INTRODUCTION

In this post I will develop an argument as to why not having a theoretical framework harms ecosystems and generates fragmented groups of people who distort concepts to their convenience but in turn provide loopholes that should not exist. Undermining any kind of discussion, analysis or feedback. I will also give a soft touch to why seeking for minimum quality standards created this false dichotomy of “giving people what they want” or “forcing high standards”, and why seeking minimum standards goes back and forth on the fine line of conformity and mediocrity. Which gives rise to comments like this (even if it is hyperbole). Basically I cover several axes, so my solution probably leaves much to be desired, at least visualizing problems can spark creative minds.

WHY WOULD NOT HAVING THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK BE A BAD THING?

Lacking theoretical consistency in modding undermines objectivity, as maps would be judged on subjective opinions rather than clear, shared principles, leading to inconsistency and potential favoritism. This lack of structure erodes quality standards, resulting in maps that might lack polish or coherence and negatively affecting the gameplay experience. It also weakens constructive criticism, making feedback feel extremely arbitrary and less useful for mapper/modder’s growth. Additionally, without a unifying framework, the community (as I will show below) is becoming increasingly fragmented into echo chambers with differing standards, making it harder for new mapper/modders to understand expectations. Ultimately, theoretical consistency helps ensure fairness, quality, and predictability, all of which contribute to a healthy and enjoyable modding ecosystem.

SOME EXAMPLES OF THEORETICAL INCONSISTENCY

1. CONTRAST AS A FALSE DICHOTOMY: In the current system, the only thing the RC mentions is over reflecting the intensity of the song. This is unnecessarily vague and creates loopholes where people can just distort it, for example: two sections are distinctively different, but have a very similar intensity, RC says that would be fine if both section's structures are similar just by appealing to their intensity. Although in the newest and simplified version of the RC, it low-key covers this loophole introducing the concept of “mapping ideas”, differentiating the “mapping element contrast” vs “mapper’s ideas contrast” to reflect the song. The thing is that in reality, it doesn't work at all similar, some NATs/BNs take this into account and others not at all. The contrast ends up falling into an oversimplification where one cannot logically debate whether a contrast is a “good or bad” contrast, rather than whether “there is or is not” based on its intensity.

1. LOW DIFFICULTIES DOES NOT NEED TO REFLECT THE SONG: This was said by a NAT member in a recent discussion (and despite saying that it is only their opinion, they reinforce it in an evaluation). However, it is not a one-man thing by any means, there are several members who truly believe this (another examples). Why does this not make sense? Because the purpose of low difficulties, in the line of why spreads exist, is to present a simplified version of the set's top difficulty. So it would make no sense for it to arbitrarily lack their very purpose (to reflect the song) and difficulty progression can be logically substantiated. Intuitive gameplay for new players is intrinsically related to the difficulty level and has nothing to do with map design to reflect the song. All difficulties should reflect the song with the limitations of their respective difficulty and spread.

1. MAPPING AND SPECIAL PLEADING: It's amazing how many times we fall into a double standard in modding. The hypocrisy of saying some do and some don't, makes it even worse, because for example this veto should not have been considered and it also makes no sense when we think about the veto before that one (even if the reasoning for it was bad, anyway probably all members knew what the veto was really about), so the overall feeling is just this. It also happens with comments such as the mapper's intentions, which is fine, since the mapper has an important voice in its creation and there are many spaces where a wide range of interpretations are left, however, they must be based on logical grounds and not just because they wanted it that way. Similar things happen with old maps, just because they are old they can be the exception? This only contributes to creating more loopholes.

1. IRRELEVANT FEEDBACK IN EVALUATIONS: This veto was not just my subjective thinking, but was feedback taken directly from an evaluation whose comments sounded logical from my perspective. This creates a huge contradiction, since in the end everything that NATs evaluate is very far from reality and even if this case happened before the fall of the NAT, it continues to happen in recent evaluations, it is noticeable that there is a very personal analysis instead of resting on a logical argument. Also, there is no point in improving (irrelevant feedback) if you only have to do the bare minimum, why do you want over-trained workers? And it also makes no sense if the feedback is illogical for one group and logical for another, only further fragments the community. So the overall feeling is this: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - etc etc.

