If I remember correctly GDs are under the same rules as original mapper's diffs difficulty-spread-wise. The only differences between GDs and regular difficulties are timing-related (different preview point, etc...) I think.

I just re-read the RC related to mapsets, I smiled when I saw this since many mapsets (this includes other modes mapsets containing GDs) featuring 1 normal/1 insane don't follow this but are still ranked.

Rules for GDs are not very clear, and actually there doesn't seem to be any "special rules" for GDs (or I missed them). I don't see why GDs wouldn't be affected by this rule change if it were to be done.

Lone mania maps placed in a standard+* mapset => Can be allowed as it can be translated. So [Standard][Other modes][1x 4K][1x5K][1x7K] would be allowed.
Non-standard mapsets should follow the 2-diff spread rule.
[Taiko][1x4K][1x5K][2x7K] = Deny
[Taiko][2x4K][2x5K][2x7K] = Allow.

No, don't treat autoconverts as proper mania-maps. They suck.

PyaKura wrote:

No, don't treat autoconverts as proper mania-maps. They suck.

Agree.

I've been reading it and.. yes, currently it's the same situation as with the Mapsets in the past with one Taiko Difficulty (which has been mostly Onis and cannot be passed by worse player)

Support.

Completely reasonable.

Edited the OP so it looks cleaner and a bit more detailed.

Absolute support.

You can't learn 7K by playing 6K, can't learn 6K by playing 5K etc, just makes no sense. Not to mention that the majority of non-7K maps just seem to be beginner maps made to get a single 7K insane ranked.

Actually I don't think this is a good idea.

The reason is simple.

"Hey, I can't make only 1 diff for 4k/7k/6k/whatsoever. I don't think I can do my best to make a full spread so just forget about making 4k/7k/6k/whatsoever."

This is extremely common, because high-rated mappers don't like to make two maps nearly the same (Maybe having the same object count) except for some keys re-placed into different columns. And they think making a distinguished map is hard enough that it doesn't meet their quality standard despite of their hardwork.

In one word, that would drive away the mappers to make multi-key maps.

Addition:
Yeah, from players' side, it would always be happy to see more diffs. I believe you want 15 diffs in every map.
However, when mappers have to make a perfunctory (to suit such criteria or something else), the map quality would shrink dramatically.
In another word, when mappers goes ranking for ranking, things would go to hell.
I have to warn that this is already happening in taiko, and I actually see trends in osu!mania ranking maps when making easy diffs.

xxbidiao wrote:

Actually I don't think this is a good idea.

The reason is simple.

"Hey, I can't make only 1 diff for 4k/7k/6k/whatsoever. I don't think I can do my best to make a full spread so just forget about making 4k/7k/6k/whatsoever."

This is extremely common, because high-rated mappers don't like to make two maps nearly the same (Maybe having the same object count) except for some keys re-placed into different columns. And they think making a distinguished map is hard enough that it doesn't meet their quality standard despite of their hardwork.

In one word, that would drive away the mappers to make multi-key maps.

Addition:
Yeah, from players' side, it would always be happy to see more diffs. I believe you want 15 diffs in every map.
However, when mappers have to make a perfunctory (to suit such criteria or something else), the map quality would shrink dramatically.
In another word, when mappers goes ranking for ranking, things would go to hell.
I have to warn that this is already happening in taiko, and I actually see trends in osu!mania ranking maps when making easy diffs.

The main reason for such a change is to keep things equal between 7K and other K players. The issuevright now is that people somehow consider 4K (or 5K or 6K) to be inferior to 7K, which I don't believe it is the case. I'm not asking for 15 diffs per mapset (heck, with 2 keycounts the minimum would 4 diffs... you can't consider this tons of work mapping-wise), but forcing mappers (yes I did say "force mappers") to do as suggested in the original post would be making things go forward towards the "minorities" of the mania-community. When I see Crack traxxx, I can tell that the mapper has the skills to make an Insane 4K and easier 7K diffs. You can't deny the fact thatthe current rules are simply not fair right now.

Also I should not say this to you since you (and a lot of high-rated mappers) have much much more mapping experience than me, but rememher that mapping is not a "time-attack" thing nor a race to see who maps and ranks the fastest. Quality issues are not supposed to happen after receiving mods for your maps (as people currently do). You're not forced to make a full mapset "stands out" either. If the hardest diff is noteworthy it's often enough to make people notice your mapset as a whole.

