The following changes serve to make contributing more easily accessible to the community, which consequently improves upon and simplifies all current systems in place for the mapping and modding community.

Is the only way for BNs to be kicked with this proposal now only low activity? Since probation doesnt exist?

Or is it from full to kicked

Other wise seems alright. Might be discouraging to get high activity for some users now though, not sure how much of a risk that is. Maybe x amount of noms within a month triggers an eval?

BNs can still get warnings for mod/map quality or behavior, they'll just stay as full, then be kicked if things don't improve.

For the BN activity would that mean that:

2-0-2-0-2-0 etc.. would be okay for a BN to do since all it takes is two warnings in a row for a kick in this regard? Since it also says that the number of non-consecutive warnings don't matter

Monoseul wrote:

For the BN activity would that mean that:

2-0-2-0-2-0 etc.. would be okay for a BN to do since all it takes is two warnings in a row for a kick in this regard? Since it also says that the number of non-consecutive warnings don't matter

Correct.

I like it very much

wafer wrote:

Is the only way for BNs to be kicked with this proposal now only low activity? Since probation doesnt exist?

Or is it from full to kicked

Other wise seems alright. Might be discouraging to get high activity for some users now though, not sure how much of a risk that is. Maybe x amount of noms within a month triggers an eval?

girl it says that they get evaled when they reach 30 noms or in 3 months whichever comes first lol

wafer wrote:

Other wise seems alright. Might be discouraging to get high activity for some users now though, not sure how much of a risk that is. Maybe x amount of noms within a month triggers an eval?

I think it has its pros and cons.

On one hand, more evals means more frequent eyes on someone, but it also means we can be more proactive to help people that are struggling before an issue balloons up too much using hopefully gentler methods. It can also provide more balanced evaluations since we'd have a better idea of how they're doing by being able to look at their nominations more comprehensively, both the good and not as good ones.


And rather than limiting a BN's nominations for sanity, there is the freedom to nominate more often too.

^ Yea, I'd say its pretty necessary because we are removing the upper activity limit.

I believe that the change done to the probation role is a good one. It will actually serve it’s original purpose of being an introductory stage for people who are new to the BN scene instead of a punishment.

Changes to probation feel spot-on, it always felt as more of an inconvenience than anything.

overall good changes, no complaint

what i like most is this part: Giving BNs a say in mapping system developments
and removal of max activity, never understood why that's a hard rule, if quality drop just kick for quality, or kick for behavior.

Would clarify that old bns rejoining after a year (or whatever the cd is for it) would be placed in probation. Since this kinda implies that I can rejoin bn after x years and be made full right off the bat

:nyab:

No real comments to add. For the most part I like the changes, especially with simplicity in mind.

However, I'm still a bit mixed on the activity changes. I understand the goal is to avoid that members stay more than 2 consecutive months without meeting activity requirements, and that they're encouraged to resign and then return with relative ease whenever they can continue.

I just hope the activity kicks aren't fully automatic, and that the NAT has agency on all the cards generated by low activity so they can maybe approach the BNs, see what's up, and ultimately either postpone the activity card for an extra month to dismiss it, or to act on it immediately.

In support! Nothing much to add other than what RandomeLol has said, hope the system is not automatic.

I remember when elicz1 used to reach out to BNs when their activity fell low (for standard). Please continue doing that! It's very humanizing and gentler way to handle activity issues imo.


EDIT: Some non-BN users brought this up to me

Are 2-0-2-0-2-0-2-0 accepted? Like I know under the rules this is not wrong but is it frowned upon or would NATs not care and say it is acceptable?

Seems like a good way to farm tenure while not doing anything if you ask me.

i really hope the considerations for acitivty do not really get all that automated (some leeway is given), cause it discourages giving extra effort to complex or heavy sets for checking, or at least it encourages having activity padding on the side while checking said complex sets

consider the weight of effort between a 2 diff music box set vs an 4 diff 5min+ set.

Said this before about my concern, but i do think the activity part cannot be completely automated and still need to at least have some NAT touches in it, even if the original intention is to completely simplify things.

I sort of agree about the potential concern happening from constant 2-0-2-0 happened, this was already voiced to me multiple times, so there needs to at least be some adjustment on that to not demotivate BNs further down the road.

The rest aside of that seems fine enough though.

Why not go with average of 6 nominations every 90 days? I think that’s harder to game the activity check. allowing something like 2-0-2-0-2 just allows people to do lower than the intended minimum activity.

Plus, it’s more forgiving and having bn to quit and rejoin for a month causes more overhead which doesn’t seem like simplification to me.

Mainly get some concerns about the activity requirement, and i think some have brought up that too. Just that under this change it would kick BNs with activity like 10-1-1, while case like 2-0-2-0-2, will survive if we solely check monthly activity, which doesn't feel that right

Another thing i get from it is that it seems unclear how good terms resign should be measured if the 90d activity check is gone

Overall looks good, and I agree with the above people that the BN activity check system should not be automatic.

