Text-only hacks that require minimal effort... I consider that extremely broad, to be honest. Being frank here, it sounds to me like text hacks could be rejected no matter what, depending on how a moderator feels about you or your work. Putting text in proper case is something I consider pretty important for readability's sake, but under the new rule, I'm pretty sure they'd be considered "low effort." Would my text cleanups, then, that remove various typos also be considered "low effort"? Or what about complete text re-invigorations?
That's a valid concern. There is no intention of excluding something like a proper case hacks, typo corrections, or complete text re-invigoration. That clause was intended for submitted hacks that only change a few words, or replace a character's name throughout the game with 'vivify93', or changing Mario to blue for no reason, or replacing Mario with a one frame glitched rectangle sprite, etc. There must be a clause that prevents such hacks. People try and submit all kinds of junk daily. Sadly, the noise ratio is high enough already.
The idea is such hacks simply need to substantiate themselves in the description. That can be done by noting reasonable necessity for having the trivial hack, or explanation of any non-trivial nature of the hack. It's not intended to widen the scope of exclusion, rather rephrasing existing exclusion. Do you have a better way of expressing that idea through the guidelines?M-Tee:
I linked to that topic because these very issues were already recently discussed, and the consensus was the current addendum system did not make sense for various good reasons presented there. I don't know why you did not take part in that discussion if you so strongly disagreed with Spinner8, MathUser2929, Zynk, jink640's expressed sentiments against the addendum cascading patch rule. This topic simply incorporates the result of that topic for guideline consistency. Also, the Improvement category has already been around for many years. Why is this a new issue? I don't see any of those types of objectionable improvements in the 'Improvement' section OR the 'Addendum' section. Such examples aren't in the spirit of the original work and wouldn't even be allowed. If we don't have that problem now, why would it start?
I really don't know what you want. It seems like you want full-on back peddling now from what the others wanted. You don't have to convince me of anything. I don't really care what it's called, or how it's patched. I'd concede to any consensus reached on those items. What I care about is the guidelines being 1.) consistent between the two sections 2.) simpler to understand for patrons, 3.) simpler to enforce for reviewers (enforcing cascading patch rule is very difficult by the way), and 4.) consensus by the lot of people complaining about it from both sides! We don't want to do this again for the FOURTH time next year! There needs to be a majority consensus, and it needs to be upheld and followed. What do you suggest be done to achieve that?STARWIN:
The goal was making Hacks guidelines consistent with the Translation section's recent guidelines changes (including rulings on hacks of hacks). I'm not really sure what you're suggesting the guidelines be changed to beyond abolishing all categories and extending the modification check boxes, or restructuring the whole section and database. We're just adjusting the guidelines for what we have, not drafting a new interface and database structure. This is a text based project.