forum

The Upheaval - Proposed changes to the BN/QAT

posted
Total Posts
109
show more
[Lilypad]
yes we need good mania ranked maps kthx :)
Percyqaz
I don't have a real presence in the mapping community but these changes sound good to me :-)
Pachiru

Weber wrote:

"The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts."

I feel like this should happen more often than twice a year. 2-3 months sounds more appropriate.
Indeed, that would be better I think, and that would encourage BN's to make a "better" work regularly (if I may say so)
squirrelpascals

Shiirn wrote:

GitHub wrote:

One T2 BN noted that in the process of forcing less experienced BN to only be able to bubble maps coupled with the more experienced T2 BN being pressured to solely qualify, the maps that were receiving the most attention were considerably safer, more uniform maps that may prioritize criteria 'safety' over creative exposition and general enjoyment.
This issue has been going on for years, and is more related to the qualification system as a whole rather than the most recent change, although admittedly the tiering change certainly exacerbated it.

In general, the protests regarding map quality have had nothing to do with map quality in reality, but instead in a perceived (and very real) lack of Variety and Expression. Players and mappers alike will colloquially refer to this as "maps suck nowadays" but they're not talking about the actual quality of the structure or the patterns here.
Want to speak out what i think because mapping vairety matters a lot to me

I think the only people in the end who decide the amount of innovation and creativity that go into the ranking system are the mappers themselves. A map that uses perfectly meta aesthetics, comfortable flow, very safe style, etc, is obviously much easier to rank than something that pushes rc boundaries. So if mappers feel more comfortable mapping in that way from experience then they'll do so, and push those for rank. The thing that will most stop them from pushing experimental types of maps is the boundaries that the ranking system provides- so it does have to do partly with the qualification system, but there can't ever be a perfect system (even though we can come as close as we can). There has to be some sort of quality assurance for ranked maps in the first place.

Removal of tiers will open up a lot of availability for bn mods and therefore qualifications, making it easier to push maps in general. So this availability will probably (and hopefully) give them more confidence to push something more-or- less against the mapping meta :)
_handholding

Weber wrote:

"The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts."

I feel like this should happen more often than twice a year. 2-3 months sounds more appropriate.
I agree with weber tbh, I do feel it should be slightly shorter. Perhaps 3 or 4 months, 6 feels a bit too long
Nozhomi
I don't really care about these rewards title and stuff, but yeah this draft is definitly a better way to handle map nomination by far.

Hoping we will see this soon in action~
Starrodkirby86
It's great to see active changes and reactivity to how previous changes have went. Though I can't help but think lots of these elements seem awfully familiar. ;) Where's our protobubbles at?!

I want to discuss one other point, but I may be entirely misguided. My apologies if that's the case.

I find it fascinating to consider this point here:
QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked.
There's a pretty bent homogeneity in modern mapping, that "alternative" mapping styles can get pretty scrutinized subjectively despite no apparent violations in the Ranking Criteria. These would be interpretations of "intensities", "emphasis", etc. I hope we can see QATs and therein, nominators and, most importantly, the everyday modder in the community to receptively treat a variety of styles openly through this.

I hope that the QAT leadership will be forefront, open-minded, and overall inclusive in this. The more toxicity and friction, the less motivating it'd be to eagerly discover and promote unique maps deserving to be Ranked and recognized.

I do hope that everyone keeps those thoughts in mind when moving forward.
Underforest
This thing is pretty cool, hope gets in action too owo
Nowaie
I think this sounds pretty damn good coming from the osu! staff :^) (/s) (please don't kill me)

But yeah, i see this pretty much completely as a positive thing for all of the mappers and nominators

The QAT changes would make more sense overall considering that they are supposed to be the finest cream of the modding (and mapping) community. Currently, as it reads on the draft, they aren't really working like that right now. Atleast that's my expression as a person from the std mapping and modding communities. And if people in the QAT desire that aswell i think it would be better overall.

Also i think this plus the suggestion that they would promote higher quality beatmaps (and some other stuff i noticed on the draft such as maps getting classified if they need revision) could be something that would ACTUALLY increase the map quality atleast on some level
Kilabarus
Agree with the others ( Werbee and Kisses ) about the idea of rewarding BNs
Just one through the half of a year isn't really so motivational to write many mods and do other important things. Maybe giving rewards every 2-4 months is better, or keep 6 months but give these rewards to more people, like 2 or 3 would be just great imo

Other than that is just great, hope it will be "ranked" soon xd
Myxo
This sounds very promising.

