I have the same feeling like you Silynn, something like why it must even be higher than it is but question is must it be higher than "what"?.
The rule is so vague but I do believe it won't happen so many times like unranking everyday or something unless the song is really popular (most of people including many BATs would play) or the map is sooo questionable (in case it has negative feedback based on "Player").
Watching the map only won't help unless one has to play them and is able to play them.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Having a map ranked is not a right. It's a privilege. The entire point of having a ranking system is to ensure that only good maps end up becoming official. If there are no technical problems and the map is fair, then great--however, if lots of BATs agree that certain aspects are in desperate need of sprucing up, then why not let that happen?

In a worse case scenario, what if the map's a pile of slop that only slipped through the net because of subjectivity? Surely, if somebody's given the pleasure of their own ranked map and yet it's bad enough to attract a lot of BAT attention, measures should be taken to improve it? Remember that anybody can access ranked maps very quickly and if they're deemed as such, they'll be what represents the game as a whole.

Yes, the beauty of osu! is that it's driven by the community, but ultimately, the point is still to provide something which people will actually enjoy and then make them feel compelled to keep playing the game. Can you imagine if you ran this and saw loads of terrible content being approved? I'd be going all Gordon Ramsay on the staff.

Also, I think that I've made myself clear about where I stand with the voting system. People will give generous and poor ratings for the song choice alone, so the map's rating is not a clear indicator of quality. Before I knew who made decent maps, I found myself lost in a sea of 9+ maps which I flat-out didn't like. The ratings are an application of end-user subjectivity, so it's up to the staff and other members of the community to ensure that maps are at least good.

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues. The BATs had the privilege to do everything else already mentioned in the description.

TheVileOne wrote:

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues

It's not a change

those wrote:

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The title of the thread ([Rule] Maps must be of an agreeable level of quality) implies two things.

1. Current quality standards are not high enough
2. A new rule should be made to address this

I am arguing that current quality standards are fine, and that we also don't need more useless rules.

Also, again, what are you increasing these quality standards to?

It's all very vague and very pointless. It seems to me, again, that you have no idea what you are trying to argue, you just know what you're arguing against.

Which, coincidentally, is something that is a non-issue.

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

I think a model like the critic/user score split on Metacritic could be useful here. Just abandon "standards" altogether and rank any map that isn't technically crippled in some obvious way when the mapper decides it's finished. Then the BATs' ratings (and comments/reviews?) go into a prominent "critic" category and all the other users' ratings go into a "user" category. Then add critic/user scores to the filters on the map listing, and have the filter default to critic score >= 70% or something... whatever would correspond to what the BATs think "rankable" should be.

If people make shitty maps, they'll fall off the "critic approved" filter, and people adventurous enough to download the map anyway will downvote the map and move on if they don't like it. People are pretty good at deciding whether they like something, so let them handle that decision themselves.

tl;dr get some free market up in this bitch.

Insane suggestion that most people will just roll their eyes and ignore aside, I like ErufenRito and awp's posts. Don't restrict the "bad" maps. Just give extra spotlight to the "good" ones.

TheVileOne wrote:

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

Of course the levels of quality will be inconsistent.

You have so many ranked, some will stand out and others will fade away.

This doesn't mean that those in the latter category are bad, or undeserving of ranking.

There is currently no problem with the current quality standard, but this thread is implying that there is. If there isn't a problem with it, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a problem.

However this thread does clearly that.

So I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding.


Edit: What I'm trying to say is, don't imply there's something wrong with current criteria, when what you actually want is more thorough checking by staff before maps go off to be ranked.

I think Eph is trying to prevent mapsets that can be easily improved getting ranked prematurely. If the map isn't the greatest map in the world, that's okay. It doesn't have to be! It should at least exhibit a basic level of polish. BATs make mistakes too and this will be damage control when inexperienced BATs happen to let something get ranked that wasn't ready. They already do this for taiko maps. it will also be used for specific subjective patterns. They already have such discussions before a map gets ranked, and it removes the limitation when a map gets ranked with such a pattern before proper discussion can be made.

Silynn wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

Of course the levels of quality will be inconsistent.

You have so many ranked, some will stand out and others will fade away.

This doesn't mean that those in the latter category are bad, or undeserving of ranking.