HOW SEEKING MINIMUM STANDARDS HARMS THE ECOSYSTEMS

1. MAPPER’S PERSPECTIVE: When standards are too low, the significance of ranking as a benchmark for quality diminishes. If almost anything can meet the standard, it stops being a mark of achievement and becomes an expectation. This leads to a culture where ranking feels routine rather than celebratory. If the ranked section tolerates mediocrity, the drive to innovate weakens over time as there's no visible incentive to go beyond "acceptable". Moreover, higher standards foster an environment where boundary-pushing becomes the norm rather than the exception, so it encourages innovation and continuous improvement, leading to more creative and well-crafted results while setting a baseline of quality that benefits the entire community.

1. MODDER’S (BNG) PERSPECTIVE: Objectivity in feedback is compromised when standards become vague or overly flexible. If there's no consistent baseline, feedback often devolves into subjective preference rather than constructive critique. Standards serve as a common ground to anchor discussions, ensuring feedback is actionable and fair. Being a BN or evaluating BNs and BN applications gains significance when tied to upholding meaningful standards. If ranking focuses solely on minimum criteria, the BNG’s role shifts from quality assurance to mere gatekeeping. This not only undermines the BN title but also weakens the purpose of the application process. Encouraging higher standards reflects the importance of these roles in the community.

1. PLAYER’S PERSPECTIVE: External systems like the pp system do indeed play a significant role in shaping mapping trends, as they reward players for achieving higher scores, pushing them to aim for maps that can help them maximize their performance. However, the ranked section itself also holds a considerable influence over the community. Maps that consistently appear in the ranked section, particularly those that are more simplified or less complex in their design, set a certain standard for what is considered acceptable or even desirable in the game. Why develop skills to play more complex maps when you can play an intuitive map type and gain the same pp? For example, players in the "golden era" were exposed to that standard of intuitive/comfortable (easy) maps, setting a false standard of skill that relies on oversimplification of maps for the benefit of pp.

BEATMAP NOMINATOR MENTORSHIP

The BN mentorship system was intended to help possible applicants get better in a shorter time with the guidance of a NAT member. While this sounds like a good idea, some aspects were approached too carelessly. Having NAT members who reinforce beliefs that are not true generates a greater spread of misconceptions, but also that they bring other like-minded individuals to support their claims (organized lying) creating an echo chamber and ultimately creating an environment incapable of holding a coherent discussion. The purpose of constant lying is not to replace the truth with the lie, the purpose of constant lying is to undermine the character of factuality itself. The agenda of organized lying within modding is to make facts seem like matters of opinion. And once facts turn into opinion then there is no factual account of reality, there is no agreed-upon basis for human action, modding becomes meaningless. BN mentorship generates cognitive biases, conflicts of interest (showing that the mentor is capable and that the system works) and prioritizes personal connections. Why does this happen? because there's actually a tangible reward dangling at the end of the mentorship. This could be solved if there were no such free pass and there was a solid theoretical framework.

"WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS JUST ELITISM"

It’s important to understand that striving for excellence in any field is not about exclusion; it’s about raising the bar for everyone. This doesn’t mean shutting out new mappers or demanding perfection, but rather fostering an environment where effort, creativity, and skill are encouraged and celebrated. By encouraging the pursuit of higher standards, we create an atmosphere where learning, collaboration, and progress are the natural outcomes. A culture of excellence benefit not just top-tier mappers but the entire community, as new mappers learn from a system that encourages improvement and creativity. By continually pushing boundaries, we create a dynamic environment where everyone can contribute, evolve, and be motivated to improve. It’s not about excluding individuals but about cultivating an atmosphere where skill, effort, and creativity are rewarded, and everyone has the opportunity to rise to their full potential. Can also help break down silos by encouraging open, constructive dialogue about unconventional ideas.

