Currently, the only ways a BN can initiate a veto are by resetting a nomination ("pop" below), disqualifying a qualified map, or posting a problem stamp on a pending map, which is done by a single person.

My concern is that the current veto system allows only one person to perform subjective DQ/pops, which may introduce strong personal bias, and sometimes may not lead to any substantial map quality improvements, which then wouldn't warrant a veto in the first place. Such lack of intersubjectivity can send, and has been sending strongly negative signs to the community and the BNs involved, generating fears and suspicions among them. To avoid personal bias, ensure the map quality improvement is necessary, and refrain from sending possible misleading signs to the community and the BNG, I propose that veto should be done using suggestions for nominated/qualified maps, instead of posted as pop/DQs. To the best of my knowledge, adding a veto button seems to be technically difficult, hence this proposal.

My newly proposed veto process would be:


Pros:

1. This can better reflect the intersubjectivity of the veto, ensure the quality improvement is in need for the vetoed map, and mitigate the frustrations, suspicions, and fears from the community & the BNs, which are generated from DQ/pops that might not be genuinely intersubjective among the BNG.
2. This is similar to how vetoes are handled now, since the procedure of "posting veto -- asking for opinion -- mediation or not -- if mediated, then upheld or dismissed -- act after the result" stays the same. The vetoed maps will still be blocked from being ranked before the veto has been resolved, just as we have now.
3. 4a) and 4b) ensure that the veto's impact can be appropriately evaluated according to its intersubjectivity.

Cons:

1. This may turn some people's understanding of problem stamp/suggestion upside down, as the general information of BNs states that problem stamps will be used on nominated/qualified maps "when there is a major or unrankable issue in the beatmap which should be addressed before considering it for ranking". Hence pairing with my proposal, I also propose a rewrite to this sentence to:
   
   ... (DQ/pops) These options are usually used when there is an unrankable issue in the beatmap which should be addressed before considering it for ranking. If you believe a major issue in the beatmap should be addressed before considering it for ranking, you can choose to veto the beatmap by following the beatmap veto process.
2. This may be considered unnecessary as vetoes are rare, and usually 1 veto won't play an important role in a BN's evaluation. A single DQ/pop should normally not be a huge deal, either. However, a veto with DQ/pop would sometimes be interpreted as something as "if you map like this, your map can't be ranked because some people just don't like you enough to pick on you", due to a lack of intersubjectivity as I stated at the beginning. Hence, putting the majority vote process before the DQ/pop action would mitigate those frustrations and suspicions and encourage BNs to push maps with a wider variety.

I don't think this matters or changes anything, no bn thinks that problem stamps are exclusively for "objective" issues I think

1/2-2/3 is kinda small of a threshold

imo 0-50% for no punishment / 50-75% for minor / 75-100% for major would be a better distribution

I Agree with browiec for what it's worth

Maybe if it was made more clear that a suggestion stamp blocks auto ranking, that would help?

I thought the original idea of veto first then discuss was to prevent it from automatically getting ranked

while i'm not really opposing the proposal, this feels like a mere change of optics that doesn't affect how a veto inherently works (blocking a map from ranked for subjective concerns). the blocking happens with suggestion stamps rather than resets, with the main pro being that the map won't need renominations after the veto is dismissed (which is essentially as effortless as BNs renominating the map in our current system), and the main con being the map would likely insta-rank and leave no wiggle for further checking.

one thing i think could be changed about this proposal is that the DQ should happen when the mediation starts rather than when the mediation is upheld, that way we give more breathing room for the map in the qualified queue and not have the mediation guarantee an insta-rank if dismissed.

Keeping a map in qualified when there's a chance the mapset might change significantly isn't wise in my opinion considering it only leaves less time in qualified when it goes back and hence less time for objective mistakes that might have slipped in after the veto (like an unsnap/missnap etc.) to be caught. If a map gets mediated, and the entire set undergoes various changes, that will leave exactly 24 hours in qualified for what may be a very different mapset at that point.