Though, the reason why QATs stopped disqualifying maps on their own was mainly the will of peppy himself, so I don't see this change reverting unless you can actually convince him.

Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.
Trynna
i kinda agree that rewarding BN activity should be done every 2-3 months, as 6 months seems such a long time
but overall looking pretty cool
Nao Tomori
I agree with Desperate, in the same way that many mappers may not know what BNs are doing internally, BNs do not know what QAT are doing. So it really would just be a popularity contest, instead of a meritocratic one.
Surono
Agree with Desperate-kun, Let keep it handovered to the experienced/authorized.
Ultima Fox
This sounds awesome, I feel like these changes, especially the removal of the tiered bns, well help a lot with the mapping scene and people's willingness to expand beyond the generic and safe style. Also it'll encourage BNs to be more active with the acknowledgement / rewards.

However I do also agree with Desperate, in which since the BNs don't have a ton of insight on what the QATs are doing, the choosing for a leader of the QATs will essentially be a popularity contest.
Monstrata
If the QAT became more transparent then it would be good to at least have BN insight. This is a fault of the QAT's not being transparent enough imo, not a fault of us "not being qualified to vote for QAT's".

Mappers may not know what BN's are doing internally, but there are methods to finding out, and what BN's are doing are not nearly as secretive as what QAT's are doing in any regard. As well, we can also comment on the actions of QAT's based on what we know, or what they have been doing on the public-facing front.

For example, we know pishifat does a lot of videos and gives a lot of insight into mapping theory. We also know he qualifies a bunch of maps, sometimes with minimal modding if any (and I'm sure there are people who've come to question these "yolo ranks"), we also know he participates in or had participated in BN test creation and that he is involved in helping with the Ranking Criteria changes.

I've always questioned why QAT's needed to be so secretive in the first place. Why weren't BN test answers released? People can learn from them, especially the Part A answers (considering they are not private information as anyone who participated in the BN Test received the answer sheet).

So no, I disagree with Desp, I think BN's should be able to vote, but I believe they should also be given a better insight into the behind-the-scenes actions of QAT's. We shouldn't be barred from voting just because "we don't know".
GaterRaider
An upheaval to me would require that the blatant favoritism amongst BNs is addressed. Quick bubbles are passed around as favors that will be returned in the future in some way or the other. I am not going to name people but public cases of this are well recorded and should be no surprise to anyone. I don't even want to know how bad this truly is when you are an insider that has access to these advantages.

The problem is that nominators are naturally mappers and have a lot of influence in the ranking process. This creates an obvious incentive for favoritism to help each other out with their own maps. When those who are in charge of running the system are actively participating in it as individuals themselves then there are going to be problems.

Connections are too big of a driver in the current ranking process. Those with access to the people in charge are highly advantaged compared to those that do not. When getting hold of a BN is incredibly frustrating for some, while others can simply post a short message in a private discord server to get things rolling quickly I do not consider it a fair system.
Nitrous

GaterRaider wrote:

An upheaval to me would require that the blatant favoritism amongst BNs is addressed. Quick bubbles are passed around as favors that will be returned in the future in some way or the other. I am not going to name people but public cases of this are well recorded and should be no surprise to anyone. I don't even want to know how bad this truly is when you are an insider that has access to these advantages.

The problem is that nominators are naturally mappers and have a lot of influence in the ranking process. This creates an obvious incentive for favoritism to help each other out with their own maps. When those who are in charge of running the system are actively participating in it as individuals themselves then there are going to be problems.

Connections are too big of a driver in the current ranking process. Those with access to the people in charge are highly advantaged compared to those that do not. When getting hold of a BN is incredibly frustrating for some, while others can simply post a short message in a private discord server to get things rolling quickly I do not consider it a fair system.
That may be true in the most part, but BNs are experienced mappers. We can't tell apart from what is made from connections and honest actions, I agree that we should also stop this from happening as it seems unfair with the majority of the mapping community. Monetary rewards such as supporter is enough for incentives.

What this needs to be addressed is to make a rule (if this does so happen and if this will ever so happen) to prevent this from happening. Things such has "icon for icon" should be discouraged as it is unfair already as BNs/QATs already bypass what we regular members have to go through (for example the modding queues). Suspicious activity should be discouraged and even be punished by doing so.

