Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria

[Proposal] Subject songs to the Content Voting Process

posted
Total Posts
19
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004
Hello. As you are probably aware, there are rules on what backgrounds are and aren't allowed.
Since this is a subjective issue, there is a voting process to determine what is and isn't allowed.
This process involves as many experienced volunteers as possible - potentially the entire NAT, GMT, and BNG.

There are also rules on what songs are and aren't allowed. This is also a subjective issue (edit: especially in cases of "heavily political" songs).
Since it is a subjective issue, there is a voting process that involves the entire NAT... but not the GMT or BNG.

I think the current Content Voting Process is a great system for determining appropriateness in a subjective system.
Therefore, I propose that the rules be amended so that if an NAT/GMT member finds a song inappropriate, it is subject to the more transparent CVP instead of the current system of the NAT voting.

Specifically, I propose the Song Content Rules should be changed from this:
You may contest this with them via PM if you so wish, or seek the opinions of others to substantiate your claim to the track's suitability. If you still cannot find common ground on this front, your claim may be escalated to a consensus vote among the current NAT members, who will collectively decide if your track is acceptable or not.

to this:
You may contest this with them via PM if you so wish, or seek the opinions of others to substantiate your claim to the track's suitability. If you still cannot find common ground on this front, your claim may be escalated to a vote among the current NAT and GMT members, who will collectively decide if your track is acceptable or not as specified in the Content Voting Process.

Feel free to propose changes to the proposal or its phrasing - this is a very democratic website, and perhaps you have a better idea.

Points of discussion:
Should the BNs be allowed a vote? (IMO: Yes, they should - the CVP limits BNs' power in a good compromise)
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 6 times in total.
Tailsdk
osu! Alumni
514 posts
Joined July 2015
Tailsdk
GMT is involved in the discussion I am pretty sure acording to this

"Any beatmap containing a disallowed track will be removed from the website.

Each time your submission is removed, you will be afforded an explanation by the presiding member of the Nomination Assessment Team (NAT) or Global Moderation Team (GMT) responsible for the removal with reasoning justifying the removal."

I don't think BNs should be involved in this vote imo. It should stay as NAT and GMTs jobs to do.
Last edited by Tailsdk , edited 1 time in total.
aceticke
Global Moderator
244 posts
Joined August 2016
aceticke
OP is correct I believe, for song content the NAT members of the preisiding game mode are responsible for deciding if it's appropriate or not, the same goes for difficulty names unless they directly violate rules.
Tailsdk
osu! Alumni
514 posts
Joined July 2015
Tailsdk
Then yeah it might be a good idea if the GMT is interessted to get involved since they also moderate beatmap content
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004

Tailsdk wrote:

I don't think BNs should be involved in this vote imo. It should stay as NAT and GMTs jobs to do.
If your issue is that the BNs should not be involved in the Song Content vote specifically, I would ask why that is the case for this and not the VCC votes. I will, however, also consider not allowing BNs a vote if enough agree with you.

If your issue is that the BNs should not be involved in moderation votes in general, I will suggest proposing a change to the CVP separate to this proposal.
spencer1404
137 posts
Joined August 2019
spencer1404
+1
Blushing
Technical Support Team
2,993 posts
Joined February 2015
Blushing
BNG unfortunately don't have a high stake in doing content review (CR) due to their decision upholding only when NAT and GMT cannot come together and find a consensus, last time I checked. I think aceticke and others can confirm or deny that statement.

Considering that BNG do no moderating and only have powers to nominate, rank, and denominate (full BN), I do not think including them in the wording is necessary as it stands.

Though, including them on the people to ask if a BG/Diff name is appropriate is always a good resource as if they are unsure they can ask in the BN server and can get back to the player at a reasonable time.
Tailsdk
osu! Alumni
514 posts
Joined July 2015
Tailsdk
Yeah basically what blushing said
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004
Agree with what Blushing said - the BNG do not need to be included in the wording as they are not as involved in the voting as the NAT and GMT, only being called on as a tiebreaker if there is no consensus.

I have changed the wording of the proposal to reflect this.
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,282 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
The GMT is actually also in charge with the vote decision when it comes to audio matters (as this falls on general moderation), so i think the wiki is kinda misleading for this one and need to have PR on including GMT in the vote decision making.

-----------

As for content voting process, Iirc The CR (content review) was being used for a while in the past when reviewing audio, but it was ultimately being abandoned after the existence of the "explicit tag", which the song itself either will fit the explicit tag criteria in case they are being vague, or the song itself is just that obviously bad that it's gonna be removed immediately because it's even worse than the explicit tag allowances, making the CR itself being redundant in the process for audio.
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004

Maxus wrote:

The GMT is actually also in charge with the vote decision when it comes to audio matters (as this falls on general moderation), so i think the wiki is kinda misleading for this one and need to have PR on including GMT in the vote decision making.
Yes, absolutely! Even if the rest of this amendment is rejected, I hope this change will still be implemented.