If this is mitigated with the addition of a button to reset the qualified time of a mapset, then sure, but I still do not particularly see why this is necessary: a veto by definition does not need to be intersubjective (although more often than not they are). I personally think that, save for egregious cases, it should already be encouraged to post map suggestions first and then veto if the mapper is ignoring you or a compromise is not reached, but an entire veto process taking place while the map is still qualified doesn't make any sense to me: a veto's purpose is to halt the progress to contemplate the alleged issues, and with your suggestion the map is still moving closer to getting ranked.

agree with AJT, this seems to ultimately do more harm than good for his stated reason of potentially skipping the qualified process

don't think ur solution really helps in the root of problem, which is BN making unreasonable veto, they should discuss with more people including mapper before even posting it.

i think there needs to be more penalty for BN who started a veto if the veto resulted in not helpful for the map, it waste way too many resources that can be used to push more maps into ranked. there has to be a bigger cost to it, not free to abuse.

personally find it pretty unreasonable that 1 single BN is able to veto map, when it has approval of 2 BNs, u should need at least 3 BNs to start a veto. and they should all be hold responsible for wasting everyone time if they are being unreasonable to force their preference on others. it is more likely to not be a problem than it is a problem.

you need to have more support than just yourself to say something is subjective bad enough to disrupt the ranking process

basically, i propose the # of BNs required to veto a qualified map for general issue > # of BN who nommed it (in case of hybrid) -> if its mode specific issue then it needs to be > 2

if its just 1 nom then, u need 2 BN to veto.

and give more penalty (probation or kick) if veto is not useful.

AJT wrote:

there's a chance the mapset might change significantly isn't wise in my opinion considering it only leaves less time in qualified when it goes back

In that case the solution should be a way to indicate that a mapset has pretty much completely changed and needs to go through the full 7-day period again, since this could occur anyway without a veto happening

EDIT: Forgot this isn't markdown

The point of a veto is explicitly to stop a map from being ranked. I think vetoes function fine as is. Just cuz certain people use them to push narratives on Twitter doesn't mean they are broken.

I do not think this change is necessarily helpful. However, I do agree that a sudden Veto without any prior discussion can come up as pushy. I'd be in favour of heavily encouraging an initial discussion in an attempt to solve subjective issues before dropping a Veto. But not disqualifying a map put under a Veto is a bit odd, both in terms of logistics and the nature of Vetoes themselves.

The nature of Vetoes is to stop maps with "...significant issues regarding beatmap quality which make it unfit for the Ranked section.". Treating them as suggestions would kinda undermine this point. Once the issues are solved, it can be nominated again, and this is left to the BNs to judge.

My concern is that the current veto system allows only one person to perform subjective DQ/pops, which may introduce strong personal bias

Worth noting that Vetoes, also by nature, are subjective nukes dropped on maps. They are inherently biased. As for the rest, I agree with what AJT and Hivie already stated.

pro tip: optics 100% matters especially when its a nat veto considering there is no oversight over nat aside from what the community perception of them is so dont use "its just optics" as a reason to be against this

Do you think the Twitter raging would have been different if Fuju was a BN?

There is actually a significant difference between disqualifying a map and posting suggestions, not just optics.

I'll just quote something I posted on the old veto thread (community/forums/posts/7460156):

Issue: A veto causes an immediate halt to the ranking process before even determining whether it's valid or not and before the mapper even has a chance to explain their thoughts.

Possible solution: This one would require some coding from developers but it would be cool if the qualification timer could be suspended for as long as the veto discussion lasts. This would mean that vetoed maps remain in the qualified state until there is a result. If the veto is upheld or the mapper agrees to make changes, the map will be disqualified, otherwise the timer will simply continue from where it left off. The advantage would be having access to replays during qualified, but it would also change one major factor: Right now when mediation occurs, the map has already been taken down so many BNs might (unconsciously) think that it doesn't hurt to make changes at that point, but the question should be whether those changes are absolutely required and warrant a disqualification or not.

I also have to agree with Drum-Hitnormal that it should not only require 1 single BN to veto a map (but I think 2 makes more sense than 3, that way it's equal) and that invalid/unnecessary vetoes and using vetoes to enforce personal preferences should actually be punishable.

Looks like some others have already said what most of my thoughts but this proposal as well as a few arguments I feel like just ignore what the point of a veto is.

Ideally there should be a discussion as to what the problem is before a veto is considered. If someone immediately vetoes without any discussion beforehand, that isn't a problem with the veto system. It's the person who didn't open up a conversation beforehand.

If you've seen the past vetoes that've ended up in a mess it's usually because of the way people have handled them due to their attitude or how one has started the veto, not the system itself.