Some BNs may choose to indirectly help a mapper because of favoritism while the mapper he so chooses to help doesn't know it. There should be a lock to prevent a specific BN iconing one mapper's maps. This can't fully stop but at least prevent the idea of speedranking in such a way too.
Wutever

GaterRaider wrote:

An upheaval to me would require that the blatant favoritism amongst BNs is addressed. Quick bubbles are passed around as favors that will be returned in the future in some way or the other. I am not going to name people but public cases of this are well recorded and should be no surprise to anyone. I don't even want to know how bad this truly is when you are an insider that has access to these advantages.

The problem is that nominators are naturally mappers and have a lot of influence in the ranking process. This creates an obvious incentive for favoritism to help each other out with their own maps. When those who are in charge of running the system are actively participating in it as individuals themselves then there are going to be problems.

Connections are too big of a driver in the current ranking process. Those with access to the people in charge are highly advantaged compared to those that do not. When getting hold of a BN is incredibly frustrating for some, while others can simply post a short message in a private discord server to get things rolling quickly I do not consider it a fair system.
your right that thats not fair. but theres no way to prevent some people simply having more contacts or connections with people as long as the system isnt entirely automated. hell in pretty much anything in life those who have the contacts are usually better off in some capacity.
heres hoping the incentives for more activity amoung bn's in general make it easier for those frustrated people to get contact with bn's on account of them just being more active.
Atrue
I like this change, and already can see some positive respond from mappers and modders I know. Hope we can get to details soon and try this scheme out. These days I'm not mapping or modding due to graduate school works, but this encourages people like me to think about if we get some time to do some thing to serve our mapping and modding community again.
Okoratu
But what you are suggesting doesn't exactly apply to what we currently have, Monstrata. If we were totally transparent about what we do today then we wouldn't call public voting on who is to lead our team into question based on the public not knowing for 100% of what we do. The transparency thing can be fixed though going forward - just depends on the timing of that vote then - really.

The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.

I mean the other way suggested is just jinxing people based on vast majority vote within qat in which case i can already hear the accusations of being biased for kicking BN x in my inbox?

The reward/acknowledgement stuff was repeatedly asked for so no qualms there.

One idea for subdivisions working better was not doing this in a top down manner and just throwing people into teams because that's usually how teambuilding irl works - you get thrown somewhere and either get along or you dont. That is BNs choosing which subdivision they wish to be in (which would probably need like a "you can only change subdivisions once every 3 months so you don't troll the living hell out of everyone responsible for the scoring" which I could probably foresee happening).

As we've said multiple times the QAT are not discouraged from bubbling or qualifying maps as of right now. The formal authority for vetting qualified was revoked on Asymmetry so if you want to bring that back we also kind of go back to the community relying on the QAT to check all the maps they dont like

Which i have mixed feelings on personally.

I don't know how the future scope of what QAT does is different from what QAT currently does because almost all of what is listed is things that we do already and we don't actually do much more than that
Nifty
Something something this rewards system is gonna fuck over non-std bns

maybe have an averaging system? Possibly concerning the total mods per mode, taking the amount done per capita to have a more balanced representation of which members are contributing more relative to their mode's activity.

delet hybrid bns
Litharrale
Regardless of the changes that go through or any criticisms of the proposed ones, I'm really glad that the osu!team is taking action to help BNs. Keep it up! 👌
Monstrata
QAT's checking beatmaps again is a step backward though yes. Current dq system is better in that regard.

But what do QAT"s even do at this point now? Perhaps now that we're pushing for more transparency it would be nice to actually get a breakdown of what you guys do? (Preferably more than a 1 sentence summary like on the osu blog xP)
Absolute Zero
I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
JierYagtama
Yehaj this is better boi
Sotarks
Really great idea, I support that.
Zexous
down with tiers

Desperate-kun wrote:

This sounds very promising.

Though, the reason why QATs stopped disqualifying maps on their own was mainly the will of peppy himself, so I don't see this change reverting unless you can actually convince him.

Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.

Monstrata wrote:

If the QAT became more transparent then it would be good to at least have BN insight. This is a fault of the QAT's not being transparent enough imo, not a fault of us "not being qualified to vote for QAT's".

Mappers may not know what BN's are doing internally, but there are methods to finding out, and what BN's are doing are not nearly as secretive as what QAT's are doing in any regard. As well, we can also comment on the actions of QAT's based on what we know, or what they have been doing on the public-facing front.