Anyways thanks for your input, I was waiting for someone to countereact to this.

Actually I do think this should be a strong guideline, but not a forced rule.

I believe the intentions are good (You know, I'm a 4key mapper who found lack of 4key maps), but when you look at the original maps uploaded to osu! servers, you may realize people may treat this rule using negative ways making the osu!mania mapping community further from the good intentions.

Quality issues are not supposed to happen after receiving mods for your maps (as people currently do).

Sadly this is what the reality contradicts ideal things most.

Actually, making a high quality map, which is recognized by everyone, is extremely hard; but making a map which is just above the pass line is far easier.

Based on my experience modding maps and discussion to other mappers/modders, I found that mappers make the main difficulty which can represent their ultimate understanding of the music well, but their other diffs are in some cases just between playable and unplayable. In other communities, this nearly always lead to a complete rejection (Or to say, release only with main difficulties) - but modders are not tended to say so like "please remap", and the attitude of refusal instead of willing to help is discouraged. People will help to make such kind of map "playable", or to say, "without quality problems". And that's all. In another way, that's your teacher making your 59% mark to a 60%, making a F into D - but it's never A+.

What I was worried most is that when this rule do carries out, many mappers will tend to make an excellent high-level map binding with another lower-level one with just acceptable quality to pass the rule. That doesn't cost much time to mappers (I'll have to point out that this is NOT mappers being LAZY, in some cases they just need a reshuffle which can be finished in no time), but will harm the community in long run. When the minority of community see mappers just make perfunctory, what do they think? Poor things is even worse than nothing.

That's actually another fight between quantity and quality (Like what you have said, time vs quality.) In most other commercial/free games, we see quality comes in higher place (1 diff / easiest diff at high level because the song fits) and they do achieve good reputation. Where the growing osu!mania community do need quantity, quality should be emphasized.

This feels similar to the spirit of the osu! standard rule concerning difficulty spread, and xxbidiao's reply kind of mirrors what's going on in the approval length requirement: It's too much work, and mappers don't want to do it. To me, this is a poor counter-argument compared to giving the focus of a map set the light via ranking if it at least shows that it is trying to include as many different players as possible. The opening post has pretty much set down -why- this is a problem. If you're having that much difficulty giving yourself the motivation to see your mapset to the end for ranking, try asking others for help. It's nothing new to outsource difficulties in the other modes, and I've seen guest maps make it into osu!m maps as well.

Garven wrote:

This feels similar to the spirit of the osu! standard rule concerning difficulty spread, and xxbidiao's reply kind of mirrors what's going on in the approval length requirement: It's too much work, and mappers don't want to do it. To me, this is a poor counter-argument compared to giving the focus of a map set the light via ranking if it at least shows that it is trying to include as many different players as possible. The opening post has pretty much set down -why- this is a problem. If you're having that much difficulty giving yourself the motivation to see your mapset to the end for ranking, try asking others for help. It's nothing new to outsource difficulties in the other modes, and I've seen guest maps make it into osu!m maps as well.

I guess you will say "mappers are TOO LAZY to do XXX" - That's what I have foreseen, and I have just explained in my posts.

xxbidiao wrote:

(I'll have to point out that this is NOT mappers being LAZY, in some cases they just need a reshuffle which can be finished in no time)

When you try to look into everything with "LAZY" label, everything seems to have a "good" explanation.

But I suggest you throw out the "LAZY" colored glass and look into some other aspects of the community, which I would warn you later.

Mappers are never TOO LAZY. When they consider ranking, they are ready to make their maps best and put considerable effort on it - but putting such rules doesn't help making their maps better.

If you even try to dig into the taiko community, you would know an interesting fact: people tend to play unranked maps rather than ranked ones, leaving the leaderboard full of map reciters and DS cheaters. But why?

When talking to many high-tier taiko mappers and players, I finally realized why they prefer unranked maps far more than ranked ones.
Because of the "conservative" ranking system (That's the exact word I have heard from some mappers), they will have to throw their creative mind away and do blotters instead. They just copy and paste their patterns, making repeatable patterns, and make a map that suits everything. Guess what happens next? "Wow the song is good! The map is reasonable I think it will go rank in no time." Players are happy because they have a map that is not identical and are easy for them to recite and to HD+FL them, mappers are happy because they have their map ranked. And no one cares about quality of maps. The results is although osu!taiko seems to have a lot of maps, but their overall quality is lower than community like Taiko Jiro emulator charts, which have nearly no moderation at all, according to many player's critic.

