I postead it in the wrong place before, oops, so I am pasting and paraphrasing what I had already posted.

The following is all my opinion:

There has been no shortage of controversial maps, usually top diffs, that tether the line of what can be ranked and push the boundries of what is acceptable as a ranked map, this sounds good on paper, but in practice it creates divide in the community and homogenices the ranked section into a mess of "anything goes", which is fine to some extent but as proved by the existence of the Loved category, some maps were simply too much/deserved recognition but simply were not Ranked status material.

However, Loved status was brought upon with a completely different process, completely different criteria, completely different everything, so it is good at catching really edge scenarios, but gray areas are completely unaccounted for, which leads for the funny drama on some maps.

With the recent discussion regarding the newly DQ'd HP0 map Smile of the End, I thought it would be a good time to bring it up, my proposal that I have had for years and really wanted to argue about for a good while is, since it is literally a dead category that was used to handle edge scenarios before, why not bring back the Approved category to give to these maps that would have gotten a controversial Ranked otherwise? There is no functional difference aside from distancing them from the ranked section in which the "normal" and "good" maps are supposed to be found, pushing for any difference would be a bit meaningless, since any "cheese" you may get from any future map in this category could most likely be found in a previous already ranked map to exploit.

No mechanic difference and no different process to go through, simply set a map as Approved when deemed necessary, seems like a pointless change but really it would easily make everyone stop complaining about edge scenarios on the Ranked section and prevent even more disagreements over what the Ranked section is even supposed to be about anymore, and it is in line with the spirit of the Approved section which was basically: "We can't let this into Ranked or people will complain (inflated score back then) so let's just..."

I can't think of any reason NOT to do it, you don't even need to retroactively apply it to previous controversial maps necessarily, it can just keep controvercy away for maps that are contencious on whether they should be ranked or not but would have followed through the ranking criteria regardless.

Although peppy has stated unwillingness to do that as late as December of 2021 in a Github comment, alluding to other plans for the category, I would like to get some discussion going about this topic.

Anyways, some examples off the top of my head that, had they gotten Approved under this definition, no one would have cared to cry about: Oshama Scramble! (IOException Edit), HAWATARI NIOKU CENTI (TV Size), AKA: The CON map, Xeroa PREON, Shiten (really both sets), AND next two I don't think are bad in hindsight but that is just because my view has been changed by how different Ranked is now from back then: Apparition and A-L-I-E-N. Maps that are contengious but part of a rankable spread and following the ranking process.

For the record this proposal was first discussed over in GitHub before being moved here, and my opinion on this is still very much the same to what I just wrote there a few minutes ago :

The idea (and the intent behind it) is definitely something that warrants further discussion in regards to the current state of the Ranked section, however I think the entire suggestion falls short on one aspect — "how should 'controversial' be defined?"

It is important to consider that mapping is always evolving, and we've seen time and again how maps such as Miss You and Rising Hope went from "incredibly controversial" during its era to "just another map in the Ranked section" today.

Unless we (as a community) can all agree to a foolproof, objective definition of "controversial", I don't think this solution works as an answer of the problem.

Well, I would like to join in this hype train. One of the map that should be deserved to be approved is Glorious Morning. Ignore the hs diff, it was a big, tough, and fun mapset that even WhiteCat touched it and some other top players too. Despite all of that, it was just... Graveyarded.
Now, with the disqualification of Smile of the End, I am concerned with the Ranking System. The system is too controversial to the point, good maps sent to Loved. while mediocre farm maps are easily ranked. And what about good quality gimmick map? Only some of them are lucky to be ranked, or maybe, can't see the light of day at all.
So, Approved category is a solution to this. It may not do something special, but... Does it change quality of life? I'll let you all think about that.

And in conclusion, as the OP said, I agree with this idea.

Heyo we currently have no plans to bring back approved with the current existence of loved and ranked.

If a map does not fit into ranked and is not liked enough to become loved it most likely just sucks.

They can then either chose to apply changes so that it fits in ranked or go to the graveyard.

Adding/Bringing back approved for maps that for maps that are controversial seems like a good way to encurage more controversial maps which is not something that we really want to do.

Niva wrote:

Unless we (as a community) can all agree to a foolproof, objective definition of "controversial", I don't think this solution works as the answer of the problem.

