New PJ Gallery Rules - Public Review
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Resources and Support
Forum Discription: Help your fellow pixel artists out with links to good tutorials, other forums, software, fonts, etc. Bugs and support issues should go here as well.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26266
Printed Date: 05 September 2025 at 10:14pm
Topic: New PJ Gallery Rules - Public Review
Posted By: pyrometal
Subject: New PJ Gallery Rules - Public Review
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 3:53am
|
Anyone who has been a member here at Pixel Joint for some amount of time
knows that our pixel art submission rules have not always been very
clear. This has caused many misunderstandings over the years as to why
certain pieces were admitted into the gallery while some other similar
works were not, etc.
In an effort to reduce such problems in the future, your mod team has taken feedback received from the community over the last few months and have written an updated proposed set of rules and guidelines. Before these are made official, we wanted to share them with everyone to give you a chance to review and comment. The narrative below would replace the existing one on the submission page. ----- PJ Submission Rules v2 1. Only submit 100% original work. Ripped work, sprite edits, etc, are not allowed. In spite of our best efforts a bit of
arbitrariness of these rules is unavoidable, and therefore our decision
to approve or reject is often also informed by member votes in the
public queue. To gather those votes the approval process can
take several days, in rare cases weeks. If you submit multiple works at
once this can delay the approval process as well. ----- We appreciate in advance any feedback you may have! |
Replies:
Posted By: DawnBringer
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 4:48am
|
I kinda dreaded what you girls would come up with ;)...but this is actually pretty good! As a color-count nazi I might have tried to clarify that the smaller/simpler an image is...the less colors it is expected to have, in general.
PJ also has an unwritten rule that new & poor artists are expected to improve over time...as in they may have one or two subpar pieces accepted as an inital baseline, but then they have to improve or get rejected. There's been examples lately of new galleries with many small sh*tty pieces. So this could be a rule so mods don't have approve new pieces just because the let the artist's last (similar) one in. Also. Have you done anything about those cryptic rejection messages that keep confusing everyone? |
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 9:29am
|
"of a particular type of pixel art" makes it sound like there's a particular style that's expected. I think it's best to leave that part out. In rule 3: TrueType fonts are not necessarily anti-aliased automatically, and AFAIK PJ has no problem with pixel fonts, many of which are TrueType. Since the problem that part is seeking to remedy is people submitting images with uncontrolled anti-aliasing on text, why not take aim at that more specifically? Uncontrolled AA is an issue on more than just text, too. In rule 10: "Prefer showcasing such works..." sounds a bit weird to me. Maybe "Please showcase such works..."? Rule 12 is unpleasant, and I think it's likely to turn people off from posting to PJ even if their work is fine. I get the idea behind it and agree with it, but I think it could be worded less aggressively. Maybe... "12. A submission that follows all the rules above may still be rejected if it looks bad overall, or is extremely minimal. Submit art that other people would care to look at longer than a glance." I think rule 4 does a decent job of communicating the general gist of palette control. The smaller a piece is, the harder it is to make additional colours serve a purpose, so I don't think it's important to specify that smaller pieces should generally have fewer colours. I wonder if rule 12 could perhaps have a bit about leniency for new artists for crappier art? It doesn't seem like it should be a separate rule, but I do think it's worth mentioning publicly.
|
Posted By: Eggy
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 1:09pm
|
I too find rule 12 a tad bit too harsh the way it's worded right now. To me it sounds like it's going to discourage beginners from posting their "crappy art" in the gallery (and getting feedback from it to improve in the first place), and perhaps veterans as well since not everyone is a pixel art god and the rule kind of gives the impression that pixel art has to be perfect to be accepted. I also feel like the third sentence makes it seem like you can only ever submit more complex pieces (such as animations, sceneries etc.) and not the more stand-alone and simple stuff like still sprites or a single character in a neutral pose. That's just how I personally feel about it though, not that I'm guaranteed to be right haha.