And this idea of not disqualifying a map immediately when a veto is on place..I just can not see how this helps anyone. I think ajt and randome perfectly explains why already.

I think the current system is fine as is.

The general veto trend that i notice is that, there is some sort of tendency to directly veto without previously taking initiative on try discussing and searching for compromise the mapper, and sometimes without even also asking the mapper as well.

Taking slower steps on doing that will help much better imo. By nature, people will be more defensive when you are being way forceful (plus also invite more negative stigma). If you are less forceful and at least attempt for compromise prior to the veto, people are more receptive for changes and reducing drama as well. It's the matter of handling them, not the system at faulty, which i think it's better to look from that angle.

------------

Also in response to Drum-Hitnormal, i sort of disagree making veto more difficult, as it's already hard and discouraging enough for people to actually doing this, knowing what they sign themselves for + any other risk involving doing this. The only one thing i agree is to at least to be more thoughtful before doing veto for more "minor" issue, which will goes the long way imo.

People who display sign of veto abuse still got handled by NAT on each case basis so there is no worry in that regard.

Nao Tomori wrote:

Do you think the Twitter raging would have been different if Fuju was a BN?

the overall "outrage" wouldnt be much different but the increasing negative community perception of the nat would be

I don't think the general animosity against the ranking system which is currently being stoked by certain people that have been bad faith actors for nearly a decade would be that different though. Either it's "evil NATs won't let me rank 1/2 only jump training maps" or it's "evil BNs won't let me rank 1/2 only jump training maps" - like it used to be when BNs would veto these types of things.

systems in which the highest form of authority has no oversight will tend to form animosity from the outside towards it, its the responsibility of those at the top to try their best at maintaining their public perception through their actions/decisions

if large sections of the community disagree with the direction the ranking system has taken then it is solely the responsibility of those who actually regulate the system to do something about it or at the very least address the issues mentioned instead of blaming the criticism solely on bogeymen and mass psychosis

a positive example of this being done is this proposal

This looks like the vetoer's issue, not the system's issue. I don't think your proposal is a good idea either way.

A veto should be done in a considerable thinking and communication, not just at all sudden. If I were a mapper myself I am less inclined to consider doing whatever vetoer wants to.

Agree that current system just works fine, issues mostly happen due to lack of previous discussion before doing the veto (although not a must to do so, but usually helpful to reduce tension and drama)

Basensorex wrote:

at the very least address the issues mentioned instead of blaming the criticism solely on bogeymen and mass psychosis

Before I write a bit about how the veto system developed over time and the objectives it evolved to meet, I would like to state that my view of the current situation is that the main issue that this proposal is a knee-jerk reaction to is that Sotarks doesn't like having his map vetoed and happens to have a large Twitter following, and doesn't have to worry about optics when denigrating others' contributions and opinions, but FuJu does, so he (even if he wanted to, which I doubt) can't say too much in response. I have observed this pattern occur many, many times over the time I've been active, including maps like CBCC, PP compilation, Horrible Kids, and so on.

The second issue is more valid - there's a perception, accurate or not, that aim maps are impossible to rank compared to tech maps and that there's too many unplayable slider gimmick maps getting ranked compared to simple anime maps (which are often described negatively as pp maps, including in my previous post). I am not going to respond to this issue that much because I don't think that there's an effective way for me to argue against that perception as any list of recent maps I post that I believe fit the definition of a simple anime map will have some hole or another poked in it. Either way, it's probably true that there are less pure 1/2 note aim focused maps getting ranked than in 2018-2019 when LON and Sotarks and SquareTude and so on were active, the main reason of which is up for debate but realistically is a combination of most active mappers finding that style less fun to map and most active BNs preferring more interesting maps that allow for more varieties of song expression.

In any case, the main point of this post is to discuss the veto system and how it evolved (and why this proposal misses the mark in my opinion).

Before the veto system existed, no cohesive system to deal with disqualifications or nomination resets existed. This created a lot of frustration in incidents like Asymmetry or Toumei Elegy where maps were repeatedly stopped for the exact same issues and no productive discussion occurred.

