Listed my proposal down below. Please add it to the list.
Kurokami wrote:
"QAT engagement in "controversial" maps, current QAT are too placid and passive "
It might be just me, but I do remember mentioning this while I was still a member and I always got passive answers from like 50% of them. I mean, sure this is a very sensitive topic and can cause a lot of negative feedbacks but in my opinion, if the team is not ready to face with them then they kinda shouldn't be in the team(?)
Before someone misunderstands this, "controversial" maps are not bad, and they surely have a place in the ranked section but in some cases, there are issues with these maps meanwhile those are being ignored too due being "controversial".
Ephemeral wrote:
a few core points to (maybe) focus on in your discussions:
* QAT engagement in "controversial" maps, current QAT are too placid and passive --> I definitely agree to this, QAT should leave the wiki and go for judging the maps mostly, or a seperate team should be created in order to create wiki stuff.
* greater accessibility for people to both enter and exit the team --> Define accessibility here. Is it more leniency to get accepted? Is it lowering the requirements or lowering the ability to judge and qualify stuff? If it could stay higher this proposition would not have done in the first place.
* the creation of a more focused role/responsibility for the QAT in the context of checking qualified maps --> I thought we already had QAH (Quality Assurance Helper) for this. To an extent, QAT (or whatever you might wanna call to wiki people) should do the wiki work mostly and QAH should actually judge and have the power of disqualification.
Irreversible wrote:
It's good that change will happen, but the OP Post doesn't quite say what change is going to happen exactly - so I will keep questioning whether the problem is actually being seen or not, because at times when I saw there's an upcoming change, it got fixed into something worse.
The ranking criteria is supposed to be a set of objective terms that your map must comply to; these are the bare minimum of expectations for the possibility of your map being ranked. Controversial maps don't break any of these rules which means they can have the possibility of being ranked.hi-mei wrote:
3. Ranking criteria / QAT. The big amount of controversial maps are coming from the issue that these rules are EXTREMELY vague. Like, its so amorphous to the point where you can rank a minute of metronome sounds with 1-2-1-2 jumps on the same notes and literally nobody would do anything to this. I wanted to do this to make a precedent till I realized that there is a good way to solve this.
Set the rules already. There are lots bold concepts in mapping that were developed over a decade: flow, structure, spacing emphasis, visual spacing, volume adjustment, gimmicks, slider art etc. Make all this structured so people would learn from it.
Alphabet wrote:
The ranking criteria is supposed to be a set of objective terms that your map must comply to; these are the bare minimum of expectations for the possibility of your map being ranked. Controversial maps don't break any of these rules which means they can have the possibility of being ranked.
If you start adding rules that people find subjective it goes against the point of the ranking criteria. Take visuals for example as you're a fan of clean visuals, they don't break any of these rules objectively. Even overlaps that may be detrimental to readability is a guideline because in lower diffs deciding exactly what detracts from readability is subjective as people have their own definition of what they might consider unreadable. Telling whether two notes are stacked in the timeline and why it should not be allowed is pretty obvious, so that's why it's a rule.
These rules aren't vague, defining what is rankable and not rankable due to personal standards is a vague topic and that's why UC and Hailie maps pass through to ranked.
The mapping meta is always changing and evolving, it's only natural that it's going to change at some point sooner or later. Maybe this is the new meta, maybe something else in 5 months will be? I'm not saying I'm for this new style of mapping, but adding rules for flow, structure, spacing emphasis, visual spacing, volume adjustment, gimmicks, slider art etc. isn't the way to go here because the freedom of these and people coming up with their own ideas for them is what made mapping how it is today.
hi-mei wrote:
2. BN / QAT promotions. Its now clear for everyone that the promotions are biased as fuck. Just admit it. Lots and lots of people are being wasted for personal controversies with the ones who "judge" them. We should definitely bring some transparency there. I definitely prefer a blind test over anything else. Why? because its fucking fair. Also, these "rounds" should basically go away already. What the point in working for literally months to get potentially denied? I have went thru this literally 3 times, modded over 100 maps over the 9 months and each time it was some bullshit like "mod more easy maps" "making kick sldiers from double is bad for maps" and so on. I spent literally 3 years on this mapping scene and wrote shit tons of useful stuff. Same for Billy Bill, Rizen, C00L etc. You should start recognizing people's effort.
In regards of transparency, once again:
The entire BN/QAT thing is buried in corruption to the point where you can see how some people are nominating maps in purpose of getting nominations for their maps. Its just not okay. (hello UC btw).
The rules should be set so nobody will complain. Lets just sort things out already.
Deca wrote:
As a BN, your job is not only to nominate and mod maps well, but also to act as a responsible and mature member of the community, hence why a blind test doesn't work.
Also, tests are the easiest thing to cheat on, far easier than the months of modding required and subjective analysis of mods.
Does the current system lend itself to nepotism? Undoubtedly. The latter system would, however, introduce many incompetent and/or toxic individuals into the BNG who are wholly unfit to be official representatives of the community.
The latter system would, however, introduce many incompetent and/or toxic individuals into the BNG who are wholly unfit to be official representatives of the community.
lol ok then good to know I can just skip your posthi-mei wrote:
By the way he got into the BN and then into the QAT without any application or what so ever. They just took him because he is their friend. Nothing else.
They just took him because he is their friend. Nothing else.
I agree with that topic. I'd not say back in the time, all maps were perfect cause it's wrong, but I'd say we for sure had less controversial maps. That's cool to push the boundaries indeed, however quality should still be the most important point to take care about, and I think that's what QAT (or however it will be called in the future) are supposed to do.hi-mei wrote:
Now here we are, in the days where "quality" is a meme and everything is subjective, therefore you are "hater" if you raise any concerns to someone's map.