There is currently no problem with the current quality standard, but this thread is implying that there is. If there isn't a problem with it, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a problem.

However this thread does clearly that.

So I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding.


Edit: What I'm trying to say is, don't imply there's something wrong with current criteria, when what you actually want is more thorough checking by staff before maps go off to be ranked.

The thing is, some mappers refuse to change stuff in their map for whatever reason and because these changes are technically subjective, they are not unrankable. However, they should be fixed (for whatever reason) and this rule would allow the BAT to enforce these changes.

This rule will change nothing at all, just make BATs life easier.

IMO, this is already an unwritten rule among BAT's. rubbing it on everyone else's face would just discourage mappers to do something new and forces them to create those same old clones.

i for once wants to see a DJpop-styled map on the latest ranked maps again (yeah it's an old concept, but it would be refreshing if done again), too bad it would just be shut down because it's "sooo 2009's"

Do you guys realize that nothing changes with this rule? It just gives our permissions a written down definition that is more specific. Honestly I don't even see why this was put in public because it's more directed towards us and not mappers, and shouldn't be in the rule list itself.

EDIT: well it seems like later posters are understanding now

Koko Ban wrote:

i for once wants to see a DJpop-styled map on the latest ranked maps again

um.

ErufenRito wrote:

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Gonna comment on this (Was gonna do it when it was first posted, but 5 hour silence <__<). I think we've forgotten that mapping is making content for a game. Now, I map for the hell of it, I'll map fun little one diff maps and share them with some friends and upload them on the site. However, when it comes to RANKING, that's when it becomes game developer time. Sure, it may not always be 100% fun to have to change some things in your map, to have to do more work, but quite honestly, mapping to rank isn't 100% about fun, but rather developing content so the community can play songs that they enjoy listening to. Now, mapping can still be fun, and should be fun, but you can't put fun over putting out quality content for an almost 3m player game.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyways, hurr durr input even though I'm probably regurgitating everything that's been said.

I see the point of this. There's been a lot of maps that I've seen ranked that aren't of highest quality. However, the rule is too general. What is "low quality" and what is "high quality." For instance, I'm one of those mappers that is seen on either end of the spectrum as a "Godly omg mapper" or one of the worst active mappers since 2010. With this rule in place, mappers who are shoved in all ends of the spectrum will end up actually submitting nice quality maps, but being taken down because 8 BATs find the map on the wrong side of the spectrum.

I guess the main issue here is that it gives BATs too much power, the power to take down maps for no reason other than a vague quality clause.

However, I'm not against the need of regulation against quality. Mostly because I always see crap get ranked that shouldn't, and it's really sad to see. This mostly happens because of a laxness in the BATs. I see a lot of "Oh well next time fix this major this OK RANK YAY." Plus, people can get away with cheap tricks that allow them to produce maps faster, get mods faster, and put out a bunch of mediocre maps to the ranked playlist. So if we're going to fight for quality, we can start by putting in little rules that help cut out the things that cause low qualityness.

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

Same with like guest diff maps. I swear there was a rule where mappers had to map at least 2 of the diffs in a map (Or at least participate like in a collab diff or something.). But there's a lot of maps where people are like "MAP ONE DIFF LOL OTHER DIFFS ARE DUMB IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUBLISHING THIS FOR A GAME OR ANYTHING", which is totally a sign of low quality. A rule can be made easily.

So this rule wouldn't be helpful at all. However, rules can be added to ease in quality control. We can't fix it entirely, but a lot can be done to minimize it, so it'll be the job of the modders and BATs to extingush it.

I'm running on four hours of sleep so if I don't make sense on some parts then sorry, I'd be happy to like explain it better~.

and I didn't read through the thread in full depth so you can just ignore the parts where I discuss something that's already been discussed.

I think I'm getting where this measure comes from.

I've been seeing a lot of very uninteresting mapsets lately, 2-diff mapsets that clearly have no gameplay experience to bring, very low user rated beatmaps, and just maps that are boring and uninspired and get very few plays. I think these are the one that the "level of quality" is aimed at. I don't think we're talking about "this is fun but dodgy, let's see if we can get 8 BATs to change it" but more like "hey, this really brings nothing to the game, why is it here" type of deal. Of course, that's a very blunt way of putting things, but it is true. You have no idea how few beatmaps I download these days because at least 1/3 of them are 2-diff mapsets or clearly show no effort in making them. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone.

