1. Bns are notified that evaluations are starting
2. Based off of modding performance evaluated by QATs under a case-by-case basis, if you have underperformed then you are placed on probation
3. During probation, go about your bn duties with knowledge you’re being evaluated
4. If you’re still underperforming by discretion of the qat, you fail probation. If you’ve improved you pass probation. If you weren’t active enough, usually this will get extended.

1. Write a set of “probation guidelines” that cover what the QAT / management will use to evaluate you
   
   We’re told generally throughout our bn careers that our activity, attitude, and our ability to successfully push maps to ranked is being considered, but we already know that. We don't really know what skills we need to focus on obtaining in order to bridge the gap between being a probationary and a full bn. Proficiency in finding unrankable issues? How active should we be? etc.
   These thing need to be written out formally and should be posted with probation warnings (next proposed change), notifications of bn evaluations, and would also be very useful to find within the bn guidelines.
2. Warn bns that they’re in danger of being put on probation so it doesn’t come across as a surprise
   
   I got this idea from somewhere else, I forget where. Approaching the date of your revaluation results, there’s a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not you’re doing everything correctly, which in a way makes the revaluation feel like a doomsday. It would be a lot more helpful to have some final warning that you need to improve something before you get surprise-attacked by probation status.
3. Give detailed information as to why each bn is being probationed
   
   How can you know how to pass probation if you don’t know what to improve? I mentioned earlier that probation isn’t one-size-fits-all but due to the vague process, that’s how it feels like it’s being treated right now. Bns will likely perform better in probation if they know what they did wrong beforehand, and know what they can further improve by the time they’re evaluated again. To compliment this, bns should be able to openly discuss their evaluations with QAT / management person on the subject of their evaluations. (If evaluations happen one month from the evaluation announcement, this can happen like a week or two before the evaluations happen).
4. Consider bubble pops less than dqs in evaluations
   
   By weighting bubble pops as evenly as dqs, I don’t feel like we’re thinking about the reason why we have a 2 nominator system in place. In a two nominator system, the two different bns’ perspectives basically ensure that each map is reviewed as thoroughly as possible; if bn #1 doesn’t find an issue with a set, by the time it gets qualified bn #2 is more than likely to have found that issue, because two bns are likely to have different mindsets and processes when modding a map. No map will be perfect after the first bn mod, and dqs are generally seen as a "bigger deal" in most peoples' eyes anyways.
   Additionally, nominations are reset pretty inconsistently between a number of different issues, especially when it comes to issues such as missnaps, tags, or spreads, so it would add a tiny bit more fairness to the process.
5. Don’t consider dqs or pops for complex timing in evaluations
   
   Or at least consider them less. Complex timing is not an easy to come by skill that shouldn’t be realistically expected for every bn. Usually when you’re told to ask someone about timing on a map, you hear the same 5 or so names thrown around. I’ve even heard them described as “scary” to nominate because nowadays timing dqs are almost inevitable once your map gets qualified.
   To be clear, simple things like offset and blatantly wrong timing should be taken into consideration. Timing often gets dqed for pretty trivial, small improvements however which makes these maps less attractive to bns.
6. Add the ability to request extensions ahead of time
   
   This is kind of an afterthought to what I talked about in most of the post, but I’ve seen a lot of people become worried about their bn status if their on probation while a big event is happening in their life, or recently, if they had to judge for MWC / some other big event (mostly through #absence_notices in the bn server). Real life should always take priority over circle clicking. It would be a lot more relieving if you were able to tell a QAT / management person that low activity was to be expected, and request be evaluated next month instead.
   Of course if this is a thing, I feel like more limitations would be needed on that prospective bn.