For example, we know pishifat does a lot of videos and gives a lot of insight into mapping theory. We also know he qualifies a bunch of maps, sometimes with minimal modding if any (and I'm sure there are people who've come to question these "yolo ranks"), we also know he participates in or had participated in BN test creation and that he is involved in helping with the Ranking Criteria changes.

I've always questioned why QAT's needed to be so secretive in the first place. Why weren't BN test answers released? People can learn from them, especially the Part A answers (considering they are not private information as anyone who participated in the BN Test received the answer sheet).

So no, I disagree with Desp, I think BN's should be able to vote, but I believe they should also be given a better insight into the behind-the-scenes actions of QAT's. We shouldn't be barred from voting just because "we don't know".
Kinda agree with both here, as it is I don't think BNs should be weighing in on who a QAT team leader would be, but it's certainly true that there needs to be a lot more transparency or at least clarity on the part of the QAT.



MashaSG wrote:

Agree with the others ( Werbee and Kisses )

MashaSG wrote:

Werbee
Litharrale

Absolute Zero wrote:

I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
To expand on this idea,

I don't think putting standard in one group and the other modes in another group is a good idea because while they are all less active than standard, they aren't as active as one another, not even close iirc.

My suggestion is to have each mode receive their own elite nominator but at different intervals than standard.

So if Standard is every 6 months, mania could be every 10 months. Taiko every year and CTB ever 14 months as an example. These time scales might seem long and they might be but it's just an example. This is the best way I can think of doing this without having the modes directly compete against one another.

Possible issues:
It requires BNs to be active for a longer period of time in less active modes to receive a title (but the trade off is less competition)
Hybrid BNs get shafted
Hollow Delta
The most active BN will be determined every 6 months via a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity, and will receive the Elite Nominator title plus suitable accolades for their efforts.
'Successful qualifications' need to go. There's only so many maps that deserve to be qualified, so when those maps get qualified, what maps are the bns going to look at? They might resort to qualifying unfitting maps. Qualtiy is a subjective term, but Modding activity is more accurate because mods can be analyzed for proper reasoning despite how much of the mod was applied, so I think this should be kept. One form of activity I'd like to add is participation in events. As in, bns who become judges of tournaments receive 'extra credit' for example.

Second, it's about the bn awards. I'm glad the staff have noticed motivation as an issue, but I still question it's effectiveness.

I feel bns & qat should be paid for their activity. Whether it be actual money or osu supporter, they need some form of consistent payment. A tag is cool, but then what's after that? Having a monthly payment or award would encourage them to stay active. The bns do work that a game developer would make money off of, so I think this is where they lose motivation.
Xinnoh

Litharrale wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

I'd also like to ask (Nifty sniped me) about how exactly non-standard gamemodes will be handled, especially concerning the "Elite Nominator" title. There's a large chance that the other modes will naturally fall behind due to mapper/modder count and activity. Personally, it might be nice to separate standard from osu!catch, osu!mania, and osu!taiko--like how we treat BN applications now. This would create two (possibly) evenly matched groups of people with a "fairer playing ground". Also, with two elite nominators, we avoid the "this mode is easier because it has x BNs". Of course, if this has already been considered, feel free to ignore this comment.
To expand on this idea,

I don't think putting standard in one group and the other modes in another group is a good idea because while they are all less active than standard, they aren't as active as one another, not even close iirc.

My suggestion is to have each mode receive their own elite nominator but at different intervals than standard.

So if Standard is every 6 months, mania could be every 10 months. Taiko every year and CTB ever 14 months as an example. These time scales might seem long and they might be but it's just an example. This is the best way I can think of doing this without having the modes directly compete against one another.

Possible issues:
It requires BNs to be active for a longer period of time in less active modes to receive a title (but the trade off is less competition)
Hybrid BNs get shafted
this doesn't work
at all
monstrata bubbled 6-7 sets yesterday
the most active ctb bns may icon 6-7 sets per month (usually less)
no matter what time scale is used, different modes can't be compared at any level because of the sheer difference in amount of maps
elite nominator needs to be mode exclusive or any non-std bns will have literally no chance at the title
ErunamoJAZZ

Desperate-kun wrote:

Also, I don't see the need for BNs to take part in the voting of a QAT leader - Simply because the BNs will never have the full insight on what each QAT is doing and how well they are doing it, it's going to be more of a popularity contest than anything.
Well, in any social environment, popularity is a strong value, even for good as for evil, I think that before hinder BN vote for QAT leader, let's try it, and if this does not work (as did not work in 2014 with newBATs), then it will be limited to elite nominators or so...