Also, looks like BN kicking is not mentioned in this proposal, could I assume that it's same as before? Like:
- Instant kick for really severe modding/behavior issues
- Formal warning for concerning modding/bevavior issues, then kick if no improvement/not significant enough

---

Edit:
gzdongsheng has a good point. Would that possible to give some leniency for high activity BNs? Like if a BN reached x amount of nominations then they can get a "ticket" in the system and have an exception from activity check for one or two months.

removal of mock evaluations is fine since you guys shifted mostly to BN evaluator rounds (though that brings up a separate issue of having the evaluator rounds being more accessible to those who are genuinely interested in participating in them)

cooldown simplification i guess is fine? i'm not really too sure if that would greatly increase the workload on the NAT, though -- i feel like the cooldowns were intended to help with that

early evaluations for super active BNs, yeah, this was kinda overdue imo ever since cheri's nomination-spree back in 2019/2020 to be honest

giving BNs a say in mapping system discussions, sure, more transparency is always appreciated, i don't necessarily think everything should be relegated here though

as for the other two

simplifying activity requirements

i like some aspects of this -- consecutive activity warnings should result in a removal (imo), but i kind of feel like setting the bar at two nominations is a bit too low in this case. personally, i never found it too much of a struggle to at least find three maps to nominate per month (the current threshold), and i feel like reducing the amount required would be detrimental to the overall mapping scene if anything since, in a worst case scenario, BNs can just skirt the requirements of activity and refuse to accept maps outside of that. i obviously don't think this will happen 100% of the time (or at all), but it is a possibility that should be accounted for imo

repurposing probation

i'm kind of confused about this -- probation is staying for new BNs which is fine, but i don't really think probation ever served a purpose as a "public shaming tool"; what i saw it as was moreso a stern warning which comes across as much more serious than something written in text ever would. i'm not really against removing it (i've worried way too much about being put into probation after DQs throughout my tenure), i'm just not really sure how this would be implemented the same way through warnings in practice

fieryrage wrote:

repurposing probation

i'm kind of confused about this -- probation is staying for new BNs which is fine, but i don't really think probation ever served a purpose as a "public shaming tool"; what i saw it as was moreso a stern warning which comes across as much more serious than something written in text ever would. i'm not really against removing it (i've worried way too much about being put into probation after DQs throughout my tenure), i'm just not really sure how this would be implemented the same way through warnings in practice

ok maybe wording thehre wasnt the best, but the thing was with probation it often just didnt work as a "corrective" measure cuz people would lay low, push safe maps, get back to full, go back to whatever else they watned to do

so at that point i think it's fair to say just warn them instead and if they keep doing that they can come back with an app in 2 months? instead of going back and forth between probation, warnings, full, probation warnings etc

For the BN activity one, I personally think it could be going easier with BN. Assume that 2-0-2-0-2-0 won't be removed but 15-1-1 got removed I feel it's not very good... Maybe could be like:
**Every BN should nom 2maps / month
OR
nom 9maps / 3months.** The first time BN reaches none of them will receive the warning. The next month the BN still didn't reach it got removed.

8-1-0 yes
8-1-0-1 no

This is just an example.

Some people's real lives may be busy at one time and free at another because of work and so on. I don't think it's good to have these bn's resigning and applying over and over again because of the new activity rules.

as far as i understood the idea it is supposed to encourage resigning on good terms => no cooldown

over staying there and being dead if you can help it

though i would suggest just giving the activity kicks like this good terms unless their nominations sucked or something. like sure you sat around for 2 months doing nothing and should have resigned but i dont see how that would inhibit them coming back and being active again

if you go and abuse that just get standard terms and done i think?

I get 2 nominations per month for other gamemodes, but I still think it should stay at 3 for standard because the gamemode is a lot bigger so its much easier to find 3 maps per month. Would also uphold the previous threshold of atleast 6 nominations per 90 days before getting kicked.

I think the point was to standardize between gamemodes for simplification purposes. However, I feel like its a net positive to sacrifice a little bit of that simplification to adjust for the gamemode's needs.

I wanna chime in on the 2-0-2-0 debacle.

We can make the system automated, but I think the current proposal is too exploitable.

I think a good way to implement this would be to check the past THREE months of activity every ONE month.. The first check that falls below 6 noms over 3 months will get an automated warning. Second check in a row that falls below 6 would get a kick (or at least a potential kick that the NATs can first manually review, to address Randome's concern)

For example:

The BN nominates as follows:           10 1  1  3  3  10 1  1  1  1

The corresponding automated checks go: __ __ 12 5  7  16 14 12 3  3
                                                ^              ^  ^
                                               warn         warn  kick

This would make it so that the BN is granted some leniency in the following months if they had a month of high activity, but also cannot exploit the system by nominating extremely minimally in a specific pattern.

I like hugged's proposal for activity, as long as we can illustrate it simply enough.

I like hugged's proposal here. I kinda forgot to get back to this when I first asked about the activity, but my biggest concern was indeed how exploitable the current proposal was and how..unrewarding it felt. High activity would be treated the same as minimum activity in that case (15-10-5-1-1 vs. 2-0-2-0-2-0-1).

Not that there's anything wrong with minimum activity but a system like that would just encourage everyone to stick to the bare minimum because there's no incentive to do anything more after that point since it would be treated the same as any other kind of activity.

So yeah I think hugged's proposal works better in this case as long as there's something for everyone to be able to understand it (like an illustration or such)