whats the difference between voting no and vetoing now under the current system?
AncuL wrote:
knowing the not-so-big amount of BNs and QATs, i think it'd be great if there can be trusted people privilleged to also vote
Halfslashed wrote:
This proposed system would both be unnecessary and an additional barrier to ranking for individuals that do not fall within the current mapping meta. Right now we already have DQs which blocks out both nominators until consensus is reached and/or QAT decide reasonings provided are appropriate. Additionally, the veto system is in place where a nominator can counter the nomination of one nominator for whatever reason they want.
I think anonymizing will not prevent the "circle jerking" attitude whatsoever, most people who group up on things have been blatantly clear that they want to be recognized for taking down or trying to take down maps, reference the voli/irreversible collab map/dq, I personally would like to see a randomized system where a map is put on hold while QAT/BN are randomly selected and forced to vote(this is so BNs can't chose to vote to prevent something from being ranked), since they have to have some activity requirement anyways, and if the voters have not done so within a period of time they will be put on probation( or further kicked) and if not all the votes have been reached the map shall be allowed to continue the through the ranking process(to further incentivize the voting) I also think nuking a map is a bit far, why was this a suggestion?iYiyo wrote:
I mostly agree with dsco's idea, but there are things that should be polished more in order to really work IMO. Here are some suggestions:1.- No anonymity. To avoid circlejerk abuse and conjectures within votes.
3.- Mapsets up for votation should be DQ'ed as soon as possible. So we avoid having endlessly discussion and risking maps reach ranked section before we get to a consensus. After the voting (proper voting so we don't have to re-vote again), if mapset is called as fine, then it should be requalified normally, if not, then map gets nuked.
4.- BNs are free to vote whether to not vote.
5.- At least 1/3 members of the BNG should vote for anything to happen, but that threshold MUST be reached in order to continue with the ranking procedure of the mapset. So there's a balance between all modes, rather than having a concrete number. And also that maps can be discussed properly and not just be requalified because there wasn't enough quorum.
6.- People who vote must give a reason as to why they think map should be nuked or not. So people can't go there voting to nuke maps just because they dislike the song/map/mapper/etc.
I actually have no clue what is wrong with making maps like "pp compilation" it really seems to me the only reason to make it would be to get play count or something, but really how is that unethical, and why should we really propose a system put in to fight that kind of thing, it just makes it seem like the people who proposed this are actually just jealous of the popularity another mapper will receive by this, but please enlighten me ~ Please prove its necessary to unrank or veto maps with nothing wrong with them other than intention to increase playcount and overall game PPpishifat wrote:
The reasons from each person would, unlike regular vetoing, be able to be “ethical”, which was loosely defined as things like abusing pp through editing the mp3, manipulating systems in their favour or otherwise being made for bad intentions. These are not able to be objectively controlled through the ranking criteria. (iYiyo)
Apparently the above needed to be obvious to the point where if unsure, don’t do anything. The example used as an obvious case was the recently ranked Songs Compilation.
That was all a proposed solution to the problem where if 2 BNs qualify something, no one can do anything no matter how large the outcry is if QAT or higher ups don’t do anything about it. So essentially a community based solution, where the BNs represent the community.
My post explains why this system is a barrier for off-meta mapping and I already outlined tools available to you as a BN to stop maps of this sort. Every BN has a quality standard of sorts but this is not a shared standard, since each BN has different ideas for what make up that quality standard. Inappropriate submissions are also already being reviewed by a branch of the QAT.iYiyo wrote:
Why would be a barrier and why would you be against it? If someone says something is unethical and starts a votation, and ended up being perfectly fine, then its alright. But right now 2 single bns can promote something, and as long as they dont break any gameplay rule, we cant do nothing about it. Do we care about subjective quality anymore? (Being that spitting on other people by their intentions behind maps, doing childish meme/jokes by editing mp3 in a way people could agree that it doesnt contribute anything to the game, etc etc)
From the Code of Conduct:dsco wrote:
i strongly believe that if 75% or 67% of BNs believe a map does not meet the objective quality standard for the ranked section, then it is fairly clear that it should not be ranked.
Objective Issues - Prohibited by rulesets and must be fixed.Maps should not be getting ranked if they break the objective quality standard, so intersubjective is the ground this system wants to operate under, correct that thought process first. You also acknowledge that quality standards vary among BNs but as I mentioned before, that quality standard isn't simply "some BNs think low quality is ok, some think only the best of the best should be ranked", but rather"different BNs value different things in mapping".
Intersubjective Issues - Not prohibited by rulesets, but are agreed upon as being “wrong” by a majority of people. Should be fixed in most cases unless there are opposing intersubjective arguments with equal size, or if the mapper can exhaustively explain why they feel it is acceptable
Subjective Issues - Something that you believe or think on a personal level. Might become intersubjective if many people agree with it.
Again, this is already doable with the current rulesets, just that BNs don't care enough to put in the effort to stop maps that they believe are an injustice to the ranking system, so this system is being proposed to lower the opportunity cost of doing so.dsco wrote:
this system both prevents a small-group being able to circlejerk maps into ranked and out of ranked, given that the poll results are completely null if a voting threshold (10 has been suggested but of course, nothing is set in stone) isn't reached.
