Let me make one thing clear, please:
The objected sliders are scratching on the rankability, and even inverness knows that. The slider is overlapping in a way that it might be intersubjective clean to read, but objectively overlap in a way that the Ranking Criteria disallows it actually. I am not a friend of objective rulesets. Keep in mind that this rule exists for a good reason (see Charles' post), but the origin of the rule was to disallow exactly these sliders that are suggesting a different movement than they actually do. This is not the case here. The slider does exactly what everyone is expecting from it. Yet, the overlap is so borderline that it gets knocked down for unrankability by the actual current ranking criteria.
This does not mean that the current Ranking Criteria needs a rewording. Why? Because however you form a rule, you will always have edge cases that fall under it even if they shouldn't. I rather have 1 controversal discussion about 1 map than allowing 192409234 shitmaps to get rankable because we softened our current ruleset. The Beatmap Appreciation Team is a gatekeeper team, meaning that they enforce the ranking criteria and/or holds back a map to do a case-by-case decision if needed, even if it contradicts the current Ranking Criteria.
The rule exists for a reason, a very good one. It's like punching people. Punching people is widely disallowed by any law in this world. But there are cases where punching people should definitely be legal. Yet, it is not. Still, enforcing this law is yet a case-by-case decision. This might be a quite unrealistic comparison, but I want to line out the logic behind why the rule is fine, even if it disallows this stuff.
This unrank was warranted and caused a discussion in a way that the community and hopefully the BAT self realizes, that unranking does not only mean "this is shit" but "this needs additional revision to do a case-by-case decision". I am yet sorry for inverness that it caused quite some trouble for it, but you should not take this kind of unranks too personal. They happen, they will always happen and they have happened several times in the past. They are needed, they are important and they might show up the greyzones of our own ruleset. Greyzones will always exist, so better do not start bitching about the ranking criteria self.
As in this case: We have discussed this internally forth and back, up and down, left and right. We consulted all possible instances, I discussed quite long with inverness about this, too. In this case, I want to allow this slider shapings, since this is yet a game and this gameplay element is playing as intended and provides a positive gameplay experience. This map will not be the fundament of other stupid discussions about how rankable your "fancy sliders on map xyz" are. Consider this as an exception.
Reranked.
The objected sliders are scratching on the rankability, and even inverness knows that. The slider is overlapping in a way that it might be intersubjective clean to read, but objectively overlap in a way that the Ranking Criteria disallows it actually. I am not a friend of objective rulesets. Keep in mind that this rule exists for a good reason (see Charles' post), but the origin of the rule was to disallow exactly these sliders that are suggesting a different movement than they actually do. This is not the case here. The slider does exactly what everyone is expecting from it. Yet, the overlap is so borderline that it gets knocked down for unrankability by the actual current ranking criteria.
This does not mean that the current Ranking Criteria needs a rewording. Why? Because however you form a rule, you will always have edge cases that fall under it even if they shouldn't. I rather have 1 controversal discussion about 1 map than allowing 192409234 shitmaps to get rankable because we softened our current ruleset. The Beatmap Appreciation Team is a gatekeeper team, meaning that they enforce the ranking criteria and/or holds back a map to do a case-by-case decision if needed, even if it contradicts the current Ranking Criteria.
The rule exists for a reason, a very good one. It's like punching people. Punching people is widely disallowed by any law in this world. But there are cases where punching people should definitely be legal. Yet, it is not. Still, enforcing this law is yet a case-by-case decision. This might be a quite unrealistic comparison, but I want to line out the logic behind why the rule is fine, even if it disallows this stuff.
This unrank was warranted and caused a discussion in a way that the community and hopefully the BAT self realizes, that unranking does not only mean "this is shit" but "this needs additional revision to do a case-by-case decision". I am yet sorry for inverness that it caused quite some trouble for it, but you should not take this kind of unranks too personal. They happen, they will always happen and they have happened several times in the past. They are needed, they are important and they might show up the greyzones of our own ruleset. Greyzones will always exist, so better do not start bitching about the ranking criteria self.
As in this case: We have discussed this internally forth and back, up and down, left and right. We consulted all possible instances, I discussed quite long with inverness about this, too. In this case, I want to allow this slider shapings, since this is yet a game and this gameplay element is playing as intended and provides a positive gameplay experience. This map will not be the fundament of other stupid discussions about how rankable your "fancy sliders on map xyz" are. Consider this as an exception.
Reranked.
