Let's open a can of worms.

Beatmaps must be assessed by the presiding BAT and community modders as being of sufficient quality at a general level before they can be considered ready for ranking. This means that maps which are technically rankable under the criteria but are widely considered (8 or more members of the BAT over any opposing consensus) by the staff to be unrefined or in considerable need of improvement may be unranked or rendered unrankable if no suggested changes are made in an appropriate timeframe.

Personally, I am quite astonished at the large variance of map quality present these days. Mappers are increasingly playing the quantity over quality game for whatever reason, and overall map quality is beginning to suffer for it.

The proposed rule provides a provision for staff members and community modders to converse more deeply into issues surrounding a map's playability and general quality while still affording mappers a large degree of freedom in the styles, techniques and compositions utilised to create their work.

Maps unranked using this provision will require the 8 BAT to work closely with the mapper in order to resolve the issues in a timely fashion with as little intrusion on the mapper's creativity as possible.

Note: this will not change the number of BAT needed to rank a map, only provide a provision for quality-based unranking for maps where it is deemed appropriate by 8 or more members of the staff.

Discuss, suggest amendments, so on.

so if 8 of the 50+ BATs decide the map isn't quality enough it can get unranked?

Could work if BATs knew what quality actually was, or even better if they knew what's not quality.

How can you make changes if the map is already ranked?

How will this tie into the new modding system that peppy is coming up with?

those wrote:

How will this tie into the new modding system that peppy is coming up with?

Unranks over quality concerns can be made in the provisional ranking period when a map is first ranked, under similar circumstances and with identical restrictions.

Are we going to assume that 8 BATs will review a map under the new ranking system? That seems like a lot of attention for a single map. Perhaps there should be some internal policies/ guidelines before we start making such assumptions.

The new ranking system will likely change a lot of things - this included. Consider that a discussion for another time. Imagine this rule is only going to apply to the current system for now.

Will inevitably end up causing arguments over excuses like 'but it's fun!'. I support this but unfortunately opinions on what makes a map good very way too much. It'd be better just to be less flexible with some of the guidelines.

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.



Beatmaps must be assessed by the presiding BAT and community modders as being of sufficient quality at a general level before they can be considered ready for ranking.

Don't use "presiding" in a multinational community. Very few people will actually know what this means unless they already are fluent in English. Also this statement should given as BATs and modders should be quality checking as part of their responsibility. Why do we need a rule pointing this out unless it is an instruction for BATs and modders to do as such? The mapper can do nothing about what the BATs and community modders do.

This means that maps which are technically rankable under the criteria but are widely considered (8 or more members of the BAT) by the staff to be unrefined or in considerable need of improvement may be unranked or rendered unrankable if no suggested changes are made in an appropriate timeframe.

This sounds like a ranking policy rather than a rule. It also just seems like a workaround for a broken system. If the modders are making mistakes and the system is allowing such maps to get through, shouldn't we be addressing the problem directly? This seems to me to be a damage control policy. It has the vibe of "We know we're not doing our jobs properly, so be prepared if we need to unrank your maps because we're incompetent". Is management actually preparing for the incompetency that will come with the new system?

Additional thoughts:

"if no suggested changes are made in the appropriate timeframe" is vague and doesn't really go along with how rankable issues are handled under the current ranking system. Subjective issues that prevent a map from being ranked are considered to fall under unwritten rules. They are subjective only because not all BAT agree with the rules. The ranking criteria isn't really complete. There is no specification in this draft about what a mapper needs to do to ensure their map will not get unranked apart from do whatever the BAT says, but only if 7 other BATs agree. This is not a quality standard criteria that mappers can easily grasp and understand. If this is going to be that criteria, then it should be more focused towards a mapper's responsibility and it needs to be specific. Currently if a map is not rankable it just doesn't get bubbled or the bubble gets popped until further changes are made.There is no specific timeframe for a mapper to respond to changes. If a mapper refuses to make certain changes that are unrankable, then a map is nuked.

These questions should be addressed at some point.

What is the timeframe that we are considering? How long will BATs have to discuss changes? Since when have mappers been given a specific time before changes have to be made?

