Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development

QAT Restructure Counter-Proposal for non-standard modes

posted
Total Posts
82
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Topic Starter
Raiden
Hello! After the recent discussions that have been undergoing on this thread regarding the QAT rework, and a proposal was fleshed out, we (o!taiko, o!catch and o!mania QAT) also came up with an alternative proposal, which would affect all modes beside osu!standard.

You can read this counter-proposal here.

We will run this proposal parallel to the other, in order to agilize the process. As such, please do post in this thread until Tuesday, February 5th 23:59 UTC. We will collect feedback then, and decide on an outcome.
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,225 posts
Joined July 2013
Ascendance
BIG BIG BIG support

however, if possible, allowing QAT to maintain their moderation privileges (or be at the very least given the same privileges, whatever they may be, as the new Moderation Team in the standard proposal) would be nice. From what I know, at least in osu!catch, those powers are in good hands and have been used fairly.
Lumenite-
625 posts
Joined April 2015
Lumenite-
massive support for this restructure, this encourages me to rejoin the BNG. and as for what ascendance said above me, the moderation privs in taiko have been used fairly as well.
MBomb
MBomb
I highly agree with this proposal, it fixes basically all of my main issues with the original proposal that were a major concern in my eyes as part of the ctb community (and former part of the ctb bng)
Kimitakari
Beatmap Nominator
1,533 posts
Joined August 2014
Kimitakari
Camprating with osu!std QAT proposal this one is the most proper proposal for QAT rework though I'm not sure with moderation priveleges and stuff.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral
i don't see this working at all, to be honest. the logistical overhead of maintaining multiple systems like this would be immense, not to mention the level of oversight required to ensure that minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars.

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

i'm floating a hard no on this one just out of the combination of logistical overhead and potential for leadership stagnation, unless anyone has any viable ways to address those two issues somehow.
MBomb
MBomb

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)


with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.
DeletedUser_6637817
DeletedUser_6637817
In support of ephemeral:
Even if there was 2 BN roles aswell as the QAT role + the MT role in the system at any given time, that would just confuse mappers who are looking to get into other modes or even mappers who have no idea how the ranking process works.

When a new mapper looks into this entire ranking thing and has to wrap his head around the QAT, BNG1, BNG2, probation BNG1 and probation BNG2, the MT and all that wazoop i just find that to be way too intransparent to outside people to even understand the system, which could lead to even more stagnation than eph already suggested. Taiko basically becomes more closed than it already is.

PS; I find it unrealistic that the devs and all the other internal staff will bother enough for such a workaround by having to continue support for the old qat and bng purely logistically speaking
Last edited by DeletedUser_6637817 , edited 1 time in total.
Lumenite-
625 posts
Joined April 2015
Lumenite-

Ephemeral wrote:

i don't see this working at all, to be honest. the logistical overhead of maintaining multiple systems like this would be immense, not to mention the level of oversight required to ensure that minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars.

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

i'm floating a hard no on this one just out of the combination of logistical overhead and potential for leadership stagnation, unless anyone has any viable ways to address those two issues somehow.


the easy solution is to not give any bns the dq button xd

no but on a serious note, i don't see any basis of the concern that "minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars." but more so than that, subjecting these smaller modes who, as raiden said, are much better at quality control that standard may be is absolutely a terrible idea. the issue with the relationship between QAT and BNG in the minigames is not in their role, but rather the people in those positions. they may be qualified but inactive, or rather vice versa-the work they do and the "clearness" of their role was never an issue present in taiko.

also, your point regarding the button being there and being instructed not to use it used to exist in the first probation test run and worked fine, and still exists for probationary bns if a full BN has not already nominated the map. this concern exists no matter what and has existed for a long time, but if people really want to be on the team they will follow the rules-that's what history has shown here. if you're okay with those systems going through-surely it wouldn't make a difference here.
Last edited by Lumenite- , edited 1 time in total.
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Topic Starter
Raiden

Ephemeral wrote:

i don't see this working at all, to be honest. the logistical overhead of maintaining multiple systems like this would be immense, not to mention the level of oversight required to ensure that minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars.

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

i'm floating a hard no on this one just out of the combination of logistical overhead and potential for leadership stagnation, unless anyone has any viable ways to address those two issues somehow.

Hello and thanks for tuning in. In regards to the logistical overhead, it was one of the cons stated on the document. We also don't see the other proposal working in our modes whatsoever, not because of logistical reasons, but because of the illogical approach it means to treat every single mode the exact same, when only one of them is having the issues. This whole logistical overwork is happening because of a single mode. Maintaining our status quo is, if anything, easier to do than reworking permissions, adding usergroups and whatnot.

Minigame leadership would be exactly like QAT leadership has been till now. Those who are elected would answer to the higher ups in the name of their respective mode. I really see no issue here, even less the "closed-off cabal of community regulars"

For the second point: that has been like that always. Mode-specificity has been a made up thing on the get-go after the community in general observed how unpractical it was for someone in X mode to run around nominating other modes content. If anything, it is even shonkier to not have adapted this regulation logistically earlier, as it would have avoided all this trouble and made handling hybrids sets much easier.

