This just doesn't matter, what is the point on creating random rules?
Sorry, I don't get it. This should be reconsidered.Ephemeral wrote:
this is largely ignored as a guideline and all variants of the ver. tag in song/beatmap names look extremely poor and out of place.
accordingly, this guideline is now considered as a rule and maps that violate it henceforth are candidates for unranking.
I think so as well since it indicates whether the song is short, extended, cut, full, etc.ykcarrot wrote:
Sorry, I don't get it. This should be reconsidered.
I don't agree with this rule neither, I agree with carrot. This should be reconsider, or just move this back as a guideline, really.mancusojuanmattos wrote:
Really, this rule is really unnecesary, Does it hurt in some way if we have 'Short ver.' in title?
I don't think so, really.
Until now no one likes the idea, you should reconsider it.Ephemeral wrote:
this is largely ignored as a guideline and all variants of the ver. tag in song/beatmap names look extremely poor and out of place.
accordingly, this guideline is now considered as a rule and maps that violate it henceforth are candidates for unranking.
Konei wrote:
I agree!
Still, it's still going to be confusing, especially when it's a popular song, to determine if the map is the full song or a cut version of it, lol. Imagine 5 maps of the same song where 3 are short while 2 are full. As a player, I'd like to know which is what.those wrote:
Conclusion: from all this, I'd like to propose a rule/guideline that will help make labeling songs more consistent. In general, simply do not add (Short Ver.) or (TV Size) if the song didn't come with it. While this may not be a big issue now, with more and more maps being labeled randomly, there will be a large inconsistency between the two.5
^thiseldnl wrote:
Using Cut or Short ver. is very usefull, you will know how long is the song, or if it is the original one ...