Currently the rc has a rule which states the following:

A beatmap host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty creator. This is to provide credit where credit is due. Collaborative difficulties are only considered partial difficulties, and drain time will be used to determine the amount of contribution when a guest has beatmapped significantly more than the host.

This is a good rule for spreads, as it requires set hosts to not rely too heavily on guest participation and disallows people being "carried". Where I find a problem in this rule is in collab difficulties. In certain scenarios, such as this recent taiko map, the host has ~40 seconds less drain time compared to 2 other mappers who are a part of the difficulty. However, every single participant in the collab is completely fine with the current set host, AND the current host has contributed in many other ways which others deem significant (i.e polishing the map for the tournament, organizing the collab, etc.)

Another issue with this rule for collabs is the inherent subjectivity of it. When it comes to defining what is “significantly more”, the amount of drain time that’s used to decide on this is completely unclear, and while it does depend on the drain time of the map itself, there’s no definition on what the split should be, which can lead to situations in which mappers can’t tell who should submit the map. The fact that a rule allows for such a large margin of subjectivity when it should be clearly defined makes it way more befitting of a guideline. Aside from this, drain time as a measure of contribution can be very misrepresentative regarding the amount of actual contribution a mapper had to a collab, and should be instead used as a baseline rather than the main defining factor.

Thus, with this proposal, the collab part of the rule would be moved to a guideline with modified wording to allow for clarity:

“Collaborative difficulties are treated as partial difficulties. Collaborators who are participating in the difficulty are free to decide who has the right to host it so long as the host has mapped a significant enough portion of the map. In the scenario where disagreement is present, drain time is to be entirely used to determine contribution.”

so the original rule becomes:

A beatmap host must have beatmapped equal or more difficulties than any guest difficulty creator. This is to provide credit where credit is due.

Changing it as such allows for some ambiguity and allows bns to enforce their own interpretation while also allowing for edge cases such as the mapset linked above. Also not much room for abuse with the disagreement clause. kewl

co-wrote by me and ideal:)

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

Seems reasonable but "In the scenario where disagreement is present" shouldn't be in the rule. If it takes 1 person to disagree then it'll just always be drain time. I think you just remove the last sentence and then it's fine.

There's no mechanism to track who mapped what in a collab so this guideline relies on good faith at the moment anyway. It doesn't need any extra safeguards nor could you realistically add any.

+1

I think I'm a bit confused.

I had personally thought that rules trump guidelines so in this case, the host should have mapped at least equal drain time than any gder, no matter what collaborators think. Ranking criteria glossary also supports this thought too.

I think it'd be better to somehow turn rule into guideline (so that it may be broken under exceptional circumstances) and turn guideline into something of a rule so there isn't much debate as to who actually deserves hosting rights.

Or maybe I'm just dumb? I'd like someone to either help me with this or completely shatter my worldview

post script: example beatmap had host map less than 40 seconds than both contributors and under rewritten rule, the map still wouldnt be ranked because of "...must have beatmapped equal or more than any collaborator"

sisig wrote:

I think I'm a bit confused.

I had personally thought that rules trump guidelines so in this case, the host should have mapped at least equal drain time than any gder, no matter what collaborators think. Ranking criteria glossary also supports this thought too.

I think it'd be better to somehow turn rule into guideline (so that it may be broken under exceptional circumstances) and turn guideline into something of a rule so there isn't much debate as to who actually deserves hosting rights.

Or maybe I'm just dumb? I'd like someone to either help me with this or completely shatter my worldview

this is pretty much about moving the collab part as a guideline, isn't it?

anyway vouch

edit: the rule is about GDs, the guideline is for collab diffs

+1

roufou wrote:

sisig wrote:

I think I'm a bit confused.

I had personally thought that rules trump guidelines so in this case, the host should have mapped at least equal drain time than any gder, no matter what collaborators think. Ranking criteria glossary also supports this thought too.

