Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Beatmap Management

[Discussion/Proposal] Increasing the amount of BNs required to begin a Veto.

posted
Total Posts
22
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
212 posts
Joined September 2015
Topic Starter
RandomeLoL
DISCLAIMER:

We're currently exploring and discussing several options on how to change Vetos to better align with the community's interests. This includes discussing ideas such as removing Vetos to modifying the Upheld threshold. No decision has been made yet, but we'd like to discuss different avenues before committing to one — or multiple — choices.

The Proposal
Increase the number of Beatmap Nominators required to begin a vote to 2.

The Reason
Currently, a single Beatmap Nominator is required to begin a Veto. They aren't forced to share it with anyone else before unilaterally starting it. In turn, this makes it feel like the reason for the Veto is purely personal, rather than trying to take into account other members' opinions before starting a Veto.

Requiring the same amount of members to begin the veto as the ones required to nominate a beatmap (not counting hybrid sets) seems like a logical step to make. In the same vein 2 BNs are required to Qualify a set, 2 should be required to Veto it.
Ryuusei Aika
Elite Mapper
1,097 posts
Joined January 2016
Ryuusei Aika
Agree, this seems like a fair trade.

Adding on this, I think providing the option of being able to anonymously vetoing would also help protecting the vetoers, considering how ridiculous the standard veto "dramas" were and how much personal attack the standard vetoers have been received in recent months. This can be done by something simple as BN(s) who're willing to veto can ask an NAT member to post the veto on their behalf.
Downside of this option is higher possibility of malicious intent and additional workload for NAT members if the latter need to double-check every veto post beforehand; these may be especially unwelcomed in T/C/M modes where vetoes have barely incited dramas.
Last edited by Ryuusei Aika , edited 2 times in total.
Monoseul
Elite Nominator
68 posts
Joined January 2020
Monoseul
Honestly this would be better than removing vetoes altogether, +1

Usually gathering multiple thoughts before deciding on a veto, instead of going for it alone and no preparation often goes more smoothly as well as discussion (most of the time), or at least people are more organized with their thoughts and what to talk about, and how to deliver that message.

Will also help people's view on the validity of the vetoes/process that went into making it.
tilda
Beatmap Nominator
307 posts
Joined March 2015
tilda
okay, but would this not further encourage a "group mentality" though? i've already heard certain subdivisions being wrongly blamed for vetoes in the past; this wouldn't help it imo, considering a lot of people who would want to do such things might just ask a friend "hey, wanna go 2nd?"

i do generally agree that people should talk with others before initiating a veto, but depending on the map one person can already get enough harassment for a lifetime :>
Last edited by tilda , edited 1 time in total.
Nikakis
770 posts
Joined May 2014
Nikakis
It wouldn't change anything because it's pretty easy to find someone to veto with, 2 bns to 1 is basically the same.

10 BNs would be way better idea so vetos dont happen every once in a while like qualifying a map, they should have heavier value and justification, nowdays you can veto for basically anything. We kinda lost the meaning of what veto is supposed to be, slight improvements of a map that barely change the quality of it isn't a veto, its just a normal mod (spacing from 3,00 went to 3,30 wow fixed). And thats basically the reason that we are discussing on removing vetoes completely nowdays.
clayton
1,901 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton
seems fine to try but I also wonder if it would have any practical effect

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

Adding on this, I think providing the option of being able to anonymously vetoing would also help protecting the vetoers
not a fan of this though, feels like QAT posting v2 and also unnecessarily marks the entire BNG as responsible for what only a few are pushing forward (prior to vote concluding ofc)
A r M i N
1,305 posts
Joined October 2014
A r M i N
I think it's pretty easy to find another BN you're either friends with or whose views align with yours to join you on the veto, especially if there are no to little repercussions if the veto goes south. This would hold back a very small portion of vetos and therefor maybe a move in the right direction, but not enough imo.

now introducing v4v - veto4veto
Smoke
Beatmap Nominator
377 posts
Joined August 2017
Smoke
unless I misunderstand the change I don't think this will really change anything, pretty easy to get someone to agree with ur veto especially if u have bn friends that have similar mapping ideals to you and from my experience as a bn and convos I've had over the years, most vetoers get an opinion from 1-2 bns before vetoing anyway, kinda proof that this would change nothing since most vetos already get approval from 1-2 bns before being posted
melleganol
Beatmap Nominator
621 posts
Joined March 2020
melleganol

RandomeLoL wrote:

Increase the number of Beatmap Nominators required to begin a vote to 2.

Ryuusei Aika wrote:

Adding on this, I think providing the option of being able to anonymously vetoing would also help protecting the vetoers, considering how ridiculous the standard veto "dramas" were and how much personal attack the standard vetoers have been received in recent months. This can be done by something simple as BN(s) who're willing to veto can ask an NAT member to post the veto on their behalf.
rushing a pre-vote (10 at least imo) to push the veto could be a solution (obviously within the qualify time and not make the mapper wait even longer) and the anonymous function d be better for those who just read the vetoer's name and vote without reading anything, nats could simply say "whoever misuses this tool will be kicked immediately" so they don't even have to worry about it

it's a bit absurd because they d still say it wasn't someone in their sd, but now there are a lot more bns so it might be worthwhile for the pre-vote and then the initiator with the votes can post the actual veto
Last edited by melleganol , edited 1 time in total.
Drum-Hitnormal
Beatmap Nominator
1,710 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal
Against making veto anonymous because if your veto has risk of making mapper and nominating BN quit osu then you also deserve the risk of being hated for it.

if you are trying to bring up constructive mods , mapper is likely to accept and if mapper doesnt then too bad, people have different opinions, pushing it as veto seems too forceful and not good for mental health.

agree with increasing minimum BN required to start a veto, but i think should have # nominating BN + 1 to make it more likely to be an issue before investing more resource into a mediation.