So is it a good thing or not? Meh, I dunno. What I am afraid of with this rule is circlejerking, which even inside the BAT is a thing. I would hate to see crap like "I don't like this, let's get my other 7 BAT friends to derank" happen, and I can definitely see it happen. This also could make for very heated discussions that I do not wish to see devolve into sissy fights like I've seen in the past.

it always impresses me how spot on can CDFA be on things like these

CDFA wrote:

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

Then I guess you want the faq to be removed, in case a newbie mapper decides to read it.

This bit is incredibly outdated I think and goes back to when score would dictate a map's length. I don't think the advice applies anymore given that you use breaks accordingly.

Plus, people can get away with cheap tricks that allow them to produce maps faster, get mods faster, and put out a bunch of mediocre maps to the ranked playlist. So if we're going to fight for quality, we can start by putting in little rules that help cut out the things that cause low qualityness.

This is what bothers me about many recent maps more than anything else.

It would be much more producitve to see a series of guidelines in regards to increasing map quality in general. Removing 2 diff mapsets except in relatively rare situations, disallowing the editing of mp3's to be shorter without an EXTREMELY valid reason, and increasing the amount of input an uploader has to put into their own mapset would go alot farther to incubating a mentality of 'quality over quanitity'.

But honestly, I don't really see a point for this thread at all. Doesn't un-ranking maps already take a consensus between several BATs anyways?

In either case, we should be focusing on how to solve the problems BEFORE ranking, not after it.

Please limit discussions in this thread to discussions actually relevant to this rule, and not the suggestion of tertiary systems to identify map quality. For the purposes of this rule, the BAT is considered able to actively discern what is a good map and what is not.

TVO: As far as instating this as a rule goes, I somewhat agree with you. This is not something a mapper can overtly adhere to as it does not detail a specific criterion that they must meet. In that sense, it is better suited as a guideline. However, guidelines do not carry the same imperative earnest that rules do, and as such, could easily be circumvented and/or forgotten. It also goes without saying that maps should be of a standard level of quality before attempting to be ranked - and this definition of quality varies from player to player.

Silynn: You clearly do not fully grasp this issue. A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking. The criteria is an objective assessment of what maps a map structurally correct as opposed to of high quality.

A provision would need to be made in the staff's internal ranking policy for this to occur, and that is likely what will happen should this go ahead. In the interests of transparency, I am listing it as a "rule" in the sense of this forum in order to gather opinions and thoughts on the matter before progressing further. Consider the rule/guideline distinction for this issue irrelevant for the time being.

The simple fact of life is that most guidelines are not followed as they are not enforceable. Every guideline of note so far has been revised to become a rule shortly after its induction as mappers are simply unwilling to adopt them into practice for the most part. Therein, suggesting further guidelines to improve map quality appears as if it is a logically sound idea, but in reality, will affect almost nothing. Indeed, the abject description of "quality" is nearly impossible to pin down in an objective ruleset as it is a subjective concept - apples and oranges. I am all for further suggestions for guidelines despite their apparent uselessness, but let's not kid anyone by thinking they are anything beyond idyllic concepts of what mappers should do, or at least the ones whom are far removed from common sense.

What I wish to seek with this rule is a provision that will permit maps to be suitably revised if a significant majority of the team all agrees on a set of specific issues and their solutions beforehand. It is not simply "8 BAT hate this map and thus it is unranked". These 8 BAT will be required to work intensely with the mapper to resolve the quality concerns before the map may be reranked, and any violation of this process on the BAT's part will be met with severe disciplinary rebuke. Indeed, any BAT that rank a map which requires this provision to amend will have their candidacy amongst the team discussed by the BATmanagers as a part of this process as well, as this is something which should only be used in circumstances where it is absolutely required.

