(08-18-2023, 08:49 PM)Scrizz Wrote: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?pid=718841&highlight=Scrizz#pid718841]Graphics[/url
Contested Sigs:
#1
#2
I think that my 1st sig should be upped as 0 logos are showing, I changed the background, and I think the render is well cut out. As for my 2nd sig I feel as that if my plain jersey swaps were 2/8s this sig with text, cutouts, and a somewhat edited background with the same type of swap deserves a grade higher than my swaps which were just swaps. Thanks!

(09-05-2023, 11:33 AM)zeagle1 Wrote:

(08-18-2023, 08:49 PM)Scrizz Wrote: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?pid=718841&highlight=Scrizz#pid718841]Graphics[/url
Contested Sigs:
#1
#2
I think that my 1st sig should be upped as 0 logos are showing, I changed the background, and I think the render is well cut out. As for my 2nd sig I feel as that if my plain jersey swaps were 2/8s this sig with text, cutouts, and a somewhat edited background with the same type of swap deserves a grade higher than my swaps which were just swaps. Thanks!

I tend to agree with the 3/7 grade on your first submission however I am willing to bump your second submission to 3/7 as well.

(09-04-2023, 05:20 PM)Eldorian Wrote: I am asking for arbitration on this submission:

https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=46971&pid=722141#pid722141

The original grade was 3.5/5 for 3M but then was removed because AI generation was used.

I would like to point out 2 things about this though -

1. My submission was on August 10th. The rules posted that took affect for August 7th were posted here - please note there is NOTHING there about using AI:

https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=46907

The rules on the graphic area of the forum were then posted on August 19th with the added note about banning the use of AI

https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47083

I would like to note that the AI rules did not exist on August 10th of my submission and were submitted a full 9 days later.

2. Only the player itself was rendered using AI. Everything else I did to the image was edited by me. In fact, this graphic I did here that was graded 2/5 I did the EXACT SAME WORK to prove a point. The only difference is I took an image I googled on the internet vs. an image I took from AI. On both images I removed the logo from the helmet, added a fading some fading to the image and then added the text and changed the background completely. So I am willing to say that this image I am asking to be arbitrated be graded as a 2/5 worth 800K like my other image I did here:

https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47150&pid=726901#pid726901

I will also argue that process using an AI rendered player took longer to do than just doing a quick "Chris Jones" image search on Google. The player image took me 30 seconds to find what I wanted to use, where as the creating of the AI rendered player took roughly 20 minutes.








I would also ask that the AI rule be re-looked at because while I understand that submitting something to an AI bot like this and submitting it as is would be crazy to expect some kind of payout - using it to create something and then edit it like literally everything else people do here should be allowed in some capacity. It is no different than googling "Chris Jones" on an image search or using some other form of media from the internet to create with. Not only that, but Photoshop has AI generation in it's tool itself now and is being expanded on. It is a tool like everything else.

(09-29-2023, 08:06 PM)electrictree Wrote: Submission Date: 9/9 & 9/14

Submission Link:
1. https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47459
2. https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47361

Contested Sig(s): First, Second, etc.
1. 1-10
2. 1-10

Full disclosure, this was discussed via DMs with both Zeagle and Simo and I was summarily dismissed. I believe this to be both poor judgment and poor leadership which lead to my immediate resignation as gfx grader. I am still invested in the ISFL gfx community such that i can be.

That said, I have thought a lot about it and have come to the conclusion that I believe my argument should be public for visibility and reconsideration.

Before i get to my main points, while important, the following should not be considered as a part of my overall argument.
- I was a part of the gfx grading team, clearing up a literal 3+ week backlog: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=46588 .
- I was the most (or second most) dedicated grader. I no longer have access to the discord channel so i don't remember exactly but it was first or second.
- while respected for his longevity, the grader who graded my submissions graded exactly *0* submissions all season and only *4* this offseason - of which, *3* are now under arbitration for grades outside the norm. I believe its fair to question whether or not said grader has the pulse of gfx ISFL-wide.
- It is also worthwhile to point out both the grader and the head grader are teammates and are listed as serving on the HOF committee together.
- I also don't think he's necessarily wrong in his assessments of my gfx. harsh, no question, but perhaps not wrong. However, as i am about to demonstrate, his grades are inconsistent to previously established standards.

