consensus.  For instance, if I submit a piece of art that's considered WIP, then I'm going to want a firm list of things about it that need to be fixed before it can be considered complete.  If there are too many editors, there will almost certainly be a lot of differing opinions about each art piece, which will make the whole review and improvement process annoyingly cumbersome on both sides.

Here's a thought:  When a piece is submitted, it doesn't get an official rating until three editors have rated it (with required comments if they rate it WIP).  The editor ratings will be blind by default, so as an editor you won't be influenced by the rating another editor gave the work, because you won't be able to see it until all three ratings are in.  Once three editors have rated it, the rating will be assigned based on the editor votes, as follows:

• If two or three editors pick the same rating, the work receives that rating.
• If the three editors pick three different ratings (WIP, Complete, and Polished), the work will be considered Complete.

Once three ratings are in, the submitter will be able to see the editor's ratings and comments.  When they improve their work, the editors will be notified, so they can change their rating based on the improvements.  If the editors don't respond to new changes within a few days, the work will open up to other editors to respond to those changes and alter the rating. 

How many editors would there be? (In absolute numbers or % of the total community.)

At this point, I have no idea.  This is new territory, so the number of editors we have will be based on need.

How are the editors selected? (Hand-picked by bart on basis of merit, elected by the community, chosen amongst the existing editors...)

The first editors will be hand picked.  Beyond that, I'm entertaining a few possibilities, my favorites being:

• Based on the number of completed and polished submissions, a person might automatically gain the editor rank
• Allow users to rate critiques.  If someone posts enough highly-rated critiques, they gain editor status automatically
• By community petition or election

What would the turn-over rate of editors be? (Selected for an x amount of time, appointed for "life"...)

I had assumed it would be a lifetime appointment, although it would have to depend, I think, on them remaining active.  I don't want the editor list to get too bogged down with inactive editors.

Finally, I need to point out the difference between editors and administrators.  Admins will have editor privileges, but as we grow and take on new editors, I'm hoping that the admins will need to do less and less editing.  Ideally, it would be nice if content rating determinations could stay "grassroots" in a sense, wherein people who do the bulk of the editing work got there by community merit and not a personal appointment.  I'd like to avoid ending up with the sort of cliquish management that plagues sites such as Wikipedia, and this means giving the community at large the power to gain trusted user status.

Administrators will, for the record, always be hand picked by me, just for the safety of the site.