Under the new system a map will sit in a preranked state for a week's time. Does this mean that 8 BATs have to come up with a conclusion within a week? we're considering that a maximum of 8 maps will be ranked a day. A worst case scenario would require 8x8 = 64 individual BAT interactions for a single week, and that doesn't factor in songs that get ranked during the week. If overall quality is an issue, then I'm not sure how this will motivate the BATs to try to fix the issue if they have the ability to make this decision already. Taiko maps have already been unranked because of lack of mods.

If we do not define a specific timeframe and due process for these discussions, then I will remain skeptical that BAT/ current modder behavior will change or that a larger part of the team will take part in discussions. It will be the same 4-5 BATs making the decisions for the rest of the team. This applies to both systems.

This rule doesn't specify whether a BAT can pop a bubble before a consensus is reached. I think there needs to be a discussion amongst the BATs about how to handle a rankable discussion. If you don't pop a bubble because there is a rankable discussion, why can't any BAT just rank a map because they feel it is rankable? It's going to be very hard to gather 8 BATs to all say the same thing and it's much easier to just get a couple extra opinions and take action. Are we considering a map rankable until the census says otherwise? This will mean that maps will be ranked before this will happen if the BATs aren't quality focused. The new system will be better suited, but the culture issue will still remain.

Thoughts?

agreeable

o_o

I agree with the who idea of the OP that map quality is dropping in favor of quantity and something has to be done to maintain quality. Thing is, how can you do this when BATs are merely highly biased humans? There will never be a system that can objectively judge what map is "of quality" and what isn't. While the idea might be good in theory, I fear that in practice it would only restrict mapper freedom...

Quality is always subjective, since maps are a kind of "interpretable art". You can't ask for objectivity. That's why this rule asks for intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is no objectivity, but includes a wide spread of opinions to be "commonly agreed to".

To make 8 BATs agree that the map in question sucks is clearly an ensured establishing of an intersubjective agreed fact. Moreover the BATs are BATs because they usually know what they are talking about. Yes, opinions may vary, but the high amount of required BATs for this rule cause to kill this bias, or at least reduce it heavily to an acceptable minimum.

This is not killing mappers freedom. It's making people think about what they map. Therefore the rule appears fine to me. Just some wording tweaks are required to fix vague or misunderstandable wordings.

Loctav wrote:

...

if it's just a general concept of "don't rank bad maps" then why don't BATs already do this now? since this is basically the basic role of BAT... to check the quality of a map before deciding to rank it. Isn't this rule redundant with BAT-selection-process if that's what it is?

i.e. isn't the role of a BAT to begin with, to check that a map is of an agreeable level of quality before ranking it, and if this isn't happening then isn't this rule basically a hint towards BATs not doing their jobs correctly?

Because "bad maps" are also seen subjective.
You know, we DID unrank over bad quality in the past. But mappers tend to be very stubborn and offended lately, if you do so. They turn against you like "BUT IT IS RANKABLE, READ RULES".
This rule is something that needs to be settled, since it should've been done this way for a long time. It's just something that wasn't written down somewhere. And now it finally happens.

My point is, I agree that maps need to be of quality, but how do you want to draw the line with this rule?

If it's just "people's opinions" then this rule doesn't really change anything at all.
Otherwise if you want to write specific standards for what's "quality" mappers might get restricted unfairly.
I just don't see what positive outcome this can lead to

The idea of keeping map quality high is good; but this rule is not the right way to go about this imo. Instead it would be better for the BAT team to talk with each other and put more thought into ranking.

I feel that this would be feasible if enough BATs could qualify specific reasons for a map being sloppy. For example, if enough people agree that the flow of a specific section bears little to no relation to something important to the music, then it's probably bad. Other things, such as something being flat-out boring and uncreative/barely varied could also be grounds upon which subjectivity can become objectivity.

I think that this would be great as a general mode of practice. Enforcing it completely would probably be impossible, but we really need to see a shift away from "oh somebody enjoys this, therefore there's no need to make it better." That kind of attitude is a disgrace to almost six years of progression and the entire notion of refining something via modding.

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

SapphireGhost wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

But there's the notion that as time goes on, map quality should steadily be increasing. Granted, quality is very negotiable and objective, but we should all have a sort of fine line with what is "good" and what is "barely rankable", should we not?

