check aimod and fix tags conflict pls
01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - what a nazi pattern on the highest diff btw
01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - what a nazi pattern on the highest diff btw
orzezek wrote:
check aimod and fix tags conflict pls oops, doublespace, reuploaded
01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - what a nazi pattern on the highest diff btw it follows lyrics
Vass_Bass wrote:
we care!
Vass_Bass wrote:
we care!
UndeadCapulet wrote:
nao silly
I don't careKisses wrote:
You guys missed your chance at le epic reply "I don't care" lel
OBJECTION!ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all). Come on, this isn't even advanced English, people.
Also, was the mapper somehow notified that there was a report on his map? I don't see any post on the thread about the map getting a report, and I don't know if he received a pm about it, so this is just a question.
Yes, I saw your post, but in that post you didn't say you reported the map so the mapper could care enough and take action, that's why I asked if he was notified by pm. You see, Aleks doesn't get online everyday so he needs a good reason to show up, I suppose. Imagine if you see a comment about one of your qualified maps and you think is no big deal, but then your map gets reported and the person never said it got reported, so you know until your map gets dq'd without a chance to at least attempt to defend yourself. If you did notify him directly, then that was nice and Aleks wasn't for not replying, but if you didn't, well, just be more clear when you do such thing next time.Naotoshi wrote:
I posted on the thread about it, and reported it. Which he ignored
Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
Yeah.. that's true, standard changes, but it's impossible to indicate the level of difficulties when you use custom names. Following that textually, the only difficulties names that we are available to use are "Easy/Normal/Hard/Insane or similar ones, you can't innovate at all in anything.Doormat wrote:
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
This can be a point that we can discuss a lot of days but nobody will be happy with others opinions. But well, I'd say this is a subjective issue because 50% of the community do agree with those difficulties names and the other 50% do not agree with them.ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all).
Oh well, here I am again~Doormat wrote:
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
Liar. There were no report or pm. It was simple dq w/o notifying. You were the one who had broken the rules.Raiden wrote:
I have to agree there, there is no real progression of difficulty naming. It's just from one point to another (A -> B), doesn't imply harder in any way.
Please try to find more appropriate difficulty names that clearly indicate difficulty progression
(also taking it down because mapper hasn't responded to the report)