Well, this is always shifting and I won't argue with that, so an objective definition for what constitudes a "controversial" map is whole that is valid forevermore is impossible. However, there are broader standards to apply for fairly objective cases, such as extremely high SR or difficulty such that the leaderboard cannot be expected to be filled with nomod plays but have prominent HT scores, high amount of unFCable sliders, or stats that go against the guidelines in a blatant way, such as with the examples listed above. As for Apparition and A-L-I-E-N I listed as examples, these were contencious for how difficult they were at the time but would not be now, as simple as admitting they would have gotten approved for extremely high difficulty, but not under the current skill of the overall community.

Tailsdk wrote:

Heyo we currently have no plans to bring back approved with the current existence of loved and ranked.

If a map does not fit into ranked and is not liked enough to become loved it most likely just sucks.

They can then either chose to apply changes so that it fits in ranked or go to the graveyard.

I understand there are currently no plans for anything of the sort, this is just a proposal, but the second sentence I whole disagree with, my main intention here is not to create a third overall category for maps to fall on if they are too gimmicky, my goal is to have contencious top diffs be assigned a different status as to not be in the Ranked section where many people believe they should not belong in despite consensus of higher staff that they can (and even so BNs or NATs disagree about it too, literally HP0 map, just happened), so they could give the top diff Approved and call it a day and let the rest of the set be ranked.

I do not really aim for whole Approved SPREADS.

That just seems like a lot of extra work like either it fits in ranked or it doesn't. Like controversial maps fits in ranked too, but there should be a hard line. I don't think we need a third category for maps that don't follow the RC guidelines.

Tailsdk wrote:

That just seems like a lot of extra work like either it fits in ranked or it doesn't. Like controversial maps fits in ranked too, but there should be a hard line. I don't think we need a third category for maps that don't follow the RC guidelines.

The "hard line" is not a thing and can never be a thing if everything is either Ranked or Loved, because there will always be maps people at large do not want to get ranked but a section of the mapping community will push and get ranked somehow, we always have that one outlier map every couple of X that everyone is talking trash about and is asking how it could even be ranked in the first place, if a map is gonna be like that, then just give it approved, keeping Ranked "clean" so people don't rip appart mappers in the comments/dms whenever it happens would be a good change in my opinion, it could prevent toxicity, the maps get awarded and the players do not cry, everyone wins.

A gray area as a compromise is as good as it is going to get imo

Just to let my biases be known, but I'm against re-incorporating Approved. Or at least not with this purpose in mind.

This approach is the equivalent of trying to solve traffic by just adding more roads. It's a short-term solution for a long-term problem. Who's going to be in charge on the new section? What's constitutes as controversial? Can you actually define controversial objectively? How will that apply on each ruleset? Is the Ranked section the one to blame? Are leaderboards really that necessary? What if Approved is not enough and a new section is proposed after that? Etcetera...

These questions (& more) all have to be properly answered. Now, the reason why I'm not personally for this idea in general is because it undermines the value that Ranked offers. Why would someone choose to put an extra bit of effort Ranking their map over half-assing it, calling it a day, and having it Approved?

I can get behind the critique to the contents being Ranked, but I feel like this is a discussion that the community has to invest itself in to understand the kind of content that should be Ranked or not.

I understand why this proposal sparked from Smile. But... it's just a setting. A setting that's negatively impacting the game's intrinsic gameplay systems. I'm sorry to say that a brand new section should not be created out of the unwillingness of moving a slider slightly up...

validity of this new category aside.

pls no more work for BN to decide if something is approved or ranked, so subjective and drama inducing. already have 100x more maps in my queue than i can nom

if u gonna pay new ppl that takes ranked content or graveyard map into this new category then im ok as BN

RandomeLoL wrote:

Who's going to be in charge on the new section? What's constitutes as controversial? Can you actually define controversial objectively? How will that apply on each ruleset? Is the Ranked section the one to blame? Are leaderboards really that necessary? What if Approved is not enough and a new section is proposed after that? Etcetera...

I am just a single person, I cannot speak for the entire community, but most of these questions we could also come to comprimises on, just because we have done 0 work so far and it seems daunting doesn't mean it should not be done.

Now, the reason why I'm not personally for this idea in general is because it undermines the value that Ranked offers. Why would someone choose to put an extra bit of effort Ranking their map over half-assing it, calling it a day, and having it Approved?