Recognizing that having frustrating stalemates where the best way to move forward with a map was essentially to be stubborn and keep requalifying the map until the opposing BNs got bored or flamed hard enough to stop was not a good system to keep in place, the precursor to the veto system was put in place, where the general idea was that 1 BN would be able to prevent 1 nomination from counting. You can look at the thread of After rain for an example of essentially 15 BNs voting on whether or not the map would get ranked and eventually 3 more voted yes than no so it got ranked.

After that period, the modern system was created (I believe Monstrata proposed the initial idea, probably as a 0L enamored with the amazingly functional American criminal justice system). The precepts underlying the system are basically as follows:
1. BNs, through their merit-based status as elevated individuals in the ranking system, have the ability to prevent maps from being ranked that they see as unfit to be ranked, by disqualifying maps and detailing their subjective reasoning why the map is bad
2. If the vetoer and the mapper productively discuss the map, the vetoer can lift the veto
3. If they fail to do so, the vetoer can put the veto to a vote among their similarly meritorious peers (mediation) and both parties have to abide by the results
4. The ultimate, explicit, stated goal of the veto system is to improve the average map quality in the ranked section by preventing mappers from arguing that their maps are objectively rankable and that subjective issues are mere differences of opinion and can be ignored
5. Following from such, vetoes are supposed to be used in egregious cases of terrible maps getting qualified and serve as a way for a vetoer to get more eyes and opinions on a map's quality from their peers who would otherwise not even open the map to begin with

This framework was widely agreed upon and developed over 5 or 6 years of constant community feedback from both vetoers and vetoees because it generally affords an equal opportunity to uphold map quality in ranked but also prevent minor disagreements from being forced onto a mapper by an antagonistic BN.

I don't understand how the proposal mitigates any feelings of frustration for the recipient of a veto. If you argue to a stalemate with a vetoing BN, all you're doing is saving 6 days of qualified once the map does or doesn't get disqualified. The fundamental issue of the mapper's agency being forcibly removed from them doesn't change. I believe the benefits of a system to remove mappers' agency existing outweigh occasional frustration when a map gets vetoed. The mediation process, which aims to determine the validity of the veto, doesn't change either. And I'm hard pressed to believe that, optics wise, a modder posting a bunch of suggestions then disqualifying the map a week later is going to look less vindictive than immediately disqualifying the map and taking the ranking queue timing out of the equation entirely so the discussion can occur. In this case, had FuJu posted a bunch of problem stamps-as-suggestions and then disqualified the map later, he would've just gotten flamed for DQ'ing the map after ostensibly valid counterarguments were made instead of what happened currently, where he's getting flaming for DQ'ing before any discussion had occurred.

OK, so I got time to read everything through and it seems that most people believe that changing vetos on noms/qfd maps to a suggestion manner is a bad idea (point 2a-b, 3a-b), because
a) It will potentially skip the qualifying process which can potentially cause new issues or even a virtually new map slipping through the qualified section without enough time to properly check;
b) It probably won't make a big difference on the current situation because the vetoer can get flamed for different reasons like ostensibly valid counterarguments and the community & veto recipients may still get frustrated over these counterarguments.

I think both make sense to me so I will withdraw 2a-b) and 3a-b) (with 1) too since it's already in the RC.)

Meanwhile:
i) I have also noticed some comments are suggesting a more reasonable idea that is highly encouraging communications before a veto. Does that sound good if we manage to have something added to the veto wiki stating so?
ii) Seemingly no one is commenting on 4a)-4b), unless I missed something. Is judging the impact of a veto on the BNs who nominated the map by how many % of the voters voted agree sounds reasonable? I think this can encourage pushing a wider variety of maps.

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

Meanwhile:
i) I have also noticed some comments are suggesting a more reasonable idea that is highly encouraging communications before a veto. Does that sound good if we manage to have something added to the veto wiki stating so?
ii) Seemingly no one is commenting on 4a)-4b), unless I missed something. Is judging the impact of a veto on the BNs who nominated the map by how many % of the voters voted agree sounds reasonable? I think this can encourage pushing a wider variety of maps.

just to put my two cents of whether 4a and 4b are eh is that it should be evaluated whether or not the veto held objective or subjective terms. If the latter is the case then I dont believe BNs should be punished; however, if the former is the case then it should, since objective issues going into ranked would almost (and should) require a more thorough investigation on whether the BNs modded well enough, truly played the map, and looked for those issues before nominating them, and even before nominating, if the objective issues were really fleshed out during the modding process and a fast one from the mapper was not made.

punishing BNs for subjectivity just feels like it is going to have a bad taste and people will be EVEN more scared to veto stuff. Vetos realistically only withhold a map from getting ranked or not for 1 week, but the emotional and transverse impact they have community wide for the BNs who veto'd is very damaging as people can bandwagon (especially if the mappers are those who have a large following).