Since I think the rule is supposed to say "don't submit low-quality art", maybe you could reword it as something like this? And also allow some leniency for new artists like eishiya mentioned? "Try to keep your art quality at least reasonable; a work may be denied entry if it displays poor adherence to basic artistic principles. If you're new to pixel art, you may submit such pieces and ask for advice or tutorials to help you improve, after which you'll be expected to show positive progress in art quality for your future works." |
Posted By: jok
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 2:20pm
|
Seems ok for me
Reasonable And how exactly voting on submited pieces in public queue? Its only change in rules or something more? What about changes in pj code/design? There are any plans? (1 example - zoom on big pieces) |
Posted By: FoxTurtle
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 4:01pm
| Yeah, I agree with this suggestion, eggy. |
Posted By: AtskaHeart
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 5:01pm
| The wip forum serves a purpose after all. A beginner can always upload wips to improve and refine final art before uploading. Rule 12 isn't necessarily discouraging, it describes an honest stance about the expected minimum quality for any piece that gets into the PJ gallery. Same as happens with pixel art, limitations and restrictions are for the best. |
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 5:31pm
|
AtskaHeart: Rule 12 is good to have, it's just not well-worded currently. There are better ways to say the same thing. |
Posted By: Adarias
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 6:31pm
|
Suggestions: 7. Previews should not include nudity, gore, or other mature content. Peices containing these elements should include the words "mature" or "nsfw" in the preview image. Explicit pornography will be removed. 8. Backgrounds must serve a purpose. Use transparent backgrounds whenever possible. 9. Give credit where credit is due. Any references used should be linked in the piece's description. 12. Pieces exhibiting minimal effort, technique or artistry will be removed. Take 'em or leave 'em!
|
Posted By: jeremy
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 10:56pm
|
2. i don't think it's worth mentioning specifically in the rules, but it should be ok to post a compilation of small pieces it's not worth submitting separately, which might contain unfinished work
3. reiterating what eishiya said, non-AA'd ttf fonts are fine (but should probably be credited if not created by the artist - i.e. rule 9) 7. Agree with Adarias' wording 12. Agree with others that this is much too harsh ? Adarias' wording is good. |
Posted By: king_bobston
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 2:43am
|
Overall I agree with the idea of these but like the others already stated the wording can be improved. Although already mentioned, TTF are a file type and have nothing to do with the problem of the automated AA. Also it's worth considerating that fonts are protected by copyright as well, although that falls under rule 1, so I'm unsure if having any font beside your own would really be ok. The use of "Small Files" is confusing, I think saying preview file works better. I agree with the others that rule 12 is worded too harsh, especially "bad art is bad art". I think something using the words "low effort" work better and considers the artists skill. It should be a no-brainer but I would still include that for collaborative pieces, all participating artist have to give consent about the upload. Other than that; Rule 2 and 12 should have links to the WIP forum
 |
Posted By: Zizka
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 12:56pm
|
5. Automated effects such as gradients, glows, blurs, semi-transparent layers, etc, are not allowed unless the these effects could reasonably have been achieved by hand (pixel by pixel placement using basic tools) and do not obscure the underlying intentional pixel placement and pixel clusters.