I think it'd be better to somehow turn rule into guideline (so that it may be broken under exceptional circumstances) and turn guideline into something of a rule so there isn't much debate as to who actually deserves hosting rights.

Or maybe I'm just dumb? I'd like someone to either help me with this or completely shatter my worldview

this is pretty much about moving the collab part as a guideline, isn't it?

anyway vouch

edit: the rule is about GDs, the guideline is for collab diffs

yeah kinda fucked up with the "gder" thing there, but since collabs are treated as partial difficulties, i think we can let that slide :wink:

my post was more or less about having "collabs being partial difficulties blah blah collaborators can decide who hosts it) as the rule and have "host should have mapped equal or more than any collaborator" as the guideline

+1 however i think slow parts are exploitable (for drain length)

Defectum wrote:

+1 however i think slow parts are exploitable (for drain length)

Yeah they already are right now - if anything, this would allow the mapper of the slow section to not necessarily host the set.

--

sisig wrote:

I think I'm a bit confused.

I had personally thought that rules trump guidelines so in this case, the host should have mapped at least equal drain time than any gder, no matter what collaborators think. Ranking criteria glossary also supports this thought too.

I think it'd be better to somehow turn rule into guideline (so that it may be broken under exceptional circumstances) and turn guideline into something of a rule so there isn't much debate as to who actually deserves hosting rights.

Or maybe I'm just dumb? I'd like someone to either help me with this or completely shatter my worldview

The purpose of this change is to make the collab part of the rule into a guideline, yeah. GDs will remain the same.

sisig wrote:

post script: example beatmap had host map less than 40 seconds than both contributors and under rewritten rule, the map still wouldnt be ranked because of "...must have beatmapped equal or more than any collaborator"

It would be rankable because all of the collaborators agreed that roufou would host the set, which is addressed by the agreement part of the changed rule into guideline, and the fact that he has a relevant mapping contribution to the collab.

Ideal wrote:

Defectum wrote:

+1 however i think slow parts are exploitable (for drain length)

Yeah they already are right now - if anything, this would allow the mapper of the slow section to not necessarily host the set.

--

sisig wrote:

I think I'm a bit confused.

I had personally thought that rules trump guidelines so in this case, the host should have mapped at least equal drain time than any gder, no matter what collaborators think. Ranking criteria glossary also supports this thought too.

I think it'd be better to somehow turn rule into guideline (so that it may be broken under exceptional circumstances) and turn guideline into something of a rule so there isn't much debate as to who actually deserves hosting rights.

Or maybe I'm just dumb? I'd like someone to either help me with this or completely shatter my worldview

The purpose of this change is to make the collab part of the rule into a guideline, yeah. GDs will remain the same.

sisig wrote:

post script: example beatmap had host map less than 40 seconds than both contributors and under rewritten rule, the map still wouldnt be ranked because of "...must have beatmapped equal or more than any collaborator"

It would be rankable because all of the collaborators agreed that roufou would host the set, which is addressed by the agreement part of the changed rule into guideline, and the fact that he has a relevant mapping contribution to the collab.

oh yeah my bad, i completely overshot the purpose of this proposal :skull:

Sylvarus wrote:

Seems reasonable but "In the scenario where disagreement is present" shouldn't be in the rule. If it takes 1 person to disagree then it'll just always be drain time.

I feel like that might have been meant to mean disagreement between the collaborators which probably wouldn't happen that often (although if it does mean any disagreement in general then I fully agree)

however

Sylvarus wrote:

There's no mechanism to track who mapped what in a collab so this guideline relies on good faith at the moment anyway. It doesn't need any extra safeguards nor could you realistically add any.

this is a good point, you can get any number of annoying edge cases if the collaborators can't even decide who's gonna be the host because one of them can just dispute the published drain time split and you're at a stalemate anyway

but tbh I feel like any disagreement with collaborators would end up being resolved by "the beatmap host must delete the guest contribution upon request" no matter what any other rule says so it's kinda pointless to account for that here



as for the change in general, I like it. if we're supposed to "provide credit where credit is due" the rules need to acknowledge that hitsounding, storyboarding, etc. deserve credit as well

the only potential abuse case I can come up with right now is one where one person maps the vast majority of the map and lets the other mapper host the set, but they could just ghostmap and avoid having to argue with people to possibly get the set ranked (works with current rules too), so I don't really feel the need to account for that either

