"Ok, getting nit-picky about where the readme.txt is in relation to the .bic/.bix file is REALLY getting picky! Its not hard to scan for a .txt file, especially for a map! In this case, all it has is a .bic and a .txt file. I don't see the hardship in the readme.txt not being named toril.txt or whatever."
Why is it so hard to accept that it makes a difference for me (and probably also at least some others)? It can be hard to find a particular txt-file when you have 30 maps in the dir, and half of them have txt-files that are poorly named, so the txt-file for X.bic lies next to A.bic, the txt-file for G.bic next to X.bix, etc. That´s a bit annoying in my opinion. Besides, when a txt-file is named readme.txt, it distances itself from the map in a mental sense as well. It is as if it isn´t part of the whole. It´s not something of extreme importance, and it´s not something that can cause a map to earn a rating of 1 instead of a 5, but it has a small influence on my rating. You could also look at it the other way around: I REWARD those mapmakers that bother naming their txt-file to make them part of the whole, instead of just using a standard name.
"As for multiple maps in the directory, it would take you two seconds to rename the file yourself. "
It´s not my map, so it´s not my job. But of course I have to do that, to include more maps in the directory. Besides, as another user stated, the rules say that you should give a unique name to your txt-file.
"As for the inconvienence of having more than one readme.txt in your scenarios directory...most people put their creations in a unique folder to prevent that problem (like I've done with my ACW scenario)."
I suppose it is possible to do things that way. I just like having one plain directory for maps that I intend to play in the future, and one for those I have completed.
