so true oomfie
forum
Quality Assurance shouldn't contribute to a BN's activity score
posted
Total Posts
34
I agree on this. While I still think QAH is important, BN people shouldn't be able to abuse it like that for their BN membership being upheld, despite little to no actual ranked section participation whatsoever. Good post<3
huuuge agree, qah is usually used for people who dont need the activity and its usually used to reach a bare minimum
its usually and rushed at the end of an eval period (like the noms as well), and they might not even do the qah check as hivie said: "by just adding yourself as a checker a few hours before the map ranks and `hoping for the best`"
we are bns not qat :<
its usually and rushed at the end of an eval period (like the noms as well), and they might not even do the qah check as hivie said: "by just adding yourself as a checker a few hours before the map ranks and `hoping for the best`"
we are bns not qat :<
Tbh yeah, we've had issues in the case where some people warned for activity would then make up for it with QA,,, then also stop doing QA and be pikachu faced when they're kicked for being inactive later on
People that like to do it, do it anyways, and people that don't, do it for free internet points. On top of that there's the issue that a lot of people that look at qualified don't even use the BN website QA system to start with so it doesn't track most genuine efforts anyways.
I don't think it can be replaced with DQs having a set ratio since those are often done on request or a 2nd bn checking if a report is valid, would sooner just remove the QAH part.
that's just my opinions though and not a final say or something :p
People that like to do it, do it anyways, and people that don't, do it for free internet points. On top of that there's the issue that a lot of people that look at qualified don't even use the BN website QA system to start with so it doesn't track most genuine efforts anyways.
I don't think it can be replaced with DQs having a set ratio since those are often done on request or a 2nd bn checking if a report is valid, would sooner just remove the QAH part.
that's just my opinions though and not a final say or something :p
Just to give a brief of what I said on server
Just make it like this
You mod the map, and u care about activity in some form:
1. Go to site, add yourself and note u modded the map
2. regardless of who dqs, you only get the activity if the map was dq
(and since dq reasons already got to be stated, we would know the dq is done more than likely due to the person who qa mods)
This would solve complicated stuff on who dq the map or not (and stuff like dq ratio) while still limiting activity to people who actually try to mod the map vs trying to get free activity.
Just make it like this
You mod the map, and u care about activity in some form:
1. Go to site, add yourself and note u modded the map
2. regardless of who dqs, you only get the activity if the map was dq
(and since dq reasons already got to be stated, we would know the dq is done more than likely due to the person who qa mods)
This would solve complicated stuff on who dq the map or not (and stuff like dq ratio) while still limiting activity to people who actually try to mod the map vs trying to get free activity.
Still doesn’t solve the problem of people marking themselves as having checked the map during QAH without posting anything and still getting credit but I like cheri’s idea
I mean the idea is to basically make it where u have to make a post that warrants a dq one way or another for activity, so people marking themselves would not get anything unless they prove through other means (like showing pics of dms, etc) if it ain't posted in the thread.ikin5050 wrote:
Still doesn’t solve the problem of people marking themselves as having checked the map during QAH without posting anything and still getting credit but I like cheri’s idea
think it should only give activity if results in dq
I have nothing against the proposal so far. Though I agree with Cheri and Nao Tomori that a QA check that leads to a successful disqualification could be able to count as an activity. Since that would require QAer to post something like their concern on the mapping discussion thread, so we would have evidence that they *actually* check that mapset.
agree with cheri and nao - it steers clear of bns 'cheating' for free activity, and only the ones that actually brought up valid concerns, ensuing a dq, gets recompensed for helping the map in some way. I think that'd be a good compromise to bns that genuinely qah for the development of the ranked section.
Topic Starter
The issue with this is that it's really easy to cheese out cheap dqs for the sake of QAH points simply by suggesting optional tags, doing nitpick-tier modding, or NC recet modding. And often times the mapper doesn't know better than to request a dq instead of denying the points that actually barely affects the map in any way.
A BN's job is to nominate maps and that should be their activity resource. QAH was never meant to be a BN task hence why barely anyone gives a shit about it, and the ones who genuinely care will do it anyway regardless of activity, and most of the time they don't even need the extra activity.
It can be considered during an evaluation in some form, but it shouldn't have a fixed score that allows people to reach the minimum activity required, because again, a BN's main job is to nominate maps.
Edit: just wanna say that it's confirmed that DQs count for activity in some form, not as a fixed ratio tho which is the correct approach, QAH should be like this. I think this should solve your concerns of DQs/potentially QAH being fully obselete as activity indicators.
A BN's job is to nominate maps and that should be their activity resource. QAH was never meant to be a BN task hence why barely anyone gives a shit about it, and the ones who genuinely care will do it anyway regardless of activity, and most of the time they don't even need the extra activity.
It can be considered during an evaluation in some form, but it shouldn't have a fixed score that allows people to reach the minimum activity required, because again, a BN's main job is to nominate maps.
Edit: just wanna say that it's confirmed that DQs count for activity in some form, not as a fixed ratio tho which is the correct approach, QAH should be like this. I think this should solve your concerns of DQs/potentially QAH being fully obselete as activity indicators.
At first I thought that giving people activity for DQing maps was bad because, like Hivie said, people would simply farm DQs by taking advantage of new mappers who don't defend their mapping choices as much and are more prone to self-DQing. However, I do think giving activity based on the level of DQ is a good idea, such as a self-DQ for simple mod changes because worth no activity and a DQ for unrankable issues being worth activity. This would be much more difficult to game as the DQ points system is an anomaly and it's practically impossible to accurately guess how much a DQ will be.
The issue here is somebody would have to manually decide whaht DQs are worth activity and what aren't. One idea I've had on this front is to connect the existing DQ obviousness/severity ratings with how much activity is awarded to the posting BN. But an even easier implementation would be to completely deny all activity for QAH because it's not really a big deal and honestly should just be a normal thing BNs do alongside ranking maps (all it takes is downloading maps as they're qualified and taking 5-10 minutes to look through them for unrankables). There could also be a role specifically for checking qualified maps separate from BN and NAT, if the issue is the added responsibility to BNs being too much pressure, but that may be out of the scope of the community.
The issue here is somebody would have to manually decide whaht DQs are worth activity and what aren't. One idea I've had on this front is to connect the existing DQ obviousness/severity ratings with how much activity is awarded to the posting BN. But an even easier implementation would be to completely deny all activity for QAH because it's not really a big deal and honestly should just be a normal thing BNs do alongside ranking maps (all it takes is downloading maps as they're qualified and taking 5-10 minutes to look through them for unrankables). There could also be a role specifically for checking qualified maps separate from BN and NAT, if the issue is the added responsibility to BNs being too much pressure, but that may be out of the scope of the community.
i dont think it needs to be overly complicated - there's like 3 ppl that do qah anyway and this proposal is targeting people who don't "actually do it" in a sense that they just mark themselves as having done it to no effect to quickly generate activity. to preserve the goal of incentivizing qah activity (as dubiously effective as this initiative has been) while reducing activity abuse, only giving 1/4 activity to qah checks resulting in dqs (which can be self-reported and verified during bn evaluations by NATs) seems fine
yes
That being said at least in taiko most dqs are marked as 0/0 anyway so there’s really no activity to be gotten there so this seems like a reasonable compromise.
This does however raise the question of is the current severity obviousness rating good because it only really addresses unrankables and not bad quality mapping.
This does however raise the question of is the current severity obviousness rating good because it only really addresses unrankables and not bad quality mapping.
did a poll with NAT and 91% think activity should go, so yeah
we're gonna go update wiki pages and stuff and do a hl
we're gonna go update wiki pages and stuff and do a hl