The following changes serve to make contributing more easily accessible to the community, which consequently improves upon and simplifies all current systems in place for the mapping and modding community.

I assume you guys will do this but you should probably say what each of the different stages mean in an eval for the BN app transparency thing

I like this proposal a lot, but im kind of concerned about the execution of evaluating judgement abilities of applicants

Does this imply the standard for modding quality decreases in exchange for people that may just know how to appease the system (provide decent responses)?

How does this affect non native english speakers?



I think there should still be some baseline checking of modding quality - unless there is and I have misread .

this is GOOD, gj all of you!

Also, while I do not disagree that the current RC test is redundant, I think it could be useful to rework it to include relevant information. For example, I think a test so that possible BNs are aware of certain technical things would be good, specifically regarding metadata and audio quality. Maybe just have the scores not be impactful or something, but idk I just feel like the RC test could be reworked to be actually useful.

i'll go over each section with my thoughts

Reworking BN applications

i'd also suggest adding difficulty ranges to showcase that possible BNs may work with any sorts of maps, being high-end (8*+) or something more casual (enh sets/typical 5-6* sets), this would also guarantee more quality overall imo. the question "how did your mod improve the map" might be a little trivial and hard to answer, since this is a quite subjective topic and not really good overall. kind of against including it. other than that this change is good

Removing the RC test

i think removing rc test should've been done way earlier, especially it comes in clutch for taiko/catch/mania tests where you're potentially able to get a question regarding skinnable std elements (that you really shouldn't know) or the other solution would be creating different tests for gamemodes that contain questions mostly regarding relative gamemodes (but i support the removal more tbh)

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status

how is this any different from what is currently done? i do not think this change is necessary, it just adds bullet point list on top of your evaluation - which might be pleasant to eyes but effectively speaking it's near the same as a collective feedback that is more gathered into one single piece of text and more polished. very against this

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application

a good change, nice to see this being thought of

i think one of the axing reasons for test was cuz people doing tests in their freetime for a video game is kinda over the top on the serious scale dunno

re: fayew: the transparency part is so people dont like throw application into the box and receive an update like 2 to 3 weeks later, but instead have more consistent updates as to where in the process their application is, it's just more transparency for that

fayew wrote:

how is this any different from what is currently done?

right now, you apply, your eval goes into a black box for 2~3 weeks, then it ships. with the proposed approach, you'll know at which stage exactly your application is in real-time, so you'll know if it's still in individual stage, if it moved to groups, if the consensus is set and so on.

i really don't see a reason to be against this, it's a direct transparency increase which is always appreciated.

Okoratu wrote:

the transparency part is so people dont like throw application into the box and receive an update like 2 to 3 weeks later, but instead have more consistent updates as to where in the process their application is, it's just more transparency for that

Hivie wrote:

it's a direct transparency increase which is always appreciated.

i see, thank you both

wafer wrote:

I think there should still be some baseline checking of modding quality - unless there is and I have misread .

it will still be there (especially for sets they won't nominate): this is why we opted to not completely remove the mention of modding in the application form. the wording can still adjust the wording to be a bit clearer about this if you have any propositions

I like the simplified yet more engaging progress very much but just a few things I want to say.

Would this mean the future BN applicants require mapper's response and should care about their response?
as you guys are asking for how their mod improved the map as well as the updated version of osz for comparison.
For example, if a mapper decides to not respond or reject every suggestion, would this "mod" now be considered unusable for the application?

Also, rather than removing the RC test entirely, I think it would be better to give it a rework as an actually reasonable RC test instead of the previous English trick test.

@enneya ok cool

ok yeah u have my full support then

really dont see the point in an rc test cuz if i can ctrl+f it while taking the test i can ctrl+f it while looking at a map to nominate

agree with sampling maps that the applicant would/wouldn't nominate, and imo that's something that could be expanded on further. like listing idk 2-3 more maps that you may not mod on thread, but just give tldr of what you might say + final judgement (nom or not)

Ozato Fumika wrote:

Would this mean the future BN applicants require mapper's response and should care about their response?
as you guys are asking for how their mod improved the map as well as the updated version of osz for comparison.
For example, if a mapper decides to not respond or reject every suggestion, would this "mod" now be considered unusable for the application?