Wasn't the beatmap spotlights supposed to be made for all that? Beatmap Spotlights were created with the intention of highlighting the best maps, showcasing innovation, and rewarding mappers who go above and beyond in their design. However, despite these good intentions, they can inadvertently contribute to the negative perception of high standards in the community. The problem with systems like Beatmap Spotlights is that, instead of encouraging excellence, they become a mechanism of exclusion. The very platform designed to highlight the best of mapping can unintentionally create the perception that high standards are an unrealistic, unattainable ideal. The ranked section should serve as a collection of quality maps, where each map has a solid technical foundation, and the discussion centers around why it stands out, not whether it's "good enough" to be recognized.

MAPPING IS SUBJECTIVE

While mapping is inherently subjective, using that subjectivity as a shield against feedback undermines the very process of growth and improvement within the community. The beauty of subjectivity lies in the diversity and creativity it fosters, but it doesn't negate the value of constructive critique grounded in shared standards or principles. Theoretical framework provides a foundation for analyzing maps beyond mere personal preference. Rejecting feedback by labeling it as “just an opinion” risks stifling meaningful discussion and fostering complacency, where conformism gives way to mediocrity. Other art forms demonstrate that subjectivity can coexist with objective evaluation, offering a balance that enhances both the technical and creative aspects of the craft. By embracing critique, even in a subjective medium, mappers not only refine their skills but also contribute to a culture where quality and diversity coexist harmoniously. Mapping should celebrate creativity, but it should also recognize that striving for excellence requires openness to thoughtful, constructive feedback.

We can make an analogy with the world of cinema: even if you dislike a movie, it’s important to articulate why. Your critique holds more value if you explain, for instance, that you didn’t enjoy the film because it oversimplifies the concept of schizophrenia or adolescent development. These critiques are rooted in logical frameworks or research, making the discussion more meaningful and productive. Similarly, mapping thrives when subjective preferences are paired with thoughtful analysis supported by objective principles. This is consistent with the difference between fun vs good, and why the relevance of the same video has lasted over the years. Perhaps the director of that film intended to simplify these concepts to make them easier to digest but that does not mean it would be a good representation of them, even if they remain consistent within the film’s internal logic. This parallel is particularly relevant in song interpretation and music theory.

FORMALIZE “MAPPING THEORY”

Given all the exposed problems it creates, I think many people would prefer something better established as a guideline than this vague line in the RC, something with hard work like the new metadata page. And while it would be a daunting task but, as many people know, cutting corners comes back to bite you. I don’t think what they accomplished in the simplified RC is that far from reality, but can be polished and expand it much further to provide solid foundations: the game mechanics correlated with the central concepts (rhythm➝clicking, movement➝cursor-moving, visuals➝reading, and contrast➝consistency/change), their subconcepts (spacing, density, intensity, emphasis, etc), their relationship with other theories (music theory, gestalt principles, classical mechanics, etc), and ending the feeling that everything is left to chance. It would be easier for mappers and modders to understand concepts, there would also be fewer misunderstandings in general.

I'll be honest, while these are some great points for discussion, the text is really difficult to read due to being so lengthy and convoluted, to the point where it's sometimes unclear what you're trying to say. It's too abstract and some things aren't explained or substantiated by evidence or examples which makes it hard to turn it into actions. I also think you misused the term "organized lying" here as it can't really be applied to this situation.

It's probably impossible to get everyone on the same page regarding mapping standards and quality because different people have completely different viewpoints and unless a vast majority agrees on what is and isn't acceptable, it would be wrong to decide which subjective standards are "better". I also don't see a sensible way of establishing these via the RC without restricting a variety of mapping styles and philosophies. Frankly, the things written in the simplified RC should be a guide if anything since not all maps should have to follow the same concepts.

