@ UC
Your post just seems like a lot of defending your own maps because yes, it's quite apparent that should we start proposing higher quality standards, more of your maps will probably become vetoed, same with other people you've listed. I don't think that's the point. If anything though, it just means your mapping style isn't considered to be good quality work if quality control is upped. Since you're close with some QAT related matters, you should know that the current quality control is at its absolute lowest. Anything can be ranked with proper reasoning and intent, and there are no bad maps, just different maps. If we start drawing more subjective lines on what is good quality, and drawing more subjective lines on when "proper reasoning and intent" is enough to forego quality concerns, we will probably end up seeing less of yours, hailie etc... other people's maps ranked. Unfortunately that's just how it is when you map unorthoxed, I feel like you just have to accept that possibility.
See, what I dislike about your proposal (a lot of it is good) is how you deal with quality concerns and "vetoes". The numbers are way too liberal, especially when one of the goals is for the QAT rework (imo) is to increase quality standards. What about quality standards is changing? Simple: tolerance. The current QAT is far too lenient towards any map, and I feel your proposal won't address that because the number is just too lenient.
As well, with your proposal there will no longer be quality control past the two BN's nominating the map. This doesn't seem like a good idea given how often we get dq's for avoidable issues. But of course, this is true for current QAT too. Whoever thinks that a BN who becomes a QAT suddenly stops making mistakes xD.
So big takeaway: I don't think the core of your poposed system really resolves one of the main issues which is quality control and tolerance for "subjectively bad maps with good reasoning/intent". I like the voting aspect as it's something I am really pushing for too. But I feel it should lean towards holding maps back, not require a supermajority in order to hold a map back.
Your post just seems like a lot of defending your own maps because yes, it's quite apparent that should we start proposing higher quality standards, more of your maps will probably become vetoed, same with other people you've listed. I don't think that's the point. If anything though, it just means your mapping style isn't considered to be good quality work if quality control is upped. Since you're close with some QAT related matters, you should know that the current quality control is at its absolute lowest. Anything can be ranked with proper reasoning and intent, and there are no bad maps, just different maps. If we start drawing more subjective lines on what is good quality, and drawing more subjective lines on when "proper reasoning and intent" is enough to forego quality concerns, we will probably end up seeing less of yours, hailie etc... other people's maps ranked. Unfortunately that's just how it is when you map unorthoxed, I feel like you just have to accept that possibility.
See, what I dislike about your proposal (a lot of it is good) is how you deal with quality concerns and "vetoes". The numbers are way too liberal, especially when one of the goals is for the QAT rework (imo) is to increase quality standards. What about quality standards is changing? Simple: tolerance. The current QAT is far too lenient towards any map, and I feel your proposal won't address that because the number is just too lenient.
As well, with your proposal there will no longer be quality control past the two BN's nominating the map. This doesn't seem like a good idea given how often we get dq's for avoidable issues. But of course, this is true for current QAT too. Whoever thinks that a BN who becomes a QAT suddenly stops making mistakes xD.
So big takeaway: I don't think the core of your poposed system really resolves one of the main issues which is quality control and tolerance for "subjectively bad maps with good reasoning/intent". I like the voting aspect as it's something I am really pushing for too. But I feel it should lean towards holding maps back, not require a supermajority in order to hold a map back.