Write a set of “probation guidelines” that cover what the QAT will use to evaluate you

Warn bns that they’re in danger of being put on probation so it doesn’t come across as a surprise

Give detailed information as to why each bn is being probationed

Consider bubble pops less than dqs in evaluations

Don’t consider dqs or pops for complex timing in evaluations

Add the ability to request extensions ahead of time

squirrelpascals wrote:

1. Write a set of “probation guidelines” that cover what the QAT / management will use to evaluate you
   
   We’re told generally throughout our bn careers that our activity, attitude, and our ability to successfully push maps to ranked is being considered, but we already know that. We don't really know what skills we need to focus on obtaining in order to bridge the gap between being a probationary and a full bn. Proficiency in finding unrankable issues? How active should we be? etc.
   These thing need to be written out formally and should be posted with probation warnings (next proposed change), notifications of bn evaluations, and would also be very useful to find within the bn guidelines.
   
   To some degree this is feasible, but at the same time not so much. I think Naxess's main issue comes from "well if we miss something: we are liable for promoting a guideline(s) list and such a problem/issue not being reference-able in such list. At the same time I think there can be more direction in personal BNs, especially in the system proposed by UC and changed up a bit by QAT/Mao where this is more feasible considering workload will be pushed more onto BN management than other tasks. (But at the same time I think there is a possibility to condense the RC and BN rules and rather sort them in some range of importance for BNs to use when scanning a map for game breaking elements etc.
2. Warn bns that they’re in danger of being put on probation so it doesn’t come across as a surprise
   
   I got this idea from somewhere else, I forget where. Approaching the date of your revaluation results, there’s a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not you’re doing everything correctly, which in a way makes the revaluation feel like a doomsday. It would be a lot more helpful to have some final warning that you need to improve something before you get surprise-attacked by probation status.
   
   with the prior considered, I don't this would need any implementation since it would be "more clear" whether or not you are doing well. Also the added workload is rather major in comparison to the affect on BNs being rather minor especially if the previous suggestion is implemented.
3. Give detailed information as to why each bn is being probationed
   
   How can you know how to pass probation if you don’t know what to improve? I mentioned earlier that probation isn’t one-size-fits-all but due to the vague process, that’s how it feels like it’s being treated right now. Bns will likely perform better in probation if they know what they did wrong beforehand, and know what they can further improve by the time they’re evaluated again. To compliment this, bns should be able to openly discuss their evaluations with QAT / management person on the subject of their evaluations. (If evaluations happen one month from the evaluation announcement, this can happen like a week or two before the evaluations happen).
   
   this is condensed in the first suggestion + my response.
4. Consider bubble pops less than dqs in evaluations
   
   By weighting bubble pops as evenly as dqs, I don’t feel like we’re thinking about the reason why we have a 2 nominator system in place. In a two nominator system, the two different bns’ perspectives basically ensure that each map is reviewed as thoroughly as possible; if bn #1 doesn’t find an issue with a set, by the time it gets qualified bn #2 is more than likely to have found that issue, because two bns are likely to have different mindsets and processes when modding a map. No map will be perfect after the first bn mod, and dqs are generally seen as a "bigger deal" in most peoples' eyes anyways.
   Additionally, nominations are reset pretty inconsistently between a number of different issues, especially when it comes to issues such as missnaps, tags, or spreads, so it would add a tiny bit more fairness to the process.
   
   In a sheer statistical sense they already are, 1 BN is less than 2. But Just pulling straight statistic into it, its not really an evaluation to which degree of importance the bubble pop occurred. this would also be condensed with the first suggestion.
5. Don’t consider dqs or pops for complex timing in evaluations
   
   Or at least consider them less. Complex timing is not an easy to come by skill that shouldn’t be realistically expected for every bn. Usually when you’re told to ask someone about timing on a map, you hear the same 5 or so names thrown around. I’ve even heard them described as “scary” to nominate because nowadays timing dqs are almost inevitable once your map gets qualified.
   To be clear, simple things like offset and blatantly wrong timing should be taken into consideration. Timing often gets dqed for pretty trivial, small improvements however which makes these maps less attractive to bns.
   