The ratios are whatever, Im not focusing on that part due to not really agreeing with the premise, but it brings the question, "who is to decide the majority or not" bc the vetoers are public knowledge but those within the mediation are held anonymous (to my knowledge) and this anonymity can cause people who have differing opinions or strong feelings about their peers to vote against them when in reality the point of a veto is to have more eyes on a map, not make enemies.

+1 to everything AJT, Nao Tomori, and Maxus said

Monoseul wrote:

Ideally there should be a discussion as to what the problem is before a veto is considered. If someone immediately vetoes without any discussion beforehand, that isn't a problem with the veto system. It's the person who didn't open up a conversation beforehand.

If you've seen the past vetoes that've ended up in a mess it's usually because of the way people have handled them due to their attitude or how one has started the veto, not the system itself.

But the system encourages people to immediately DQ a map without discussing the issues beforehand, so it is actually the system's fault. Adding something about this to the wiki page like Aika said would be a good start to make BNs change how they approach vetoes.

Blushing wrote:

it should be evaluated whether or not the veto held objective or subjective terms

the entire point of the veto system is that subjectivity is an inherent part of every aspect of mapping and thus has no bearing on the validity or weight of an argument

if a map has "objective issues" (i.e. ranking criteria violations; this is the only sensible way to parse this phrase), it doesn't need a veto, you can just dq it on the spot. vetoes are explicitly meant for subjective issues so this is moot

@nao its useless to dumb this proposal down as only being a knee-jerk reaction to sotarks/public outrage because that is simply how the system has been designed to work, nothing really gets changed or improved until theres enough public consensus that a problem exists and the pressure is put on those at the top to change things

if a problem only starts getting attention after someone popular enough calls it out does that mean that the problem necessarily didnt exist beforehand? analogy thats completely separate from clicking circles: did climate change not exist until scientists started researching it and calling it out to the public? obviously it did, and i argue that this veto etiquette wouldve still been a problem even if there was 0 outrage on twitter about it, just an unnoticed problem at that

i think ur majorly underestimating/downplaying just how personally frustrating it feels to have a map vetoed without discussion and how the optics of it looks compared to a normal procedure of discussion->disagreement->veto. the former makes mappers feel completely powerless and the vetoing bn/nat look like a tyrant who doesnt care for discussion or reasonable dialogue, while the latter feels a lot more sensible, "democratic" and not like someone whos power tripping over having a rational discussion and conclusion (veto)

also, having a theoretical stalemate for 6 days is actually so incredibly helpful for optics that you seem to completely ignore. the bulk of attention that this type of veto drama acquires will always be right at the point of actually vetoing the map. if there are 6 days worth of discussion before this point, there will be such a large amount of rhetorical ammunition that can be used from the discussions had that its almost impossible for a mapper to properly argue and ragefarm on other platforms because there will be 200 screenshot replies of them ignoring reasonable arguments (assuming the veto is good in this case) and public perception will consequentially be weighted far more on whos actually more correct rather than who posts the veto on twitter.

imagine this same situation with the following changes in the timeline:
1. the points in the veto are far more valid / the set is way worse than it currently is
2. the issues are all brought up and posted while the set remains qualified allowing for 6 days worth of discussion where multiple bns/nats defend the points and argue correctly against the mapper
3. map is finally vetoed after mapper has shown unwillingness to make obvious improvements to the set

in this hypothetical scenario you have completely neutered any bad faith actors' ability to ragefarm "non-existent" issues because there is no outcome in which they look good to the majority of outside observers, these are their options:
1. post screenshots of suggestions being brought up while still qualified -> they look completely unreasonable for crying about any suggestion posted on their map in qf eg "mappers when someone posts one (1) minor issue while their map is qfed" etc
2. post screenshots of ongoing discussion -> theyre forced to post discussion that puts them in a bad light for disagreeing to reasonable suggestions/issues, also helps immensely if theres a group of people disagreeing with them rather than 1 guy
3. post screenshots of veto after discussion is had -> anybody can see all the discussion that was had and post several replies in which the mapper was unwilling to make reasonable changes to obvious issues