I still prefer removing veto completely, veto is too much effort, cause drama, make people quit, for very little gain.

I think BN job is to help mapper polish their map in their style, not to push different view on mapper. whether the style is fit or not fit for ranked, let the players decide with their rating after its ranked. i think BN job is done when we help the mapper express their idea to the best they can.
Kuki1537
110 posts
Joined March 2015
Kuki1537
It wouldn't solve anything

2 bns is just as easy to veto as only one, just get your friend or someone that thinks alike and you can do exactly the same thing as before

For the idea of increasing that number even further: it creates another problem, it waters down each member's contribution to the veto and it can be just shrugged off afterwards as "oh I just agreed to participate, I didn't really read the things through"

I sincerely believe that this one isn't the right direction to resolve the tensions in mapping community and just a band-aid fix just so we can show something has been done, when in reality we're still circling around the same issue over and over, just with more complicated process everyone would need to take part in
Serizawa Haruki
1,678 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki
Even if it doesn't change much, I still think this change should go through to make the numbers fair and equal to the number of required nominators to qualify a map.

I also disagree with the idea of letting people veto anonymously because based on past mediation comments it has been shown that anonymity tends to make some people think it gives them immunity to backlash so they can write whatever they want (like derogatory statements instead of constructive criticism).
HowRengar
Beatmap Nominator
194 posts
Joined February 2015
HowRengar
We can argue that this is better than nothing, but in the end it doesn't really change anything imo.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
212 posts
Joined September 2015
Topic Starter
RandomeLoL
(This is my own personal opinion, whereas the proposal was a conjoined internal effort)

I agree, 2 would be the very bare minimum. But realistically wouldn't solve much if we assume bad faith. Regardless, while 10 sounds like a good number in osu!, this would be virtually impossible to do in Catch. Assuming 10 members are needed and 2 other nominators are affected (plus potentially the mapper is a BN), that would only leave 7 people to mediate the veto.

The threshold should be dynamic depending on the size of the mode to be realistic.

Regarding anon vetos, we saw how well that went for the QAT. We shouldn't retrace their mistakes.
Kuki1537
110 posts
Joined March 2015
Kuki1537
What you're suggesting is doing the mediation before even vetoing, which is net negative as mapper has no way to respond to any of the points presented.

As for "it's better than nothing", no it isn't, making things complicated doesn't solve the underlying issue and only frustrates people potentially involved in the resulting mess.
Izzywing
osu! Alumni
2,250 posts
Joined March 2016
Izzywing
Seems like a useless change. has there ever been a veto that only one person has wanted? If you really want something in the spirit of the reasoning behind this change it needs to be like, 5 people at least. But that's dumb too lol
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,951 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoratu
seconding clayton's opinion, i think this is fine to try but i dont think it'll make a huge difference besides "distributing the veto blame" onto multiple people

honestly that's kinda better than what we have rn so why not?
clayton
1,901 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton
actually I agree with Kuki1537 that maybe there is some harm in this even if mostly inconsequential. I take back "seems fine to try" if there's not a strong reason for this to be implemented, and it doesn't look like there is. the point in OP is mostly about optics and I don't see those as being significantly improved with this -- to me, the contentious part of vetoes is about the changes they're suggesting, not that it started from one person
Last edited by clayton , edited 1 time in total.
wafer
Beatmap Nominator
790 posts
Joined December 2016
wafer
Seconding what Kuki says

A lot of people ask for opinions on vetoes before they submit them anyways, so no real fix here
Scotty
Nomination Assessment Team
282 posts
Joined October 2017
Scotty
personally i don't see any "harm" from implementing this. at the very least it can prevent cases of a single BN starting a veto entirely on their own (which has already happened before). and let's be real, the increase in complexity of the process is minimal anyways
Last edited by Scotty , edited 1 time in total.
Tomiup
143 posts
Joined May 2019
Tomiup
yea maybe like around if 5-20% of BNs/NATs required of the veto, that should be good enough understanding for it
Last edited by Tomiup , edited 1 time in total.
niat0004
192 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004

RandomeLoL wrote:

The Reason
Currently, a single Beatmap Nominator is required to begin a Veto. They aren't forced to share it with anyone else before unilaterally starting it. In turn, this makes it feel like the reason for the Veto is purely personal, rather than trying to take into account other members' opinions before starting a Veto.
Agree, mostly for optics; the point of a veto (and mediation thereof) is to gather opinions of all BNs when a mapping dispute has reached an impasse. This change would represent the original intent of the system better and make vetoes feel much less like a unilateral "fun police" act. This, in turn, would most likely make the public discourse regarding individual vetoes less toxic/hostile and maybe more constructive.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 22