Revamping Graphics Pay

[Bayley]

Playing Devil's Advocate here:
Ronaldo has shown improvement. Check out his older stuff. Why not keep paying him if he shows that he's trying to get better?
And hell, I made a literal pancake, took a picture, and got paid for it. It took me forever, because I suck at writing with pancakes. But how in all honesty is someone supposed to grade a damn pancake?

And let's go back to the real problem....the graders. How can a guy grade himself: http://nsfl.jcink.net/index.php?showtopic=4539

Gave himself a $200k bonus.

Sure, I was just looking for quick examples, you get my point. I definitely think that this needs to be redone before people keep capitalizing on a poor system.

Yeah, he shouldn't be grading himself with other graders. Look at some of his other work. I am sorry, but putting a background on an image with text SHOULD NEVER be equated to over 1,000 word article.

[timeconsumer]

Sure, I was just looking for quick examples, you get my point. I definitely think that this needs to be redone before people keep capitalizing on a poor system.

Yeah, he shouldn't be grading himself with other graders. Look at some of his other work. I am sorry, but putting a background on an image with text SHOULD NEVER be equated to over 1,000 word article.

Also check my edit.

[Bayley]

Also check my edit.

This should be happening. There are a lot of people trying to take advantage of this system. If penalties started to be applied, it would help. I think a warning and then no pay should happen. Why has it not especially if it's written in the rules.

Hell, I am happy to be a graphics grader if we need help since a guy is grading his own work.

[timeconsumer]

This should be happening. There are a lot of people trying to take advantage of this system. If penalties started to be applied, it would help. I think a warning and then no pay should happen. Why has it not especially if it's written in the rules.

Hell, I am happy to be a graphics grader if we need help since a guy is grading his own work.

Well, what's the incentive for dealing with the shit when you deny a guy payment? Now you're arguing with a dude, pissing people off. You already spent like 2 hours this week grading material. So why bother? Pay him and move on. You get paid $4m for an entire season of work that took 12 hours+. Why be a high quality grader and spend your time and effort when you can submit low quality work and get paid more for less time? Especially when you can grade it yourself and give yourself full payment. It's kind of a self-perpetuating problem.

[Bayley]

Well, what's the incentive for dealing with the shit when you deny a guy payment? Now you're arguing with a dude, pissing people off. You already spent like 2 hours this week grading material. So why bother? Pay him and move on. You get paid $4m for an entire season of work that took 12 hours+. Why be a high quality grader and spend your time and effort when you can submit low quality work and get paid more for less time? Especially when you can grade it yourself and give yourself full payment. It's kind of a self-perpetuating problem.

If someone is going to argue that some of the work I posted deserves credit, I think there is a different conversation to be had here. Graphics is not the only option to get paid. Maybe limiting this will also force people to take more money in contracts in which people have been also looking for. If you are doing graphics, you should be forced to use a graphics editor rather than a graphics creator. I am saying an editor such as GIMP or Photoshop rather than a creator such as Paint or Paint shop.

If this system stays, there is nothing stopping people from now going to Paint which everyone has and getting paid 2.6m a week which is probably double with they get now.

[Rindiee]

I definitely agree, but aren't you upset that people that took 3 seconds are getting the same pay? Doesn't that irk you when you are spending time doing your graphic?

Absolutely, but too be fair you don't need a set scale per say, to grade based on if someone used paint or photoshop. If it means people who are more qualified need to be graders then that works too imo.

[tlk742]

This is deja vu from last season.

Grading on a scale is not going to happen. We discussed it at length and here's the conclusion we came to: we are not a graphics community, we are a simulation football community with a graphics aspect. If you want a graphics community, go to Planet Renders.

Here's the problem, we can't judge what makes a sig good. I can understand the frustration that people are cheating the system by posting minimalist work, but we do have the right to not pay work that is low quality and doesn't show improvement over time. Something I know Fox has been diligent about.

We are looking to try and create a system that fosters improvement in the graphics wing, not stifle it. If I have an hour and get paid to go Dickens on the article for payment, then I should be able to get comparable payment for putting in the same work on an art piece, and while the argument is that the baseline skirts it, we have a cap for a reason.

[BOOM™]

GFX grading has changed a lot over the years, from the rough old day's when it was graded on the end result to now when effort and tendency to show improvement is calculated into the final grade/payout. It's changed in every league and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. As long as it's shown that guys with slightly lower GFX experience and quality of work are trying to improve and not just coast along with minimal effort, the scale is OK. Sometimes people who are a little more adept do get frustrated with the payouts when comparing the end result, but what can you do about it? Just keep trying to produce a decent product and hope that everyone else is also trying to improve I guess.

[enigmatic]

This is getting so annoying :lol: who cares if I spend 30 minutes on a sig because I've been using photoshop for years? Do I deserve to be paid less if the end result is there?

I was the first to complain on this topic in seasons 1 and 2 but I have to say, the current system works okay. Grading is so subjective, we'll never be able to implement a grading scale that will please everybody. For example, for my taste, I prefer the sig you graded as a 3 to the one you graded as a 4.

I'd be okay with graders refusing to pay for total shit, though, and it would fix most of your issues. But then again, it's tough to know who put some effort without a great result and who opened paint for 5 minutes and shat some abomination just to get paid.

My main issue with graphics payments, if I'm honest, is people who use templates and change 2 or 3 things and get the same amount as someone who makes brand new sigs every week. Like player cards? The fact that they get full payment pisses me off, no matter how good they look. It's okay if they're all different but when it's the exact same thing week after week and even within the same weekly submission, with just the name, stats and player picture changed, well, it makes me angry.

[RainDelay]

Guys and gals, look at the Graphics section and look at the work being put in there. I think effort needs to be shown to get any money. Comeon, we can't be giving the equivalent to 600 words of payout to a Paint document with some text. Why does anyone write? Everyone has paint.

Here is my suggestion, Grade on a scale. Take a look at the graded submissions, if it doesn't anger you, it should. Graphics are not your only option. We need to grade on effort and performance. You can still make money with this, but this has to change or media WILL STOP.

The graphic will be graded on the scale. If a graphic is like the 5, it gets the payout. If it is a 4.5, it will get in the middle. But, we cannot have Paint graphics with no effort getting 2+ million. There are other ways of getting money, so we need to get stricter on this.

I have a few issues with this.

1) Bonuses are already subjective, and a scale makes it even MORE subjective.

2) I don't necessarily agree with the examples you posted. Sure, that Sean Brady Sig is beautiful, but since when did we make the judgment that more effects/layers equals better quality?

Forgive my self-plug here, but I think my sigs are top quality. I don't need all fancy photoshop effects, but a clean cut sig with some effects and blending makes a fine product in my opinion.


Also, you rated my Waiters sig a 2, and while that is low quality, its not as if I slapped text on a paint pic. I colorized a stock, cut a render and changed the 49ers red jersey into a Pythons purple and yellow jersey, all while keeping cleanliness. I don't think it is a 5, but at least a 3. My latest graphics I believe would qualify for 5s, 4 at minimum.


3) As far as making progress in your talents go, I don't think that needs to be factored in. By that logic, I would have more than doubled my pay after just two weeks going from this level:



to this level:



and then to this level:



That is MARKED improvement, and not everyone can be expected to do that in a short time.