In short, the logistical overhead is something we cannot do anything about, as it is out of our reach. The "leadership stagnation" thing, I can't even agree with it to begin with, leadership would not change from current iteration, and so far it was just fine and supported by everyone?

We simply cannot agree to let an event that does not affect us to drag us to a change we do not want to make. Thanks again for your comments and we expect to see more.
-Kazu-
687 posts
Joined June 2011
-Kazu-

MBomb wrote:

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.


In my eyes, the true problem doesn't come with salty BNs burning down the house on their way out (which is a huge issue on its own) but with passive-aggresive/ill-intentioned BNs shooting maps down for issues that are more triggering than helpful.
Just think how the whole ADAMAS speedranking thing would've happened if the BNs/people who popped the other set/etc. had the DQ button. Technically they would probably be right and would have been a well deserved DQ. Technically.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)


with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.


you're right, they *could*, but it's still a big introduction of systemic bloat for not a lot of actual gain all up. i can't really stress enough how closed-off retaining the current system would make the various other gamemodes - they're already really shuttered from the broad scope of their relatively small communities for the most part.

half of the beef of the new proposal we've floated is to open them up as much as possible, and i've slowly warmed up to the Loctav approach of treating all gamemodes under the same blanket over the years.
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Topic Starter
Raiden

Nepuri wrote:

In support of ephemeral:
Even if there was 2 BN roles aswell as the QAT role + the MT role in the system at any given time, that would just confuse mappers who are looking to get into other modes or even mappers who have no idea how the ranking process works.

When a new mapper looks into this entire ranking thing and has to wrap his head around the QAT, BNG1, BNG2, probation BNG1 and probation BNG2, the MT and all that wazoop i just find that to be way too intransparent to outside people to even understand the system, which could lead to even more stagnation than eph already suggested. Taiko basically becomes more closed than it already is.

PS; I find it unrealistic that the devs and all the other internal staff will bother enough for such a workaround by having to continue support for the old qat and bng purely logistically speaking

Absolutely disagree with this. The only point you are making here is that the system would be more complex due to multiple sub-systems and that would automatically imply our mode became more closed. If anything, uniqueness does attract a higher quantity of the playerbase. Plus, you are forgetting the essentials here: this system has been established for more than 4 years now, and has worked so far for our modes. A system that has held itself for so long generates more confidence than a brand new one that no one knows how it works yet, let alone the fact that the issues that propelled this new system do not affect us in the first place.

P.S.: I also find it unrealistic and illogical to approach all modes with the same mindset, ignoring its own idiosincrasies.
Last edited by Raiden , edited 1 time in total.
MBomb
MBomb

-Kazu- wrote:

MBomb wrote:

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.


In my eyes, the true problem doesn't come with salty BNs burning down the house on their way out (which is a huge issue on its own) but with passive-aggresive/ill-intentioned BNs shooting maps down for issues that are more triggering than helpful.
Just think how the whole ADAMAS speedranking thing would've happened if the BNs/people who popped the other set/etc. had the DQ button. Technically they would probably be right and would have been a well deserved DQ. Technically.


But the point is, we wouldn't be allowed to use the dq button at all, even if it was available to us, and if anything, you're agreeing with the point that them having those permissions at all is a bad idea, something which is one of my many concerns with the original proposal, and that I like about this one...
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Topic Starter
Raiden

Ephemeral wrote:

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)


with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.


you're right, they *could*, but it's still a big introduction of systemic bloat for not a lot of actual gain all up. i can't really stress enough how closed-off retaining the current system would make the various other gamemodes - they're already really shuttered from the broad scope of their relatively small communities for the most part.

half of the beef of the new proposal we've floated is to open them up as much as possible, and i've slowly warmed up to the Loctav approach of treating all gamemodes under the same blanket over the years.

I simply cannot see how this logic works. People come and go all the time. How would you know that the modes would become "more open" by forcefully implanting a change that is not needed based on a series of issues another game mode has? Because it would make everything follow the osu!standard formula? If anything, that would maybe encourage one day players, but scare staying players away. Those players who wish to get to the mapping/modding scene require a stable environment they can grow in, and not to be forced out of it as soon as the next X mode encounters a major trouble that forces a rework again.
-Kazu-
687 posts
Joined June 2011
-Kazu-
So the thing goes like this: Don't give the dq button to BN (most people is against that anyway), let the main proposal get applied however they want causing us minigame QATs get renamed as Management Team.
Then we keep our current functions and from that we diverge on the way we manage things, how often BN apps are open, which considerations we take in order to raise new Managers, etc.
Thats how both proposals coexist. This proposal focal point is letting the minigames work like they have always done, and letting standard implement their formulas, methods, etc.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
This counter-proposal requires the elected QAT leaders to actually care and manage every administrative aspect, which can be a difficult task.
Really big issue that I really doubt can be adequately addressed with non-standard communities. By that I mean, complete freedom of leadership in these smaller communities will result in certain opinions and views being dominated. There are not enough people in leadership positions to give a fair assessment of scenarios imo... not when there are what, 2 active QAT's?



