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.
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)
Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
Nao Tomori wrote:
First, let's look at what damage the tier system did: by reducing the amount of active BNs to approximately 4, it also had the amazing side effect of completely removing their willingness to uphold any quality standard. I don't need to explain myself here - just go look at pishi's mods from that time, they are basically the same thing as what is being suggested the QAT to do here when qualifying a map. That is because people want more than 5 maps in qualified - something that is sure to happen when you only check maps that are assigned to you rather than ones you are interested in, you will either not icon them or icon them if they are rankable without modding them because you don't want to mod them.
Nao Tomori wrote:
Second, removing the ability to mod a map after qualification completely removes any semblance of community input on the ranking process. Arguing that maps can be "dq modded" before qualify is not realistic, given the difference in exposure between bubbled and qualified status. If the goal behind this rework is to shut people who think bad maps are constantly being ranked, it will 100% have the exact opposite effect because now these so-called bad maps will get ranked and they cannot even post mods to try and improve the maps because they won't have unrankable issues.
Nao Tomori wrote:
Third, given that QAT will end up either not iconing anything or yolo iconing everything after a rankability check (this is literally what happened with the Tier system, so I have every reason to believe it will happen here), there will be the exact amount of these low-quality maps getting ranked. BNs are not going to stop bubbling things that other people think are garbage (Sotarks 1-2 spam, Hailie extra diffs, etc. etc.) unless QATs also start evaluating them based on subjective icon quality (which they are extremely opposed to for some godforsaken reason).
Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
Maybe there could be some lasting thing that remains on your profile after you've completed a QAT term, much like the BN badges now but in shorter terms. That has always been one of the things that offput me about the BNG too, you do volunteer work but once you leave, there's basically nothing to show for it (unless 2y plus). Perhaps a small section of the profile could be dedicated to that, just small icons showing how much time someone has put into those areas. I honestly don't see why not, it's part of creating incentive.Kibbleru wrote:
I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".
I believe a 4 month term system will only never give the QAT enough time to get settled into their position and become more experienced.Kibbleru wrote:
I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".Nao Tomori wrote:
The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.
I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".