The line between "major problems" and "not liking the map" is extremely thin, if it even exists. Something controversial that defies what many consider to be basic conventions would easily reach extreme majorities given that on an intersubjective level, many people agree, leading to a roadblock for potential innovation.dsco wrote:
the most valid concern is that there is an inherent likelihood that if a person feels compelled to vote on a map it's because they do not like the map. however, since two people nominate the map and would thus automatically be yes votes, you need an extreme majority vote against the map (9 no votes to 1 yes vote from a bn who didn't push the map), which would be clearly indicative of major problems in the map that need to be addressed. as well, given that these polls are public and, in my opinion, ought to have required reasoning for the votes, i think that the discussions are open enough that participation would be well-encouraged, *especially* on maps that are close to or reaching the threshold for votes. it's already common in veto'd mapsets that other BNs or just modders come in on the side of the mapper, not the veto-er.
Another reason why this system is unnecessary. One of the underutilized tools for keeping quality in check is now being utilized again with the recently formed QAH, so I think issues like we've had with some recent maps will be less likely.dsco wrote:
the recently formed QAH is going to be checking a certain number of qualified maps anyways, so i think this proposal would tie in nicely with these new responsibilities that some BNs have chosen to take on.
If you want voter anonymity, you will get abuse. If you don't want voter anonymity, you will still get abuse, but probably less. It's easy to blame people when you can see their faces and know their names. It's harder when they are anonymous. But because they are anonymous, BN's will be able to circlejerk a lot more easily, whether to get a map dq'ed, or to keep a map from being dq'ed. Don't underestimate how many people either don't care about mapping quality, or support controversial maps. Don't underestimate how many BN's are willing to vote for their friends map because there are no consequences for it. I can tell you one thing, the BN's posting here represent a minority of the BN community who actually care enough about quality to post dq mods. And it's rather fitting that most of these modders are new BN's who haven't become jaded yet. To that, I say good job. Keep doing what you do. But realize your position too, and how you will be perceived. Realize whether you really care that much about quality to begin with.pishifat wrote:
Later turned into a suggestion where all BNs can vote on whether a qualified map should reach ranked or not, which somewhat would avoid the “more BNs but still only 2 nominations for qualify leading to lower quality of maps due to larger variety of individual standards” thing. (dsco)
- BNs Vote yes/no
- ⅔ or ¾ bns would need to be “no” for it to dq for a month before being qualified again (percentage of bns depends on how it’s used) There is no need to restrict requalification by time. Chances are, if a map is so controversial that it receives this many votes, there's a good chance that there are clearly identifiable options and solutions for the mapper to take. Arbitrarily preventing the map from being requalified for a set amount of time is unnecessary.
- At least 10 bns are needed to vote for anything to happen (will otherwise go to ranked as any other map). Voting is optional, so not all maps will likely receive votes Rather, almost all maps will not receive votes. You cannot expect BN's to vote for every map in qualified. Or if you somehow do, you cannot expect them to have examined every map in detail. It is more feasible for BN's to initiate a vote on the map in conjunction with posting a dq-mod or something to show why they have concerns for the map. Otherwise what is to gain from random maps being taken down due to a 10-vote but without any issues presented? Currently it doesn't seem like any BN needs to give reasons, only that they need to vote no on a map. Surely someone has to take responsibility and actually give reasons no matter how obvious they can be (even 85 note combo's which seem rather obvious to some BNs, clearly aren't so).
- Would work on top of the regular system, all maps could be voted on Bad idea like I mentioned before.
- Can’t vote on own map
- Suggested we start by testing it on trial maps
I think the idea is more that in cases where there's a lot of internal disagreement, a vote can be brought up involving the entire BNG, or at least the ones who want to vote. So not on every map, only where needed pretty much.Hobbes2 wrote:
My issue with this is that since most maps won't even be voted on due to lack of anything controversial, the only maps people will vote on are ones they don't deem fit. You aren't going to go out of your way to vote "yes" on a bunch of maps you're indifferent to, right?
Because of this the voting ends up just being biased every time, and it ends up feeling like "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked" which just feels like a less intimate veto. The only way this system has any legitimacy is if people actually vote on every map, which will not happen.
Well this is much different than the proposal. Simply having every bn vote on controversial maps is different from the proposition unless I’m missing something hereVoli wrote:
I think the idea is more that in cases where there's a lot of internal disagreement, a vote can be brought up involving the entire BNG, or at least the ones who want to vote. So not on every map, only where needed pretty much.Hobbes2 wrote:
My issue with this is that since most maps won't even be voted on due to lack of anything controversial, the only maps people will vote on are ones they don't deem fit. You aren't going to go out of your way to vote "yes" on a bunch of maps you're indifferent to, right?
Because of this the voting ends up just being biased every time, and it ends up feeling like "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked" which just feels like a less intimate veto. The only way this system has any legitimacy is if people actually vote on every map, which will not happen.
Again it will mostly not be used for "your map sucks" that will most likely be solved with people dq modding and calling a QAT like it is done these days.osuskrub wrote:
naotoshi brings up a really good point imo. there is already a huge stigma towards the veto system and implementing this system would only heighten it.
even if the votes are anonymous, people are gonna find out who voted anyways. so many things get leaked through from private servers that it's hard to say anything and have your opinion kept private. eventually, someone is gonna find out who voted no on their map. and having it be public is still going to cause shit. seeing who specifically said "your map sucks" causes a lot of tension over mappers.
I really agree with naotoshi in which removing this stigma will help. The problem is that it will never work because people are human. Mapping has become really personal these days. Telling a person their map sucks hurts them because people think maps are an embodiment of themselves rather than content for a game they made.
This system will not work because it will heighten tensions between mappers who already do not like each other. It will cause more and more drama and cause a greater divide between people in the mapping community if this is used even a few times.