Ephemeral wrote:

8 BAT

I just read all from this,why 8?and not 6? or 4? o dunno is more a discutible number... tell me how 8 BATs will check the map, because it's really hard to find atm 1 for a mod or for a simple check

ErufenRito wrote:

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Agree 1/2 of this; BATs should judge the map quality, BUT the mappers should not please a group for checking a map,for personal experience i know what this means,and searching for someone who is not busy/lazy/like the song is hard, it will be just a priviledge to have a ranked map and ppl will wait more and more for a rank.
if something like this should be implemented, osu will need more BATs .w. i do not totaly agree about this rule

Honestly, I don't see what exactly you people are discussing.
This rule would only set a definition for what happened before already.
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/79149 Look at that map, it was unranked because many people agreed it wasn't playable properly.

This wouldn't really change anything. The only thing is that mappers couldn't complain about unranks anymore, because BATs are following a rule. and less discussions result in faster mods and thus in faster reranks.

Eph, it sounds to me what you actually want is a restructuring of the ranking process to include more thorough quality checking.

Don't try to pass this off as some shitty vague rule. And don't say that it being a "rule" is irrelevant to discussion, that's probably one of the major problems with what you proposed.

I'm sorry, but please choose your words more carefully and say what you actually mean.

It's not helpful to anyone if you try to make rules that aren't necessary.

Also:

Ephemeral wrote:

A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking

Where does this happen? It doesn't. Why is this relevant if it doesn't happen? It isn't.




Anyways, it doesn't matter, because it seems what I'm arguing and what you're arguing are different things.

In any case, I still feel it's relevant to point out that this "decrease in map quality" doesn't really exist and we don't need an increase in current quality standards

because that's what it seems like you're saying and that's what a lot of other people think you're saying too

Silynn wrote:

Also:

Ephemeral wrote:

A map may be by all assessments of the criteria considered perfectly rankable. Simply placing a note on every beat throughout the length of a song is technically rankable, albeit an absolutely horrible map and one that should not even be remotely considered for ranking

Where does this happen? It doesn't. Why is this relevant if it doesn't happen? It isn't.

t/92080&start=0
read the thread starting with the first rank until the rerank

Soaprman wrote:

I think a model like the critic/user score split on Metacritic could be useful here. Just abandon "standards" altogether and rank any map that isn't technically crippled in some obvious way when the mapper decides it's finished. Then the BATs' ratings (and comments/reviews?) go into a prominent "critic" category and all the other users' ratings go into a "user" category. Then add critic/user scores to the filters on the map listing, and have the filter default to critic score >= 70% or something... whatever would correspond to what the BATs think "rankable" should be.

If people make shitty maps, they'll fall off the "critic approved" filter, and people adventurous enough to download the map anyway will downvote the map and move on if they don't like it. People are pretty good at deciding whether they like something, so let them handle that decision themselves.

tl;dr get some free market up in this bitch.

Insane suggestion that most people will just roll their eyes and ignore aside, I like ErufenRito and awp's posts. Don't restrict the "bad" maps. Just give extra spotlight to the "good" ones.

This is exactly what I was trying to push a while ago. In fact, I believe that you posted in my suggestion thread about that. I certainly think that we should still try to get all maps up to a certain degree of polish, but being able to give the best maps a further stamp of approval would help the end user to find better maps. Here's hoping.

Seriously, though. Let's not abandon standards.

Silynn, the entire point is that, if staff members think, "Why the Hell wasn't this map refined" at something being ranked, they'd be able to do something about it. Currently, it only takes one BAT to rank something and then, even if there are clearly ways in which a map could be improved, it's "good enough." Why not improve something if there's clearly room for it? We shouldn't fall back on user ratings as the be-all and end-all, because we'd either see loads of sloppy maps being upvoted because of the song choice, or a load of sloppy maps with negative ratings--but still a load of sloppy maps. Neither of those outcomes sound good to me.

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

CXu wrote:

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

If 8 BATs actually think, it is bad, there must be something bad, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 20 of them think, it is fine, 8 is a good number to say that there is at least something heavily wrong.

I hope you get this logic. lol

Loctav wrote:

CXu wrote:

Out of curiosity: what happens if 8 BATs think something is bad, but 4/6/8/10/whatevernumber of BATs disagree?

If 8 BATs actually think, it is bad, there must be something bad, else they wouldn't be BATs. Even if 20 of them think, it is fine, 8 is a good number to say that there is at least something heavily wrong.

