You guys missed your chance at le epic reply "I don't care" lel
I don't careKisses wrote:
You guys missed your chance at le epic reply "I don't care" lel
OBJECTION!ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all). Come on, this isn't even advanced English, people.
Also, was the mapper somehow notified that there was a report on his map? I don't see any post on the thread about the map getting a report, and I don't know if he received a pm about it, so this is just a question.
Yes, I saw your post, but in that post you didn't say you reported the map so the mapper could care enough and take action, that's why I asked if he was notified by pm. You see, Aleks doesn't get online everyday so he needs a good reason to show up, I suppose. Imagine if you see a comment about one of your qualified maps and you think is no big deal, but then your map gets reported and the person never said it got reported, so you know until your map gets dq'd without a chance to at least attempt to defend yourself. If you did notify him directly, then that was nice and Aleks wasn't for not replying, but if you didn't, well, just be more clear when you do such thing next time.Naotoshi wrote:
I posted on the thread about it, and reported it. Which he ignored
Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
Yeah.. that's true, standard changes, but it's impossible to indicate the level of difficulties when you use custom names. Following that textually, the only difficulties names that we are available to use are "Easy/Normal/Hard/Insane or similar ones, you can't innovate at all in anything.Doormat wrote:
The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
This can be a point that we can discuss a lot of days but nobody will be happy with others opinions. But well, I'd say this is a subjective issue because 50% of the community do agree with those difficulties names and the other 50% do not agree with them.ezek wrote:
uh.. they do indicate progression!
It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all).
Oh well, here I am again~Doormat wrote:
Unless I'm interpreting the Ranking Criteria wrong, that's not what the Ranking Criteria says at all, which is why Naotoshi (and myself) find it to be an issue that wasn't really addressed.ezek wrote:
Explicitly stating which kind of difficulty is not necessary as long as it shows a clear progression from easiest to hardest, thing that Gabe already explained above~The problem with "I Care!" -> "I really don't" etc. is that they don't really indicate their level of difficulty. Yes, they show a progression, but it's not explicitly stating their level of difficulty. It is implied, but I feel that that's not good enough. Standards change, and what was acceptable in 2013/14 isn't necessarily acceptable now.Ranking Criteria wrote:
A difficulty's name must indicate its level of difficulty, with the exception of the hardest level of difficulty in a set. The mapset's hardest difficulty may use an appropriate custom difficulty name, unrelated to a username. Mapsets may also use a complete set of custom difficulty names that clearly indicate their level of difficulty to the player.
Liar. There were no report or pm. It was simple dq w/o notifying. You were the one who had broken the rules.Raiden wrote:
I have to agree there, there is no real progression of difficulty naming. It's just from one point to another (A -> B), doesn't imply harder in any way.
Please try to find more appropriate difficulty names that clearly indicate difficulty progression
(also taking it down because mapper hasn't responded to the report)
And what happens with the opinion of those who agrees with the diff names?JBHyperion wrote:
The map was reported here - p/6340110 - Yes, perhaps Naotoshi could have notified you via PM, but this is a standard method of operation for the current Qualified section and nobody has broken any rules.
The post of anyone in the thread is an opinion and yes, you should reply to every one. The Qualified section exists for this explicit purpose - to allow the wider community to give feedback on maps. If a mapper doesn't respond to that feedback explaining why the map is fine in its' current state, we disqualify the map to allow that discussion to take place.
Opinions of everyone are counted, regardless of whether they are a Beatmap Nominator or not. The task of checking Qualified maps is now the community's responsibility, with the QAT acting on those reports. If you refuse to interact with the community, this map won't be able to progress.
Believe it or not, players care about difficulty when choosing a map to play and the naming system plays an important part in making that decision. Star Rating alone will never be a 100% accurate portrayal of a map's level of difficulty. Plenty of suggestions have been provided which might help remedy the situation and find a point of compromise everyone can agree on, so I ask you to please consider them once you decide to unlock this thread.
