Hallo, Freund. Wie geht es dir? Mir geht es gut!Hika wrote:
I turned my Siri German because no one wants to help me practice.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,186
No hablo ingles.
Il y a un oiseau dans mon pantalon qui s'appelle Gaston
Friendan wrote:
Il y a un oiseau dans mon pantalon qui s'appelle Gaston
Friendan wrote:
Il y a un oiseau dans mon pant...
Friendan wrote:
Il y a un oi...
Friendan wrote:
Il y a.........
Friendan wrote:
Ilya.
ILLYA
pijqröoijöaoeihjföioshptzhqpohspoafhpaoöfnqoifhaofh
http://loli.dance/
http://loli.dance/
http://loli.dance/
http://loli.dance/
http://loli.dance/
http://loli.dance/
is nice
Illya is an incredibly good source of plot cannon fodder! I personally prefer her F/SN death, as it's got more faux tragedy in it and well, my waifu Gil is directly involved in it.
Death to the overrated shit loli.
Death to the overrated shit loli.
Ah, das ist wunderbar! Ich bin krank und mudeRailey2 wrote:
Hallo, Freund. Wie geht es dir? Mir geht es gut!Hika wrote:
I turned my Siri German because no one wants to help me practice.
Also hey guys did you hear cookiezi unban
who?
IppE
Our friendship has endedAurani wrote:
Illya is an incredibly good source of plot cannon fodder! I personally prefer her F/SN death, as it's got more faux tragedy in it and well, my waifu Gil is directly involved in it.
Death to the overrated shit loli.
It was nice associating with you
She was hella cute in Zero tho...
Brian oml I found you on Facebook by accident and I'm screaming I'm sorry my master
but how can a loli be overrated I don't understandAurani wrote:
Illya is an incredibly good source of plot cannon fodder! I personally prefer her F/SN death, as it's got more faux tragedy in it and well, my waifu Gil is directly involved in it.
Death to the overrated shit loli.
I mean look at her dance
look
LOOK AT HER, AURANI
IppE
http://chocolate.loli.dance/Railey2 wrote:
but how can a loli be overrated I don't understand
I mean look at her dance
look
LOOK AT HER, AURANI
Motherfucker, that site for some reason isn't blocked on my school's WiFi firewall and so I had to explain to the librarian what the fuck was I looking at
Little girls don't have curvaceous bodies.
IppE
Wait, we were friends? When? How? Where?Brian OA wrote:
Our friendship has ended
It was nice associating with you
I'm going to Hell for this, but who the fuck cares, as long as it's Illya. =D
Here we see why Illya loved her dad so much.
Shohei Ohtani
>People complaining that the reason there's a cap is because the QATs are overworked and there is not enough people to look at all of the maps in qualified
>4+ people removed from the team in the past few months
>1 person added
>"hurr durr how do we solve this issue"
>"Can't add more people because we can't overwork the QATs"
>"If only we had more QATs"
Fuck I'm not looking forward to the winter break, because that means more free time, and more free time means more time on osu!, and more time on osu! means getting mad that the management literally has no clue how to efficiently manage anything past an "in-crowd" that promotes regional circlejerking lmao
>4+ people removed from the team in the past few months
>1 person added
>"hurr durr how do we solve this issue"
>"Can't add more people because we can't overwork the QATs"
>"If only we had more QATs"
Fuck I'm not looking forward to the winter break, because that means more free time, and more free time means more time on osu!, and more time on osu! means getting mad that the management literally has no clue how to efficiently manage anything past an "in-crowd" that promotes regional circlejerking lmao
Shohei Ohtani
I would but even if i started modding again and rejoined the BN, the QAT is specifically crafted to be filled with yesmen, which is why people like captin1 had a rough time in it while people like Lust thrived in it.
Its literally designed so that everyone in there has the same opinion. Which is great for approving maps consistently, but instead of that opinion being the community opinion, its generally loctavs opinion.
And the people are hand selected to be submissive and have the same homogenized opinion. Ive had such a rough time with talking with some QATs bedause any complaint i had was turned into "yeah but you guys arent staff so it isnt important" or "its what loctav says so thats what i believe"
So i wouldnt be let in even if i re-claimed mt position on top of the BN ranking
Its literally designed so that everyone in there has the same opinion. Which is great for approving maps consistently, but instead of that opinion being the community opinion, its generally loctavs opinion.
