Hi there!
There has been some internal discussion about the potential implementation of a nuke button for maps that are deemed to be unsalvageable.
Note: NOTHING IS FINAL so don't panic if this scares you.
Even if you disagree with the implementation, does anyone disagree that a nuke button should exist?
If we can get additional buttons:
That makes things easier.
Ideally the thresholds would be set to a pretty high point (because Nuking a map is a big deal!), and all reports coming in would be screened by NAT first to filter out the obviously silly ones.
This looks just like a veto!
Well, yes if we end up using the BN site for this, then yeah, that will be unavoidable. However, the main to focus on are: Less effort required from a single bn, Decisions are made democratically isntead.
If 30% of the BNG thinks a map should get ranked, then it should.
Wouldn't be useful because cases where a high % of BNs agree on something are really rare, and if a map is so bad for that to happen, it would be very easy to veto it and getting it stopped from qualifying.
Perhaps instead, we can change the veto system so it requires less specific reasoning and more general reasoning? Currently too much concrete example is required rather than just saying "this is jump spam garbage".
Prevents unconventional maps from getting ranked instead of targeting "bad" maps.
Just prevent this issue altogether by dealing with bad BNs.
Well, main metric for this would to see who nominated maps that got DQ'd, however, DQs of this type are not happening in general. Nukes that go through could also be treated as such metric.
-This section will be updated as the discussion progresses-
formatting is hard
There has been some internal discussion about the potential implementation of a nuke button for maps that are deemed to be unsalvageable.
Note: NOTHING IS FINAL so don't panic if this scares you.
Even if you disagree with the implementation, does anyone disagree that a nuke button should exist?
Why was this deemed to be necessary?
There are a few issues with the current veto systems we have in place.- Vetoes for maps with quality issues are very time consuming to write and mediate. This makes it so that very few people are willing to actually go through this process.
- For maps with serious quality issues, vetoes are often not going to solve anything. Even if the veto mediation goes through, the mapper usually just resolves whatever example points that were posted in the veto, and in the end doesn't actually fix anything important.
- Some maps are just simply unsalvageable, but it's not appropriate to ask them to remap in a veto.
- BNs are scared to veto maps from the potential backlash.
How would this work?
The details are not implemented yet, however a general plan would involve something like an anonymous BN vote on a map. There are a few ways to go about it, but it mainly depends on whether we can get approval from the dev team to see if actual buttons could be added on the modding page or not.If we can get additional buttons:
That makes things easier.
- There would be an additional upvote/downvote button for BNs only along with the Nominate/Disqualify/etc buttons.
- If a map were to get enough attention (let's say 1/4 of the entire BNG votes), site notifications could be sent out to the rest of the BNG members to vote or give their feedback.
- If a certain threshold is met (# of total votes, and vote %), the map will be nuked and may be unlocked by a NAT member should the mapper decide to fundamentally redo their map.
- In addition, this button will give us a rough understanding of the quality of beatmaps getting pushed through, to see which BNs should get extra brownie points
- Map report function (anonymous, for BNs only) to submit concern for a map, or even just PM a member of the NAT directly. Minimal feedback is needed (just a sentence or two explaining the brief issues).
- Map will be screened by NAT first to see if concerns are valid enough.
- NAT will set up a vote on the BN site and ping the BN Discord to encourage them to submit their votes.
- If a certain threshold (see above) is achieved, then a post will be formulated on the discussion thread
Concerns/FAQ
Potential abuse of this system?Ideally the thresholds would be set to a pretty high point (because Nuking a map is a big deal!), and all reports coming in would be screened by NAT first to filter out the obviously silly ones.
This looks just like a veto!
Well, yes if we end up using the BN site for this, then yeah, that will be unavoidable. However, the main to focus on are: Less effort required from a single bn, Decisions are made democratically isntead.
If 30% of the BNG thinks a map should get ranked, then it should.
Wouldn't be useful because cases where a high % of BNs agree on something are really rare, and if a map is so bad for that to happen, it would be very easy to veto it and getting it stopped from qualifying.
Perhaps instead, we can change the veto system so it requires less specific reasoning and more general reasoning? Currently too much concrete example is required rather than just saying "this is jump spam garbage".
Prevents unconventional maps from getting ranked instead of targeting "bad" maps.
Just prevent this issue altogether by dealing with bad BNs.
Well, main metric for this would to see who nominated maps that got DQ'd, however, DQs of this type are not happening in general. Nukes that go through could also be treated as such metric.
-This section will be updated as the discussion progresses-
formatting is hard
" and have that actually drilled into people's heads everywhere so we are all on the same page for once