Recently we changed the map showcase submission process to: at the end of every month we would put that month's 'Map Showcase Submissions' into a vote, the top 50% of those maps would then make it into final inspection by the staff, maps that pass final inspection go into the showcase. This method was manifested with the intentions of 1) Making the process more well known and obvious. 2) Better determining the quality of maps needed to get into the showcase. 3) Making the process easier for admins (because evidently - 2 year hiatus - we are lazy). We, from admin perspectives, agreed this was a decent solution. However, upon hearing public opinion, we now think this is a potentially bad way of getting maps into the showcase; this sort of system creates arbitrary decisions of when maps are 'not good enough'. For instance say there were two fantastic maps submitted in one month's vote. In the current system we’d only allow one to make it through to final inspection. How excited do you think the author of the map who didn't pass would be to resubmit his map? How unfair is this system!? Anyway, we think we should change the process again, and we think asking the public for help would be good since you guys have convinced us it was a bad decision before it went into full effect (August 1st). For the record, we think having a vote is important because the public is pretty good at determining what's good or not, more so than just admin decisions it seems. We also think that the submission thread was a good change since it's in the place people look to get their map showcased (the map showcase), and it keeps things organised. We think that the 50% overall cutoff rate is harsh, it should probably be decided for each map somehow, or be less intense. So what do you guys think of this process? What would you change? What do you think would be fair for all maps submitted? And could you fit our aforementioned intentions into the end result? These public discussions of topics relating to the community will probably make more appearances in the future. We would like to include all of your perspectives into the decisions that shape this community, since you guys are, again, good at pointing out our bad decisions (that’s a good thing).