They need to shut the fuck up since their opinion is different and their reading the rules is not the same as people with power.Xanandra wrote:
And what happens with the opinion of those who agrees with the diff names?
I especially like this part:Raiden wrote:
Even if the highest diff is named "I don't care" it still makes no sense in a difficulty representation level. There is nothing that implies that not caring is harder than not caring. The meaning remains ambiguous.
Also, you cannot limit yourself to talk only to QATs. Everyone's opinion is valuable on their own. Good luck!
Look at the broken heart icon. It says someone's opinion more valuable than another, we got it, yeeeeah. So hypocritical.Raiden wrote:
Everyone's opinion is valuable on their own.
By that logic you shouldn't care about it either since you're not a newbie like the rest of the ppl in the thread. "Kinda", being slang, isn't really appropriate for me to use for a rhythm game such as osu. You can say it's clear to you but it's not clear to everyone in this multi linguistic community. If you're just going to resort to SR being a good enough indicator then that would allow for a plethora of different custom names being used with their sole argument being that player's will determine difficulty by SR.Aleks719 wrote:
About progression. Answer me personally, who cares about diff's difficulty?
Right, newbies. Tought guys don't care anout it at all, they can play everything. And "Kinda" shows that person knows basics, but still care about difficulty, something between previos names. Pretty clear for me. Plus star indicator on preview for dummies. I gave you clear indication, what can you reply?
Since it was day 7 it was DQ'd to allow for discussion. Better then than too late after it has already been ranked and no one can do anything about it. There is no need to be upsetAleks719 wrote:
Look at the broken heart icon. It says someone's opinion more valuable than another, we got it, yeeeeah. So hypocritical.
Since diff names are blocking points for ranking process i don't see any sense in your desire. Better improve something which can be ranked.Kisses wrote:
Also I think this set could be improved quite a bit before pushing it towards rank and I'll be giving it a mod soon
map you own set if you don't like this one, it always works. Or don't play. That's just your opinion, modding is suggestions, please don't forget.Weber wrote:
In instances where both parties disagree, QAT will step in and make a decision based on the arguments given. Just for the record, I still disagree with the current difficulty names, regardless of appropriate difficulty progression, they make the mapset look unprofessional and unfit for the ranked category. However, there are more problems than just the difficulty names with the mapset, and I'm surprised it was qualified in its current state.
Edit: I agree with Naotoshi's suggested diff name changes. They're clever, and don't detract from your original concept.
Yes, i got it, thanks.Ephemeral wrote:
There is a history of precedent in recent years regarding difficulty naming standards that the naming of this set is held in stark contrast against. That is what many of the BN are protesting about in this thread.
For example, the naming system using a scale of "I care" to "I don't care" in a song that is titled "I don't care" raises a degree of ambiguity - is the scale of "caring" immediately relative to that of actual difficulty, and if so, what way? Is caring more in a song about not caring meant to represent less difficulty, or more difficulty? You could argue that caring more means greater difficulty - it's harder to care about things that you really don't care about.
This level of ambiguity adds a layer of uncertainty to the set at first glance, and since a common way of appraising maps is to refer to their difficulty names, you can quickly come to understand why it is important that a clear, non-ambiguous naming scheme is followed when creating sets.
The intent of the rule is not to stifle artistic liberty, but to avoid unnecessary confusion on that front. With that in mind, effort would likely be better spent devising a naming scheme that keeps your creative intent intact while also not being vague.
That's getting a bit ridiculous, 6 words for a normal difficulty name? You might as well just scrap the custom difficulty idea altogether.Aleks719 wrote:
Question is the same, would names "I care about this Easy", "I partly care about this Normal" and "I don't care" fit? Because if yes i'm fine with renaming this way.
I agree.Monstrata wrote:
I care! > I kinda care! > I don't care!
They show a clear progression from caring to not caring, and all follow the same syntax. Also "Care" is used in every difficulty name which is the central theme of the difficulty. I would really just recommend this sequence. It is 100% acceptable and logical imo.