No one will be happy if a map is unranked for this reason, but the thing is, a map shouldn't be ranked if it doesn't meet quality standards. I'm sure as all staff members, if not regular modders, we know what is "quality" and what is "barely rankable" as it stands, do we not?

SapphireGhost wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

This doesn't seem like a rule for mappers. A mapper cannot do anything to abide to this rule. It seems to me to be a handling the unranking of maps policy rather than something that should be presented in the Ranking Criteria area on the Wiki.

I agree with this. The 8 BAT idea can possibly be implemented somehow, but not as an objective rule. Personally, I'm still against the idea because people simply have different ideas of what quality is and we have so many BAT currently, that people are bound to disagree. If 8 BATs have the subjective opinion that the quality is not high enough, then they are free not to play the map and let others do so instead. However, I doubt anyone is happy if the map is unranked for this reason, because it comes down to a difference of opinion.

Well, my opinion on this: ..yeah

Because it actually happens pretty often that BATs say: weird rhythm, change it bad flow, change it and that's it. People can't learn of that, and if that will happen 8 times, well then, gz for your unrank?

If this would get implemented, you should make at least a rule, that the BAT's show the things which are wrong, and help to get it back to rank 'fast', or at least give them feedback which is helpful. Also this with the timeline - maybe we shouldn't do that with maps from 2009, hm? xD (did never say that all maps from there are bad :C)

+1 dkun
"wow this map is so good it should be ranked" is different from "well, this map has ~no mistakes anymore~, time to get this shit ranked already"
Even if quality is subjective everyone knows the difference between poorly mapped but still following the rules and a really good (in any aspect) map

btw isn't it too late to think about old maps? lol let them be, past is past
we have a lot of new pending maps waiting for modders

I can already see this discussion stuck on "quality is subjective" argument... again.

I have nothing against this rule, it's a good way to prevent very horrible maps to get ranked. But it's not going to fix the problem at all. It can't be fixed just by adding a rule that allows BAT to unrank bad maps, it'd just create frustration on the mappers' side and would demotivate them when it happens.

We have to think in the long term, in my opinion, we should try to promote the good maps in some way, for example by getting a proper map rating system (this role could be given to the CATs, they'd rate every map they play on a 1-10 scale, unlike the normal users, they'd vote for the map itself and not the song, it'd be much more accurate than the current user rating system). We could also give a "This is a good map" icon to maps that deserve it.
I'm just throwing some ideas here, nothing really concrete, however if something like this is done, mappers would probably try to aim for quality instead of quantity.
In short : Mapper makes a bad map → map gets ignored → mapper is sad → mapper makes a better map → repeat until mapper is awesome.

who would give this "good map" icon?
inb4 biased

I don't know, the CATs ? or a monthly poll to promote the 10 best maps of the month (people would still vote on songs instead of maps D:) ?
I haven't given much thought on how this could be done, but imo promoting the good maps is the best way encourage mappers to focus more on quality rather than quantity.

this whole thing as a rule is pretty hilarious, but you know lets make things even worse and piss off even more I mean this rule just sounds wrong in every sense. Just my 2 cents I really don't think this is the right way to take things.

Kurai wrote:

I don't know, the CATs ? or a monthly poll to promote the 10 best maps of the month (people would still vote on songs instead of maps D:) ?
I haven't given much thought on how this could be done, but imo promoting the good maps is the best way encourage mappers to focus more on quality rather than quantity.

This^

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Can't agree more with this.

Andrea wrote:

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.

Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Can't agree more with this.

Can't imagine why. *cough*
inb4 silence

I don't think it needs to be fair. The BATs have the final say on what is good enough to be ranked. The BAT should have the responsibility to not be corrupt and give mappers a fair opinion and I wholeheartedly support giving them that privilege. A strong will makes a strong foundation of reason. The amount of say that mappers have in the ranking process is a huge reason why the ranking system is not effective. It is a mockery of the system when a mapper can get something ranked just by disagreeing with the BAT. It takes a group of BATs to fight off a single mapper's opinion.

The BATs are not there to kill mapper freedom. They are there to uphold quality standards. If a BAT says something needs more mods, it needs more mods. If something plays bad to a reasonable majority then it should be changed. It's not hard to tell when a map lacks polish. Mappers should not be able to push the voice of reason away so easily. A rule like this will encourage BATs to defend their thoughts and opinions and encourage unified discussion.