the current situation only took such a left turn because of the fact that the veto was instant, and the complete lack of discussion easily allowed for a twitter post to be made with 0 context and 0 of the mappers own retorts because there was none of it forced upon them (i personally believe majority of the veto was also invalid which probably only added more fuel to the fire but w/e thats up to each individuals discretion and opinion)

basically my point being, the idea of vetoes forcibly necessitating discussion with the mapper before dqing makes it in almost every way a positive compared to the current system, in which there would be essentially no room for bad faith actors to ragefarm non-issues

if despite this system there is still public outrage of specific vetoes then that says more about the vetoers/veto in question rather than the mapper

Good points. I have changed my mind.

OK OK I should've waited for longer. Sorry to everyone.

So here comes another possible option: we keep the original proposal since it ensures that proper discussions can take place in the veto process, so the community & mapper can have a sense of participation, hence hopefully reduce the unnecessary suspicions; less to no bad faiths can be done too under this process as Basen said at #29.
But assuming we do apply this, the first issue in #24 would still exist, being letting a map with potential new issues, or even a radically different map after veto slipped through ranked if the veto has been performed 24 hours prior to ranked. Solutions that came into my mind is: as AJT suggested, adding a new button that would reset the Qualified timer and this can only be used when a veto is upheld / mapper agrees with a veto, pairing with the new proposal.
For this option, does that solution sounds good? Or anyone else have better ideas that require less coding workload?

Also more inputs are always welcome.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

But the system encourages people to immediately DQ a map without discussing the issues beforehand, so it is actually the system's fault. Adding something about this to the wiki page like Aika said would be a good start to make BNs change how they approach vetoes.

I don't think the issue is that the system encourages an immediate DQ, but instead there isn't enough information as to *when* to do one, and because of that you get immediate vetoes since people aren't aware that it's highly encouraged to start a discussion before considering one. I've looked through some of the wiki articles mentioning vetoes, such as the Beatmap Veto page, and while it does give info on how you can do one, i.e:

As a Beatmap Nominator, you can veto a beatmap in one of three ways:

In the case of nominated beatmaps, resetting its nominations.
In the case of qualified beatmaps, disqualifying it.
In the case of pending beatmaps, posting a problem stamp.

It does not say anything about when you should start a veto, apart from when you should consider one, i.e:

...if they feel there are significant issues regarding beatmap quality which make it unfit for the Ranked section.

So I believe this comes from a lack of information on when one should start a veto, which most people agree should not be done immediately, so I very much agree with Aika's suggestion to add something to the wiki regarding this. I think that would definitely help a lot with how these vetoes begin and how they are handled.

-

Also some other things worth pointing out that I feel should be addressed:

Drum-Hitnormal wrote:

don't think ur solution really helps in the root of problem, which is BN making unreasonable veto,...

...i think there needs to be more penalty for BN who started a veto if the veto resulted in not helpful for the map,...

Blushing wrote:

it should be evaluated whether or not the veto held objective or subjective terms

At what point do you consider a veto "unreasonable?" Vetoes are not and were never meant to be for objective issues. The only objective issues are when rules are being violated, in which case you would dq it, not veto. Vetoes are inherently subjective - what one person finds unreasonable, another person may fully agree with. It already states this in the BN page under Important Links:

For beatmaps with subjective quality concerns that don't necessarily break the rules and guidelines of the Ranking Criteria, but which you feel which make the beatmap in question unfit for the Ranked section...

So your idea sounds too subjective to be considered some sort of factor as to whether a veto is helpful or not. Trying to instill a penalty for vetoes that "aren't helpful" would be a horrible idea because of this, it would just entirely discourage anyone to even QA or veto in the first place. It's entirely personal opinion what someone thinks is not helpful, using "subjective" as an argument just doesn't make sense because vetoes ARE inherently subjective.

Last one:

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

ii) Seemingly no one is commenting on 4a)-4b), unless I missed something. Is judging the impact of a veto on the BNs who nominated the map by how many % of the voters voted agree sounds reasonable? I think this can encourage pushing a wider variety of maps.