'how their mod improved the map' is supposed to be a subjective assessment so its not dependant on the mappers response. Therefore, even if the host rejects all the mods, we will still check them for validity like we always have, so it wouldn't be unusable per se.

Ozato Fumika wrote:

Also, rather than removing the RC test entirely, I think it would be better to give it a rework as an actually reasonable RC test instead of the previous English trick test.

We removed the test entirely for now because it was pretty outdated and seen as unfitting for the reason that Oko mentioned. However, since we are using the Beatmap Managment forum now, the test can still be repurposed depending on new proposals.

I really like this proposal, I just have a question

with “Reworking BN application feedbacks”, does this mean that the box for application feedback won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

if it is, I think it’s a bit redundant to remove it as it’s a really good way to synthesise the comments into a tldr, so I’d suggest both could be visible

fvrex wrote:

with “Reworking BN application feedbacks”, does this mean that the box for application feedback won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

Box will stay in case NATs have any additional notes to mention, but most of the important feedback will be displayed directly in form of evaluator comments.

Seems like a good change overall to me, the RC test definitely had a lot of unnecessary coverage on it.

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety net, but I'm a little worried about it.

I do agree this proposal is a slay 🔥🔥

fvrex wrote:

I really like this proposal, I just have a question

with “Reworking BN application feedbacks”, does this mean that the box for application feedback won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

if it is, I think it’s a bit redundant to remove it as it’s a really good way to synthesise the comments into a tldr, so I’d suggest both could be visible

For this by the way, basically application feedback wont be included in the evaluation process. HOWEVER, if this is the case, then the feedback should rather be applied into the actual feedback NAT evaluators are giving them during the evaluations!!! Giving more detailed feedback should be more prominent honestly.

Ryax wrote:

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement.

I can also see an issue with this. It does seem sort of unfair on that part if you did all the means necessary for the BN, where they hadn't checked it.

Ryax wrote:

Seems like a good change overall to me, the RC test definitely had a lot of unnecessary coverage on it.

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety net, but I'm a little worried about it.

This is a fair concern. However, the point of this is to attempt to determine the applicant's quality standards and ability to evaluate maps in a vacuum. That objective is significantly impaired if the map has already been nominated. The requirement would only extend to maps not bubbled at the time of submission, not throughout the life of the application. As such, I view this as a necessary tradeoff to better accomplish the goals of the system.

Decku wrote:

For this by the way, basically application feedback wont be included in the evaluation process. HOWEVER, if this is the case, then the feedback should rather be applied into the actual feedback NAT evaluators are giving them during the evaluations!!! Giving more detailed feedback should be more prominent honestly.

It is already the case that feedback is primarily organizing information from individual evaluations. We would of course make sure they are formatted to better communicate to the applicant rather than just each other. I believe the message box to reach out should also help in case any individual points are not clear enough right away

We've decided to move this forum post to Mapping Discussion so non-BNs (the primary audience of these proposals) are involved with this discussion.

Reworking BN applications

I know it could kinda "give answers" but I feel there should be an example "ideal" application that the NAT want/are looking for. How this is currently I as a new applicant have no idea how much I should write, or what I really am being asked for. I know its kinda like common sense for people who've been doing this stuff for years but new people :3c

I strongly agree with most of the proposed changes. Especially appreciate the increased transparency, removal of RC test (idk anyone that's actually failed that wasn't trolling lol), and a better option for dialogue between applicants and evaluators.

That said "[putting] more weight onto the candidate's decision-making skills and judgement" is a little vague to me. It'd be nice to have it a bit clearer to what extent a BN app hinges on nomination decision making skills (if my modding skills are good but I don't have well developed reasoning, will I be penalised severely for it?).

Also, I might be an odd one out here, but I'm not a fan of how the proposed application seems to really lean into the whole meta that folks ended up fixating on in the last however many years. The whole:

1. Map 1 = good map you will nominate
2. Map 2 = Severely/Fundamentally flawed map you will not nominate
3. Map 3 = Something to fill in gaps in demonstrated competency from Maps 1 and 2.

