Okay, so you are emphasizing guitar, which is cool, but I still think that guitar is not the foreground instrument to be emphasized all the time and when opportunity is given, it should be used on foreground instruments. If you really have to listen carefully to notice what is being emphasized, then the emphasis choice was not probably correct, but let's say it's your choice, but I still think no reason over why guitar is emphasized over cymbals (which are obviously in the foreground and therefor are more important) was not really given.
About your example on 00:21:805 (1) - , that basically proves what I said - how low the change for calm parts is in comparison with the intense parts. This will be barely noticed if you decrease spacing on two or three objects. I actually talk about difference for example between part 00:13:405 - to 00:30:548 - where intensity doesn't fit the song as you make it almost same intense as 00:01:976 - to 00:13:405 - the difference is really minimal. While if it gets to intense part, you increase the spacing just to fullscreen jumps. Why should intense parts have higher priority when it comes to following the song that calm parts? While you probably want to keep it "funny", that's fine, but that's possible even with adjusting the intensity so the difference is clearly noticeable, same as the intensity change is noticeable for intense parts.
For the second paragraph, let's give example. The song got suddenly more intense on 01:06:262 - as the snares are used twice as often, so it is fine to increase the intensity indeed. 01:10:548 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - then does have some little change in music and gets one more intense part, which may be a subject to emphasis, but you didn't do much about it, I would not worry that much anyway as at least 2 more circles are used instead of regular slider, so that's fine. But what I talk about is that 01:11:976 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,1) - is not changing progressively. The intensity is still same, volume is still same, only volume change is about her voice and that's pretty much on the end and that is noticeable on 01:15:905 - . But what you do is emphasize every note more and more, while it is basically the same as 01:06:262 - just with the only difference that her voice is louder (but not progressively, there's one-step change), so the change should not be increasing and increasing, but should change the intensity once on 01:11:976 - and then eventually use the fullscreen jump on 01:15:905 (4,1) - as the intensity change is obvious here. If you just want to claim it fits the voice, then I won't really deny the fact that voice can be emphasized. But then, logically it should mean 01:13:048 (1,2) - 01:14:476 (1,2) - should be least intense as the voice is fading out, 01:12:691 (1,2) - 01:14:119 (1,2) - should be most emphasized as the voice is on its peak here and 01:12:334 (1,2) - 01:13:762 (1,2) - should be less than the middle as the voice is coming yet. I cannot find another logic as: Drums are not getting more intense, voice is not getting more intense, just its pitch is getting a little higher, but not more significant, guitar is still constant and doesn't change at all, piano is just playing another notes, intensity is same. That's why I lack logic in these patterns, nothing is getting intense progressively but 01:12:334 (1,2) - has difference, all instruments are only changing notes, even voice - and even if you wanted to emphasize the vocals, which are quite variable here, the change on your spacing being progressive would make no sense as I just described that notes after the voice should not be even more intense as they are pretty much constant in the song, only variable could be considered the voice, which is still questionable, but if you want to follow it, do so, but logically, for example as I described. And yes, I described why it isn't logical in the examples. I won't repeat myself here, this paragraph should be pretty clear if you look at the song and map.
OT__________________________________
"Cool, again, subjective." - NO OPINION is simply objective. I'm asking you to explain, so explain. You'll never get objective opinion unless 100% of community will have the same opinion.
"you have no right to re express an opinion which others disagree with for the sake of delaying the map" - If you consider ranking and modding process as delaying maps, go and play Hexis, where no modding system exists. Ensuring quality is more important than your map being qualified as quickly as possible!
"Veyron bubbled because we disagreed" - I said why it is issue, you didn't say why it isn't. So I stopped it and required it to make sure it doesn't pointlessly get to qualified before mods being responded properly.
"Without raising any new arguments for why my map has problem" - I'm not supposed to find a new issue each time I open map. If the issue stays without proper explanation, then I don't see reason for looking for more issues to allow me this one being addressed.
"Simply telling me again that you don't approve of my map is less constructive and more akin to harassment." - Told you again because you didn't explain anything. If you consider this harassment, then please, realize that you explicitly denied my modding by "Leave my map alone. I have no interest in anything you have to say." and tried to humiliate me by pointing out my maps and even asking me whether I like mapper XY.