However, I do agree with some of the problems you mentioned, such as personal bias being enforced in evaluations and BN applications, resulting in inconsistent results and feedback, or some mappers/maps getting away with major quality concerns, vetoes being inconsistent, and mentorship promoting certain beliefs that can lead to echo chambers within the community.

Defining mapping theory will also fragment people, cause now you have concrete outsiders whos mapping style is just "wrong" by definition in RC, which is up to debate at all times.

Subjectivity, as you mentioned, is inherent into mapping and modding and it is alright. To bring the same analogy about movies, you dont have your imdb filled with high quality products, it has its below 4 stars or w/e shows too.

Imo decision making about content of beatmaps is 100% up to peppy and not us

Haven't read the whole post, just the one part about BN mentorship

You write this as if you have concrete examples or something yet no examples of what these lies would even be are brought up. Provided that mapping itself is very subjective I'm not quite sure where you were going with that section

actually peppy doesn't care about beatmaps' quality but the quantity

agree with what most of mirash said personally, but i do think NAT having a little more of a say in the discussion of what is actually acceptable was actually good for the ecosystem at some point. peppy himself has way too much on his plate, being the BDFL that he is. what i don't think is good is development/maintenance time being taken away for him to play jury duty

as for the main point in OP about "formalizing" mapping theory i'm kinda mixed on it honestly... while having clearer guidelines is nice and all, IMO it would introduce tons of extra maintenance burden. this especially applies when the three groups you mentioned (mapper/modder/player) can already come to an answer on questions like that by themselves now. some people may not be nice to others when dealing with a subjective answer to those questions, but that's not the RC's problem, it's a people problem and trying to solve it with increasingly complex documentation might not be the play here

Agree with Mirash

The proposal of creating a theoretical framework for mapping is contradicted by the "mapping is subjective" point.

Author wrote:

Rejecting feedback by labeling it as “just an opinion” risks stifling meaningful discussion and fostering complacency, where conformism gives way to mediocrity.

Is ironic to say as you propose a "Mapping Theoretical Framework" in an attempt to standardize mapping...

Just to entertain the idea, Who gets to decide whats good or not then?

Wont we just go by majority? or is it going to be people of higher positions (NAT) which you describe as liars and perpetuate opinions in their said echo chambers. Or do you want it to be Peppy who made decisions like standardizing sv2 in lazer therefore making so many maps designed with sliderleniency in mind invalid?

Dont you benefit from the current system rather than this proposed one as you can point out your opinions even though they are not favored by majority?





Addendum: I dislike you because of how you interacted towards yuzuriha.
You insulted a stranger I defended a friend.

as someone who participated in the recent mentorship cycle, i just want to share that in no way did my mentor influence my thought process when it comes to determining a map's inherent quality. all my opinions were and still are purely mine. what was discussed in our mentorship cycles mostly relied on my own judgement. i can't speak for other mentorships but i can attest that in no way were we committing this "organized lying" that you are talking about, nor am i desperate to join the bng that i am willing to go that far for the "dangling tangible reward" you mentioned in your post.

hell, i didn't even talk much with my mentor before this, and after making a gd for him i am 100% sure that we are very much not "like minded individuals" when it comes to making and looking at maps.

to me, the mentorship section of the post reads very much like it was written with nothing but speculation or suspicion to back it up, and to undermine the efforts of those who participate in it, which is actually very toxic. seeing how you were advocating being nontoxic i have no idea what made you act upon these suspicions in this way

consider not overthinking things - who are you to attempt to speak with authority on this ahah chill out

Any form of a concrete "objective quality" is never really going to happen due to how ridiculous it would be to enforce

But also what you dont say is that its subjective on both sides, any feedback or any possible quality baseline (that isnt a rc violation) is always just as subjective and opinionated as what you are complaining about.

