Admirable, but the two of you are certainly in the minority. And it remains to be seen if the minority will have the time and inclination to review the number of missions that will be submitted, and if that minority's interest in reviewing will remain in the coming months or years.
Do we know yet if one review is all it takes for a mission to go live? I was under the impression that it will take a certain number of reviews for a mission to be approved. That'll make it exponentially harder to get approval, but is more-or-less necessary to avoid a single person having too much power.
Reviews != approval
approval is straight "does it violate EULA"
reviews is "how good do I think it is"
should only need one approval as the guidelines should be straightforward
Won't take long to run out of reviewers. Sounds like I'm already disqualified. I wouldn't approve crap.
Yes, if you plan to flag things that do not have flaggable offenses, then you'd be disqualified. This isn't going to be us playing Siskel & Ebert giving missions the thumbs up and thumbs down based on what we thought about it.
It's a bug-reporting situation, wherein if something is broken or has profanity etc., you let the Devs know so they can check it before it moves on to the general populace.
Placing customers into positions of power and privilege over other customers - especially such a subjective sort of power - turns my gut. I really don't think that UGC should be slipped into the 'main game' anyway since it works out to padding the product with volunteer work. Rating, search features, all that is necessary... appointing a cultural jury is not.
And massively-dimishing returns on running UGC makes no sense, especially given that it's almost guaranteed to involve more interesting variety than grinding Exploration. Even if 99% of UGC missions are crap, at least they wouldn't be the same madlib over and over agan.
I've been thinking about this for a while myself. To save a lot of heartache and frustration, I highly suggest we do two things: Look at FarCry2's map editing and submission procedures, and just use common sense.
First, the submission procedure should be simple and user friendly (no reason to create hoops to jump through or red tape to fight), so the workflow should be something along thew lines of simply creating the mission as an alpha, running through it, submitting it as a beta for a short period of time, like a few days (at which point anyone who wants can test it and send feedback), then it's either edited (by the creator or creators, no one else) or published. Anyone who wants to play these missions should be able to. This proposed second EULA should just be part of the main game, or at most a second yes/no box when you choose to view available UGC missions.
If there is objectionable content, then it should simply be reported using the exact same procedure already ingame for something objectionable. There is no need for reviewers, whether they're viewed as an elite subclass or not, they're just not necessary. It only adds unneeded steps and hurdles to the mission creation process.
Upon completion, the people who played the mission should have a chance to rate it, so no one person, or one group of people could block (or attempt to block) a mission that they don't like. If the mission isn't a "good" one, it will be seen as such by popular vote by people who have played the mission.
As to the diminishing returns, I think it's a horrible idea. Why penalize players for playing content? So they run 10 missions in a day, so what?