Hakura wrote:
himei its time to stop attacking people and go back to the actual discussions
if you want to attack sotarks and yuii- do it somewhere else i guess
on topic tho, can there really not be more clarification on what's planned? i read this and i'm confused on what even has to be discussed lol
abraker wrote:
People are speaking about controversial maps and the QAT's failure in handling them appropriately. Can we identify the maps and what was controversial about them so we have something to go off of? There can be controversy in context of abusing the star rating or pp, but there can also be controversy in context of mapping and design choices or some other context. Labeling them all under one term "controversial" does not paint the full picture.
Consider some issues will be unresolved indefinitely and perhaps it's the mapper's goal to keep the issues resolved indefinitely to at least retain some sort of status for the map. In other words, keeping a map qualified indefinitely will make the qualified section equivalent to loved. If consensus can't be reached within a reasonable amount of time, I suggest it go to loved instead of being kept in qualified.pimp wrote:
and if a map is considered controversial for whatever reason, it should stay on qualified section for indefinitive ammount of time instead of getting ranked by default (unless an unrankable issue was found, so the disqualify should be done imediately), this can also be used in case minor issues are found on any map, just don't let the map get ranked by default if the mapper is not around to respond to concerns, keep it qualified instead until the mapper is able to address issues.
Wait why do you say the result wouldn't be any different with any of the new systems being proposed? There are suggestions that give an opportunity for the community voice to be heard much better in the event of BN and QAT indecisiveness as mentioned. Quotes by pimp and me:Kibbleru wrote:
The thing is, i can't really see the result being different with any of the new systems being proposed
because inevitably, these controversial maps would still get qualified
i think this in the end boils down to mentality
most of the QAT (as well as the BNG) right now have more or less a neutral mindset on almost everything
shiten was a case that the outside community absolutely hated it
but within the BNG and QAT, most of us either stayed neutral or some even liked it a bit
and the ones who disliked the map refused to speak up about it, which inevitably caused it to get ranked pretty much without any resistance whatsoever
pimp wrote:
the staff wants proposals so i think something like this could work
QAT dealing with controversial maps:
what we know so far is that many qat members often are not willing to make final decisions on discussions because they don't want to be flamed by the people on the losing side. but the community blames the qat for allowing controversial maps to reach ranked. so it's one side blaming the other mostly.
so we should aim to give the community's opinion more relevance on controversial topics. for example deciding if certain maps belongs in ranked section based on the rating, or at least take the map rating more in consideration for the final decision
beatmaps cosidered controversial must to force to vote after playing the map, and replace the current rating to upvote and downvote.
QAT management:
deciding if applicants are capable of being part of the BN could be made a priority and the requirements for staying on the BN should be made as low as possible. there are many talented people out there that did well/could do well on the group but simply couldn't keep up with the activity requirement, made a few mistakes or other reasons. the community will keep growing so the group should keep as much of it's members as possible. talented people should not be discarded because they can't meet activity requirements, if you give them the freedom to work on their own pace they will usually perform as well as the more active members and they will not resign the role if they know they are still welcome with lower activity. ofc the less active members shoudn't be elegible for QAT promotion, the 2+ years contribution badge or anything like that. if someone has been inactive for a long time he could just have his nominatior privileges revoked, if he wishes to return to activity he can just contact the QAT to allow him to nominate again(also it seems like it's how it works for people with osu!dev role, they keep the role even after years inactive just don't have the dev privileges allowed...)
Qualified period:
qualified period should be shortened for maps that are easier to judge (for example a map with a short song with a simple spread should be qualified normally or faster if no issues are found, while a longer map with a lot of difficulties should take several days more than a normal qualification) and if a map is considered controversial for whatever reason, it should stay on qualified section for indefinitive ammount of time instead of getting ranked by default (unless an unrankable issue was found, so the disqualify should be done imediately), this can also be used in case minor issues are found on any map, just don't let the map get ranked by default if the mapper is not around to respond to concerns, keep it qualified instead until the mapper is able to address issues.
tldr:
*give community's opinion more relevance on controversial maps so they can no longer blame only the qat for what reaches ranked section.
*don't make qat rush to decide if a map should be dq'ed imediately or just reach ranked.
*reduce the management work by mostly focusing on who joins BN, mainly kick BN's with a bad attitude, give inactive bn's the possibility to return when they want.
abraker wrote:
If no individual can reliably judge a controversial map and the QAT are indecisive, then the only logical thing to do is gather feedback on a wider spectrum. I propose a last line of defense for the map, a decision to be invoked in agreement by both the QAT and the mapper, and can be invoked only once. Allow the map to sit in qualified for a longer period of time to gain player and only player feedback. This means prohibiting anyone with BN or QAT role from voting since they gave their opinions in modding discussion and that reached a standstill. Within the longer span of time the map sits in qualified, the map must reach a certain number of votes and certain number % in favor. The mapper can go around to spread the awareness of the map if the mapper feels like it will not get enough votes within the time span. To simplify the decision, players would be able to vote with only "yes" or "no". If the map doesn't satisfy the voting requirement to be ranked, then the mapper must adhere to what the modders/BN are saying or it will not be ranked.
If the BN/modders can't come up with an agreement with the mapper and the QAT are indecisive, then that is the only only option left. The proposed suggests it be part of the QAT's decision on whether to allow the map to be voted upon to determine its ranked status. So the decision would be in the hands of someone who full well knows the implications of doing such.Loctav wrote:
Anything that involves people voting on matters while not occupying a position of responsibility (BN/QAT for the matter of mapping and modding) will always backfire. (It's almost like you let people vote on silencing someone because they made a controversial statement)