And yeah, this is already happening in osu!mania. Many mappers already regard osu!mania overall mapping quality as "dull" - Only the songs are good, the maps are of lower quality than expected.

Back to this topic, why do I say this would not benefit osu!mania so much, to an extent that you expect?

Yes, exactly - blotter.

I have explained how trend of blotter (or to say, perfunctory) would ruin the community in the former post.

Now it's a simple question: Would you like to enforce mappers to make a bunch of "maps between unplayable and playable" to "suit everyone's need" regardless of quality, or to let them concentrate on how they can make better maps?

Addition: Regarding the need of more maps in different key amounts, Actually there are already far more 7key mappers than 4key ones. Not regarding these new-born ones, but actually the old ones who have experience on other music game chart making. This is a historical problem, maybe caused by conversions more biased in 7key. But to force mappers make more maps is definitely not a good idea when overall map quality would drop.

And actually, 10~20 great maps can leave a player play a certain music game, but a bunch of average ones can't. When players want to practice themselves and find that every map is the same boring as others because of blotters, it would be sad.

xxbidiao wrote:

Addition: Regarding the need of more maps in different key amounts, Actually there are already far more 7key mappers than 4key ones. Not regarding these new-born ones, but actually the old ones who have experience on other music game chart making. This is a historical problem, maybe caused by conversions more biased in 7key. But to force mappers make more maps is definitely not a good idea when overall map quality would drop.

I'm certain there as as many 4k mappers as 7k, but only the latter ones are going forward. I'm certain 5 and 6k mappers exist as well but never try at all. If you look closely you'll see many stepmania players (Xay, Samwais, kjwkjw, Staiain, Kommisar, Halogen- and me for example) who do play on FFR, some of them charting as well.
I've played Standard->7K->4K conversions and if you tell your 7K conversions are biased, the 4K are just utter shit, I'm almost puking at some of them.
Mappers give a cliché about 4K players, putting 4K lower and 7K higher implicitly means 4K are weaker and 7K are stronger, which is not the case. (Maybe I'm deviating atm but I'll just post that)

The problem here is about the keyspreads that disregards different keys players, because they use only one type of difficulty or even one only, which is currently a problem as different keys doesn't mean a different difficulty, it's a different way to play -- that is, a keycount is mode on itself (trust me good as I am in 4K I wouldn't have problems to FC a fucking EZ in 7K if it were the case.)

xxibi, all you have said is the exact same sentiment that is going on for all modes - this includes standard mode. "Unranked maps are more interesting than ranked maps." And guess what? You're free to make and play any map you choose. The only difference between a ranked map and an unranked map is the scoreboard. If you want your map ranked, then you'll need to adhere to some standards. One of those standards is that you need to have maps in your set that are inclusive for the broadest amount of players possible. This has been the norm for ALL play modes - what's wrong with bringing this mode in line with the rest of the game? People don't want to? That is a poor reason, and that is all that you've presented so far.

totally support this

As a 4k player, I can pass 4k MX, but guess what, I can barely do 7k EZ. The problem here is the keyspread. In which (as a player), I would love to have my favorite songs has a higher difficulty of 4k, not just having the 4k of EZ only, and have the rest of the sets on 6k HD, 7k MX etc, resulting in players not able to enjoy the rest of the map because of the key difference

If a mapper can make a 4K NM, he should be able to make an at least a 4K HD of it, and the same goes to other keys too. If you're complaining in how time consuming it is to make it, and so mappers tends to make a quick 'acceptable low quality maps', they can always add a guest diff thus making the ranking process much easier

What I'm saying is that, having at least 2 balanced difficulty per key(say, NM and HD) should be enough; people will be able to enjoy the map to the fullest by being able to play the key which they prefer because

_Gezo_ wrote:

different keys doesn't mean a different difficulty, it's a different way to play

so yeah, completely reasonable imo

Yeah this "mappers don't want 'cause it's too much work" argument has no place in here. We already have several mapsets made by collabs and they have no quakity issues from my point of view (Milky Way is just awesome ! Basic, but great.)