At least I hope that will be the result. It wont change anything unless the BATs start taking what they believe is correct more seriously.

TheVileOne wrote:

The BATs are not there to kill mapper freedom. They are there to uphold quality standards. If a BAT says something needs more mods, it needs more mods.

Just saying, if a map sucks so hard that 8 BATs agree it needs to be unranked, there is a chance that more mods won't help at all. In such cases, to really fix the map, usually a complete remap is needed.
and i can imagine lots of rankmappers will dislike that idea

If this is the case, then link maps that were ranked recently that are deemed to have a level of quality that is too low for ranking so we can see what the problem is.

Zarerion wrote:

Can't imagine why. *cough*
inb4 silence

Is this some kind of personal attack or something? You should refrain from making such posts if they're not helpful or constructive.

Anyways, if a map is that bad to not be fine with being ranked, it shouldn't ranked in the first place, obviously.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Mapping should be fun but playing the map should also be fun. If the map is not of good quality, then it's not going to be fun to play for the average user. And it's important to have maps of good quality that are also fun because we want to appeal to new users, not turn them away.

I agree with Kurai's idea that something needs to be done. Something like a rating system (from 1-10 would be pretty neat.)

Also, I don't know if it's just me and my somehow biased observations, but I've noticed there is some type of "Matthew Effect" going on in terms of getting maps ranked where it seems that people who already have maps in the game that are ranked usually have their maps rated more quickly and easily than those starting out (in other words, the maps of users get more recognition simply because of the fact that the user has more recognition.) Because of this, it seems like this system is discouraging to newer mappers because even if they do produce a quality map, the fact that they are a "new mapper" would make it harder for them to get their maps ranked.

Anyways, I'm not too familiar with the system in which maps get ranked, but this is the way I'd like to see it be done to solve the two issues above:

-Each mapper is originally alloted to submit a mapset for ranking once every [insert time period here].
-As such a mapper gets more maps ranked into the game, the mapper gets "points." The number of points the mapper has determines the number of mapsets they are allowed to submit in the above time periods, but only up until a certain point. This allows mappers to focus on the quality of their maps instead of quantity and trying to push out new mapsets every 5 minutes; while also providing a small reward for those who do get their maps ranked.
-Every time a mapset is submitted for ranking, the mapset is "sent out" to [insert number here] BAT's at random for judging. The BAT's have [insert time period here] to give the map a rating of 1-10 as well as notes on how to improve the quality of the map. If the average score of all the BAT's iis above [insert number here] for that mapset, then the map is allowed to be ranked. Otherwise, such a map is denied from being ranked and the mapper must wait until his submission period expires if he wants to "fix-up" and re-submit the mapset (this will count as a "brand new" submission).
-An alternative for re-submissions is that re-submissions could be given a separate, shorter time period which are treated slightly different than original submissions. This would be good if the map only has a few errors that need fixing since it would be kinda silly to force the mapper to wait a long period of time when there were only a few minor things that needed fixing.
-Mappers get "bonus points" if their maps are rated really high amongst the set of BAT's (like an average score of above 9.0 for example) which provides more incentive for mappers to attempt to map with quality in mind.

This is the most fuck retarded argument in mapping, I swear

There is no "drop" in map quality

There is an increase in maps, which leads to a decrease in density of originality (does that make sense?)

Every map ranked, that I have seen, is solidly built and well timed, enough so that ranking isn't a problem.

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best? Please, tell me this. With the large quantity of maps being ranked nowadays, obviously fewer and fewer maps will bring something new to the table. Just because a map isn't original, does that mean it's bad, or lacks quality? Along with that, can you even explain what you mean by this "quality drop"?

As far as I can tell, you're not even arguing anything. You say there's a drop in quality, but what do you even mean by that? I know a lot of people say that, but what is the real issue? As far as I can tell, more maps = more songs, and regardless of this "map quality", more songs will make osu! more enjoyable for everyone.

In any case, this thread is shit and you should feel bad for making it. Thanks.

I hope this post was coherent, because I'm really mad.


edit: if you really care about map quality, how about getting rid of a few fucking useless rules that are restricting creativity and have no reason for existing

Silynn wrote:

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best?