Because, just as you cannot usually reasonably expect to rank a mapset in which you only have an E and the rest are GD's, the integrity of the mapset should be judged accordingly, there is a place for many things in Ranked, but maps that people claim should belong on Loved yet go through the ranking process should not be one of those things. This is not to encourage lazy sets, as my vision for this is to simply catch controversial difficulties, rather than whole mapsets. Under this system, you should not be able to "go for Approved", but rather go for Ranked and have one of your difficulties be given Approved instead.

I can get behind the critique to the contents being Ranked, but I feel like this is a discussion that the community has to invest itself in to understand the kind of content that should be Ranked or not.

We are extremely overdue on this, everyone clearly wants to have this discussion, so let's just have it!

I understand why this proposal sparked from Smile. But... it's just a setting. A setting that's negatively impacting the game's intrinsic gameplay systems. I'm sorry to say that a brand new section should not be created out of the unwillingness of moving a slider slightly up...

My brother in Christ is it really worse than other examples in terms of how rankable it is? really? Overall, restrictions upon mappers usually do not turn out well, we should strive to award creative and polished works, so let's find a way to keep doing that while trying to alleviate many people disagreeing in the process!

My brother in Christ is it really worse than other examples in terms of how rankable it is? really? Overall, restrictions upon mappers usually do not turn out well, we should strive to award creative and polished works, so let's find a way to keep doing that while trying to alleviate many people disagreeing in the process!

I'm personally not really flexible on this regard, at least not with the answers given. The Ranked section is not an art gallery. The contents are meant to be played. I agree that creativity and polish should be primed! But there must be a balance between creativity and outright breaking basic game mechanics. That's something I'm quite adamant on not compromising.

Because, just as you cannot usually reasonably expect to rank a mapset in which you only have an E and the rest are GD's, the integrity of the mapset should be judged accordingly, there is a place for many things in Ranked, but maps that people claim should belong on Loved yet go through the ranking process should not be one of those things.

This ties with what the community finds acceptable to be Ranked or not, and again requires its own discussion. Also, as someone who has worked in Loved in different modes, that's just not really a call you can generalize on all rulesets.

Anyhow, I understand this proposal is just new. And no I do not expect a single person to come up with something on a whim! If anything, this discussion proved that such a controversial, groundbreaking change needs to be properly discussed. What value would this add to the game? How would it add it?

For now this will be my last post here, just wanted to get my quick thoughts out there.

RandomeLoL wrote:

I'm personally not really flexible on this regard, at least not with the answers given. The Ranked section is not an art gallery. The contents are meant to be played. I agree that creativity and polish should be primed! But there must be a balance between creativity and outright breaking basic game mechanics. That's something I'm quite adamant on not compromising.

I actually completely agree with this notion, I absolutely do not think these types of maps that are more art than actual playable map should be ranked, which is why I am proposing this on the first place, yes I am part of the hate comments lol. Also with Smile of the End in particular I am a bit more lenient since the mapping itself is good, it is just the one stat, but I digress.

This ties with what the community finds acceptable to be Ranked or not, and again requires its own discussion. Also, as someone who has worked in Loved in different modes, that's just not really a call you can generalize on all rulesets.

Well I am just a normal user, I don't have experience in those sorts of projects, I expect more people to chime in to fill in the blanks with further discussion, but I don't think that sort of controversy I am talking about occurs every other map, it seems simple to just be able to switch a map that is garnering controversy during Qualified to Approved, I want everyone to see the potential of such a proposal right now first and foremost, because it would reduce this constant drama whenever this happens, and waves of people complaining of how they could even get through the ranking process, wondering whether BNs have eyes etc etc etc blah blah blah comment comment.

Thank you for participating! Hopefully more people give their two cents, because this is a proposal I have been thinking of for a long time.

the point of approved section has never been to let controversial maps get leaderboards, it was created to give leaderboards to maps that were good in terms of mapping and could potentially get ranked in that time if the score limit wasn't a thing.

as tailsdk already mentioned "If a map does not fit into ranked and is not liked enough to become loved it most likely just sucks."

M a r v o l l o wrote:

the point of approved section has never been to let controversial maps get leaderboards, it was created to give leaderboards to maps that were good in terms of mapping and could potentially get ranked in that time if the score limit wasn't a thing.

It is my understanding the score limit was to prevent them from influencing the score rankings too much, if you look at it from a more narrow view then it is not that similar, but from a wider perspective, it was given to maps that would have gotten ranked if not for an outside circumstance. It still fits imo

A map can fit in Ranked, sure, but it is not without its caveats, mainly drama between playability and gimmicks or song representation. As I said previously, my aim is to get those difficulties that people argue should not be, including myself, maps that although capable of going through the ranking process, many argue they should not get Ranked status and push the envelope so hard that it causes drama.