There's a mistake there. Other than that it's a worthy endeavor. I feel like it's more strict than before which is a good thing. |
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 4:49pm
|
Thank you for all of your suggestions so far! I'm glad to see most is about the wording, not so much about the content, which suggests all of you agree with the content of the rules, am I right? We will bring out an updated version 2.1 soonish based on your feedback, but some of my own comments for now: Originally posted by DawnBringer
Also. Have you done anything about those cryptic rejection messages that keep confusing everyone? The rejection messages will be rewritten based on these new rules, we'll try and make them less cryptic while we're at it. Originally posted by eishiya
"of a particular type of pixel art" makes it sound
like there's a particular style that's expected. I think it's best to
leave that part out. One of my personal goals is to get rid of the terms "pixel art" and "non pixel art" as they are confusing. People might call things pixel art which we call scribbles or hybrids. How do you suggest we make it clear that we have a limited range of kinds/styles of pixel art which we accept? Originally posted by jok
And how exactly voting on submited pieces in public queue? Its only change in rules or something more? What about changes in pj code/design? There are any plans? (1 example - zoom on big pieces) Voting in the queue remains the same as today, users from on level 2 can leave votes here http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/icon_queue.asp?pg=1 - http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/icon_queue.asp Progress on PJv4 is mostly out of our hands and depend on Sedgemonkey investing time and effort to rewrite the whole site. Until then you can zoom and scroll in Chrome using http://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fixeljoint/aiedmlipfjjbagfiiegfnedhmkjninnd - Fixeljoint Originally posted by king_bobston
The use of "Small Files" is confusing, I think saying preview file works better. The submission form only has a "small file" and a "detail file". The reason that it's not called a "preview file" in the submission form is because one can upload a small file on it's own, without a preview. If anyone has a suggestion on how to change the phrasing in the form without changing the structure of the form, we can perhaps consider calling it the "preview file" in the guidelines too |
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 6:04pm
|
Originally posted by Hapiel Originally posted by eishiya "of a particular type of pixel art" makes it sound
like there's a particular style that's expected. I think it's best to
leave that part out. One of my personal goals is to get rid of the terms "pixel art" and "non pixel art" as they are confusing. People might call things pixel art which we call scribbles or hybrids. How do you suggest we make it clear that we have a limited range of kinds/styles of pixel art which we accept? If you're going to say something like that, you have to make it clear what you mean, which the current rules do not. If you don't want to say "non pixel art", then define the type of art you do and do not accept. Maybe instead of "and of a particular type of pixel art", it could say "featuring pixel-level care and polish."
|
Posted By: Pixelart_kid
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 8:10pm
| I agree with the new rules, I think they are necessary. |
Posted By: AirStyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 9:51pm
| Does this mean I have to remove my http://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/117038.htm - Mega Redo ? |
Posted By: jok
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:16pm
|
Thanks!
Originally posted by Hapiel
Until then you can zoom and scroll in Chrome using http://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fixeljoint/aiedmlipfjjbagfiiegfnedhmkjninnd - Fixeljoint |
Posted By: king_bobston
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 1:33am
|
Originally posted by AirStyle Does this mean I have to remove my http://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/117038.htm - Mega Redo ? AFAIK the new submission rules only count for pieces after they are published and not for pieces already accepted into the gallery. Originally posted by Hapiel The submission form only has a "small file" and a "detail file". The reason that it's not called a "preview file" in the submission form is because one can upload a small file on it's own, without a preview. If anyone has a suggestion on how to change the phrasing in the form without changing the structure of the form, we can perhaps consider calling it the "preview file" in the guidelines too After some sleep it all makes more sense  Some formatting magic or quotes might be enough for "small file", to make it more clear to the sleepy user that it refers to something specific and not any small file.
|
Posted By: Cyangmou
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 5:01am
|
I got a question regarding: 5. Automated effects
such as gradients, glows, blurs, semi-transparent layers, etc, are not
allowed unless the these effects could reasonably have been achieved by
hand (pixel by pixel placement using basic tools) and do not
obscure the underlying intentional pixel placement and pixel clusters. Considering that I am doing mainly gameart and 16 bit styled games have an overlaid transparency layer for fog etc. plenty of times, I am wondering if that's an issue with the ruleset above (it has been one before) However gameart usually is not a single asset and even if every asset is made with pixel principles in mind, sometimes you can have a transparency layer. By not allowing that handpixelled transparency layer, it strips a lot of gameart of it's very cool effects. A good example would be the fog effect in the Super Castlevania intro: http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyL8tt2OkeA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyL8tt2OkeA I hope everyone agrees that this is pixelart, but it's game usage and so slightly different, bc. the transparency layer is clearly handpixelled with a restricted palette on its own.
|
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 5:53am
|
The new rules make it sound like that sort of fog effect would be fine, since it's blending low-colour images, something that could conceivably be done manually without much trouble. The colour counts are also sufficiently low that the final palette could (and ideally, should) be under the artist's control. I hope this sort of thing will be acceptable. That said, when/if you do post art with such effects, I think it would be awesome if you also included a version without them. Effects like that look cool, but they get in the way of studying tiling and pixel technique used in a piece. I don't think this should be required, but it would be cool if the rules mentioned it as an option since many people don't think to link to alternate versions.
