This rule dates back to long before I joined the forum, and I got in trouble with it on my very first post. When I became a moderator here, I argued for adding the exception that allows for an image when words alone are insufficient.
Even with that exception, this rule is still my least favorite, but I understand the reasons for it. (1) Giving advice is helpful since it provides enough information for people to think it through and experiment on their own. Drawing it for someone can be less helpful since, at that point, they can just copy what they see instead of doing it themselves. (2) Some people might take offense at having their work redrawn for them. (3) Redoing people’s work is sort of like doing free work for people, which could really get out of hand as people began regularly redrawing things as though it were a competition.
Despite these reasons (that predate me being here), it’s still my least favorite rule since there really are times when words are just plain insufficient,
For example, in this column logo, I think it would be helpful to close up the counter on the C a little by extending the vertical strokes downward and upward on the right side to create a smaller gap, which would heighten the similarity of the C to the fluted groves on the column. I’d also round the terminals on all the strokes in the logo to soften them up a bit, which might help slightly in achieving that more feminine appearance the OP wanted. I’d probably also lengthen the column more, while keeping the Ionic capital and base the same, to give it more of a columnar look instead of being so squatty.
The paragraph I just wrote amounts to a mouthful of less-than-understandable babble — especially here in the student section of the forum. I could easily have drawn what I meant but decided against both since my written description was so messy and my visual explanation would have, in essence, required me to break the rules by redrawing too much of the logo.
Yes, I don’t disagree. Another problem with the rule is the ambiguity over what constitutes a “redo” and what constitutes an effort to explain something that can’t easily be explained in words. Perhaps it should say modify instead of redo.
In the most recent iteration of the forum, we simplified and updated what had become a large hodge-podge of forum rules. Many of those rules made more sense 10 or 15 years ago when the forum was much more active and trolling was a big problem. I’m not entirely sure what prompted the original inclusion of this rule in the original forum. Maybe Red Kittie Kat can shed some light on it.
I wouldn’t be opposed to eliminating this rule altogether to see what happened, then writing a new rule, if needed, to address any problems that appeared. I don’t make the rules, though — they’re a group decision.
If this is something you’d like to pursue, feel free to start a separate topic about it.
This rule long preceded myself as well. It was made for a time when there were hundreds of posts per day and a lot of them were in the Crit Pit. I do remember many people being willing to “help” to the point of doing the “thing” for the OP. There was also concerns that a helper would try to claim partial credit of the OPs work. It was too much of a gray area.
That being said, I never questioned the rule because it made perfect sense back 150 years ago
We know all things change over time and we only have a handful of Crit requests compared to the past. So, If you all think it should go or have a better way to word it, I have no problems with that. However, I would like to see smaller, less usable versions as examples. It would still get the point across and prevent misuse.
This should also be in it’s own thread… I think I’ll do that now …
Maybe Kool remembers better than I do but if I remember, it was more about that gray area of partial credit. That’s why when someone asks for ideas, my usual answer is “How much money you got?”
Where a logo is concerned, ownership is essential. Other things, sorta depends on the context.
If it matters, I remember catching straight on to the need for this rule the moment I became aware of it, and IMO, its spirit should remain in some form.
In other words, I wouldn’t want to see a student or new member post a work in progress, only to have someone shoot it down and post their self-proclaimed “better idea”. Now, I have to say I don’t imagine any of the current regulars here really doing such a thing, but there’s nothing stopping someone who would do that from signing up tomorrow.
So I guess I’m saying I’d vote to constrain it to helpful visual support for an otherwise verbal explanation of a suggested improvement. So much like the original language, no redo.
I looked up who owns the copyright on things posted on social media. As I suspected, the person writing the post owns it.
I wonder how big of a problem this is, though. When someone responds to a request for a critique with advice, I think it’s reasonable to assume the advice can be acted upon by the person requesting it.
Whatever the case, this would be a dispute between the people involved, not the forum.
You make a good argument.
To address both your and PrintDriver’s points, how about rephrasing the rule to say…
Do not redo work posted for critique. You may provide sketches to help clarify your written comments but limit those visual examples to the minimum needed to help explain what you write. When giving advice, please remember that you’re also granting permission for that person to use your advice with no strings attached.
I just didn’t think what Joe did was a redo - rather an example of what they would do with the logo already posted. I didn’t feel like Joe broke any rules, as the logo idea was already generated, Joe didn’t post their own idea. Just gave a short description and the altered version.
With logos, money is usually involved. Whenever that commodity is involved, disputes can happen.
I’m not inclined to change it just because a long time forum member 'broke the rule" by accident.
That rewrite works. Sort of. We give advice all the time, no strings attached.
It seems like you have mixed feelings about the rule that prohibits redrawing other people’s work on this forum. On one hand, you understand the reasons behind the rule: it encourages people to think through problems themselves and prevents potential issues like offending the original creator or doing free work for others. On the other hand, you believe that there are times when words are not enough to convey a solution, and visual explanations would be more helpful.