+1

+1

+1

my idea of finding the "main mode":

1. the mode where the map host mapped the most diffs will be the main mode
2. if there's two or more modes where the main mapper mapped the same amount of diffs, the main mode would be the one with more diffs from the guest mappers
3. if there's still a tie, the map host can choose what's the main mode (with agreement from other guest mapper?)

i think you're in the wrong thread

+1

But wording could be a bit ambiguous for sets with multiple diffs with some collab diffs imo.

Collaborators who are participating in the difficulty are free to decide who has the right to host it.

Does this mean that one of the collabers can claim one full difficulty amount of contribution under consensus? Or is this assuming that there's only one diff that is collabed in the set, and one does not have to take other diffs into account when they decide who should be hosting?

One case, that I think is not covered well with current wording, could be one of my recently qfed mapset. It has 2 full difficulties mapped by guest mapper (Dailycare), and one full difficulty, 2 collab difficulties by me. In this case imo the guest mapper could have also taken host if they want, as he mapped similar amount of drain time to me. However he's not involved in any collab diff.

I think it's better to cover more situations like this, where other difficulties are also involved in deciding who should be a host, with different wording

lewski wrote:

i think you're in the wrong thread

fuck

+1

Amamya wrote:

+1

But wording could be a bit ambiguous for sets with multiple diffs with some collab diffs imo.

Collaborators who are participating in the difficulty are free to decide who has the right to host it.

Does this mean that one of the collabers can claim one full difficulty amount of contribution under consensus? Or is this assuming that there's only one diff that is collabed in the set, and one does not have to take other diffs into account when they decide who should be hosting?

One case, that I think is not covered well with current wording, could be one of my recently qfed mapset. It has 2 full difficulties mapped by guest mapper (Dailycare), and one full difficulty, 2 collab difficulties by me. In this case imo the guest mapper could have also taken host if they want, as he mapped similar amount of drain time to me. However he's not involved in any collab diff.

I think it's better to cover more situations like this, where other difficulties are also involved in deciding who should be a host, with different wording

I’m not 100% on whether I understood this correctly, but…

Wouldn’t Dailycare be able to host right now anyways? This would be a matter of drain time by itself - you collabed with Enon and since you hosted the set, both of you agreed that you’d host - therefore, you’d be required to have matching drain time to Dailycare as this is required by the current ruling and would still be required by passing the modified ruling + guideline, which you do.

If you and Enon disagreed on who would host, you’d still have sufficient drain time anyways between the two collab diffs + the full diff, so that wouldn’t matter for this scenario. Enon would need to map the same drain time as you/Dailycare if they wanted to host, since that’d still be covered by the rule about guest difficulties.

This change would only really apply to collab sets in which the host took place in every difficulty, or to single difficulty collabs. Sets with guest diffs would remain the same as it currently is, needing at least equal drain time mapped by the host.

Ideal wrote:

This change would only really apply to collab sets in which the host took place in every difficulty, or to single difficulty collabs. Sets with guest diffs would remain the same as it currently is, needing at least equal drain time mapped by the host.

That was the part I thought was unclear, thanks for explanation.

In that case, I think

Collaborators who are participating in the difficulty are free to decide who has the right to host

this part of new guideline makes it unable for Dailycare (in the example set) to give opinion on who should be a host. Also, it sounds like the guideline is assuming only one collab diff on the set and not applicable for other kinda sets. It could be generalized to other gders to cover such cases

edited cuz I misread and explained awkwardly.. lol

This could help with mappers who are allowed to take over a beatmap without having to remap large sections, right?

archiving this post since the rule seems lenient enough as is, reducing it might just make it too confusing.