---------

I'm only worry about Beatmap Nominator rewards.

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title permanently, and 6 months of osu! supporter, plus 3 months that they may gift to any of their friends.

It is really cool and I'm very happy that BNs finally get recognition for their hard work! but...
If the measure to get the "Elite Nominator" title is only how many mods they did, this will be abused. I mean, some maps are more easy to mod (like short songs), so think in a way to avoid an eventual abuse is something that worry me :S

I want to the most helpful and nice BNs to get the Elite Nominator title, but not to the lazy who made the minimum to get a title ^^U

--------

Okorin wrote:

The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.
It is a very important question.
Clear rules are important to avoid unnecessary drama!
tatatat
seems good
Nao Tomori

Okorin wrote:

The tier split was a measure that was trialed and labeled as optional from our side so I am not too sad about seeing it go away. A probationary system itself seems all right, but i'm not sure how to detail it - i.e. determining how someone "fucked up" because then we would like need to have bad performance incurr actual punishment and thus would need to measure individual performance in some way which i don't know how to do in a scalable way yet.
Well, you could do it based on whether they get striked in that time (just from a behavior point of view). I think at this point, the idea of tiers changing the quality of ranked should probably be abandoned since it clearly didn't work... so using a probationary period to make sure the new guy doesn't dick around and do dumb shit would make sense before promoting him to a full BN.
Chromoxx
Really support these changes, just 2 comments i'd like to comment on.

i agree with what weber said about the elite nominator title being handed out more regularly, 6 months is a bit long so i would suggest 4 month intervals maybe. If this is getting handed out seperately per gamemode i would suggest keeping it at 6 months for the modes with less BNs though.

I also feel like the BNG having an influence on choosing the QAT leader would be a good idea, since it would give them a little bit more control and avoid ending up with someone in charge who is disliked by most of the people they are in charge of. I feel like it's only fair to also give the BNs a vote, seeing as the person ending up in charge will ultimately be responsible for not just the QAT, but also many decisions regarding the BNG. I still somewhat agree with desperate-kun though, while this could be fixed by making the QAT more transparent a more immeriate solution would be weighting votes, so that the total weight of all BN votes = the total weight of QAT votes, thus not resulting in the people who know most being outnumbered and outweighted by a larger group with less information on the matter.
Anxient
this is a good civilization.
Shunao
Good idea imo~
pishifat

Chromoxx wrote:

weight QAT votes
as far as i know, some amount of weighting will happen if both qats and bns are voting


in response to the actual post, i don't have much to complain about. when surveyed by ephemeral, i mentioned some issues i had, and they're all handled with this proposal. most questions i initially had about the proposal were answered before this was published as well

the only things i'm still not fully on board with (possibly because i need more clarification) are:

A new BN addition round will begin immediately. The new members will enter at the probationary level.
considering there's a bn addition round for non-standard modes in progress and starting another one at the same time is impractical, "immediately" isn't gonna happen

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title
you already know that high activity isn't the best determining factor, so i'm gonna assume this is just a poorly worded way of saying "highest scoring BN according to the formulas being organized by jbh"

this might solve the concerns some people have about non-standard bns being a disadvantage too.

Divisions will be merged together into larger but separate units based on overall activity, with attention paid to common cooperation and friendships existing between divisions at the moment. This one is a bit nebulous and may require further consideration.
i agree with that last sentence. "larger but separate units based on overall activity" has me pretty confused. like, bigger groups means less active participation per person, which isn't great, and does "overall activity" mean organizing people according to how interested they are in bn activity? i don't really know lol. i personally think the size of groups is okay right now, though their members could use rearranging in some situations.

i am in support of letting nominators group together with people they're familiar with though, and even choosing who their leaders are (to a degree, since equally sized groups are gonna remain i assume). it's a lot easier to get things done with people who are already comfortable talking with each other

also, having a clear objective seems essential for running these divisions, so i'm glad this "each subdivision checks certain qualified maps" idea is being proposed. if it were somehow tied to checking certain bubbled maps as a group, i'd be for that too, since working together on map promotion is kinda the point of these subdivisions. i'm probably in the minority when it comes to that though.