Garven wrote:

xxibi, all you have said is the exact same sentiment that is going on for all modes - this includes standard mode. "Unranked maps are more interesting than ranked maps." And guess what? You're free to make and play any map you choose. The only difference between a ranked map and an unranked map is the scoreboard. If you want your map ranked, then you'll need to adhere to some standards. One of those standards is that you need to have maps in your set that are inclusive for the broadest amount of players possible. This has been the norm for ALL play modes - what's wrong with bringing this mode in line with the rest of the game? People don't want to? That is a poor reason, and that is all that you've presented so far.

Ranked maps have more diff != Ranked maps are more interesting

I think we are already misunderstanding each other, like what was happening in hitsound case.

So I would just stop warning, because the proposal itself is absolutely good intention.

xxbi, That seems to be a mapper problem, not an issue with the rules as they are. If the maps themselves aren't up to your approval, teach others so that they can improve. You have to start somewhere, and complaining that there are no good mappers therefore we shouldn't do anything isn't exactly the most productive way to go about fixing that. I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how it applies to this proposal. All it asks is that you have a fair spread of each key set you choose to have in your map set as a whole. If you don't want a 4K, then don't put any in there and make two 5K and the set will be fine. It's when you have only one difficulty of each key level where it gets unbalanced. This will also give mappers more experience making a range of difficulties for the key level they specialize in creating a better pool of mappers as a whole.

PyaKura, care to write up a formal wording to put into the criteria? It looks like the majority approves of this (even in the poll you posted, it seems the few people that voted against don't have any good reasoning behind their words).

@xxbidiao : As someone said earlier, here or in the other thread, I don't remember, ranked maps are just maps which meet some standards and made to be enjoyable for everyone. I know I, and every "real" (as in, don't mainly play autoconverts) mania players who had experience with old rythm games (there are truly a lot of them), will still play unranked maps more than ranked ones. Also, I don't know why quality is an issue. It's the fault of the community for not wanting to map something of quality, and it's the role of modders to point out that when modding people's maps (for example just as you said CTRL C/V-ing patterns and removing some notes here and there should be avoided). There also the possibility of asking for GDs if you have no idea how to map a diff (I know I have a hard time mapping easy stuff, not knowing what to emphasize in the map, the amount of notes, etc...) and two diffs coming from two different mappers are very unlikely to resemble each other. If one wants to see his/her mapset ranked, he/she needs to comply to the RC and takes time to make a good mapset. If the mapset is shit-tier, it's the modders' and especially the mapper's own fault for not correcting the mapset or making it better.

Forcing mappers who try to get a mapset with two keycounts ranked by "equalizing" the keycounts does not force them to map crappy difficulties. They are responsible for what they do.

Garven wrote:

PyaKura, care to write up a formal wording to put into the criteria?

Sure, I can try. It will probably need a bit of rewording though.

RC wrote:

Diff Spread

- Each beatmap must have at least 2 difficulties and one of them must be Easy/Normal.
- When having two key amounts in a mapset, the number of difficulties and the difficulties themselves must be of equal level. This is to keep equality between players of different key amounts in a mapset featuring two or more key amounts. Single key amount beatmap sets are not suitable for this rule.

I don't think it's very clear though... Actually I have no idea how to word it without using an example (as the RC currently do) afterwards.

All difficulties must be of equal level and equal amount per keycount. (the rest not in bold can be kept that way)
more or less what you want to say, but I feel my version is too short and missing elements.

It's way too harsh to force mappers to make equal amount of diffs and even let them be at the same level, and it is another way to encourage perfunctory - to tell mappers to modify their normal into another form of normal.

And you are asking mappers to make insane on their undesired key amount?!

Besides, mappers would just split their maps into 2 sets, or giving up making multi-key maps, making this rule useless at all.

My opinion is only adding "Each key amount must have at least 2 difficulties and one of them must be Easy/Normal.". That would be far more reasonable and deprive privileges that only one diff exists on one key amount being ranked in any circumstances.

xxbidiao wrote:

My opinion is only adding "Each key amount must have at least 2 difficulties and one of them must be Easy/Normal.". That would be far more reasonable and deprive privileges that only one diff exists on one key amount being ranked in any circumstances.