You only have this way of thinking due to the two or so years of increased leniency in the ranking process. If the BAT was as strict as they should be, this way of thinking would never have entered your (plural) minds.

those wrote:

Silynn wrote:

Why do you guys think that ranking should be some silly special privilege, only reserved for the best of the best?

You only have this way of thinking due to the two or so years of increased leniency in the ranking process. If the BAT was as strict as they should be, this way of thinking would never have entered your (plural) minds.

Why should ranking be more strict?

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

stricter ranking means fewer ranked maps, which means fewer songs.

Also, I don't see any particularly large flaws in pretty much all of the maps ranked recently. All I see is whether or not it's boring or fun to me, which completely depends on the style of map, not if it's good or bad.

Also, considering how much everyone's opinions differ on what a "good" map is, you have to leave a lot of room for those opinions.

There are many maps that I'm sure you consider bad, that many other people enjoy for what they are.

Silynn wrote:

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

This isn't necessarily true. If we got a flux of a ten thousand new ranked maps that were of 2007-2008 quality as of right now, I wouldn't find osu to be any more "fun"

I think the mapping charts already attempt to do what this attempts to do: pick the best maps and give them a special "these are actually quite good" category of their own.

The only way I can see this working out and pissing off the smallest number of people is to do a two-stage ranking system: the current one is left as is, and "exceptional" maps are taken out of that pool and promoted to the second ranking tier.

The ranking tiers are functionally identical, but one tier is considered to be of better quality than the other. The largest objection I see being taken with this approach would be people thinking their maps deserve that elevated tier of regard (when they in fact don't)

benguin wrote:

Silynn wrote:

osu! is more fun if there's more songs to play.

This isn't necessarily true. If we got a flux of a ten thousand new ranked maps that were of 2007-2008 quality as of right now, I wouldn't find osu to be any more "fun"

Do you even know what I'm arguing?

Please, don't say things that aren't relevant. It's not particularly helpful.

Obviously ranking incorrectly timed maps with bad rhythm and no sense of flow is unacceptable.

There is a certain quality standard currently in place, and at the moment, it is mostly agreeable. There is no reason to increase the threshold to some random level of "quality"

Keep in mind that no one is exactly sure what this quality is supposed to be, either


Also yes, I'm mad. Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and an admin at that, made a shitty pointless thread that doesn't even know what it's trying to argue. Everything stated in the OP is horribly horribly horribly vague and doesn't know what it wants to accomplish, other than getting rid of something that is probably bad, but also does not exist.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I'm neutral about the ranking system as of right now, it's not all that bad and the quality of maps that come out of it are acceptable, at least to me. It's not the best ranking system out there either in my opinion, there is always room for improvement and people shouldn't be too quick to bash on possible changes. I'm satisfied with the way it is now though *shrugs*

There are reasons to give privilege. If a dev and admin says that it's a problem, we should be giving the BATs the tools to manage it. Stop acting like BATs are mindless idiots trying to ruin your experience. This is how it should be. This is for the worst case scenarios and will not be used unless there is a reasonable amount of support. The BATs will need to come to some level of agreed quality and learn how to come to a consensus and this is probably how that consensus will be carried out.

I still agree it shouldn't be public other than the already known statement is that BATs will be checking for lack of quality maps and ranking accordingly. The current system has no policies in place to unrank maps that could be improved before the rankable criteria. This would allow such a process. I'm pretty sure the BATs are going to provide a good reason to derank a map. You should give BATs more credit and let them handle their responsibilities the way the administrators and developers want them to.

Again I do not think we need specific criteria that defines quality that BATs will be bound to. BATs should have the freedom to evaluate each mapset individually and decide as a team whether it is acceptable or not. That is how subjective criteria is handled already, but this would formally clarify that responsibility. It is an improvement.

BAT's can do whatever they want.

However, this has no place being a rule. We do not need more restrictive rules creating issues for mappers.

If you think there is not enough quality checking going on before maps are ranked, then increase the number of bubbles required or something. Or send it off to a team of judges before ranking. I don't know.

Don't make useless fucking rules.

