I was enjoying Kovaze

brookie 2 hours ago98 views

until last night. Now, I don't really have a desire to continue to play much. I was already have a really anxious day yesterday IRL, but the ONE thing I was looking forward to (makeup designs) was suddenly and abruptly ruined. And I just cant help but think there was just other motives behind it. Who gets to "decide" on design rules? Clearly, this was not Sin 's decision and the "design mod" stated it was "discussed between other mods".... well WHO? Who got to decide on this new and sudden rule? Was it someone who also creates designs? Was it someone who also participates in the shop game? I guess we will never know. However, seems like a huge conflict of interest to me. "Rules and restrictions" should be consistent. There is no consistency, especially within the design rules. And at the end of the day- why is the hill someone wants to die on about makeup that makes the atrocious base skin look 500% better? Kinda weird. I guess we would rather see the same 20 designs in shops week after week, because that is what it has turned in to. We won't even get into how allowing 40 one-stock items has also caused a HUGE issue with shops ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Looking over the designs and shops today, we see full outfits classified as "accessories", interesting. We see a "clothing" design that encompasses clothes, shoes, and 5 accessories all bundled into 1 (which apparently is not against the rules, maybe because it benefits certain people?). Consistency. Either allow designs to "overflow" into 2 categories: EX clothes+accessory, clothes+shoes, shoes+accessory, eyes+lips, glasses+lips, etc..... OR no overlap at all. Consistency. I had high hopes for Kovaze, but time and time again feedback and suggestions from myself and many others goes unacknowledged. After awhile, it becomes apparent that there is only a few who really "matter", and those few almost always have ulterior motives. I am seeing no difference in moderation here that I saw on Tengaged since 2010. Users that actively use a website and its features, should not moderate their peers.

24 votes, 210 points

Comments

Amandasings04Just Now

While I don’t have a strong opinion on designs I don’t like how rules get made & it doesn’t feel like feedback is rly taken into account

owlsand50 minutes ago

Hugs

Nexa55 minutes ago

It's imperative we have full face masks to allow expressions which cannot be achieved unless you can view the entire look with eyes & lips. How do users purchase different items without the option to be able to see how it will all come together? We need this update to the design segment of the site.

Morgan1 hour ago

Team you! The rules are stupid!

PenguinOwen1261 hour ago

i dont know how shop games work or any rules for shops but i am tired of seeing the same stuff in shops all the time so team you!

MOD_RavenMod1 hour ago

To be clear, this was a discussion even before you had even uploaded your designs. It was first brought up when there was a clown mask made by doom, and an anon mask made by gagaluv. The reason i made my blog was because we realized that people could bypass the current rule by making masks. I understand your frustration, and your designs aswell as some other face designs has been a topic for me that i've brought up to both Sin, and the Kouncil. I did tell you that i would have a talk to Sin and why this became a rule to begin with, the mods are not here to limit your creativity. There were just rules already set in place that i have to enforce. I'm STILL talking about ways where i can find a middle ground where everyone can be happy. I hope you can understand and have some patience. <3

brookie1 hour ago

MOD_Raven This and all future rules should be cleared by Sin BEFORE being enforced, honestly. My second paragraph stands 100%. WHO decided this, who reenforced it, and do they have a conflict of interest for doing so? Its unfortunate now us, the users, have to wait and "be patient" while mods and admin find a middle ground to a half-ass rule that was not even approved by the lead admin before attempting to be "enforced". Going forward I truly hope something was learned from this experience and a more formal process for approving and announcing new rules can be put in place.

MOD_RavenMod1 hour ago

brookie Except this WAS a rule. It Clearly states 𝟭. 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱. Do NOT upload any designs that feature more than one category of design (with the exception being clothes/shoes and clothes/accessory I understand if you don't agree with how this should be or how clothes are no different than face designs, its one of the things i'm openly trying to discuss between the mods and Sin. The only reason why the mask clarification was needed was because anyone could claim an entire face of eyes lips and makeup is one design as a mask. So yes, we needed to address people bypassing the current rules by playing dumb about what they actually created. Again im discussing it because i do think there is room for you to be creative without ruining the integrity that full avis were doing, and theres alot of moderating happening besides this so i cant do it all less than 24 hours.

brookie1 hour ago

MOD_Raven While that rule may have "existed", it clearly states "Full avatars are not permitted for upload", and then goes on basically say "well, not just full avatars but also not more than 1 category except for these few exceptions but also we know these are uploaded on a daily basis and really haven't enforced this rule much at all anyways and we probably need more clarification from Sin on what this actually means and how we should handle it". I guess the "mask" rule can still be very ambiguous too, who gets to decide if makeup is a mask or not? Would a drag queen consider their full face of makeup a mask? Is the Orange Head that was recently uploaded a Mask, even though it also has eyes and a face on it? Does a "mask" have to have transparent eye sockets? My "masks" do reference someone, as I posted the Imgur album. Too much ambiguity. Makeup designs are already limited, because there is no current category they could be uploaded to that would layer correctly. This is why the Kiss makeup covers hair and other features that it shouldn't, layering. Maybe a better way to phrase a rule that limits full avatars, without limiting users creativity, could be something like: Full-body avatars are not permitted for upload Designs that FULLY cover/replace the base of an avatar and/or background while also adding new components (hair, clothes, eyes, mouth, etc.) is not allowed. Designs that are meant to be layered on top of and still rely entirely on the base avatar, are allowed. A single design should not replace the avatar, alter the pose, body, or structure, or function independently. This rule would still allow for the multicombination of clothes+shoes+500 accessories on 1, but also other designs. If a design still needs a "skin" and other layers to function, its allowed. If the design can be worn with all other components, including the skin, removed, it is not allowed. or simply as I stated in my blog, remove ALL cross category designs for consistency... or limit it to 2 categories per design. Back to the topic of WHO is getting to decide these rules? People who make designs? People who have a shop? People with a conflict of interest? EITHER WAY, the discussion we are having right now about this would have been much more valuable days or weeks ago BEFORE the "clarification on masks" blog.

Seong1 hour ago

I'm not trying to dismiss your feelings, but this rule was set ages ago. It’s only blowing up on the site now, despite the fact that many people already took advantage of selling full avatars and merged items (something I disagree with). Bundling facial features is frustrating purely because it restricts customization. Otherwise, it's not that deep—if a user chooses to limit themselves to a pre-set face, that's on them. As for clothing and shoes, I don’t mind it, though I regret merging some of my own designs since it kills variety. They should be separate items given that there is a specific category for shoes. Regarding the accessories: The problem is the 3-item limit. Forcing people to pay real money for more slots is just messed up.

brookie1 hour ago

Seong Just as if a user chooses to limit themselves to buy an dress that has shoes, a handbag, and bracelets all combined. This is my point about consistency.

Cherry1 hour ago

you spilled. This honestly seemed targeted at you. Kiss was doing makeup a few weeks ago and there wasn't an issue then, you make a couple and suddenly it's a huge issue. It's not a full avatar, people will still have to buy hair, clothes, accessories, etc. And you're right, why is this different than an outfit that comes with shoes? Half my outfits have shoes included, but I still buy cute boots when I see them.