On a broader scale, many people just do not want those types of maps in Ranked because it clashes with what think should to be in the Ranked section. And that is the opinion of a lot of people in the community, players and mappers, new and experienced alike.

i wish people would stop making proposals whose main purpose is to try to avoid drama, or worse, discourse; avoiding the former is super useless (just get thicker skin or avert your eyes), while avoiding the latter is outright harmful to the community

even disregarding that, this thread is rife with contradictions

RaFaReAcH wrote:

There has been no shortage of controversial maps, usually top diffs, that tether the line of what can be ranked and push the boundries of what is acceptable as a ranked map, this sounds good on paper, but in practice it creates divide in the community and homogenices the ranked section into a mess of "anything goes"

RaFaReAcH wrote:

we should strive to award creative and polished works, so let's find a way to keep doing that while trying to alleviate many people disagreeing in the process!

if you don't want a free-for-all, you should be embracing discourse with all your heart, not "trying to alleviate many people disagreeing"; that's exactly what would make a section a free-for-all and exactly what actually created the issue with the ranked section that you pointed out

to me, the proposal seems to be founded on the misconception that drama around controversial maps getting ranked stems from the fact that it's specifically the ranked section, but I find it much more likely that any other officially endorsed section (i.e. one with leaderboards) would see the exact same phenomenon; you yourself already mentioned that this sometimes happens in loved as well despite the section being an explicit popularity contest

therefore I don't think recycling the approved section in this way would have the effect you're hoping for at all

Even putting aside whether or not controversial maps need their own status, don't approved maps function exactly the same as ranked maps ever since the creation of performance points?

Assuming I'm not mistaken, how exactly would this change anything if its just another duplicate ranked section with a different name? Most if not all of the arguments people make for not letting certain map gimmicks or design choices into ranked will still apply when it still gives players score, pp, and leaderboards and they will continue to argue that for the new approved section and nothing will change.

A new map status needs to be actually different if one is ever created, just changing the name doesn't fix anything but make a redundant section.

RaFaReAcH wrote:

pushing for any difference would be a bit meaningless, since any "cheese" you may get from any future map in this category could most likely be found in a previous already ranked map to exploit.

This is already not an excuse people are allowed to use to justify things in modding discussions, just because something is in another ranked map doesn't necessarily mean it's fine.

lewski wrote:

i wish people would stop making proposals whose main purpose is to try to avoid drama, or worse, discourse; avoiding the former is super useless (just get thicker skin or avert your eyes), while avoiding the latter is outright harmful to the community

It is not to avoid drama, I pointed out it will avoid drama, however my main concern as part of the group that believes those types of maps should not be in the Ranked category, is precisely that, to not have those maps be lumped on the same group as other maps that me and many others believe should be, because they are too X or have a Y that pushes it too far while remaining rankable.

if you don't want a free-for-all, you should be embracing discourse with all your heart, not "trying to alleviate many people disagreeing"; that's exactly what would make a section a free-for-all and exactly what actually created the issue with the ranked section that you pointed out

?????? I don't understand any of this, I did not say any of the sort, all I have been saying is some maps get Ranked which are controversial because many people do not believe they should be Ranked, so just give them Approved and there is like no downside to this, please reread.

to me, the proposal seems to be founded on the misconception that drama around controversial maps getting ranked stems from the fact that it's specifically the ranked section, but I find it much more likely that any other officially endorsed section (i.e. one with leaderboards) would see the exact same phenomenon; you yourself already mentioned that this sometimes happens in loved as well despite the section being an explicit popularity contest

Again, ????? I did not say that about the Loved section at all?? In general, just about any map can get loved and people will roll with it, because it is supposed to be a completely "anything goes if the community likes it enough" category, unless it is some poorly mapped thing or an overly used type of map, there is nowhere near the same amount of discourse for Loved maps. And I disagree completely with the first part too, the ENTIRE point of what someone would asume the Ranked section to be is to give a leaderboard and award pp, problem is the artsy borderline unplayable or boundry pushing maps are lumped in with the normal maps, this doesn't feel right for many people, it is just how it is, so create a divide between them if possible, this will alliviate drama, but also I just don't think they belong in Ranked, that is my personal opinion.

lewski wrote:

Assuming I'm not mistaken, how exactly would this change anything if its just another duplicate ranked section with a different name? Most if not all of the arguments people make for not letting certain map gimmicks or design choices into ranked will still apply when it still gives players score, pp, and leaderboards and they will continue to argue that for the new approved section and nothing will change.