Another thing... a lot of the "pros" are stuff you already do anyways, no? Like mediate your own vetoes, managing mapping/modding criterias... Some of the things, like managing your own BN intake/applications will be solved with Mao's proposal anyways.

I feel like this proposal just cements leadership positions for non-standard QAT's, and doesn't leave a lot of room for differing opinions if QAT's are given so much more weight (than they already have now) in comparison to the BN's.
-Kazu-
687 posts
Joined June 2011
-Kazu-

Monstrata wrote:

Really big issue that I really doubt can be adequately addressed with non-standard communities. By that I mean, complete freedom of leadership in these smaller communities will result in certain opinions and views being dominated. There are not enough people in leadership positions to give a fair assessment of scenarios imo... not when there are what, 2 active QAT's?

I feel like this proposal just cements leadership positions for non-standard QAT's, and doesn't leave a lot of room for differing opinions if QAT's are given so much more weight (than they already have now) in comparison to the BN's.


Yep, you got it right, that's why if this becomes a reality all mini-games will need to raise at least one new QAT, the number's up to each gamemode.
Raiden
osu! Alumni
2,419 posts
Joined January 2013
Topic Starter
Raiden

Monstrata wrote:

This counter-proposal requires the elected QAT leaders to actually care and manage every administrative aspect, which can be a difficult task.


Really big issue that I really doubt can be adequately addressed with non-standard communities. By that I mean, complete freedom of leadership in these smaller communities will result in certain opinions and views being dominated. There are not enough people in leadership positions to give a fair assessment of scenarios imo... not when there are what, 2 active QAT's?
I don't see how those opinions would dominate, given that the exclusive role of the QAT leader is to act as a bridge between the QAT and the higher ups. And there are more active QATs in the minigames than you are actually accounting for, which makes it a false statement from the beginning. Not to mention that 1 person handling a smaller community is much more feasible than 2 people managing the entirety of the mapping and modding scene (which has been happening till now and no one had any complaint?)



Monstrata wrote:

Another thing... a lot of the "pros" are stuff you already do anyways, no? Like mediate your own vetoes, managing mapping/modding criterias... Some of the things, like managing your own BN intake/applications will be solved with Mao's proposal anyways.

I feel like this proposal just cements leadership positions for non-standard QAT's, and doesn't leave a lot of room for differing opinions if QAT's are given so much more weight (than they already have now) in comparison to the BN's.
That would not be correct. Every mediation has needed to be on a strict time frame set up by the QAT as a whole, no matter if the QAT of X gamemode did not agree on that specific time frame regulation; activity requirement is shared between modes and you are not allowed to open beatmap nominator applications whenever you desire. And again, for the last point, QAT leadership serves as a bridge, not as an opinion dictatorship.

If anything, there is the possibility of both proposals coexisting as -Kazu- said in a post above, which would allow some of the points from Ephemeral and Mao's proposal to be applied without changing much of the status quo.
Last edited by Raiden , edited 2 times in total.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Ephemeral

Raiden wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)


with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.


you're right, they *could*, but it's still a big introduction of systemic bloat for not a lot of actual gain all up. i can't really stress enough how closed-off retaining the current system would make the various other gamemodes - they're already really shuttered from the broad scope of their relatively small communities for the most part.

half of the beef of the new proposal we've floated is to open them up as much as possible, and i've slowly warmed up to the Loctav approach of treating all gamemodes under the same blanket over the years.

I simply cannot see how this logic works. People come and go all the time. How would you know that the modes would become "more open" by forcefully implanting a change that is not needed based on a series of issues another game mode has? Because it would make everything follow the osu!standard formula? If anything, that would maybe encourage one day players, but scare staying players away. Those players who wish to get to the mapping/modding scene require a stable environment they can grow in, and not to be forced out of it as soon as the next X mode encounters a major trouble that forces a rework again.


they'd become more open from the sheer fact that applications would be:

a) always open
b) only minimally influenced by the 'ruling circle' opinions on their personal worth (this is a HUGE issue with non-standard gamemode QAT at the moment and is one of the big reasons for the rework, funnily enough)
c) actually promoting an atmosphere of common discourse among a gamemode instead of blind deference to those "at the top"

stability is great, i agree. the BN have been extremely stable for the most part. the BN in particular have largely outperformed expectation in regards to keeping things well-oiled and moving, so we need more of them, and less of the rest. we want to empower people who want to get involved at the "depth" that they feel comfortable at, so that people don't think their opinions aren't worth anything just because they're not orange or whatever.

allowing the other gamemodes to cloister off into a defunct system that actively promotes leaving people in positions of power for years at a stretch is not the way i think anyone wants to see things proceed.

you might note this is a particularly scathing rebuke of this proposal, and this is largely because much of the sickness in the previous system manifested itself predominately in the other gamemodes. others outside the QAT were not privy to this - i was. standard dodged a bullet because it held the proportionally largest distribution of people which diluted much of the grossness down significantly. it is my hope that expanding the number of people involved in the other gamemodes will do the same there, too.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 82