|
Posted By: ArmyFrog
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 12:11pm
| Very good. I like these rules. Especially that last one. I've seen countless examples of people pushing out pixels that are technically pixel art, but lack any style, purpose, or inspiration, and exist simply to exist. Going off topic for a sec, this does not go just for pixel art, but all sorts of things such as new iPhone versions and clickbait YouTube channels. I'm glad that this website has managed to remain above and beyond for a ridiculous amount of time (fifteen years!), and has avoided falling into the pit of redundant, forced elements that exist for some sort of selfish benefit. These types of rules are a reminder that this site is still standing strong. |
Posted By: moondrome
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 4:10pm
| What about People overflowing the queue with multiple submissions all at once? |
Posted By: Gecimen
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 5:07pm
|
Originally posted by Cyangmou I got a question regarding: 5. Automated effects
such as gradients, glows, blurs, semi-transparent layers, etc, are not
allowed unless the these effects could reasonably have been achieved by
hand (pixel by pixel placement using basic tools) and do not
obscure the underlying intentional pixel placement and pixel clusters. Considering that I am doing mainly gameart and 16 bit styled games have an overlaid transparency layer for fog etc. plenty of times, I am wondering if that's an issue with the ruleset above (it has been one before) However gameart usually is not a single asset and even if every asset is made with pixel principles in mind, sometimes you can have a transparency layer. By not allowing that handpixelled transparency layer, it strips a lot of gameart of it's very cool effects. A good example would be the fog effect in the Super Castlevania intro: http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyL8tt2OkeA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyL8tt2OkeA I hope everyone agrees that this is pixelart, but it's game usage and so slightly different, bc. the transparency layer is clearly handpixelled with a restricted palette on its own. A fog effect of 1-3 colors would be possible to achieve by hand so such stuff will always get allowed (given they stick to the other rules). In the past there has been a lot of submissions that use a transparent gradient glow effect, light effect, gradient shadow effects etc that by themselves raise the color count tenfold. Color count is one thing, but such effects are non-pixel art tools by themselves. Anyways we will try to be reasonable, but in the end the main goal (of the site, and of some of us current mods) is to keep the site pixel art only; and not stray to mixed technique. However we decided to act less strict overall when deciding what is pixel art. As for me, I believe if someone wants to display their certain technique (pixel art in this case) they can very well remove layers/pieces that they made via other techniques and submit the pixel art by itself (if it's their own piece and they have the sourcefiles).
|
Posted By: Adarias
Date Posted: 21 May 2018 at 3:10am
|
Attempting to define pixel art almost inevitably brings out the community’s most toxic elements.
Isn’t it half the point of these less-ambiguous rules that by having them, we don’t need a definition of pixel art, besides what they imply? Practical clarity here should relieve a tremendous amount of friction. Anything beyond that just paints a target on it as far as I can tell. While we’re discussing wording, the first clause of the final paragraph reads a little defensively while obscuring the point. A trimmed version might read: Our decision to approve or reject is often also informed by member votes in the public queue. Gathering votes can take several days, in rare cases weeks. Submitting multiple works at once can extend the approval process as well. As always, appreciate the work that goes into these things — all of these suggestions are intended to show support for that effort. |
Posted By: Adarias
Date Posted: 21 May 2018 at 3:30am
| As a secondary consideration, I wonder if it is worth somehow, somewhere, mentioning the weekly challenges, not only because they always deserve to be plugged, but also because they’re a great way for new users to introduce themselves, become familiar with the rules and submission process, and even accelerate through the queue, thanks to the much more specific criteria and the fact that you all intentionally try to ensure that weekly submissions meeting those rules clear before the deadline. |
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 23 May 2018 at 10:30am
|
Some of the suggestions might be more fitting to mention elsewhere, such as a new and updated FAQ.. And I happen to be writing that just now ;) For example Adarias' suggestion to mention weekly challenges, nuance about lower quality standards for challenge entries and first time submissions, etc... http://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26278&PID=220319#220319 - Leave comments on the FAQ draft here |
