Well, as an editor I consider it my task to guard the quality of this website. I don't comment because I am bored and looking for a pass time; I comment for a purpose. Whenever I see something that could be improved with reasonable effort, I point it out so that the opportunity to fix it would not be missed. Praise serves no purpose; it would just leave things as they are, which is the same as what would happen without it.
I am sorry if that conflicts with your intentions, which seems to be to present things as quickly as possible in a sub-optimal form. Which in practice of course is not quickly at all, but just delays publishing, possibly indefinitely. I hope that you realize that every action you have taken so for in this matter is aimed at delaying publication. Flaws in a submission don't go away by arguing about them, so all time you spend on arguing just adds to the time it needs to get published. Especially when the arguing consist exclusively out of bullshit arguments.
Normal, and thus expected behavior is that authors care about their publication, and do everything in their power to make it flawless and of high quality. So if small flaws and imperfections are pointed out to them, they typically have those fixed the next day. It doesn't matter much who pointed out the imperfections; a typo remains a typo whether an editor, an ordinary member or a gueat points it out, and editors are unlikely to repeat a remark about an obvious flaw. So ignoring criticism in the hope the editor will let you get away with it usually just leads to a deadlock where author and editor are waiting for each other.
That goal posts can move is known as 'progress'. Obviously we cannot require use of PNG or SVG graphics when these do not exist yet. Requiring people to create their own SVGs, even though possible, might no longer be 'reasonable effort' when the same glyph is available as GIF. But at some point in time better quality images were created, and made available at this site. There was a time when we accepted even diagrams in ascii art.
I wouldn't consider it an unreasonable request that you improve your diagrams in all your submissions by using the Auto Alfaerie PNG set; most people would be glad that they now have the opportunity to present their variants in a more glamorous way, and it would only take 15 x 1 min or so. About 100 times less than the time you have already spent on arguing.
A more serious problem might be the 'serial-publication issue', though. I don't know if we have an official policy for that, but I have seen several times that editors rejected submissions because these were only marginally different from already published variants, with the remark: just add this tiny rule variation in the Notes section. I am pretty sure that when I submitted a page for describing Wildebeest Chess with the only change that stalemate was a draw, it would be rejeced on those grounds. And some of your new submissions are awfully similar.
So how about working on trying to achieve publication for a change, instead of going to extreme lengths in order to delay it further? E.g. how do you feel about merging the submissions for Janus Spiel and Centaur Spiel into that of Accelerated Courier Spiel, and letting Aurelian create an Interactive Diagram (using Alfaerie PNG, of course) that can be switched between the three of those through buttons, to be used as main diagram?
Well, as an editor I consider it my task to guard the quality of this website. I don't comment because I am bored and looking for a pass time; I comment for a purpose. Whenever I see something that could be improved with reasonable effort, I point it out so that the opportunity to fix it would not be missed. Praise serves no purpose; it would just leave things as they are, which is the same as what would happen without it.
I am sorry if that conflicts with your intentions, which seems to be to present things as quickly as possible in a sub-optimal form. Which in practice of course is not quickly at all, but just delays publishing, possibly indefinitely. I hope that you realize that every action you have taken so for in this matter is aimed at delaying publication. Flaws in a submission don't go away by arguing about them, so all time you spend on arguing just adds to the time it needs to get published. Especially when the arguing consist exclusively out of bullshit arguments.
Normal, and thus expected behavior is that authors care about their publication, and do everything in their power to make it flawless and of high quality. So if small flaws and imperfections are pointed out to them, they typically have those fixed the next day. It doesn't matter much who pointed out the imperfections; a typo remains a typo whether an editor, an ordinary member or a gueat points it out, and editors are unlikely to repeat a remark about an obvious flaw. So ignoring criticism in the hope the editor will let you get away with it usually just leads to a deadlock where author and editor are waiting for each other.
That goal posts can move is known as 'progress'. Obviously we cannot require use of PNG or SVG graphics when these do not exist yet. Requiring people to create their own SVGs, even though possible, might no longer be 'reasonable effort' when the same glyph is available as GIF. But at some point in time better quality images were created, and made available at this site. There was a time when we accepted even diagrams in ascii art.
I wouldn't consider it an unreasonable request that you improve your diagrams in all your submissions by using the Auto Alfaerie PNG set; most people would be glad that they now have the opportunity to present their variants in a more glamorous way, and it would only take 15 x 1 min or so. About 100 times less than the time you have already spent on arguing.
A more serious problem might be the 'serial-publication issue', though. I don't know if we have an official policy for that, but I have seen several times that editors rejected submissions because these were only marginally different from already published variants, with the remark: just add this tiny rule variation in the Notes section. I am pretty sure that when I submitted a page for describing Wildebeest Chess with the only change that stalemate was a draw, it would be rejeced on those grounds. And some of your new submissions are awfully similar.
So how about working on trying to achieve publication for a change, instead of going to extreme lengths in order to delay it further? E.g. how do you feel about merging the submissions for Janus Spiel and Centaur Spiel into that of Accelerated Courier Spiel, and letting Aurelian create an Interactive Diagram (using Alfaerie PNG, of course) that can be switched between the three of those through buttons, to be used as main diagram?