   funny haha, I agree with Naxess on this one. A rankable consideration is whether or not a beatmap is timed properly. So it should have some value. I think there is a huge oversight in this though. As Naxess stated QATs already don't consider timing in some instances. So there are many BNs who, being the forefront of Ranking Criteria promoters who cannot time a map properly. This is pretty unfair for BNs who are much more experienced in timing. But another thing is that, there is a small minority of people who would be considered reputable in timing altogether. And frankly only a few belong to BNs, and less to QAT. Also the way the current system is set up is doubly unfair for more skilled BNs in terms of timing because, if you miss one spot and your map still gets DQ'd then its rather similar to any sort of DQ for timing (Other than the obviously stated 30ms off). Since timing is so uncomfortable for so many people there should be a reward system instead of a punish system in place for this. This way BNs are more encouraged to show off their timing skills and people who normally wouldn't time maps would start to try and learn it/get comfortable with it. As to how such a thing would exist I can't comment yet but I think this topic in general is unrelated to your proposal and rather silly to include. Also generally speaking it would condense under my response to the first point. Fun topic nonetheless.
6. Add the ability to request extensions ahead of time
   
   This is kind of an afterthought to what I talked about in most of the post, but I’ve seen a lot of people become worried about their bn status if their on probation while a big event is happening in their life, or recently, if they had to judge for MWC / some other big event (mostly through #absence_notices in the bn server). Real life should always take priority over circle clicking. It would be a lot more relieving if you were able to tell a QAT / management person that low activity was to be expected, and request be evaluated next month instead.
   Of course if this is a thing, I feel like more limitations would be needed on that prospective bn.
   
   yeah, sort of, there should be some sort of implementation this but, I wouldn't consider a extension, I would rather see accounts on hiatus from stuff in general (which would overlap motivating the person to not procrastinate in nominating stuff xd) It would also communicate to other people that this person literally CANNOT take requests and what not, and I think it should be completely separate from probation.

Naxess wrote:

Think a lot of this will come after the rework since who knows what'll break or no longer function properly by the time that rolls around with all the changes that are coming. There's the possibility that this whole thing will be replaced by another bn score system as well, so digging too deep into it currently, with the little transparency we have into the coming changes and how/when they'll be accomplished, is probably not a great idea. However, we can still discuss it until then (which should be soon, from the looks of things).

Write a set of “probation guidelines” that cover what the QAT will use to evaluate you

Warn bns that they’re in danger of being put on probation so it doesn’t come across as a surprise

Give detailed information as to why each bn is being probationed

Consider bubble pops less than dqs in evaluations

Don’t consider dqs or pops for complex timing in evaluations

Add the ability to request extensions ahead of time

squirrelpascals wrote:

Write a set of “probation guidelines” that cover what the QAT will use to evaluate you

@bor I feel like everything that wouldn't be able to be covered by guidelines would just fall under common sense. Sure if a bn fails probation they can place the blame on the qat and be wrong, in the end though guidelines are going to give new bns that direction they need, entering the bn world for the first time is a little daunting in a system that is based on a more hand holding type style there is no "common sense" since that obviously will differ from a new bn Versus and experienced qat.

Warn bns that they’re in danger of being put on probation so it doesn’t come across as a surprise

@Naxess and bor Yeah I can see where this is coming from, probably easier said than done with the added workload. Maybe with the implementation of the scoring system, assuming that everything will be kept track of on a spreadsheet, this will be a lot easier to gauge? instead of manually having to go to everybody's profiles

its "easier" under the assumption that the QAT are not also human and need periods of time to do any non QAT related work

Add the ability to request extensions ahead of time

@bor So like, getting rid of that person's bn status entirely is the limitation? I guess I can kind of agree to that. If the "limitation" is not being able to nominate stuff I don't know if there's another way lol my thing is not to "get rid of them" more like just lock them out of it for a while, when they have their lives together again the effort they spent getting in the first time is testament to their skill (at least to some degree) enough to grant them "immediate" BN membership