The 'report a map' thread will be closed, and the functionality shifted to a 'report this map' button on the beatmap's web page. These reports will coalesce at certain thresholds within the #qat channel on the osu! internal discord, and all QAT will be expected to review these maps for potential issues as soon as they notice them.
i must have overlooked this whole paragraph when i first read this because i didn't realize how potentially annoying it is. the "report this map" button will need an option to write the reasons why a map is being reported, or the possibility of linking to forum/moddingv2 posts. if it doesn't allow that, it won't be at all useful, since qats will have to check an entire mapset instead of the map's specific issues. if this is just a different way to notify qats of the current types of reports, i'm okay with it

QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked. They will do so under the leadership of a self-appointed leader(s), explained more below.
this is already happening for the standard-specific ranking criteria, which probably needed it the most. i'm not disagreeing with this -- i'm just letting people know


i'd personally give the proposal a greenlight if these minor concerns were handled
Shiirn
Minor concerns are to be discussed - he's penned out a draft addressing concerns that should be hammered out. It's a much more friendly and open way of doing things than vague hints for months then a surprise overhaul that does fuck all.
Deif
To be honest, I'm sick and tired of getting blamed for not being transparent enough towards other members of the modding community. The Pandora's Box opened, so I'm more than grateful to speak out about this proposal and other relevant topics if needed. I don't see necessary to communicate it personally to Ephemeral.

Let me give my humble opinion about the current proposal. I'll try to sort out the things I agree on and viceversa:

Dissolution of the current BN tiering system

The current BN tiering system will be dissolved, and replaced with a probationary system.

New BN will enter the system at this probationary level. We will call it 'T1' just for the sake of familiarity. All existing BN will be promoted to 'full members' (aka, T2) and will be allowed to both qualify and bubble maps at will.

Probationary members will not be permitted to qualify - only to bubble. The probation period will not exceed longer than a 2 month timeframe, with most people ideally out of probation after QAT review after a one month time period.

Full members may be reduced to the probationary level at any time by QAT consensus if their conduct is deemed unacceptable, or they repeatedly make large mistakes or oversights.

Probationary members that prove problematic for whatever reason will be opened up to a QAT consensus vote for dismissal from the BN. This must pass with a significant majority (66%+).

A new BN addition round will begin immediately. The new members will enter at the probationary level.
This was actually discussed in the last meeting we had. It's a great responsability to join the BNG and newcomers should take their time in order to get used to their new function. As a reference when I joined the BAT a few years ago there was a non-written rule that newcomers weren't allowed to icon anything for at least 1 week, so they get used to their new work environment and read up the needed info.

Let me put the cards on the table now. Mao, Nardo and I are currently organising the future BN Applications. Given that making a test for them isn't a thing anymore, it's much easier to plan future cycles more regularly which will probably happen every ~1.5 months alternating all game modes. Taiko/Catch/Mania are already running so the next cycle would be osu!standard only, and so on, making 3-monthly full cycles. I'm all for introducing the trial/probatory period already in this current cycle and end it when the next applications open. That means, it'd last a bit more than a month to see if a newcomer is suitable for the position or not (more or less what was proposed).

I have to disagree with pishifat's statement though, the probation time should be implemented asap with the current non-standard cycle. I don't see the point in waiting for the next applications to get this done.

All and all, I'm totally fine with this topic.

Beatmap Nominator acknowledgement

Full members of the Beatmap Nominators (aka: not probationary members) will once again receive a forum title and the purple name they were once known for in the past.

Probationary members do not receive this until they become a full member.

This is a temporary change and will not be carried over into the new system. Nominators under the new system (new being the automated system referenced in the past) will receive a different form of visual identification, yet to be determined.

This way, people that find BN via the forums will know that purple equals someone that can help. There will be no need to consult tier lists or anything of the sort.

In addition, long-serving BN (>1.5 years) will qualify for a special title which they may choose to have applied to their account when they retire. What this will be is still being considered, but probably something involving community and modding somehow.
The purple color and the usertitle were proposed already like... a year ago or something? I believe it was an almost unanimous consensus but it was turned down by the dev's side back then. Even if the new webpage is under developement, making a tiny change in the old one as this shouldn't be such a fuzz.

I'm also fine with the rest of the statements in here.

Beatmap Nominator rewards

The most active BN member every 6 months as determined by a composite consideration of successfully qualified beatmaps and overall modding activity will receive the "Elite Nominator" title permanently, and 6 months of osu! supporter, plus 3 months that they may gift to any of their friends.

