pimpG wrote:
a qualified map getting vetoed for things that are considered flawed concepts (but still not unrankable) by the vetoing nominator is the same as a reported qualified map getting disqualified for ongoing discussions.
The only issue with this, and why I'm suggesting to allow nominators to veto qualified in the first place, is that there's no guarantee that the map will actually be disqualified without this, meaning mappers often times choose to respond in a dismissive manner in order to decrease the chances of a QAT being willing to dq if it's something they (the mapper or the qat) personally disagree with. By being guaranteed to stop the process, the mapper will be more inclined to argue against the veto reason, as this may affect the outcome of a potential mediation.
In other words, people tend to not care and strive towards whichever path requires the least effort for the most reward, so by eliminating the reward for being dismissive it encourages actual discussion to take place. That's essentially how vetoes have always worked, it's basically just a system that ensures concerns are taken seriously and are considered valid until mediated otherwise.
@4n3c
For the minimum qualified time before rank, I think people generally agree that the current 1 day minimum is a bit too little time for everyone involved in the process to recheck things regardless of what it gets disqualified for, so it's likely we'd increase the minimum to 2 days either way. I do see where you're coming from though.
As for the last thing, I don't think keeping a map with serious concerns in qualified for a long period of time is a good idea. It may receive more exposure, but the next time it gets qualified there'll be way less time for everyone to recheck any potential huge changes that were made after the veto was resolved. Yes, you could have the map wait in bubbled just like the other suggestion for this, but this will need to happen for all vetoed sets in that case, as the most efficient strategy as a mapper would be to just wait until the end, so the next qualification goes faster and has a lower chance of being opposed (which controversial maps tend to be). It basically incentives the mapper to not cooperate in the discussion until after the dq, which is the complete opposite of what we want.
basically:
- mapper benefits from better qualified queue position
- gotten from keeping the map in qualified
- gotten from not being dqed before then for not responding/CoC/similar assuming all issues are subjective
- gotten from dismissing everything modders say until then or claiming you're away or whatnot
Preferably this sort of strategy shouldn't be viable as it goes against what we want happening and just wastes everyone's time. This is accounted for with the way the proposal is currently made since the mapper has no control over when the map will be dqed. QAT can also start the mediation process relatively quickly with the current proposal without being affected by status quo biases or thinking there's an option not to dq if people decide quick enough and thereby get a rushed outcome (think mediations should just generally not happen while in qualified).
The benefit you get from it being qualified is also often not substantial enough to justify a delay like that. This is for similar reasons we dq maps for discussion before the last day rather than letting it sit in qualified until then. It's also likely a large amount of people won't even notice it was being vetoed in the first place until it gets disqualified due to how events/mapfeeds work. The 1 day before dq requirement is more for the mapper and involved bns to be able to refer to replays if necessary, and the 2 day minimum before a veto can apply is more to encourage the vetoer to take their time with the map before writing their post. For these reasons I'd be against keeping it in qualified until the last day.
For the very last thing I would exclude letting anyone but the vetoer/QAT extend the period, and only if the mapper does not object to this. That way no time is wasted on trying to progress the qualified queue when deemed unnecessary until the veto is resolved, as extending the time is going to be in the mapper's favour regardless of situation.
tl;dr: There are definite downsides to keeping things in qualified for too long that I would say outweigh the benefits, and even extending the period would require a bunch of mechanisms in place to ensure people don't abuse it, so that should probably more be left on a case by case basis up to the vetoer/QAT if anything.