And the people are hand selected to be submissive and have the same homogenized opinion. Ive had such a rough time with talking with some QATs bedause any complaint i had was turned into "yeah but you guys arent staff so it isnt important" or "its what loctav says so thats what i believe"
So i wouldnt be let in even if i re-claimed mt position on top of the BN ranking
its the 18th you fool. you dunce. you numbskull.slandotski wrote:
uhhh...... merry christmas?
after what happened to maps like yes we cant - wh and the roller coaster of fuck that was time freeze's ranking process ive come to believe QAT's in general do nothing but harm to the ranking process.
I think the whole staff and ranking system is seriously fucked I mean the fact that certain mappers can say an outright "no" to almost all of a QAT's suggested improvements after a DQ and then the map gets rebubbled and ranked with no issue
Meanwhile other maps can get disqualified 6 times and you'd seriously expect all the issues to be caught within the first 1-3 disqualifications because QATs are supposed to be professional mappers >_>
Meanwhile other maps can get disqualified 6 times and you'd seriously expect all the issues to be caught within the first 1-3 disqualifications because QATs are supposed to be professional mappers >_>
every mapper should be able to do this and it should happen all the time until the ones that habitually unrank shit realize their garbo opinions are unwanted and quitMahogany wrote:
I think the whole staff and ranking system is seriously fucked I mean the fact that certain mappers can say an outright "no" to almost all of a QAT's suggested improvements after a DQ and then the map gets rebubbled and ranked with no issue
VERY rarely is it warranted. the last time i can remember an unranking being fair was probably when that ridiculous koigokoro map got taken down.. it was a piece of shit on every level. i dont even care that i lost my 197pp play on it. im surprised it got unranked for the background and not the horrible mapping though.
then again im biased, i think cs3 should be unrankable.
EneT wrote:
Little girls don't have curvaceous bodies.
QAT think that they're hot shit and that their opinions should be law. Only a few mappers like Hollow Wings have been able to beat them.
I thought you hated lolis? Did I miss something or I am just remembering wrong?Aurani wrote:
I'm going to Hell for this, but who the fuck cares, as long as it's Illya. =D
Here we see why Illya loved her dad so much.
If you're talking about Luerxa's version that one is still up, still gives a bunch of pp, still is garbogexxjesus1412fanx wrote:
the last time i can remember an unranking being fair was probably when that ridiculous koigokoro map got taken down..
But I displayed nothing BUT hatred towards Illya in that post... I mean I pretty much pulled a scene out of context where Illya compares Berserker's dick to her father's. Can't get any worse than that.
I think what is truly wrong with the whole QAT vs. mappers thing is, that everyone here seems to accept the premise that it has to be "vs."
The ranking-process should not be about pushing your will through against QATs, but about reaching a compromise. The compromise should be based on the understanding that opinions on quality differ, but that the conjoint effort of both QATs and mappers will lead to a better result in most cases. The same should be true from the QATs perspective: They shouldn't just force their opinions on the mappers, but act with the aforementioned idea in mind.
I've seen people antagonize the QATs everywhere, and who knows in some cases they might have been justified in doing so. Maybe some QATs are biased and unfair towards certain mappers. However, I know for sure that many mappers have publicly been proper assholes towards QATs and their work, calling them corrupt, twisted and whatnot. I refuse to believe that the QAT is a community made of children that are on an embarrassing power-trip together, who deserve treatment like that.
Maybe stop introducing and then fortifying the idea that it has to be an "us vs. them". If you do that consistently, they will eventually adopt the idea and act accordingly. Stop making up sides like this is a battle or a war.
Instead, just treat them like people and give credit to them for the work that they are doing instead of acting all up-stuck and self-righteous. Because THAT certainly isn't helping. It just makes you a pain to deal with.
People are a lot more willing to make a compromise if you are nice to them. I hope, in the end we just all want to contribute to this game in one way or another.