I disagree, the whole drama stems from lumping those maps along with the "normal" maps, it stems from how a group feels about maps that push a certain aspect too hard and people just do not think a map that different should get into the Ranked category, commonly cited reasons for that include odd stats, difficulty really above the current skill level of even top players, usage of concepts that make a map practically unfcable or only allow for low acc plays, etc etc. Regardless of the reason, just not having it be in the same category automatically eliminates this problem completely.

I absolutely think just that would solve the issue, wholeheartedly, if you want to make Approved different that would be a bit iffy because my aim is not to punish those maps, it is to still reward them while also pleasing the playability crowd (for lack of a better term).

Approved maps was for maps where score overflow would happen if you play it using Score V1 at any point, but the map itself has good quality and can be ranked. That's the main point. Since we're going to Score V2 where the scoring would be standardised to a maximum limit of 1 million, I don't see any reason why Approved should be brought back again.

In other words, for short, if you all don't want the Approved section to be re-implemented, EITHER improve the ranking system to please everyone, or try to limit the controversial decision. Either let people be more creative in Ranked category, or just rank almost many maps that has boring, repetitive farm pattern and turn the game into the repetitive rhythm game

- I'm sorry if my wording is bad

if there's no functional difference between Ranked and your proposed new category, then they may as well be the same thing. discourse is not magically controlled by applying a cosmetic label

Ryu Sei wrote:

Approved maps was for maps where score overflow would happen if you play it using Score V1 at any point, but the map itself has good quality and can be ranked. That's the main point. Since we're going to Score V2 where the scoring would be standardised to a maximum limit of 1 million, I don't see any reason why Approved should be brought back again.

That is irrelevant, I am not proposing it be used for the EXACT same purpose again.

clayton wrote:

if there's no functional difference between Ranked and your proposed new category, then they may as well be the same thing. discourse is not magically controlled by applying a cosmetic label

It literally is tho... like if you scroll and see a difficulty is "Approved" instead of "Ranked", that would get rid of the whole "IT SHOULDN'T BE RANKED AAAAAAAAA" thing. As I said it seems like a useless change but it will only improve things, you say there would not be any difference but if people saw a map that is crazy for X or Y reason and they believe should not be Ranked, but saw it was Approved instead, that alone disassociates it from the Ranked status while giving it all the benefits of it. There is no need for any differences, just the labell is enough imo, if someone says it shouldn't and it should have special conditionals that would only complicate things or punish potential Approved diffs. No.

Alpha Green Mg wrote:

EITHER improve the ranking system to please everyone, or try to limit the controversial decision.

I don't agree with this, really the Ranked status is as good as it is going to get, but boundry pushing/gimmicky/extremely "creative" difficulties are unaccounted for and lumped along with the "normal" ones, so it feels wrong. That is basically the whole drama. This cannot place limits under the current system without shutting down one of the crowds.

This proposal is supposed to aid the complaining side while being of no detriment to the creative side.

This proposal sounds like you're trying to get around with ranking maps that are technically rankable but have not enjoyable play experience. I'm fully disagree with your proposal.

Your proposal seems to be pointless, as the definition of "controversial" is very subjective and changes over time. Unless you can make the definition "controversial" become objective, I cannot see your proposal to be feasible at all for community.

How "controversial" is your controversial? Reading whole 20 post back it seems you're contradicting yourself + wanting to gain something while giving demerit to staffs (BNs & beyond)

How are you supposed to know the weight of managing 4 modes on 1 category (Approved) when there are more leniency in other categories (Ranked & Loved) if you arent one of those staff?

Tailsdk did summarized in tiny paragraph & RandomeLoL gave a bit more insight (or did their message didnt get through you?)

The current ranking criteria is as lenient as it has ever been. Plus, arguably, limitation what fosters the best kind of creativity.

Setting HP0 on a map is not creativity.

Whether a map is controversial or not should not be the criteria for a new category that functions pretty much the same as Ranked.

The problem lies on how subjective the definition of "controversial" is.