In any case i think its counter-intuitive to link like 5 wiki pages to things like strawman and appeal to authority in a mod post and expext people to take anything you say seriously afterwards

I think some points you make are real issues, like how new mappers have no concrete way of knowing all the unspoken stuff about rankable quality. but your solution to it is way too drastic, rather than (for example) just making educational resources that can bridge the knowledge gap or something

DeviousPanda wrote:

I think some points you make are real issues, like how new mappers have no concrete way of knowing all the unspoken stuff about rankable quality

especially for non-english speaking countries

proposing this "theoretical framework" as basically the end-all-be-all all-encompassing so called "standard" would be like invalidating some genres of music—made across vast periods of time—because they don't abide by an ambiguous set of rules formed in the contemporary. does that make any sense?

as someone that appreciates maps of a variety of styles, all this would be doing would be dubbing this vague "correct map" label on a portion of them, and another vague "incorrect map" label on another portion of them. sure, there is a degree of subjectivity to map quality, but i believe that even maps with polarising styles have their own merits, and reducing these separate merits to a singular 'objective' would just remove all form of nuance in the difference in approach and principles across different styles.

to put it simply:
if you don't understand a map, don't immediately think its bad, instead consider that other people map differently

The fragment of community is not because what you said lacking of theoretical framework, it's the result of the larger and larger community.

Fragemented community also brings the variety of mapping, which is not bad and couldn't be solved by what you said at all.

Mapping quality is totally subjective and it’s terrible and stupid to force people to map like ABC objectively while different people have different opinions, which also kills the creativity. Ranked section are more like a free market nowadays, if players don't like a map they just won't play. Quantity vs. Quality is not decided by us at all it's up to peppy.

Btw, the subjective quality thing already resuslt in bad even when it was controlled by an official team, then how a group of people can represent it and define the theoretical framework?

About BN mentorship, do you really know how BN mentorship works and how do you think it's misconception? Please stop your assuming while you don't provide anything.

Considering about the recent vetos you did and the results, and the fact your lacking of basic view of osu!stanard mapping, I'd say try to investigate, try to be more open-minded and less stubborn to different mapping concepts/styles. When you have different opinions against people, ask more people for consults and think twice before you take any action. People with different opinions against you are not always wrong, you are not always correct.

quite frankly i think "quality" is a bullshit term, however quantifying what quality is via the RC will open up an even bigger can of worms. hint: no one has an actual idea what the definition of "quality" is

if you restrict a definition, then it'll only benefit a certain group, the rest gets fucked over. this would be fine but remember that the past few years mapping has been more open and laxed, more mappers can rank things, more opportunities for innovation, scene is moving forward as a whole.

it's also quite the shame you've used the BN mentorship as an example for your case. while i disagree on how the mentorship is executed in certain ways, the mentorship does NOT reinforce personal opinions and encourage group lying and your accusation is inherently false. i am a graduate of the mentorship and quite frankly my views on mapping and what i think is OK couldn't be more different than my mentor's.

PSA can we as a group don't hyperfocus on "quality" and iron out stuff peacefully instead?

You explained what quality is to you (Subjective!) and rage quit from the game because people tend to see quality in things you don't. I actually checked your maps out because of this post and to say I'm disappointed would be an understatement, why are your maps not even near perfect if you spam vetoes on maps that have no issues? People learn their whole lives though

You bring up great points for the most vile and spiteful reasons possible.

I will not even get into the BN/NAT part because not only is it out of my depth, but more simply - I don't care.

however, you have brought up points about "fostering improvement" which are those that interest me - this community has a massive problem of not acknowledging objective truths (you can even see it in replies right above me) and you did absolutely nothing in that post to even come close to that - you just mentioned some blanket terms that conflate into an amalgamate set of nothing.

you work within the framework of wanting to foster talent, and yet you mention nothing about how modding itself is a dysfunctional tool for doing that - you want to put a bandaid on top of a system that relies on quite frankly, shitty bandaids done by people of varying skill level, definitely lower end though and that especially includes 95% of BNs who, including you, disconnect mapping and modding as two separate skills which is just objectively untrue.