This will also be featured as a standalone news announcement complete with social media advertisement.

Other rewards will be considered as time goes on and new systems are announced.
There's currently an active discussion about this topic within the BNs/QATs and opinions are getting gathered. JBH will handle the whereabouts of the modding activity, pondering the factors that might influence on it.

As other people stated in this thread, I'm also kind of sceptical about the impact on the non-standard game modes but I'd rather wait and see how it turns out. Maybe splitting up the standard with the taiko/catch/mania score isn't the only possible solution to this issue, so further discussion would be appreciated.

Apart of that only concern, exceptional BNs should definitely get such reward.

Divisions

Divisions will be merged together into larger but separate units based on overall activity, with attention paid to common cooperation and friendships existing between divisions at the moment.

This one is a bit nebulous and may require further consideration.
Some of the divisions were merged already, but it only occured on catch and mania by now. I'd rather wait up until the new BNs come to see if merging some other divisions would be possible.

A few members asked yesterday to be moved into other division because they believe they can work better with X person for whichever reason. I'm not for shuffling all members completely but rather take into consideration these individual concerns, as long as they communicate it to the leader of the correspondant subdivision. People claim for transparency and I claim for fluent and honest communication whenever there's a problem. Without knowing exactly what's wrong, it'd be impossible to look for a solution.

I can see this happening in osu!standard, but not in the near future. I'll stay neutral about it, as the merge already happened within my own division and JBH's.

QAT changes

QAT will be no longer barred (or discouraged) from bubbling, qualifying, or vetting qualified maps on their own.

The 'report a map' thread will be closed, and the functionality shifted to a 'report this map' button on the beatmap's web page. These reports will coalesce at certain thresholds within the #qat channel on the osu! internal discord, and all QAT will be expected to review these maps for potential issues as soon as they notice them.

QAT will be encouraged to return to checking qualified maps of their own initiative and interest, and a solution will be made to try to automatically allocated newly qualified maps to certain divisions for checking and approval.

My current idea for this is a Discord bot will notify divisions in their channels when a newly qualified map is assigned to them. I'm open to other ideas.

QAT will also be strongly encouraged to consider minimalist revisions of the current Ranking Criteria to promote higher quality beatmaps while removing unnecessary roadblocks to having alternate mapping styles enter Ranked. They will do so under the leadership of a self-appointed leader(s), explained more below.
Let me be clear about this. QATs were NEVER discouraged or prohibited to actively participate in the ranking process of a beatmap. On the contrary, I'd just quote one of our concepts while joining the QAT: "QATs, as former members of the BNG, are still allowed to participate in the ranking process of the beatmaps and therefore it's encouraged that you still mod and qualify beatmaps on your own accord."

Talking about that "report this map" button thingy, that was another thing that got proposed about a year ago if I recall correctly. The short-term solution should've been the "report a map" thread before such tool could've been implemented, yet it failed to be done by the devs until now. It'd be much easier for modders to report a map with such a tool to avoid in some of the cases being blamed by the mapper and in the worst of the cases getting insulted or alienated for it. I believe anonymity could be a double-edge weapon when this get implemented: You'd get the less confident modders to report a map, but also some trolls that want to harm a mapper or click the button just for the lulz. But hey, we'll be there to filter out the not-so-serious reports!

About checking actively qualified maps like in the past, I can see it happening on non-standard modes since the workload is far smaller than in standard. About the previous statement of allocate newly qualified maps to certain divisions, I'd like to propose that the qualified map nominated by certain division shall be checked by the same division (eg if Bonsai qualifies a map, Okorin should be notified in this case). That way we'd kill two birds with the same stone: A fairly high amount of qualified maps (if not all) would be revised, and also the subdivision leaders would have a better overview about what their members nominate.

I'm also not sure about what's exactly meant about "alternate mapping styles" getting into Ranked: 2B-like maps? TAG4 maps? Aspire-like maps? How deep should the RC changes to make this happen, taking into account that it's almost totally re-reviewed by the ubkrc? How would those beatmaps impact the osu! program itself? If I recall, Catch proposed while ago introducing multiple objects per beat (double notes, overlapping sliders/spinners, etc) but I remember getting an answer like "it'll break the game" so it got turned down immediately.

In this case, I'd like to get my ideas heard out before their implementation. I'm all for the "report a map" button, redirecting the report directly to the correspondant QAT in order to keep a realistic workload. I'd also like to know how much would this proposal affect the current RC.