What does something really define as controversial? Because last I checked the community can get triggered over a map accurately used swing rhythm on a swing song. Nothing too serious, just swing beats, something ever so as ubiquitous as usual straight beat itself.

Furthermore, I don't think trying to circumvent controversy would be the best way to encourage creativity. If anything, it might hurt creativity itself, because one can half ass the map in purpose to make it "controversial", and that, by this logic, would qualify the map into the category, defeating the whole purpose by itself.

If this is going in effect I can see the proposal to merge them back because someone think it's redundant lmfao.

Allow me to take a step back.

Seems everyone is mostly worried about how we could determine when a map is "controversial", I can give ideas for this, but again, I am only one person.

When I say controversial, I mean a clear divide between what constitudes rankability across multiple levels of play, a bunch of low level players complaining about a map does not constitude a controversial map in my eyes if staff or experienced mappers are yet to voice any concerns in a rankability standpoint, bear with me for a moment; there is a difference between BNs not liking a map particularly and BNs not seeing it as rankable, like, who aside from 6 digit was complaining about Black Catcher? Now, let's say BN1 saw BN2 and BN3 nominating a map, which BN1 thinks is not alligned with what fits a Ranked map (and I do not mean from a 'preference of what they'd rather nom' standpoint, allow me to assume BNs are knowledgeable enough to know the difference between ""), discourse surrounding the beatmap can then be evaluated and that, in my eyes, would mark is as controversial as different levels of play are in disagreement over whether a map belongs in ranked.

This is not an end-all-be-all definition, if you have problems with the proposal and are in disagreement that's fine, but if anyone sees potential in it, discussion is supposed to bring about different views to polish a concept, I am not pushing for this as is, not that I have any authority to do so to begin with.

Noch Einen wrote:

Reading whole 20 post back it seems you're contradicting yourself + wanting to gain something while giving demerit to staffs (BNs & beyond)

How are you supposed to know the weight of managing 4 modes on 1 category (Approved) when there are more leniency in other categories (Ranked & Loved) if you arent one of those staff?

Tailsdk did summarized in tiny paragraph & RandomeLoL gave a bit more insight (or did their message didnt get through you?)

1. How am I contradicting myself? Can you give me an example so I can reevaluate and clean up? Thanks.
2. I am not really sure what you mean by wanting to gain something, I just think this is a good direction to take.
3. While I get why you could think I am trying to demerit staff, that is just not the case, I have not blamed staff of any shortcomings about the ranking system (and if you think I have, it was not intentional), it is just about edge cases of how the ranking system itself works.
4. That line of thinking automatically shuts down any ideas coming from anyone that is not staff, I am not an authority in this game, the point of a forum post is to have the staff (and the community for that matter) comment on it in the first place.
5. Everyone has their opinions, I want to expose mine a bit more; many staff members have already voiced dismissal so I am more ready to dismiss it myself, but I still want to respond to concerns that are brought up because personally I believe in the proposal, is all.

Let's keep it objective and civil. This is a discussion, not my hearing in which everyone is obligated to convince me otherwise.

Anyways, to reiterate, an objective definition for what a controversial map would be one that is up for debate as to whether it belongs in Ranked from all relevant levels of play/mapping, which I constitude as low level and high level of both.

Well, I agree that my "objective controversy" is flimsy right now, still pretty open, but a system can be built around a line of logic; it doesn't mean it has to stay open forever, again I am only a single person, I believe in the proposal which is the reason I keep going, if no one voices support or tries to work with it to cover where I am failing, then no progress will be made and I will stop. (this is not a cringe threat lol it's just if no one wants it and tries to improve it alongside others cuz they see potential, then it won't get better to a state where it can be reasonably pitched if it really had any life on it to begin with, ggs)

My internet and electricity are being venezuelan, so sorry for delays.

I disagree.

The approved category existed mostly for beatmaps that if ranked, would've resulted in giving too much Ranked score (thus allowing people to gain an unfair advantage by dominating the score rankings). This is both mentioned in the wiki article involving Approved, and ranked score (the latter which I mostly wrote, by the way). Point being, we don't need the approved category back. Especially under your definition and also your presumed definition of "controversial". If anything, the approved category should be revived for the same reason the category was created (which again, doesn't need to happen because there is practically no reason to).

If a definition is still open for debate, then it's still subjective. Period.