What about 4K EZ+NM and 7K NM+HD+MX ? It'd be rankable by your wording, but it's not fun at all for 4K players of high level.

Keeping it similar to the current rules for other sets should be fine, so as long as you're including the easier level difficulties and in a spread that's fair, it should be okay to include a different spread in different key level maps if you wish.

Take the current main criteria on the wiki about this:

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love. It's really hard to define how a specific spread could work in a specific song beforehand, but here's a list of things to consider: the difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order and/or with a reasonable gap between them; there should be at least one difficulty around ~2.5/3 star difficulty level; if your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be insane (this basically means that it's highly recommended to have 3 difficulties unless the song itself doesn't allow much variety); if your mapset has three difficulties, one of them should be about ~2.5/3 star difficulty level, and the second should not be Insane; if your map has four or more difficulties, at least two should be something other than Insane. The difficulty level of Taiko-specific difficulties must also follow a well-designed spread with no jumps in between difficulties, hence if you may include Normal/Hard/Insane, or Normal/Hard or Hard/Insane (only if it also has standard difficulties)

Having this apply to the individual key levels per set sounds okay?

Garven wrote:

Keeping it similar to the current rules for other sets should be fine, so as long as you're including the easier level difficulties and in a spread that's fair, it should be okay to include a different spread in different key level maps if you wish.

Take the current main criteria on the wiki about this:

The mapset must have a well-designed spread of difficulties, containing at least an Easy or a Normal difficulty (based on how the map feels): this is so that players of all levels of experience are able to enjoy maps of the songs they love. It's really hard to define how a specific spread could work in a specific song beforehand, but here's a list of things to consider: the difficulties in the mapset must be in a consecutive order and/or with a reasonable gap between them; there should be at least one difficulty around ~2.5/3 star difficulty level; if your mapset has two difficulties, one of them cannot be insane (this basically means that it's highly recommended to have 3 difficulties unless the song itself doesn't allow much variety); if your mapset has three difficulties, one of them should be about ~2.5/3 star difficulty level, and the second should not be Insane; if your map has four or more difficulties, at least two should be something other than Insane. The difficulty level of Taiko-specific difficulties must also follow a well-designed spread with no jumps in between difficulties, hence if you may include Normal/Hard/Insane, or Normal/Hard or Hard/Insane (only if it also has standard difficulties)

Having this apply to the individual key levels per set sounds okay?

Yes, exactly I think.
As the OP said,

Treat each K as a game mode regarding the number of difficulties per mapset. Guest Difficulties are no exception to this rule.

With a well-designed spread (For each K), all of what OP want is achieved (Suitable for all players, Making 4K Hard enough that is no longer ignored...). And how it is achieved, I believe, is to use easy/normal and 2-diff clause. With another clear guideline to emphasize well-designed diff spread (It do exist now!), I don't think "4k overall easy + 7key overall hard" would be a problem.

@Gezo, simplifying a good normal into an easy, whether perfunctory or serious, won't harm the whole map too much- at least it is playable. But forcing mappers to make a good normal into an overmapped hard will. I myself had an experience on how just a little overmapping can ruin the map - see this.

What is going to happen with this then?
More sets with different key modes are getting ranked.

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/123431
^ 4K normal -> 5K advanced
6K normal -> 6K advanced
7K normal -> 7K advanced

The first one is not the same keymode.

In a way I see it like this. Lets put the difficulty scale of 1 to 4, EZ=1 NM=2 HD=3 MX=4, for each keymode the MINIMUM of two difficulties must have a difference of 2 on the difficulty scale. For example 1 and 3 which is EZ and HD or 2 and 4 which are NM and MX. If you want to put EZ and MX though I guess you'll have to throw in an NM/HD in there too. If you can map more than 3 for each keymode you're doing, that'd save you a lot of trouble

I've pondered about this rule since I read it for the first time and went "wat".

Doesn't one of the general RC forbids having 3 diffs with 2 of them being "expert" (HD and harder) ? In this case, only a NM would be acceptable. Also as stupid as it may sound, isn't having an EZ and MX only alright since they are a "non expert" and an "expert" diffs ?

Anyways, I should think of a way to put this into words, but I'm bad at that.

Sorry, double-post.

xxbidiao's wording is actually fine, I just made it a bit more fair towards keyspreads (Gezo's reaction to xxbidiao's wording).

