Clarify "Cover unifiers" rule#126
Conversation
Main point is to adjust the explanation to allow usage of existing artist entries (was not clear before asking for clarification on Discord). Other than that, clearer language and added excerpt
Hans5958
force-pushed
the
clarifications/cover-unifiers
branch
from
4d2975c to
aa5b18c
Compare
Shiroizu
left a comment
Shiroizu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Custom artists should be mentioned in the main rule text as well, not just the excerpt (which is the short version of the rule).
- Mention custom artist on the description - Mention that sub-derivatives do not count for eligibility - Reword a bit to be more fluent
|
Good catch. I was too focused on the existing artist entry one. |
|
"Sub-derivatives (e.g. cover of a remix) don't count for eligiblity" |
|
I hope you don't misunderstand. Just so we are in the same book: What I mean is that, this doesn't count (you can't create cover unifier for Song 1), since there only 4 direct derivatives of it.
This counts (you can create cover unifier for Song 7). Since there 5 direct derivatives of it.
The context is this Discord message. Problem is only one people answered that question, and no one objected. |
3 participants
Main point is to adjust the explanation to allow usage of existing artist entries (was not clear before asking for clarification on Discord).
Other than that, clearer language and added excerpt