Now, with that out of the way, my argument centres around the following key points:

1. The given 2/5 grade for both my submissions would be the *lowest template grade EVER given on the new scale*. This part of the context is so outrageously incorrect it's not worth going into detail typing up a defense for it.

2. The first set of templates have been graded by TWO separate graders to be 4/5 worthy:
https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47141
https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47253

3. The reason given for not changing my grade to one in line with the established standard was that "the previous grades were incorrect and they are not relevant to this discussion." I was also told that the "standard will be enforced going forward." As of 8/19/2023 the grading rubic has *NOT* been updated in ANY way to reflect a new standard. Or an old standard. Or, really, any *DIFFERENT* standard. I believe this reasoning to be logically inconsistent and arbitrary at best.

My request:
- Initally as a member of the gfx team, i had asked for a 3/5 for both submissions in the name of teamwork and solidarity. After review and based on the above evidence, i believe a grade of 4/5 for all 20 template sigs would be correct. I'd also respectfully request for the grader in question to no longer grade my submissions.

Thank you for the time and consideration.

ET.

(09-30-2023, 10:54 AM)zeagle1 Wrote:

(09-29-2023, 08:06 PM)electrictree Wrote: Submission Date: 9/9 & 9/14

Submission Link:
1. https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47459
2. https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47361

Contested Sig(s): First, Second, etc.
1. 1-10
2. 1-10

Full disclosure, this was discussed via DMs with both Zeagle and Simo and I was summarily dismissed. I believe this to be both poor judgment and poor leadership which lead to my immediate resignation as gfx grader. I am still invested in the ISFL gfx community such that i can be.

That said, I have thought a lot about it and have come to the conclusion that I believe my argument should be public for visibility and reconsideration.

Before i get to my main points, while important, the following should not be considered as a part of my overall argument.
- I was a part of the gfx grading team, clearing up a literal 3+ week backlog: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=46588 .
- I was the most (or second most) dedicated grader. I no longer have access to the discord channel so i don't remember exactly but it was first or second.
- while respected for his longevity, the grader who graded my submissions graded exactly *0* submissions all season and only *4* this offseason - of which, *3* are now under arbitration for grades outside the norm. I believe its fair to question whether or not said grader has the pulse of gfx ISFL-wide.
- It is also worthwhile to point out both the grader and the head grader are teammates and are listed as serving on the HOF committee together.
- I also don't think he's necessarily wrong in his assessments of my gfx. harsh, no question, but perhaps not wrong. However, as i am about to demonstrate, his grades are inconsistent to previously established standards.

Now, with that out of the way, my argument centres around the following key points:

1. The given 2/5 grade for both my submissions would be the *lowest template grade EVER given on the new scale*. This part of the context is so outrageously incorrect it's not worth going into detail typing up a defense for it.

2. The first set of templates have been graded by TWO separate graders to be 4/5 worthy:
https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47141
https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47253

3. The reason given for not changing my grade to one in line with the established standard was that "the previous grades were incorrect and they are not relevant to this discussion." I was also told that the "standard will be enforced going forward." As of 8/19/2023 the grading rubic has *NOT* been updated in ANY way to reflect a new standard. Or an old standard. Or, really, any *DIFFERENT* standard. I believe this reasoning to be logically inconsistent and arbitrary at best.

My request:
- Initally as a member of the gfx team, i had asked for a 3/5 for both submissions in the name of teamwork and solidarity. After review and based on the above evidence, i believe a grade of 4/5 for all 20 template sigs would be correct. I'd also respectfully request for the grader in question to no longer grade my submissions.

Thank you for the time and consideration.

ET.

As discussed over DMs, this appeal is denied. Feel free to reach out to HO about this.

(10-01-2023, 04:05 PM)okestboomer Wrote:

(09-26-2023, 12:05 PM)okestboomer Wrote: Submission Date: 18/9/23

Submission Link: https://forums.sim-football.com/showthread.php?tid=47552

Contested Sig(s): The two videos

On the other times I submit game ball videos, I have recieved either 14 or 15/18. (11/9, 4/9, 28/8, 23/8)
If the rating is true I would really appreciate feedback as to why this one was 6 grades worse then the other videos!

@
Any update on this?