The ranking-process should not be about pushing your will through against QATs, but about reaching a compromise. The compromise should be based on the understanding that opinions on quality differ, but that the conjoint effort of both QATs and mappers will lead to a better result in most cases. The same should be true from the QATs perspective: They shouldn't just force their opinions on the mappers, but act with the aforementioned idea in mind.
I've seen people antagonize the QATs everywhere, and who knows in some cases they might have been justified in doing so. Maybe some QATs are biased and unfair towards certain mappers. However, I know for sure that many mappers have publicly been proper assholes towards QATs and their work, calling them corrupt, twisted and whatnot. I refuse to believe that the QAT is a community made of children that are on an embarrassing power-trip together, who deserve treatment like that.
Maybe stop introducing and then fortifying the idea that it has to be an "us vs. them". If you do that consistently, they will eventually adopt the idea and act accordingly. Stop making up sides like this is a battle or a war.
Instead, just treat them like people and give credit to them for the work that they are doing instead of acting all up-stuck and self-righteous. Because THAT certainly isn't helping. It just makes you a pain to deal with.
People are a lot more willing to make a compromise if you are nice to them. I hope, in the end we just all want to contribute to this game in one way or another.
I know members of the QAT only have good intentions, but the system is still deeply flawed. I'd say anyone would have a right to get annoyed and angry if their map got disqualified 6 times, and their reactions would be totally justified. QATs are supposed to be professionals, and they should catch all the issues preventing ranking within 1 or two DQs, and not take 6!
And, in my opinion, it's pretty bullshit that certain mappers can outright refuse to change quite a few things that a QAT has told them to, and get the map ranked anyway. Shouldn't QATs only be disqualifying maps if there's actually a problem that needs to be fixed, and not something they're willing to let slide when pressed?
And, in my opinion, it's pretty bullshit that certain mappers can outright refuse to change quite a few things that a QAT has told them to, and get the map ranked anyway. Shouldn't QATs only be disqualifying maps if there's actually a problem that needs to be fixed, and not something they're willing to let slide when pressed?
That is not how shit gets done in this worldRailey2 wrote:
Instead, just treat them like people
There surely have been instances where questionable decisions have been made, but what many forget is that this is to be expected. This is a field where objective judgment is pretty much impossible. Especially when QATs hold perfections as their own standard, things might take a little longer.Mahogany wrote:
I know members of the QAT only have good intentions, but the system is still deeply flawed. I'd say anyone would have a right to get annoyed and angry if their map got disqualified 6 times, and their reactions would be totally justified. QATs are supposed to be professionals, and they should catch all the issues preventing ranking within 1 or two DQs, and not take 6!
And, in my opinion, it's pretty bullshit that certain mappers can outright refuse to change quite a few things that a QAT has told them to, and get the map ranked anyway. Shouldn't QATs only be disqualifying maps if there's actually a problem that needs to be fixed, and not something they're willing to let slide when pressed?
Of course there are double standards, and it is important and fair to address them when they become visible. It is not fair to slander a whole team for the things that go wrong, while ignoring all the things that go right.
I am not denying that there are problems with the system. I am unsure if there can be a system without problems when it comes to this, because in the end.. we'll always have to leave the ranking process up to human jurisdiction.
To address your second question: You can see disqualifications as a purely negative feedback from the QAT, or as a chance to make a good map even better through conjoint effort. If a QAT came up to me and said: "hey I have some ideas for this to make it better, lets disqualify it for a while and think this over", I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Even if there is no actual problem with the map and it could technically be ranked. The QAT is giving me some of his time to improve the map together with me, which is awesome. Optimally, I could then decide if the proposed changes seem favorable, and push the map through regardless if I decide that they aren't (after all, the map was fine before it was disqualified).
Technically, everyone should be allowed to push through certain things that don't significantly affect playability. Pointing out when people are ignored is part of fighting against the expected biases I talked about before - it is important and needed.
