*Gfx grading

[Cheech65]

Having made a decent amount of graphics myself, the inconsistency in grading can be a pain. All the sigs I've made have all been in the same style and of the same quality (IMO), but even in the same post I get differing grades. Perhaps I just don't understand the rubric, but I think that P2P commissioned work is a great alternative. If we are to work within the current system and make improvements, I think that a clearly defined rubric, where certain features pay out individually at certain rates, would help clear up some confusion. For instance, if a graphic has a number swap, it could pay out $250,000 on its own, while a jersey swap could pay $1,000,000. Perhaps some level of interpretation can be included within the different categories, like a scale of 1-3 to determine the quality of the feature included. And graders can be given the option to give a bonus, if the GFX entry meets that traditional 7/7 standard. Taking away the subjectivity of grading is impossible, and honestly unnecessary. I don't think that the grading process is inherently broken, but I think that clearer definition of what should be included in a high-paying graphic can be beneficial both the to creators who put in hours of work, and the graders who never seem to be on the same page.