I have the same feeling like you Silynn, something like why it must even be higher than it is but question is must it be higher than "what"?.
The rule is so vague but I do believe it won't happen so many times like unranking everyday or something unless the song is really popular (most of people including many BATs would play) or the map is sooo questionable (in case it has negative feedback based on "Player").
Watching the map only won't help unless one has to play them and is able to play them.

ErufenRito wrote:

This rule is so wrong.

If a map has no technical problems and is playable, why keep it from having a scoreboard? Because the map sucks? If that's the case, then let the players down vote it and leave the map be forgotten over time.


Bats should never be the judge of a map's quality, mapping is supposed to be fun, not some job where we have to please a group of people.

Having a map ranked is not a right. It's a privilege. The entire point of having a ranking system is to ensure that only good maps end up becoming official. If there are no technical problems and the map is fair, then great--however, if lots of BATs agree that certain aspects are in desperate need of sprucing up, then why not let that happen?

In a worse case scenario, what if the map's a pile of slop that only slipped through the net because of subjectivity? Surely, if somebody's given the pleasure of their own ranked map and yet it's bad enough to attract a lot of BAT attention, measures should be taken to improve it? Remember that anybody can access ranked maps very quickly and if they're deemed as such, they'll be what represents the game as a whole.

Yes, the beauty of osu! is that it's driven by the community, but ultimately, the point is still to provide something which people will actually enjoy and then make them feel compelled to keep playing the game. Can you imagine if you ran this and saw loads of terrible content being approved? I'd be going all Gordon Ramsay on the staff.

Also, I think that I've made myself clear about where I stand with the voting system. People will give generous and poor ratings for the song choice alone, so the map's rating is not a clear indicator of quality. Before I knew who made decent maps, I found myself lost in a sea of 9+ maps which I flat-out didn't like. The ratings are an application of end-user subjectivity, so it's up to the staff and other members of the community to ensure that maps are at least good.

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues. The BATs had the privilege to do everything else already mentioned in the description.

TheVileOne wrote:

The only change this makes is that BATs can derank maps because of subjective issues

It's not a change

those wrote:

This is nothing close to a restrictive rule. This could have been all in private discussion and you would have ever known; additionally this makes zero impact on what is or is not allowed in mapping. I don't see why you see this as restricting at all.

The title of the thread ([Rule] Maps must be of an agreeable level of quality) implies two things.

1. Current quality standards are not high enough
2. A new rule should be made to address this

I am arguing that current quality standards are fine, and that we also don't need more useless rules.

Also, again, what are you increasing these quality standards to?

It's all very vague and very pointless. It seems to me, again, that you have no idea what you are trying to argue, you just know what you're arguing against.

Which, coincidentally, is something that is a non-issue.

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

I think a model like the critic/user score split on Metacritic could be useful here. Just abandon "standards" altogether and rank any map that isn't technically crippled in some obvious way when the mapper decides it's finished. Then the BATs' ratings (and comments/reviews?) go into a prominent "critic" category and all the other users' ratings go into a "user" category. Then add critic/user scores to the filters on the map listing, and have the filter default to critic score >= 70% or something... whatever would correspond to what the BATs think "rankable" should be.

If people make shitty maps, they'll fall off the "critic approved" filter, and people adventurous enough to download the map anyway will downvote the map and move on if they don't like it. People are pretty good at deciding whether they like something, so let them handle that decision themselves.

tl;dr get some free market up in this bitch.

Insane suggestion that most people will just roll their eyes and ignore aside, I like ErufenRito and awp's posts. Don't restrict the "bad" maps. Just give extra spotlight to the "good" ones.

TheVileOne wrote:

You misunderstand. Eph said that there are inconsistent levels of quality in ranked maps. Only maps that are worse than the acceptable level of quality may be deranked until they meet the quality of the majority of other maps.

Of course the levels of quality will be inconsistent.

You have so many ranked, some will stand out and others will fade away.

This doesn't mean that those in the latter category are bad, or undeserving of ranking.

There is currently no problem with the current quality standard, but this thread is implying that there is. If there isn't a problem with it, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a problem.

However this thread does clearly that.

So I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding.


Edit: What I'm trying to say is, don't imply there's something wrong with current criteria, when what you actually want is more thorough checking by staff before maps go off to be ranked.