The idea itself sounds fine on paper but this would heavily be a case by case basis - Vetoes can widely range from stuff outside of just the quality of a chart. There have been background vetoes, general vetoes like audio quality or, well, what is considered a song suitable for ranked. If those vetoes were to get upheld I don't think it sounds great that the nominators should get punished for thinking, say, a background was fine or that they thought a song was considered suitable for ranked?
I'm aware these examples are far and between but I think the point still stands. Even if it's upheld, if it's not about the quality of a chart but something else entirely then how would that be received for the nominators?

-

Edit: Personally still disagree with the idea of keeping it in qualified but if it were to be considered, then I think AJT's suggestion to reset the timer if it were to happen would be best for a system like that.
I still think there should be something in wiki about starting a discussion before a veto, to avoid immediate vetoes and causing situations like what was mentioned earlier.

@aika that sounds like the solution that would objectively have the most positive results so i support it and think its worth investing time into coding it

until then could just enforce new etiquette manually

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

ii) Seemingly no one is commenting on 4a)-4b), unless I missed something. Is judging the impact of a veto on the BNs who nominated the map by how many % of the voters voted agree sounds reasonable? I think this can encourage pushing a wider variety of maps.

i don't think it's very reasonable to judge the impact purely through the % of agree, other than that if the veto is dismissed then in principle we shouldn't give any punish for the veto. At most the ratio can only reflect how easy/obvious the issue to be notice, however how severe it is have a vast room due to the variety of issues, which is not necessarily related with the said ratio.

Currently it's mostly handled case-by-case which i think it's reasonable enough.

gzdongsheng wrote:

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

ii) Seemingly no one is commenting on 4a)-4b), unless I missed something. Is judging the impact of a veto on the BNs who nominated the map by how many % of the voters voted agree sounds reasonable? I think this can encourage pushing a wider variety of maps.

i don't think it's very reasonable to judge the impact purely through the % of agree, other than that if the veto is dismissed then in principle we shouldn't give any punish for the veto. At most the ratio can only reflect how easy/obvious the issue to be notice, however how severe it is have a vast room due to the variety of issues, which is not necessarily related with the said ratio.

Currently it's mostly handled case-by-case which i think it's reasonable enough.

Agree with this.

The punishment to BNs who nominated the map is not the purpose, our purpose is to ensure a healthy development of the mapping/modding community, and the mainstream opinion agree with the ranked maps.

The punishment should be judged case by case, we can't just punish BNs simply if the mapper agrees with the subject issue/veto (4a). We still need to judge the BN according his/her own behavior, if his/her behavior needs to be warned or not.

Even if a veto passed through the mediation, the subjective opinions or vetos are mostly the map itself issues, not BN behavior issues. If we just value it purely in BN evals, most of BNs would only nominate similar style of maps, and we may lose the diversity of maps.

Also for objective issues that are easy to be noticed, if a BN keeps nominating this, then the punishement including a warning is needed.

moved to beatmap management because this affects bn rules / behaviour instead of direct ranking criteria

this forum is write-only for bns, gmt and nat which are the usergroups affected by changing this around so it seems better here

i would like to say my main concern is wasting BNs time.

i just think from time cost perspective, forcing 1 BN to discuss with at least 1 other BN before starting the veto process assures there's some sort of discussion happened. it also gives vetoer some confidence thats this veto is more likely to be valid. if you can't find another BN to agree with your opinion, i really dont think there's a need for veto to take place, its very likely to be dismissed.

theres no systematic way of forcing a discussion between vetoer and mapper (should be 1st thing that happens)

so the least we can do is force a discussion between Vetoer and another BN.

every time a veto is dismissed, that's time could be spend to nom few more maps to ranked. From system perspective we should aim to reduce the likelihood of a veto being dismissed


im just proposing to change 1 BN required to veto to 2 BNs, i dont think this causes a lot of issue on the vetoer side.

I find it unreasonable that 1 person opinon (vetoer) is valued higher than 2 BNs opinion (nominated the map) and by large amount, that it requires input from many other BNs and the fact the people whos waiting to get their map ranked by those BNs involved in veto is getting a few days delay for nothing if veto gets dismissed


regarding punishment for a veto thats dismissed -> agree its hard to implement anything system wise, just up to NAT to do during BN eval , case by case basic, im just pointing out the fact it resulted in no improvement and just waste of time, subjective or not , time is wasted. there has to be a limit how often this can occur, but yes lets leave it to NAT judgement, no hard rules