Maxus wrote:

As for content voting process, Iirc The CR (content review) was being used for a while in the past when reviewing audio, but it was ultimately being abandoned after the existence of the "explicit tag", which the song itself either will fit the explicit tag criteria in case they are being vague, or the song itself is just that obviously bad that it's gonna be removed immediately because it's even worse than the explicit tag allowances, making the CR itself being redundant in the process for audio.
I understand what you are saying, that there is a very slim, rare margin between "fine by the Explicit rules" and "obviously not allowed", and I agree. However, I believe that in the rare cases where there is a song where it is ambiguous whether it is allowed at all or not, the CVP should be used instead of just an NAT vote.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 1 time in total.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101
I'm an ex-GMT now, but Maxus is correct in that the decision to remove songs is not necessarily put to an "official" vote but rather an unofficial one by consulting with other GMTs/NATs to get a handful of opinions on whether a song is acceptable or not. The wiki page definitely needs updating now since it's misleading as to what the actual process is, though it's up to the team whether or not they want to formalize a process for this or keep it as is.

Additionally, users get a one submission leeway for songs deemed unacceptable for the platform (even with explicit tag) so there is some protection in place for the user in case they think their song is fine when it's decided otherwise by the team.
Serizawa Haruki
1,693 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki
Can anyone provide some examples of songs that were or would be considered unacceptable? With the existence of the explicit tag it's hard to think of songs that can't be used even with that label (other than extremely loud noise).
Blushing
Technical Support Team
2,993 posts
Joined February 2015
Blushing

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Can anyone provide some examples of songs that were or would be considered unacceptable? With the existence of the explicit tag it's hard to think of songs that can't be used even with that label (other than extremely loud noise).
I don't think the topic of the discussion is whether {insert} songs are deemed unacceptable, but rather who should be allowed to vote for content review. As seen from the OP:

niat0004 wrote:

Should the BNs be allowed a vote? (IMO: Yes, they should - the CVP limits BNs' power in a good compromise)
Serizawa Haruki
1,693 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki

Blushing wrote:

I don't think the topic of the discussion is whether {insert} songs are deemed unacceptable, but rather who should be allowed to vote for content review. As seen from the OP:

niat0004 wrote:

Should the BNs be allowed a vote? (IMO: Yes, they should - the CVP limits BNs' power in a good compromise)
I know that, I asked in order to understand what exactly the voting criteria are. BNs often have different views compared to the GMT/NAT so whether they should take part in voting and how much their opinion weighs partially depends on the way these cases are assessed.
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Can anyone provide some examples of songs that were or would be considered unacceptable? With the existence of the explicit tag it's hard to think of songs that can't be used even with that label (other than extremely loud noise).
This song would almost certainly not be allowed anymore.

Protastic101 wrote:

I'm an ex-GMT now, but Maxus is correct in that the decision to remove songs is not necessarily put to an "official" vote but rather an unofficial one by consulting with other GMTs/NATs to get a handful of opinions on whether a song is acceptable or not. The wiki page definitely needs updating now since it's misleading as to what the actual process is, though it's up to the team whether or not they want to formalize a process for this or keep it as is.

Additionally, users get a one submission leeway for songs deemed unacceptable for the platform (even with explicit tag) so there is some protection in place for the user in case they think their song is fine when it's decided otherwise by the team.
If my proposal does not pass, I suggest this change to the wiki phrasing:
You may contest this with them via PM if you so wish, or seek the opinions of others to substantiate your claim to the track's suitability. If you still cannot find common ground on this front, your claim may be escalated to a vote among randomly selected current NAT and GMT members, who will collectively decide if your track is acceptable or not.
Tailsdk
osu! Alumni
514 posts
Joined July 2015
Tailsdk
There will be an update to the wikipage soon don't worry
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
Topic Starter
niat0004
I feel this issue needs re-opening for 2 reasons:

No changes made yet

Tailsdk wrote:

There will be an update to the wikipage soon don't worry
It has been 8 months, and there have not been any changes to the wiki page. There are no pending changes either.

A fresh start to the discussion

The last time, the discussion shifted towards simply clarifying the wiki page, which is absolutely a good thing, but I had made my proposal with the desire for the system to change.
(Which is why I removed [assigned] from the title - it doesn't make sense to keep it because it implies the discussion is over, and I want to continue/restart it.)


I believe that there are many songs that are on the edge of the song content rules, especially political ones. For example, the recently ranked Deer Dance could likely have been removed for heavily political content given different GMTs/NATs.

My vision is a system that works like Content Review for backgrounds.
This means that if someone is unsure about a song that is being used or that they want to use, they can submit a report. (This may also help users who want to use a song, but are not sure if it is allowed.)
There would be a song content review page like the current Visual Content Review page, where the NAT and GMT (and BNs to some extent) could vote.
This would reduce potential controversy if a song is removed (or not) since the song would have a right to a consensus judgement with transparent results.

I think the addition of this line to the reports page:

Report Submission | BN Management wrote:

Reports can be made about anything mapping/modding related, including but not limited to:
  1. Beatmap songs violating osu!'s Song Content Rules
is a step in this direction.

necrobump ik, but I got My Angel Chino's permission
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 1 time in total.
bokeru
465 posts
Joined December 2017
bokeru
i feel as if this is literally just a natural extension of what already exists- if we have this for bgs i don't see why we shouldn't have it for songs- it's really simple as. Certainly something to consider.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 19