if the system was proposing a simple 51% no votes to dq the map and/or was a community-public vote and/or was a simple "do you like this map?" i would agree that it would be a roadblock for controversial mappers, but the question is quite clearly going to be worded as "do you believe this map objectively meets the quality standard for the ranked section?" and only people who are and should be trusted to ensure the quality of beatmaps in the ranked section are voting on it. a vast majority of maps will not be affected by this polling, anyways. it seems that in saying people wont vote or will simply vote poorly do not trust the BN group which is rather odd to me. perhaps there could be an elite subgroup comprised of QAT and BN alike that would vote on the map?
or perhaps: a two-"house" kind of thing where BNs vote and if the thresholds mentioned above are met, the QAT then votes and must reach a 50% consensus? similar to how laws pass the US legislature branch (congress & house of representatives).
i strongly believe that if 75% or 67% of BNs believe a map does not meet the objective quality standard for the ranked section, then it is fairly clear that it should not be ranked.
this system both prevents a small-group being able to circlejerk maps into ranked and out of ranked, given that the poll results are completely null if a voting threshold (10 has been suggested but of course, nothing is set in stone) isn't reached.
the most valid concern is that there is an inherent likelihood that if a person feels compelled to vote on a map it's because they do not like the map. however, since two people nominate the map and would thus automatically be yes votes, you need an extreme majority vote against the map (9 no votes to 1 yes vote from a bn who didn't push the map), which would be clearly indicative of major problems in the map that need to be addressed. as well, given that these polls are public and, in my opinion, ought to have required reasoning for the votes, i think that the discussions are open enough that participation would be well-encouraged, *especially* on maps that are close to or reaching the threshold for votes. it's already common in veto'd mapsets that other BNs or just modders come in on the side of the mapper, not the veto-er.
the recently formed QAH is going to be checking a certain number of qualified maps anyways, so i think this proposal would tie in nicely with these new responsibilities that some BNs have chosen to take on.
or perhaps: a two-"house" kind of thing where BNs vote and if the thresholds mentioned above are met, the QAT then votes and must reach a 50% consensus? similar to how laws pass the US legislature branch (congress & house of representatives).
i strongly believe that if 75% or 67% of BNs believe a map does not meet the objective quality standard for the ranked section, then it is fairly clear that it should not be ranked.
this system both prevents a small-group being able to circlejerk maps into ranked and out of ranked, given that the poll results are completely null if a voting threshold (10 has been suggested but of course, nothing is set in stone) isn't reached.
the most valid concern is that there is an inherent likelihood that if a person feels compelled to vote on a map it's because they do not like the map. however, since two people nominate the map and would thus automatically be yes votes, you need an extreme majority vote against the map (9 no votes to 1 yes vote from a bn who didn't push the map), which would be clearly indicative of major problems in the map that need to be addressed. as well, given that these polls are public and, in my opinion, ought to have required reasoning for the votes, i think that the discussions are open enough that participation would be well-encouraged, *especially* on maps that are close to or reaching the threshold for votes. it's already common in veto'd mapsets that other BNs or just modders come in on the side of the mapper, not the veto-er.
the recently formed QAH is going to be checking a certain number of qualified maps anyways, so i think this proposal would tie in nicely with these new responsibilities that some BNs have chosen to take on.