QAT rewards

Long-standing members of the QAT (>2 years) will receive a profile badge denoting their tenure and marking anything significant they achieved during their time on the team.

They will be afforded a permanent place on the osu! Alumni should they choose to retire. They will also receive osu! supporter equivalent to the length of their service on the team once they retire.

Some of this is already the case, but I figured I'd state it again just to make people aware.
Another topic that got proposed while ago, but just got applied to members that made in a certain period of time an "outstanding contribution" but got turned down to get applied for the "long-standing contributors".

Nothing else to add here, I do agree with it.

Returning agency

Should this proposal pass in full, the leadership and direction of the QAT will no longer be determined by a nebulous group of people officiated by the "staff".

The leader(s) will be determined by an expression of interest, followed by a combined vote from both the QAT and the Beatmap Nominators. The top scoring aspirants will be considered the de-facto QAT leadership, though they may number no greater than two.

Before clarifying this further, you must all understand that the BN/QAT system is a system in flux. It has been a standalone 'workaround' to the non-availability of an automated system that is supposed to fully regulate BN appointment automatically, with the QAT designed to fill a literal quality assurance role in that regard. It will change significantly from what it currently is at some point in the near future. When that time is exactly, none of us can say.

The scope of the QAT's leadership will be largely limited to day-to-day affairs and ensuring the smooth addition to and running of the Beatmap Nominators. QAT leadership will be expected to engage with both the Beatmap Nominators and the QAT as a whole, and generally be active and engaged members of the community of their own right.

The QAT leadership will work closely with a member of the osu! team to help them get things going and to provide consul for any systemic changes they may wish to make.

For the time being, that member will be me (Ephemeral). Understand however, that I will not be assuming direct leadership of the QAT under any circumstances bar an absolute necessity. My time has long since passed, and it is well past time for the newer members of the community to begin having their say in the game's future direction.
I'm okay with the idea of getting a leader that can get a direct communication with the higher staff. It's in fact one of my concerns that we could only rely on Loctav/Ephemeral as they work actively with the devs, instead of letting us know beforehand which of the proposals could even get implemented, as most of them would need some coding abilities and/or implementation in the webpage.

I'm also not that happy with the way to choose the leader(s). I can see people agreeing on BN/QAT voting, but my fear is that it ends up being just a pure popularity contest instead of truly choosing someone for their leading abilities. We used to have until then a quasi working environment, even if we're all just volunteers we behave as we are in a job company, and as an in such there is a clear hierarchy High Staff>QATs>BNs and people stick into it. Electing a leader by pure voting would rather killed that purpose and turn the system into a more or less political way. Translocating this proposal into a real example, the leader of the company won't be normally chosen by the members that belong to it, but by a CEO or whoever gets responsible for the personnel management. As this cannot be implemented totally in here, voting should occur. If people disagree that the voting should be solely handled by the QAT, I'm okay to get the BNs into it as well with a certain weightening of the votes in favour to the QAT.

Another point that gives me the creeps is the "automated system that is supposed to fully regulate BN appointment automatically". Well... wouldn't that imply that BNs would be treated as just numbers that contribute towards the beatmap ranking? Which factors would be taken into account: just quantity of mods, or also the quality of it? At which cost should people get into the BNG if their mods are purely consisting in "move to x:340", "fix blanket", "add D", "move to column 1", "add NC", and also the neverending lines of ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ without some kind of manual/human regulation?. Sure the number of ranked beatmaps would flourish, but constructive feedback from the modders would drop drastically and so would the quality of the future beatmaps. You know, I learnt most of what I know about beatmapping after reading such useful mods from great modders. As a beginner a few years ago I respected and learnt from the old MATs/BATs as I considered them as an example to follow. Having an automated system would mostly disregard that concept for the future generation of mappers/modders, which I believe is an insult or a mere trivilisation of something we achieved to build up.

As said, I don't totally disagree with the voting concept of the future leader(s). It'd just need some regulations imo.
On the other hand, I'm totally against an automated system to regulate new BNs for the already stated reasons.

tl;dr Most of the proposed things were already considered by us since months, yet got turned down to happen or just got ignored. I'm more than happy to see things rolling once again and I hope this proposal gets accepted and not ignored once again. I'd also like to see my concerns taken into consideration before greenlighting it for real.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply