I don't think (Cut Ver.) its good to use because its cut like TV Size or fade out like that?

KittyAdventure wrote:

I don't think (Cut Ver.) its good to use because its cut like TV Size or fade out like that?

We are talking about song which have been manually cut by the mapper or someone else specifically for osu!, not official cuts (which is the case for TV Size)

wouldnt you also want it on official cut vers that dont have it, since the point of this is not to bait people with the song title implying the full thing but its actually an evil 1 minute cut masquerading as a full song

Applying it to official stuff is a muddy area cause it's not uncommon for it to be unclear whether the shorter version is cut or if the longer version is extended.

Nao Tomori wrote:

wouldnt you also want it on official cut vers that dont have it, since the point of this is not to bait people with the song title implying the full thing but its actually an evil 1 minute cut masquerading as a full song

Hence why i think "(Unofficial cut)" is a good idea, only problem is character limit.

dont really agree, songs are not "extended" by the artists, either they loop or there is actually just new stuff added to it / remastered / etc. if it's a loop then it's not the full version and if its new stuff then it is the full version and the short one is cut (unless full is released after but yeah). we already change official metadata in the first place for tv size.

https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/687879#osu/1455779 for example here's a 30s cut which was literally released as a 25 second preview of the song (then extended to be rankable), it's exactly what you guys are complaining about with this post, but it wouldn't get targeted by the rule lol. however, if i cut the full song to 1:30 to mimic a tv size (that full song is 5 minutes long) i would be adding cut ver. it doesn't really make sense to add tv size to things and not cut ver to officially released short versions too because they fundamentally serve the same purpose.

the discussion about including for official cuts too seems valid but I don't think it's in the scope of this change. for unofficial cuts, the issue brought up was unclear meaning of "significant cut", can we clarify that and get this in?

dong wrote:

a significant cut to me would start at cutting off an entire verse, chorus, solo, movement, etc. from the mp3. whether people disagree with me on that or not can continue to be argued.

this looks fine to me, if a bit silly that it needs a definition (I have doubts that it lies beyond common sense, and why would anyone bother making an "insignificant cut" anyway)

hi! sorry for not keeping up - since my last postings, the next semester at my uni started!

the only reason i didn't specify anything for official cuts is because it's an artist problem and not a mapper one, but i'm for differentiating them.

either way, i think it would be beneficial for a ruling which applies to unofficial cuts to be pushed through and if official cuts remain a large problem, tackle it separately.

This is just the standard for most rhythm games when they use music and it's not the official full length. I don't agree with this proposal at all aside from mixes which could be "remixes" and are usually always noted when it comes down to metadata. Also at the same time this further goes down the line of unofficial metadata and stuff like such. The song is still the base song and has nothing really changed about the core other than it's size being cus to a desirable amount and it's not like people can't already see the song length when downloading a map. It's quite a trivial discussion though if it's still being held.

ok ill be honest i dont know what's going on in this thread anymore. the things serizawa pointed out as problems were discussed and stalemated immediately with no budge on either side, so there's not much i can do besides just... putting up the pr for what's in the op and praying people find it okay? the only thing changed since then was the definition of "significant cut" but there's a lot more conversation about other things that isn't addressed with changes (either becuase they're unnecessary or nobody knows what to do)

so i'll ask again, what's the biggest concerns left with implementing this?

don't make it apply to official stuff since the difference between short/long versions as to whether the shorter version is a (Short Ver.) or the long version is an (Extended Ver.) can be quite ambiguous

keep it to unofficial cuts only

not sure if there's other concerns considering there's been no replies for 2 weeks oh no

apologies, now that my semester is over i can pay attention to this again, lol

the problem mainly would be the redundancy of tags between two different cut versions by different people of different lengths - i argue that it's important just to specify that it is not an official version and so the tag remains useful, but it's up for debate.

if an outro that is <20% of the track remains unmapped, and is therefore not cut from the song, the metadata should stay the same. if the mp3 is edited, then "cut ver." should be added.

there might be a problem with songs where there's an official extended version, and someone makes a cut of that which is longer than the original version - is this a cut to the extended version or an extenstion to the original that's not the official one (cases like this in beatmaps are absolutely ridiculous and speak volumes to the lengths to which people will go to get around length restriction but still a problem lol)

similarly, is "cut. ver" really the best wording? is "edit" better? something else? because of the reason i listed just above, if we take this marker to signify that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way

yes, i think that an official cut's metadata should be left as-is

my responses are in bold below:

Noffy wrote:

don't make it apply to official stuff since the difference between short/long versions as to whether the shorter version is a (Short Ver.) or the long version is an (Extended Ver.) can be quite ambiguous

keep it to unofficial cuts only

sounds reasonable, we can stick with that

dong wrote:

apologies, now that my semester is over i can pay attention to this again, lol

the problem mainly would be the redundancy of tags between two different cut versions by different people of different lengths - i argue that it's important just to specify that it is not an official version and so the tag remains useful, but it's up for debate.

what is an example of redundancy of tags in this case? i'm not sure i understand

if an outro that is <20% of the track remains unmapped, and is therefore not cut from the song, the metadata should stay the same. if the mp3 is edited, then "cut ver." should be added.

i assume this logic would change depending on the outcome of https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/996498 ?

there might be a problem with songs where there's an official extended version, and someone makes a cut of that which is longer than the original version - is this a cut to the extended version or an extenstion to the original that's not the official one (cases like this in beatmaps are absolutely ridiculous and speak volumes to the lengths to which people will go to get around length restriction but still a problem lol)

i personally dont think we need to account for such rare exceptions. keeping original metadata for 1 in 1000 beatmaps is fine to me. if someone actually does this weird idea, we can account for it at the time

similarly, is "cut. ver" really the best wording? is "edit" better? something else? because of the reason i listed just above, if we take this marker to signify that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way

edit makes me think of a song being edited (like remixes) so i'd stick with cut, dunno if it's just me with that perception though

yes, i think that an official cut's metadata should be left as-is

is the wording in the op what we'd be going with? it seems to hit all the bases still but i want to be sure

As pishi said, many issues haven't been addressed with changes, either because no solution was found or because the creator of the proposal didn't agree with it. However, there are also some things where they agreed but didn't apply the necessary changes, for example the point about cutting songs with (Full Ver.) markers:

I wrote:

From a logical point of view, yes the (Full Ver.) or (Long Ver.) marker should be removed, however that is unrankable under the current rules so you'd have to make an amendment for that as well.

There is lots of other stuff that came to no conclusion though and shouldn't be swept under the carpet.

hello again endless thread, i'm here to ask what needs to be done to get this in the ranking criteria

if things don't go anywhere again, it'll be time to archive i think because this has been going nowhere for monthssssss

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

As pishi said, many issues haven't been addressed with changes, either because no solution was found or because the creator of the proposal didn't agree with it.

gimme list of these

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

However, there are also some things where they agreed but didn't apply the necessary changes, for example the point about cutting songs with (Full Ver.) markers:

I wrote:

From a logical point of view, yes the (Full Ver.) or (Long Ver.) marker should be removed, however that is unrankable under the current rules so you'd have to make an amendment for that as well.

gimme list of these too

Hello once again! It's been a good while since I've been able to direct my attention towards this thread so please forgive me if I get some things wrong.

I think it would be beneficial to lay out clearly where this proposal stands as of now, in March 2020 (lol)

- mp3s which have been cut down from an official version of the song by the mapper should be marked with "Cut ver."
- mp3s which have been extended from an official version of the song by the mapper should be marked with "Extended ver."
- the official metadata should always take precedence if the mp3 is official, even if two different official versions have the same metadata, unless it is found appropriate to change it ("TV size" rules apply here?) - I'm thinking of, for example, songs in DDR which have been cut down to under 2 minutes for the purpose of the game, but it is not stated in the official metadata. this is not a cut by the mapper and therefore it has no bearing on this proposal so long as the source is correctly attributed.

Let me reiterate: my entire proposal refers only to mp3s cut by the mapper or someone else made specifically for mapping in osu!. The metadata should make clear how the mp3 has been edited and go some way as to how it has been edited.

There arises a problem where an mp3 is edited somehow in between a shorter official version of the song and an existing official longer version of the song. In my opinion, a song should be considered as "Extended" if it extends the longest official version of the song. A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used). Between these two extremes exists an "edit" or "unofficial" tag, maybe? anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with this if they have a better proposal. i am not sure how common this state is in modern mapping.

good proposal

How would this rule interact with say

The audio file of a song should not be artificially extended in order to meet a time limitation in the beatmapset section of this criteria. This can include (but is not limited to) looping sections of the audio file, lowering the BPM of the song or section of the song, or adding small amounts of music to the song without incorporating it throughout the entire song. This does not apply to song compilations or audio files less than the minimum rankable beatmapset length.

Or


If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

Id assume its pretty straight forward but there may be some edge cases?

Sparhten wrote:

How would this rule interact with say

The audio file of a song should not be artificially extended in order to meet a time limitation in the beatmapset section of this criteria. This can include (but is not limited to) looping sections of the audio file, lowering the BPM of the song or section of the song, or adding small amounts of music to the song without incorporating it throughout the entire song. This does not apply to song compilations or audio files less than the minimum rankable beatmapset length.

This would continue to not be allowed (i actually mistakenly thought it was given someone said "what about if someone does this as has happened on some maps") - was this a recent change to the RC? either way, no change to this rule, but if it suddenly were to be allowed, there would need to be a denomination in the title.

Sparhten wrote:

If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

if someone cuts more than 20% off the end of their beatmap in order to comply with this ruling, then my proposal will come into effect, and a denomination will be required in the title (less than 20% you'd surely just not cut the song and have an end skip, right? then it's fine)

dong's responses make sense based on my interpretation of the rule

does anyone have issues with the proposal? if not i'll submit a pr

Sparhten wrote:

If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

dong wrote:

if someone cuts more than 20% off the end of their beatmap in order to comply with this ruling, then my proposal will come into effect, and a denomination will be required in the title (less than 20% you'd surely just not cut the song and have an end skip, right? then it's fine)

I'm a bit confused by this answer considering last time you said that the rule would not apply in this case:

dong wrote:

yeah, I can compromise if this is done specifically because the outro is a looping part of the music and you wish to cut it to meet that 20% threshold.

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

dong wrote:

A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used).

This is also conflicting because it would mean that cuts from the full version of a song would not be covered by the rule. Besides, cutting TV size songs or other versions of similar length is generally discouraged so this point doesn't really make sense I think.

Another problem is the (Extended Ver.) marker. Some songs have this marker in their official metadata source, for example beatmapsets/551831. How would you distinguish officially extended versions with this marker from unofficially extended ones?

This leads back to my previous point about already existing markers like (Full Ver.) needing to be removed when cutting said version. This sort of exceptions would need to be addressed in the wording of the rule.

All in all, the implementation of this rule would cause more harm than good.

hello darkness my old friend

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I'm a bit confused by this answer considering last time you said that the rule would not apply in this case:

dong wrote:

yeah, I can compromise if this is done specifically because the outro is a looping part of the music and you wish to cut it to meet that 20% threshold.

yeah if it's literally a loop that can be judged independently. maybe you're right if it's more than 20% at the end of a song of it just looping. can you find me an example of a song like that? lol

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

This proposal is only concerned with cuts made by the mapper or another mapper, differentiating official from unofficial. If another thread needs to be made about official short versions a la "TV Size" ruling in the future then so be it, but that was never in mind with this proposal.

dong wrote:

A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This is also conflicting because it would mean that cuts from the full version of a song would not be covered by the rule. Besides, cutting TV size songs or other versions of similar length is generally discouraged so this point doesn't really make sense I think.

I actually do agree with your concern here and I don't mind extending the definition to be any unofficial cut simply for the sake of differentiating official from unofficial, which is the point of this proposal.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Another problem is the (Extended Ver.) marker. Some songs have this marker in their official metadata source, for example beatmapsets/551831. How would you distinguish officially extended versions with this marker from unofficially extended ones?

This leads back to my previous point about already existing markers like (Full Ver.) needing to be removed when cutting said version. This sort of exceptions would need to be addressed in the wording of the rule.

Any suggestions? Open to anyone. I can think of examples of this too ("move that body", "chaoz fantasy"), so I'm not sure if "extended ver." and "full ver." are appropriate either. "cut ver." at least is pretty clear cut in that you would not expect that in official metadata, but I'm not sure about a similar wording for extensions. maybe you should just avoid doing it ababababab

regarding the eroge short vers, this is actually something that has been bothering me for a while so I would totally support adding a marker for those as well; an easy solution would be doing the same thing we already do for TV sizes, simply adding a "Short Ver." marker or something similar

basically, if there is a longer version, or one is to be released in the future, add "Short Ver." or similar


for extended vers, I don't think it matters much since the amount of unoffical extensions getting ranked is close to zero due to it being unrankable if you try to pass drain requirements with it (and I haven't heard of anyone extending songs for a different reason), but in the extremely rare case of this happening you could simply add a different marker to the title

I agree about adding Short Ver. or smth like Cut to title of an unofficial cut of the song, as it may look confuzing especially on osu!direct client where the length isn't displayed so players just dl it thinking it may be a full one but ain't so yea this would b convenient

Just adding (Cut Ver.) to the end of the title can work in my opinion, but what about future cut versions of the songs? Some official songs use (Cut Ver.) on the title, and it would mix up with the mapper's cut versions.

Just (Cut) in that case would be viable; since rarely songs use that and it works with (Cut Ver.) (Cut) in that situation

Or maybe (Short) instead so we fully remove the Ver. and just keep the base of it as a reference could work too

definitely agree. its gotten me upset once or twice & im surprised its not already a rule.

Vulkin wrote:

Just adding (Cut Ver.) to the end of the title can work in my opinion, but what about future cut versions of the songs? Some official songs use (Cut Ver.) on the title, and it would mix up with the mapper's cut versions.

i think we should add [Unofficial Cut Ver.] if the version is unofficial AND the official cut version of the song is officially named (by official sources) cut ver.

Something I liked was when a mapper I knew called them (osu! Edit) in the title, Instead... like it makes sense because the only reason you're cutting it is because of osu! in the first place.

MinNin wrote:

i think we should add [Unofficial Cut Ver.] if the version is unofficial AND the official cut version of the song is officially named (by official sources) cut ver.

There's a character limit for titles. I want the tag to be as concise as possible.

icytors wrote:

Something I liked was when a mapper I knew called them (osu! Edit) in the title, Instead... like it makes sense because the only reason you're cutting it is because of osu! in the first place.

I feel like "osu! Edit" would confuse the map with featured artist content, or make it seem official in some way.

I think "Cut ver." is a much better solution in comparison to, say, "Short ver."
I rarely ever see it used officially. Can anyone point me to an example in a ranked map where the official title includes "Cut ver." instead of, eg, "Short ver."?

dong wrote:

I think "Cut ver." is a much better solution in comparison to, say, "Short ver."
I rarely ever see it used officially. Can anyone point me to an example in a ranked map where the official title includes "Cut ver." instead of, eg, "Short ver."?

honestly, i'd actually want to see this rule in place. this map uses a longer version with extra parts added (solely because of pp), but technically is cut down to barely 2 minutes. the actual tv size version is shorter, and for organization, mappers should specify whether a map is an official cut or not. BUT mappers, if they make an unofficial cut version of the song, should put (TV Size) in the tags, because it can still be considered tv size if we're going by a loose definition.

Where are we at with this? I don't mind if it is (Cut ver.) or (Cut) - we can spend aeons arguing about the wording, but not being privvy to BN inner-workings I want to know where we are in terms of coming to a solution here.

dong wrote:

yeah if it's literally a loop that can be judged independently. maybe you're right if it's more than 20% at the end of a song of it just looping. can you find me an example of a song like that? lol

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

dong wrote:

This proposal is only concerned with cuts made by the mapper or another mapper, differentiating official from unofficial. If another thread needs to be made about official short versions a la "TV Size" ruling in the future then so be it, but that was never in mind with this proposal.

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

yes, that would be a cut version, because you have cut more than 20% of the song, no matter how "repetitive" it is

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

when i download a song with no marker, i assume that it is at least one of the official versions. not that it is the full version, unless there exists a version with "short ver." literally as the official title (or tv size as per tv size criteria), then i will assume that it is the full version.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

dong wrote:

yes, that would be a cut version, because you have cut more than 20% of the song, no matter how "repetitive" it is

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

dong wrote:

when i download a song with no marker, i assume that it is at least one of the official versions. not that it is the full version, unless there exists a version with "short ver." literally as the official title (or tv size as per tv size criteria), then i will assume that it is the full version.

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

I am not making a case against cut versions. I am making a case for including a marker for unofficial cut versions. You have provided some extreme examples and I would be happy for people to cut them so long as such a marker is provided, though personally I think that if the current ranking criteria cannot make an exception for such extreme cases in allowing the final parts of these songs to extend into the results screen with a skip despite being over 20%, then that part of the ranking criteria is also flawed.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

In your opinion? And why would you recreate an official cut unless the official cut is somehow unusable? In which case yeah, you have an unofficial cut. The point is that I expect a map without a marker to be the full version or some official cut for which I may or may not have prior knowledge about existing. There is a clear difference if an official shorter version of, say, Gold Dust (which is already a short version, but it's official and the most well known version) or Airplanes simply does not exist - then I expect it to be one of the official lengths that I have prior knowledge of!

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

dong wrote:

I am not making a case against cut versions. I am making a case for including a marker for unofficial cut versions. You have provided some extreme examples and I would be happy for people to cut them so long as such a marker is provided, though personally I think that if the current ranking criteria cannot make an exception for such extreme cases in allowing the final parts of these songs to extend into the results screen with a skip despite being over 20%, then that part of the ranking criteria is also flawed.

I have the impression you don't fully understand the problem. Of course people could still cut these songs, but they would basically be forced to do so and they would have no other option than adding the (Cut Ver.) marker, although they are only removing parts of the song that wouldn't be mapped anyway.

You are right that the 20% rule is somewhat flawed for these cases, but removing it would also not be a viable solution because that would allow mappers to only map a fraction of the entire song without cutting the audio file, resulting in an awkward gameplay experience and unnecessarily big file size.

Consequently, there either needs to be an exception from the marker rule for songs that cut more than the last 20% of the song in order to comply with that rule due to having a section at the end that is not suitable for mapping, or that rule needs to be modified as you said. There is actually a thread about it: community/forums/topics/996498

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

dong wrote:

In your opinion? And why would you recreate an official cut unless the official cut is somehow unusable? In which case yeah, you have an unofficial cut. The point is that I expect a map without a marker to be the full version or some official cut for which I may or may not have prior knowledge about existing. There is a clear difference if an official shorter version of, say, Gold Dust (which is already a short version, but it's official and the most well known version) or Airplanes simply does not exist - then I expect it to be one of the official lengths that I have prior knowledge of!

It's hard to follow your train of thought when you contradict yourself repeatedly. First you added a clause that says recreations of official cuts don't count towards the rule but now you say that it would be an unofficial cut. Recreations are not uncommon as there is often no high quality audio file available for the short version so people have to use the full version and cut it themselves.

Anyway, I still don't see why it matters whether a shorter version is official or not. I saw your video about Airplanes and I highly doubt your reaction would've been different if that version were official and you simply didn't know it exists, since you were disappointed about the fact that it ended sooner than expected, not about it being unofficial. This is why I'm arguing that the key aspect is the length, not whether it's official or not.

honestly, i just really want to see this resolved

okay, so problem:

If unofficial cut versions are made to include "cut ver." in the title, should this be extended to official short versions which do not include "short ver." or similar in the official metadata similarly to the TV size ruling?

I don't think this is for two people to decide arguing with each other.

i think just using cut ver. is better imo. cut ver. implies that it's a cut version made by you, while short ver. implies that this is the rerecorded version made to be short