Way to go, quoting me out of context. I don't promote this as a godlike solution for everything, so your response misses the point completely. And besides, osu is not "this world". It is a pretty isolated and well regulated system, so you are in fact missing the point twice.Kaienyuu wrote:
That is not how shit gets done in this worldRailey2 wrote:
Instead, just treat them like people
All I said was, that it is time to take a step back and reduce the toxicity that is creeping between people here. Antagonizing isn't helpful, as it is just creating an atmosphere that nobody wants to work in. It also isn't fair in most cases.
the problem is the system is redundant and superfluous.. we already have BN's that can only execute their powers with objective reasons, they cannot simply 'opinion' a map into being ranked. They need to make sure ranking criteria's are met. This is the imbalance of power present, they don't operate on the same rules, they can just say "unplayable" and that's it, all the hard work and collaboration and making sure criteria are met swept aside because hur dur. I don't see why there needs to be another layer of bullshit over an already difficult system to push maps through. May as well tell the BN's they're incompetent and that peppy has no faith in them. Get rid of them altogether and make the QAT do everything, then immediately bring back the BN's because nothing got done while they were gone.Railey2 wrote:
I think what is truly wrong with the whole QAT vs. mappers thing is, that everyone here seems to accept the premise that it has to be "vs."
The ranking-process should not be about pushing your will through against QATs, but about reaching a compromise. The compromise should be based on the understanding that opinions on quality differ, but that the conjoint effort of both QATs and mappers will lead to a better result in most cases. The same should be true from the QATs perspective: They shouldn't just force their opinions on the mappers, but act with the aforementioned idea in mind.
I've seen people antagonize the QATs everywhere, and who knows in some cases they might have been justified in doing so. Maybe some QATs are biased and unfair towards certain mappers. However, I know for sure that many mappers have publicly been proper assholes towards QATs and their work, calling them corrupt, twisted and whatnot. I refuse to believe that the QAT is a community made of children that are on an embarrassing power-trip together, who deserve treatment like that.
Maybe stop introducing and then fortifying the idea that it has to be an "us vs. them". If you do that consistently, they will eventually adopt the idea and act accordingly. Stop making up sides like this is a battle or a war.
Instead, just treat them like people and give credit to them for the work that they are doing instead of acting all up-stuck and self-righteous. Because THAT certainly isn't helping. It just makes you a pain to deal with.
People are a lot more willing to make a compromise if you are nice to them. I hope, in the end we just all want to contribute to this game in one way or another.
x
I've seen a map get DQed with one of the stated reasons being "You only have 1 page of low quality mods"Railey2 wrote:
There surely have been instances where questionable decisions have been made, but what many forget is that this is to be expected. This is a field where objective judgment is pretty much impossible. Especially when QATs hold perfections as their own standard, things might take a little longer.
...that's entirely irrelevant to the map's quality and is not a valid reason for disqualification under any circumstance
-That wasn't the sole reason for disqualification but it's inclusion in the DQ post was completely unnecessary-
So what if the mods are low quality? Clearly the map itself is high quality if a BN thought to bubble it. The mods have little to nothing to actually do with the map. If I make the best map ever, and nobody can mod it because it's perfect in any way, does that mean it can never get ranked because I don't get any mods?
I'd rather slander an entire group than single out and target individuals. Not to mention doing that would probably get me silenced. Slandering a single person would probably be flaming, and unfair towards them.Railey2 wrote:
Of course there are double standards, and it is important and fair to address them when they become visible. It is not fair to slander a whole team for the things that go wrong, while ignoring all the things that go right.
But the only way problems get fixed is if people complain about them enough. That's why I'm complaining. It'll never be perfect, but it can improve.Railey2 wrote:
am not denying that there are problems with the system. I am unsure if there can be a system without problems when it comes to this, because in the end.. we'll always have to leave the ranking process up to human jurisdiction.
If it's on terms purely of "Being helpful and friendly" I believe they should either:Railey2 wrote:
If a QAT came up to me and said: "hey I have some ideas for this to make it better, lets disqualify it for a while and think this over", I'd have absolutely no problem with that. Even if there is no actual problem with the map and it could technically be ranked.
-Mod the map and point out those issues before it gets into qualified
OR
-Ask you personally what you thought of those issues, WITHOUT disqualifying the map UNLESS you agree with what they're saying.
thx m8 I do it that all the timeRailey2 wrote:
Way to go, quoting me out of context.