Posted By: pyrometal
Date Posted: 25 May 2018 at 10:11pm
|
Thank you everyone for your inputs so far! This type of discourse is exactly what we were hoping for  Apologies to all since I am the culprit responsible for the wording of rule 12  I've gone ahead and used your comments to update our ruleset to version 2.1. ----- Change Log:
All other comments have not incorporated into these rules will be accounted for in the reworked FAQ Hapiel is working on, or elsewhere as appropriate (your voices have not been ignored). ----- PJ Submission Rules v2.1 1. Only submit 100% original work. Ripped work, sprite edits, etc, are not allowed. Our decision to approve or reject is often also informed by member
votes in the public queue. Gathering votes can take several days, in
rare cases weeks. Submitting multiple works at once can extend the
approval process as well. Hopefully with this iteration we are close to the final product. Final chance for comments. If nothing is heard in the next couple weeks, these will become our new official rules! |
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 26 May 2018 at 8:51am
|
I really like that shorter last paragraph, it's a lot easier to read. Time for round 2 of feedback: I'm not sure I like the bolded "small files" and "detail file(s)". I understand the desire to highlight terminology and agree with the idea, but it seems odd when it's only two terms. Maybe they should be italicized in the non-italic final result instead? Italics emphasises a word as you read it, but doesn't draw your attention to it from elsewhere. Ambiguity, one that also exists in the current rules: Rule 1 says "100% original work", but then rule 9 asks to credit references. Perhaps rule 1 should clarify somehow that this only refers to other works used directly in the submission? Or that the artist should have permission for any refs they use? I actually never did figure out PJ's policy on reference images. In rule 2, there's a missing "." at the end. It should come after the closing parenthesis. Rule 3, "Note that it is possible to
have intentionally messy pixel placement." does this mean intentionally messy art is allowed, or is not? I think this should be clarified. Rule 7, "(aka, the small file)" doesn't need the comma after "aka". Rule 8, "use transparent backgrounds whenever possible" makes it sound like purposeful backgrounds should also be avoided. Perhaps, "if you don't have a specific purpose or goal with the background in your submission, use a transparent background if possible." Rule 11, I think it would be worth it to add "minimal" to the list of the kinds of pieces that should be submitted in a single larger file. I think the most common culprit for this are small game item icons, which aren't obviously redundant or similar, but they're a bunch of small, minimal, related works that clutter up the gallery. "Minimal" might not be a good term for them, I just don't know what else to suggest. Rule 12, I don't feel like "artistry" is appropriate there, because the connotation of that word is significant, high artistic skill, whereas PJ has a fairly low threshold. "Artistry" is scary xP Perhaps just "artistic skill"? Or maybe reword that bit to "exhibiting minimal effort or technique, or a lack of art fundamentals"?
|
Posted By: Adarias
Date Posted: 29 May 2018 at 9:52am
|
Originally posted by eishiya
Rule 12, I don't feel like "artistry" is appropriate there, because the connotation of that word is significant, high artistic skill, whereas PJ has a fairly low threshold. "Artistry" is scary xP Perhaps just "artistic skill"? Or maybe reword that bit to "exhibiting minimal effort or technique, or a lack of art fundamentals"? I would find "art fundamentals" problematic for many of the same reason you're not liking "artistry" -- I think in both cases ambiguity of the definition could lead to misinterpretation. Perhaps effort and technique are sufficient by themselves. Many pieces which are undeniably "well pixeled" are "banal" in a conceptual sense and "badly drawn" in a representational one. While PJ has always had some pieces that invite "deeper" engagement, and many more that could be called "well-drawn", these qualities are not essential to being good pixel art, and should perhaps not be part of the submission guidelines. As far as my suggestions went, the inclusion of "artistry" was not to set any lofty expectations, but to attempt, in a half-baked way, to strengthen the fuzzy-at-best distinction between art and porn demanded by item 7. |
Posted By: pyrometal
Date Posted: 09 July 2018 at 7:49pm
|
Maybe I'll just put this here real quick. I've taken the last of your feedback into account and we've contacted Sedge for implementation. We're now just awaiting for the changes to be completed.
|