all of that just comes off as shitty virtue signaling out of spite when you are the ultimate victim of all the things you have mentioned

you could not separate subjective things from objective ones and you've proven it multiple time with your - at best incompetent - and at worst bad faithed vetos or general conduct

I will mention it now so i don't get people calling me out - the ultimate objective truth in very big tldr is that you work within limitations of a 2d cartesian scale with set parameters for how objects look and you cannot go over that, separating it from any other vsrg game and this is what the system should be built around - i'm yet to be disproven on that. you haven't mentioned once how this is the entire point of fostering improvement and quite frankly i'd bet a 1000$ that your take is exactly the opposite

you only make things worse for everyone - you deepen confirmation bias for people who are already deeply unconvinced in any objective matter of quality (see comments above), they need to be taught and convinced to channel their knowledge and experience in other ways, not be a subject of some vindictive bullshit rant where you can't even bring up a single correct fundament for what you say, you also make it worse who already believe in that mindset because we will be associated with people like you

i recommend you don't talk about things in a position of authority when you couldn't point out the crux thing to save your life.

i understood none of this and never want to see it again. swallow me.

I’m particularly against an absolute baseline and standard of mapping "quality" because comparing a lot of maps is like comparing apples to oranges. I personally don’t get the appeal of old maps but I respect them and can still accept them as good, especially since I know for a fact (frens and people I meet in multis) that there are quite a few people who particularly enjoy that style of map. If you’ve seen that one video about interviewing mappers and players about mapping and maps they like, all the more that there are people who love old mapping as players, it’s not something that should be yeeted. I think about it like there are various kinds of artstyles and mediums. They use some of the same techniques/tools, and some that just don't translate to the other. Anime and cartoon styles aren't wrong for using wrong proportions or not having realistic lighting/shading, that idea of really accurate proportions just doesn't apply. You can hate cartoons all you want, they still have rather large fanbases. Same case for various styles of mapping.

Mapping terminology standardization feels like a must though, since so many terms are often nonsensical to someone new to mapping. Including that in some osu wiki page would definitely help in standardizing the language but determining exactly which terms are correct for which ideas may be another story which I haven’t figured out yet. I've heard three different interpretations of axis and various misunderstandings of the term, various thresholds of "trianglemaxxing" countless theories on overlap visuals and explanations for those in their corresponding styles (which I still struggle with pls help) and a lot of terms are reaally vibes-based, like what the fork determines a "tag" slider and when it stops being "tag". I agree with this idea of formalizing mapping theory, but as long as it doesn't decidedly nuke some established mapping style and doesn't close the door for the evolution of new styles of mapping.

And like what the fork is quality? Yeah, mapping is the connection of auditory, motor, and optical stimuli using the limited tools provided, so which of the countless definitions of quality made should survive? Just the one you think is right? Should it vary based on which style the map is made in? Should that style even be standardized and funnel everyone within it towards mapping the same map on every song they do in it? From my inconceivably limited perspective, it's just how well any idea for this connection is conveyed, so that the player or viewer can actually easily identify that idea. From all the mappers I greatly respect, the maps I like make it unbelievably clear what aspect of the song they extract and what experience they're trying to create, at least to me. They at least look and feel full of thought and idea, and even if not, a deeper dive reveals the concepts that now change my experience looking at and playing the map for the better. ((ignore Best Thai Map, that's an inside joke))

Take literally everything I say with a sea of salt as ramblings of a nothing burger tho, since I still am like mapping baby, negative mapping brain cells type beat. I kinda just wanna leave my two nickels. On the other hand, ima juice Satte here and I hope he cooks something up for this if it does come to pass.

The greatest kings aren't the ones with the most servants, but the ones who serve the most. ~ I forgor where i heard this T_T

I agree with Raiko that there is, in fact, an objective (or sufficiently intersubjective) quality standard and also with App that you are probably the last person who should be bringing it up.