I hope you get this logic. lol

so if 8 BATs don't like the map, but all the others do and the community likes it and everybody is happy and everything is wonderful, it still could get unranked?

that seems illogical. I think it should rather be that 8 BATs are the minimum amount you need for an unrank, but if they are by far in the minority, they can't unrank the map.

Ensuring quality is not about majority or popularity contests. If 8 BATs, who have an idea, what they are talking about, think that the map is that bad that it needs to be unranked, then there is probably something wrong FOR REAL - regardless what the other majority says.

Personally, I am quite astonished at the large variance of map quality present these days. Mappers are increasingly playing the quantity over quality game for whatever reason, and overall map quality is beginning to suffer for it.

Mappers
Why dont you tell us the names of those mappers
overall map quality
Pick few maps from the first page that you considered to be *badly mapped* and lets ask those BATs why did they bubble/rank it if its so bad

You almost all are talking about it, and talking about it and herpiderpiderp it. But the thing is: Can you even imagine the position of a new Mapper which may has potential to make nice Maps in the future but stucks for now in a low Level? Because nobody did that. Just say that if x BATs dislike it it isn't worth to rank it or to keep it ranked. Because the Title is saying that subliminal.

Now let's think about it: If someone made a Beatmap which has actually no problems - which means that it has no unrankable issues and it isn't so bad at all - but it still does not reach the minimum of Quality how these BATs who judges about it wishes, how does should the new Mapper feels? I can tell it to you: The Mapper will be mostly sad, angry or disappointed about itself and/or on his work. You're trying to limit the numbers of Opinions to give a final result to a Beatmap but the truth is: You can't be everybody's darling. Whetever if it's a Mapper, Modder, BAT or a Player. You just can't do that. For the sake of the future, please stop trying bring something forward which cannot be moved for now.

You - which means some people - may have been mad because you see that you made some great works while other people makes worse things - according to your Maps - and getting them ranked too. This, is just how I think how some people acts. However, to describe Quality into Rules, criterias or something else is the same shit how you define effort. And many people simply don't know that. This thread is trying to split the good Mappers from the (currently) bad Mappers more and more and you know this won't go well. For now I am done what I want to say. I might give more stuff what I've thinking in this moment. :p

Stefan wrote:

You almost all are talking about it, and talking about it and herpiderpiderp it. But the thing is: Can you even imagine the position of a new Mapper which may has potential to make nice Maps in the future but stucks for now in a low Level? Because nobody did that. Just say that if x BATs dislike it it isn't worth to rank it or to keep it ranked. Because the Title is saying that subliminal.

if you're a new mapper and your maps are shit dont expect to get them ranked, try to improve first.
getting bad maps ranked just because "its their first map" is a horrible excuse

If it's like this , then how about limiting 1 or 2 new beatmaps per day? BATs can make a voting or something like that to determine which map has to be ranked today. If there are no beatmap that met their criteria, then no ranked beatmap that day. imo

silmarilen wrote:

getting bad maps ranked just because "its their first map" is a horrible excuse

That's not an excuse, yes. Also I've never tried to lead on this way.

silmarilen wrote:

if you're a new mapper and your maps are shit dont expect to get them ranked, try to improve first.

Improving cannot only come by saying "bad" "boring" "stop mapping". There must be a balance between that. As I said this Discussion doesn't really focused on newer Mappers. And with this Rule - what's kind stupidity - you're giving more like 70% of the Mappers no chance. Sure, try to improve yourself. But being demotivated if someone says "Your Map does not fullfil our personal criterias." is just normal then.

Stefan wrote:

If someone made a Beatmap which has actually no problems - which means that it has no unrankable issues and it isn't so bad at al

the only maps that get unranked will be the ones which ARE "so bad at all"
That's the whole point, y'know.

Stefan wrote:

Sure, try to improve yourself. But being demotivated if someone says "Your Map does not fullfil our personal criterias." is just normal then.

why do you assume it's gonna be like that? If a map sucks that badly it gets unranked that's for some actual reasons. BATs tell the mapper these reasons, e.g. "you have only 2 different patterns in the whole map, this is not fun to play, try some more creative stuff, like XYZ".
That's somethin mappers can work with, that's giving them the opprtunity to improve. Assuming they want that.
Allowing them to keep their shitmaps and not telling them they're shit will not help them.