By your definition, one of my Ranked maps would fall into 'debatable' rankability due to its unnecessary usage of SVs (0.99x on kiai segments), which improves less to no quality of the beatmap's playability. However, I argued it as an inside reference of the song, thus it's appropiate. The presence of 0.99x SV itself is so unnoticeable that the only way to see it is from the editor.

I would like to ask to players with osu!mania knowledge: is my map should be "Approved" or "Ranked"? beatmapsets/1860586

If the debate is whether it's rankable or not, we already have a veto and the processes behind the lobbying of the veto. If the beatmap is too conceptual to be ranked at that moment, might be good to leave it as-is as time passes until that said debatable concept become norm at later date.

Besides, I believe Approved will be abolished under Score V2, as the theoretical max score should be 1 million sans extras (spinner for std, finishers/long notes for taiko, bananas for catch).

RaFaReAcH wrote:

clayton wrote:

if there's no functional difference between Ranked and your proposed new category, then they may as well be the same thing. discourse is not magically controlled by applying a cosmetic label

It literally is tho... like if you scroll and see a difficulty is "Approved" instead of "Ranked", that would get rid of the whole "IT SHOULDN'T BE RANKED AAAAAAAAA" thing. As I said it seems like a useless change but it will only improve things, you say there would not be any difference but if people saw a map that is crazy for X or Y reason and they believe should not be Ranked, but saw it was Approved instead, that alone disassociates it from the Ranked status while giving it all the benefits of it. There is no need for any differences, just the labell is enough imo, if someone says it shouldn't and it should have special conditionals that would only complicate things or punish potential Approved diffs. No.

I'm not saying it should have any difference. I'm saying this whole idea is based on your imaginary populous that you think you can accurately predict just by changing cosmetics of some things. people are more complicated and diverse than that

personally if there were some map I was very unhappy with being Ranked, and it went into your proposed category instead, I'd still be very unhappy for all of the same reasons lol

Tailsdk wrote:

Heyo we currently have no plans to bring back approved with the current existence of loved and ranked.

If a map does not fit into ranked and is not liked enough to become loved it most likely just sucks.

They can then either chose to apply changes so that it fits in ranked or go to the graveyard.

Adding/Bringing back approved for maps that for maps that are controversial seems like a good way to encurage more controversial maps which is not something that we really want to do.

Emphasis is on "most likely" here. Many varieties of maps can be good and not rankable. Redline SV maps and lower key modes in Mania. Aspire-type maps in Std. Probably some SV maps in Taiko and I'm not familiar enough with CTB to make a statement but I'm sure some category of map could be good and unrankable there too. Fortunately for these maps, there's a Loved category, but unfortunately, many of them are too niche or simply just don't have much traction. This does not mean they are bad, though, but it prevents them from ever having a leaderboard since Loved is only afforded so many slots a month and nobody wants to "waste" one on a niche map.

An approved section could serve for a good middle ground between Ranked and Loved in my opinion. No pp, just the leaderboard like Loved, but less about community engagement due to an uncapped nature. Loved was never meant to be and never will be a dumping ground for unrankable maps, and this mindset leads to a lot of people putting "For Ranked/Loved" in their descriptions or mentioning that they will "go for Loved" which is simply just not how that works. I think that giving more maps leaderboards is fine, really where you run into problems is with PP, medals, and stuff like that, which could be taken out of the equation with Approved.

I understand people can choose to apply changes so that it fits in ranked or go to the graveyard, but, as a 1K player, that is not an option. As someone who enjoys extreme/redline SV maps, that is not an option. As someone who loves 2B maps, that is not an option. There is so much more to mapping than solely what fits within the Ranking Criteria, and not all of it is bad.

I don't feel like this encourages more controversial maps per se. These are maps that WOULD be controverial if given Ranked status, the "edge cases" as the title puts it. Approved is not supposed to be a dumping ground for bad maps. It is meant for maps that are good but might not be suitable for ranked or loved. Just because a map would be controversial in ranked doesn't mean it's bad. There was a (to the best of my knowledge) perfectly fine std maps recently DQ'd for its HP. In ranked, this makes sense. But I highly doubt this would be controversial in an Approved section.

Overall, I think this is at least worth a try, but I don't quite agree with the way that the original poster described it. I think there should still be quality assurance to these maps, but more on a discretion basis, and awarding PP would not be a good idea for many of these maps. However, I believe that a category like this could open the door for a lot more experimental/gimmick type maps receiving leaderboards.

will be archiving this considering the pushback towards the proposed changes, alongside the proposal's complexity in the first place.