Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Just because you think cuts are bad doesn't mean everyone else does and prohibiting them is not only irrelevant to this thread but also complete nonsense.
Ok but why is it bad and an increasingly big problem? If you don't provide an actual reason your argument is void.Lefafel wrote:
I think cuts being indistiguishable from uncut maps is bad, and an increasingly big problem. That is why I said the quality of your cut should not even come into the argument, because it's irrelevant to this particular ammendment.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I don't know where you got this from but if it really were "sorely needed", it probably would've been implemented a long time ago or at least proposed but I don't recall that happening in the past years. It's also not true that the implication is that it's the full version, why would you think that? There's no full ver label on maps, that's why the length information exists. Also, how is it "in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of"? Cutting songs is allowed and there's nothing wrong with unless it's low quality but you said that it doesn't matter yourself so yea
What abuse cases? What exactly is being abused? Because I don't see any of that happening. If you think making certain cuts is bad, that's a different topic as we have both already stated.Lefafel wrote:
It has only recently become a bigger problem, exactly because of the abuse cases. So yes, it is sorely needed to stop that abuse.
You are free to make that assumption, however there is no distinction between the full version and an official cut version either (except for TV Size songs).Lefafel wrote:
Why do I think the implication of a full version is there? Because most times, the original piece is well known or even previously ranked. I think that's perfectly reasonable, I see the title of a song I know (without any extra tags), I assume it is the official version of the song. Assuming anything else would be the weird thing to do.
Cutting songs is of course allowed, and right now it is allowed to omit that fact from the title metadata. One of those things is ok, the other isn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.
Yes, it doesn't make a difference and I already explained it in some of my previous posts so I'm not going to explain it again.Lefafel wrote:
...so you're just saying it doesn't make a difference if the tag is there or not? Because I'll just flat out disagree with that.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
None of this makes any sense, just because the title includes Cut Ver. doesn't mean that you can "check what the mp3 is", you still need to actually listen to it in order to know what it sounds like. Yes, it is an indicator of an alteration, but so is (TV Size), (Short Ver.) and even (xy Remix), that information is simply not sufficient to warrant a complete overhaul.
Adding a new marker to half the ranked section seems like a pretty significant change to me and it does affect the other metadata sections when it comes to standardization rules, rules about audio editing etc.Lefafel wrote:
What exactly is this complete overhaul? This is just an amendment to the already existing metadata rules, and one that does not significantly affect the other sections. So far you've failed to point out a single significant disadvantage in introducing this new rule.
The disadvantage is that there is no benefit from adding this rule, it only makes the title longer and that's it. Changing things for the sake of it is not very efficient.
This information should not be put in the title though. The title needs to resemble what official sources state, with the exception of standardized formatting and stuff like (CV:), (TV Size) etc. The information about the cut is already included in the length of the map as you said.Lefafel wrote:
By checking the mp3 I mean looking at its length and any additional beatmap tags, and adjusting expectations based on them. Just like with (Short Ver.), or (xy Remix). It's just another indicator for the actual content of the map. It's added valuable information. A Quality of Life buff for the playerbase.
I've listed many other reasons why it's not a good idea but it's obviously easier for you to pick one of them and say that you disagree. If you read my other posts you'll see that I already explained most of the issues. Your logic of "it takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset" is flawed because then we could also simply add (Full Ver.) to every song. It doesn't take away anything either. But it's still a problem because it contradicts with the actual metadata, just like (Cut Ver.).Lefafel wrote:
You keep insisting that players somehow wouldn't know about the original songs of these cut versions, when it so obviously isn't the case. It's exactly because we know these songs and know what to expect, that the misleading metadata has become such a big nuisance. And even for the songs that we don't know, having the cut tag in the name takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset so this proposal is always a net positive.