"we need to remove subjectivity and make my subjective opinion the objective one"

also seeing this from a joined 2020 account is so funny

unrelated but in the early-mid 1800s, an influential french academy named the ecole des beaux arts attempted to dictate the standards for what could be considered 'good art'

the official art exhibition of the french academy of fine arts called the 'salon' which was the most prestigious place for artists at the time to show off their work adopted these standards and would only accept and display submissions which would strictly adhere to these standards

these exhibitions then went on to shape the public perception of what could be considered 'good art' and as a result, radical styles not adhering to the institutional standards were dismissed as amateurish, inferior, and unworthy of recognition

additionally, an emphasis on these standards favored artists who were trained in elite institutions which marginalized nonacademic artists as well as those who were self trained

after an incredible amount of frustration and protests from artists and a portion of the public, napoleon III, the president at the time actually had to intervene himself and establish an alternative exhibition named the 'salon des refuses' which displayed works which were rejected by the salon jury

even with this, however, the general opinion of the public had been so entrenched in their preconceptions established by the institutional standards that the majority of the crowd at the salon des refuses were there to mock the works on display

however, over time, as more and more artists began to reject the authority of the ecole des beaux arts and went on to develop styles such as realism, impressionism, modernism, etc; the groundwork was laid for the artistic environment which we have today where diversity, innovation, and self expression are celebrated and art standardization is more or less nonexistent

i will give my thoughts on this one cuz i find this opinion so delusional

WHY LACKING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK IS NOT A PROBLEM
A theoretical framework may attempt to provide consistency, but mapping will always be guided by personal interpretation. The lack of fixed standards allows each mapper to bring their unique perspective to the game, fostering a diverse mapping environment. Additionally, subjectivity does not inherently equate to favoritism; if we assume that opinions will differ, it naturally follows that a variety of feedback can enrich a mapper’s growth rather than undermine it. Ultimately, feedback will always have an element of personal interpretation, but this is part of what makes mapping an expressive art form.

ON THE "FALSE DICHOTOMY OF CONTRAST"
Contrast in mapping—whether based on intensity or structure—depends on the mapper's artistic vision. Trying to impose a binary standard on contrast (good/bad) limits this creative freedom. Since the notion of "good contrast" varies among players and mappers, labeling some contrasts as correct and others as incorrect oversimplifies the nuanced relationship between map and music. It’s subjective whether a particular contrast is effective or not, and flexibility allows for richer, more diverse maps.

ON LOW DIFFICULTIES REFLECTING THE SONG
The idea that low difficulties must reflect the song may be a guideline for some, but each mapper has their unique approach to creating lower-difficulty maps. While reflecting the song might be a common practice, forcing every map to follow this principle removes the mapper’s discretion to determine the best way to simplify the main difficulty. Different approaches lead to greater diversity in gameplay experiences, allowing new players to experience a variety of styles within lower-difficulty maps, rather than being confined to a single standard.

ON DOUBLE STANDARDS AND SPECIAL PLEADING IN MAPPING
Every modder and evaluator interprets maps differently, and as with any subjective practice, certain biases will arise. Rather than seeing this as hypocrisy, it's more productive to view it as natural variation. Mappers have unique intentions and each modder brings a personal perspective, which can create different interpretations of what makes a map “correct” or “appropriate.” Embracing this diversity, rather than standardizing it, enriches mapping as a practice and allows for a greater range of creative freedom.

ON "IRRELEVANT" FEEDBACK IN EVALUATIONS
Feedback is inherently subjective. What one modder sees as "irrelevant" may hold significant value for another, depending on their mapping philosophy. Expecting modders to agree universally ignores the reality that each person will have their standards and ideas. Rather than fragmenting the community, this diversity in feedback can help mappers grow by exposing them to a range of perspectives. Standards can guide feedback, but insisting on strict objectivity risks turning modding into a mechanical process, rather than a constructive, creative exchange.