Stefan, your points are completely invalid.

Otonashi Yuzuru wrote:

If it's like this , then how about limiting 1 or 2 new beatmaps per day? BATs can make a voting or something like that to determine which map has to be ranked today. If there are no beatmap that met their criteria, then no ranked beatmap that day. imo

We already have enough problem with the 8 limit. The amount of new maps is way too high for your idea, since it'd cause millions of good maps still pending.

That Thread is completely invalid. my 2ct

I am out here because this Thread is mostly represents how osu! shouldn't be: unfunny and strict with tons of rules.

Stefan wrote:

That Thread is completely invalid. my 2ct

I am out here because this Thread is mostly represents how osu! shouldn't be: unfunny and strict with tons of rules.

"Unfunny and strict?" I think it's safe to say that the staff are capable of having a laugh. With the rules and guidelines, there is also plenty of room for self-expression and personal style. If we didn't have "tons of rules," then we'd have ranked maps which are far worse than they are at the moment. Making a beatmap is simple enough as a concept, but it takes a lot of effort to make something that feels cohesive. There's a reason as to why new mappers are usually bad and 2007 maps are usually inferior--they need time to develop.

Please somebody (of course BAT is better) drop here

large variance of map quality present these days

and maps from this week\month\two which could be handled by this rule.

I think some examples can bring this thread to a new level.

As Sieg said - giving few examples would bring this thread to whole new level, so I do.

Because I mostly agree on what CDFA said, I'm going to drop my 2 cents here

CDFA wrote:

For instance, Cut Ver. maps. Piss me off uncontrollably. I understand like Eroge OPs and stuff, and cutting songs that repeat (Mostly like vidja game music), but when you have a full version song, cut it after the first chorus, and go off and get it ranked magically, that's pretty bad. There can easily be a rule saying "Songs should not be cut without due reason." BATs can also be harder on it by not being so fluffy wuffy and getting what can be done next time done now.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/88299

Same with like guest diff maps. I swear there was a rule where mappers had to map at least 2 of the diffs in a map (Or at least participate like in a collab diff or something.). But there's a lot of maps where people are like "MAP ONE DIFF LOL OTHER DIFFS ARE DUMB IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUBLISHING THIS FOR A GAME OR ANYTHING", which is totally a sign of low quality. A rule can be made easily.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/94623
(Sorry Andrea for using you as example)

Mr Color wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of very uninteresting mapsets lately, 2-diff mapsets that clearly have no gameplay experience to bring, very low user rated beatmaps, and just maps that are boring and uninspired and get very few plays. I think these are the one that the "level of quality" is aimed at. I don't think we're talking about "this is fun but dodgy, let's see if we can get 8 BATs to change it" but more like "hey, this really brings nothing to the game, why is it here" type of deal. Of course, that's a very blunt way of putting things, but it is true. You have no idea how few beatmaps I download these days because at least 1/3 of them are 2-diff mapsets or clearly show no effort in making them. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone.

http://osu.ppy.sh/s/76731

I don't want to actually start a flame war - And I could be wrong - but these maps fits their quotations very good. And I could even provide at least one problem with them if you don't agree with me.

"Quality checkers" should be a separate group of people from BATs, they shouldn't look at the technical side, just the playing side. The biggest problem for me with this is that a lot of BATs can't understand the playing quality of a map because they can't play it. This rule seems like it's aimed at maps which are hard to play because let's face it, a typical hard difficulty is a typical hard difficulty (9 times out of 10), a normal is always a normal and an easy is an easy, it's uncommon to find exceptionally interesting maps in there difficulties. Insane+ maps however tend to vary GREATLY and you need to be able to understand the appeal of each part of the variety if you want to regulate it.

People are too uppety about this kind of thing though, I mean the opposite isn't true so why should it work this way? Why can't maps of an exceptional quality be ranked without going through opinionated mods? I like mappers having freedom but I don't like bad mapping. Trying to regulate an opinion is difficult, if this passes AT LEAST make the decision require a rather high quantity of BATs to agree (a voting system on nominated maps in some hidden away BAT area perhaps?)

If this is aimed at "generic" difficulties, I don't agree. They always have been generic and always will be and in my eyes they will always be there for people to jump on, just more maps for me not to play.