RC wrote:

Each key amount must have at least 2 difficulties and one of them must be Easy/Normal. Furthermore, each key amount must have a similar diffspread. This means that a mapset including two key amounts must have equal difficulties for each of them.

Thoughts ?

Should mention that the difficulties should be in a consecutive order of difficulty, so no Easy -> Hard gaps in difficulty for each key set.

Probably already followed this rule. And i quiet had this on my mind when i started mapping mania,
Every keys should have balance diffs.

Also, Is it ok for Hard + MX?

Garven wrote:

Should mention that the difficulties should be in a consecutive order of difficulty, so no Easy -> Hard gaps in difficulty for each key set.

I believe this kind of diffspread is already allowed by the general RC (several mapsets, especially those which are mainly std with mania GDs feature a NM + MX diffspread.). In any case, I had asked for a rule change about this as well a while ago : t/160106. But it didn't get much love.

@Yuno : this counts as two "expert diffs". You'd need 2 "non-expert" as well diffs to make a mapset rankable.

Bumpity bump.

Seems like a majority of o!m users agree with this. Help me wording it better ;-;

Different key amounts within a mapset must be treated as different gamemodes regarding the number of difficulties.

Then, making a new, strong guideline :

Different key amounts should have similar difficulties. This is to keep parity between different key amounts and satisfy different key amount players.

Not sure about the guideline, but to me it does seem like a good idea to add it.

You have my voice, PyaKura.

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. Transferring from FFR and Stepmania got me used to a 4K play style, and although I am an extremely experienced 4k player, I still struggle with 5, 6, 7, and 8K.

I think that each key mode should be ranked individually. You cannot compare a 7K player to a 4K player and vice-versa. Each mode requires a different focus and trying to amalgamate them into one ranking system makes no sense. Currently, with the small amount of 4K ranked maps (HD/MX), getting to the top of the PP leaderboards is nigh impossible. You would have to play 7K maps in combination with 4K maps to amass a high enough PP count to get anywhere. For me at least, it just feels like there is a relative limit to how far you can get in 4K ranked.

Scarhand wrote:

I think that each key mode should be ranked individually. You cannot compare a 7K player to a 4K player and vice-versa. Each mode requires a different focus and trying to amalgamate them into one ranking system makes no sense. Currently, with the small amount of 4K ranked maps (HD/MX), getting to the top of the PP leaderboards is nigh impossible. You would have to play 7K maps in combination with 4K maps to amass a high enough PP count to get anywhere. For me at least, it just feels like there is a relative limit to how far you can get in 4K ranked.

I completely agree with you, and this is another issue which has been (or is being adressed ?) during the past few weeks, but it seems it is unlikely to change.

The keycount parity is something we should give more attention to, starting out with fair rules mapping-wise. You can't obviously expect the community to map as much 7K or 4K as the other Ks, but this is a step towards a "balance" between different keycount players for future mapsets.

PyaKura wrote:

I completely agree with you, and this is another issue which has been (or is being adressed ?) during the past few weeks, but it seems it is unlikely to change.

The keycount parity is something we should give more attention to, starting out with fair rules mapping-wise. You can't obviously expect the community to map as much 7K or 4K as the other Ks, but this is a step towards a "balance" between different keycount players for future mapsets.

Some experienced stepartists from Stepmania and FFR have moved their way to osu!mania and have started to work on maps to try and get them ranked. It's not really about the time it takes for 4K to get big in osu!mania, it's about how the ranking system can be adjusted while the 4K community continues to grow. Hopefully we can get large enough to garner support from some 7K steppers willing to apply their knowledge making 4K maps.

Seems like there were no real objections or doubts in this rule change. Moreover I support this rule and after this has stood for debate a long while already, I'd like to push this forward.

Bubbled. You get 7 days to bring up serious objections until I amend this. Even more since woc is gone, it's yet more our everyone's task to keep mania fresh and vital.

Loctav wrote:

Seems like there were no real objections or doubts in this rule change. Moreover I support this rule and after this has stood for debate a long while already, I'd like to push this forward.

Bubbled. You get 7 days to bring up serious objections until I amend this. Even more since woc is gone, it's yet more our everyone's task to keep mania fresh and vital.

That's good to know. What about the guideline saying that different keycounts should have similar diffs ?

So, amended ?

Will look into this on Sunday