ON THE MINIMUM STANDARDS DEBATE
Minimum standards are not about avoiding mediocrity; they are baseline requirements that ensure maps meet certain gameplay essentials. However, beyond this baseline, creativity should have the freedom to flourish. Mapping innovation often lies in breaking boundaries, and higher standards should not discourage mappers from taking creative risks. If meeting the minimum is seen as mediocrity, then it's the push for creative excellence—not stricter standards—that will inspire mappers to go beyond the basics.

ON "OBJECTIVITY" IN THE MAPPER'S AND BN’S ROLES
The BN’s role is not only to enforce a technical baseline but to provide individual insights that enhance each map's unique qualities. Objectivity is helpful for technical aspects, but beyond that, BN and modder input should be subjective to preserve the map's creativity. Standards give the process structure, but if they become rigid, they risk transforming mappers into technicians, undermining the creative spirit that makes mapping enjoyable and engaging for both mappers and players.

ON THE "ELITISM" ARGUMENT
Striving for excellence is valuable, but it’s essential to remember that excellence is also subjective. Each mapper may have a different vision of what makes a map "excellent," and fostering a high standard of quality should not exclude those who approach mapping differently. By encouraging a culture of collaboration and openness to varied ideas, the community can celebrate a range of mapping styles and prevent a single, exclusionary definition of excellence.

ON THE ROLE OF BEATMAP SPOTLIGHTS
While Beatmap Spotlights aim to highlight top-quality maps, they risk creating an ideal of excellence that excludes other forms of creativity. Not all players or mappers aspire to fit into a rigid definition of “top-tier mapping.” Maps that stand out to players will naturally gain recognition, and these different styles and approaches are part of what enriches the osu! experience. Instead of setting a standard of what’s “good enough,” the ranked section should remain open to diverse styles that resonate with different segments of the community.

ON "MAPPING IS SUBJECTIVE"
Mapping, like other art forms, allows for personal interpretation, and subjectivity is not a flaw. Constructive feedback grounded in personal insights helps mappers grow and promotes discussion, rather than conformity. When feedback respects the mapper’s style, it creates a collaborative atmosphere where subjective and objective aspects balance each other. The mapping community benefits from a variety of approaches, fostering a culture that values individuality while still providing constructive, meaningful feedback.

ON FORMALIZING "MAPPING THEORY"
While a mapping theory could provide structure, it risks limiting creativity by imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. Mapping ideas are personal, and forcing a rigid framework would reduce the flexibility that allows osu! mapping to thrive. Instead of solidifying a universal theory, it’s more beneficial to encourage a set of flexible guidelines that inspire creativity and provide a reference, while still respecting the subjectivity at the heart of mapping.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while a theoretical framework could create consistency, it is not essential to osu! mapping. Acknowledging the subjective nature of mapping allows each mapper to bring unique ideas to the community, fostering an inclusive, diverse environment that can accommodate a variety of styles and interpretations. Embracing the subjectivity in mapping enriches the osu! ecosystem, allowing mappers and modders alike to continue exploring creative possibilities and challenging boundaries in the game.

Yo guys just a quick heads-up : As much as the proposed opinion is being highly unpopular please refrain from posting memes and short one-liners that do nothing but vilify the OP here ty

That being said... Yeah, I agree with the air here that while there are certain ways to quantify mapping quality in a certain perspective if you want to view it as so (playfield usage/visual coherency/etc), mapping is ultimately an interpretation of the song, and you can only go "right" or "wrong" for so far when it comes into interpretation.

(Even maps as left-field as this one don't necessarily mean that they're wrongly interpreted per se for what the map is, because "mapping the song" ≠ "mapping the sounds in the song", even though by your "theoretical framework" idea this map would most likely be scrapped right at the gate.)

The metadata RC is written that way as it's meant to standardize things up on a subject matter that boasts a very little room for interpretation. The general RC, however, deals with things that are way more open and is NOT meant to be an absolute catch-all baseline for everything except on points that can safely be regarded as such e.g. "There may not be two hitobjects at the same time".

would be awesome if you posted your actual thoughts and didnt have chatgpt rephrase it. more words doesn't make your proposition better.