"A beatmapset's custom difficulty naming must follow a common theme or pattern related to the song and must not be misrepresentative."
This allows for an argumentative loophole where you can follow a theme related to the song but not necessarily have a naming structure that's common between difficulties:
e.g: Airman ga Taosenai by Team.NEKOKAN
All three relate to the song in some way and could be interpreted as sharing a common theme related to the song. (the pattern being the same is assumed to be optional - "or") This could allow a very confusing listing of diffnames on a potentially big set and, as such, confuse the player on what the difficulty progression is.
The current rule would not explicitly disallow this type of structuring due to wording. A proposed solution would be to reword the ruling to be more specific, such as:
"A beatmapset's custom difficulty naming must follow a common naming structure pattern, as well as containing themes related to the song, not being misrepresentative."
Would be interesting to see what people think of this rule and whether it should be stricter and reworded or not.
This allows for an argumentative loophole where you can follow a theme related to the song but not necessarily have a naming structure that's common between difficulties:
e.g: Airman ga Taosenai by Team.NEKOKAN
- X's Air Shooter
- Y's Taosenai
- Can't Defeat Airman!
All three relate to the song in some way and could be interpreted as sharing a common theme related to the song. (the pattern being the same is assumed to be optional - "or") This could allow a very confusing listing of diffnames on a potentially big set and, as such, confuse the player on what the difficulty progression is.
The current rule would not explicitly disallow this type of structuring due to wording. A proposed solution would be to reword the ruling to be more specific, such as:
"A beatmapset's custom difficulty naming must follow a common naming structure pattern, as well as containing themes related to the song, not being misrepresentative."
Would be interesting to see what people think of this rule and whether it should be stricter and reworded or not.
