Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
Doubles should be handled the same way the regular submissions are done, on a case-by-case basis with only one actually hosted on the site.
Since that's been taken care of, I had another thought which may or may not be necessary but I'm going to speak my mind:
Should we define what "failure" would be with regards to this (obviously after it starts)? Because I can totally see people, after the first little complication or lump in the system, trying to shut it down right away because "it failed". Like, FireArrow might have a totally different definition of "failure" (with regards to this topic) than say Don would. My point is I think it might be worth an idea to all together attempt to agree (if possible) to unanimously define what "failure" would be. At what point is this plainly just 'not gonna work'? I'm also going to add that the idea of a test run is not only to see if it would work, but also to troubleshoot any more issues we haven't yet thought of. Personally I think that a quirky system that still remains functional is worth keeping and fixing. Not to say I expect this to be quirky (because it seems fairly straightforward to me) but I know also that there's no way I currently know all the things that could happen.
Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
(I'm not trying to bash your opinion at all Don; this is simply just another perfect example for the observation I'm going to make with my next sentence)
I feel like comments like this (and the concerns about lazy copy/pasting) undermine us arrangers who know what we're doing and when put generically like that, is, quite frankly, insulting.
[
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to open a can of shit here. I'm calmly and respectfully stating my opinion for the sole purpose of passing understanding. No more fights.
Though in a way it's kinda sad I have to put this disclaimer here in the first place...]
We're all- Almost all of us here are mature enough to take this seriously and put real effort into it. IMO the people we should really be concerned about, as Olimar said in the past, are folks like "Joe Schmoe": the new guy who's only in it for glory/spam/troublemaking. I should point out that those people are no more risk to this than they are to our regular current submissions. But back to my point, literally everyone who isn't only trying to arrange for their own sick-personal-ego-trips (or whatever they are) is willing to learn how to do it properly. Trollers exist and they may want to ride this new system but
"Easy Arrangements" is no more at risk than basically anything else on the internet that the general public can manipulate in whatever way.As a final note I'm going to say as well that not only do I agree that this should be a thing, but I will support this new system in any way I can. If that means helping brainstorm ways to fix problems that arise, very well. If that means helping check for lazy transcriptions, so be it. No good thing ever comes without work and I'm willing to work with this. NSM has my full support in this endeavor.