I kind of wish we'd have a bit more of a fresher take on the modding side of applications (though including a greater focus on nomination reasoning is definitely a step in the right direction imho)

"was improved by your mod" does this imply the mapper needs to reply to your mods?

good stuff, just one question i suppose mostly for clarification. as someone looking to become bn in the near future, im curious about why an applicant needs to demonstrate the capacity to mod something that they are absolutely unwilling to nominate. (im not saying that i dont see the merits in this, but i want to know the reasons more directly, and also why its entirely required.)

Nevo

I'm not sure we have an ideal in mind for any new formats until we can see from experience what does and doesn't work better for people applying, but compiling examples in the future sounds nice


________

Shii

What kinds of aspects do you think would be fresher?

________

Visionary

The wording implies that it has to be responded but it's not intended. We can update it. Thank you for noticing this. We can always look even if the mapper hasn't responded yet.

Reworking BN applications

I'm all for the change in paradigm, giving more weight to the decision-making process involved without fully butchering the need for applicants to show their modding capabilities. Moreover, an approach using questions makes it both easier for the applicant to understand what we'll be mainly evaluating from them whilst also giving evaluators a solid frame of reference to evaluate on.

That aside, @mint the reasoning mainly boils down to us wanting to see both sides of the coin. Also, I personally believe it is important to be able to mod a map -- even if you'd be unwilling to nominate it -- to show other kinds of soft skills found in modding. How forceful your mods may be, how helpful has your different perspective on the map helped the mapper and/or set, whether your judgement call on the map's nomination status is sound, etc...

TlDr; Good, but I'd like to see how well it works on practice, and whether it makes it any easier than the previous, less direction-driven method.

Removing the RC test

Begone. More often than not, the RC test was redundant. Applicants showed most of their knowledge in their mods. Even candidates who botched the test later on showed very promising applications. I'm somewhat not keen on bringing the test back or improve it either. We'll run into the same issues a couple/few years down the road.

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status

Yeah.

Reworking BN application feedbacks

Hold my own opinions on this. But so long our comments are truly as helpful as curated feedback based on our previous notes then by all means.

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application

Having an official platform, is nice. I do not think this is enough as to really bridge communications between the BNG and the rest of the community, but it's a nice step having a formal procedure to have talks regarding apps.

Noffy wrote:

________

Shii

What kinds of aspects do you think would be fresher?

Honestly good question. I can't really think of a solution that covers the aspects of modding skill required as a BN to the same level as the current or proposed systems, while also being similar in time/effort requirements for everyone involved.

Only idea I can think of is:

1. Scrap the existing application process
2. Allow Applicants that meet some abitrary thresholds, such as kds and/or modding activity, to become (pseudo) BNs.
3. Applicants spend some period of time acting as a BN, modding and "nomming" maps (with noms not contributing to the ranking of a map until after passing evaluation)
4. After x duration, Evaluators look through the activity of the applicant to assess their modding and nomination reasoning competency and ultimately kick/probation them.

But I strongly doubt such a system would work, especially cuz it massively increases the workload and complexity over the current/proposed systems, and I'm sure such a system would introduce new challenges/issues. I'm just bringing it up to spitball ideas :3

The idea of scrapping apps entirely was suggested. There are a couple issues that were mentioned when we discussed it, for transparency sake:

1. Apps are filters: Applications are in practice just filters. I personally agree the full picture of how one develops themselves as a BN is... by being a BN lol. But some filters have to be put into place, mainly to comply with the point below.
2. Unsustainable: This would mean there'd be quite the influx of "pseudo BNs". Essentially working like Trial BNs when that system was put into place, which added complexity to the system. Moreover, it'd be hard to keep track of everyone at the same time and so certain safeguards would need to be put into place, such as a maximum allowed number of people allowed to be in that state at the same time.

RC Test removal:
Fucking finally thank you

Nomination Decision Making:
Goes without saying but please disclaimer to people to not answer "no dont like song" even though that's what all BNs do, since it gives nothing for you to judge.

Or maybe don't, let the people who troll wait 60 days more.

This part can be really subjective so I hope that
1) Mistakes in English and terminology aren't criticized
2) Map isn't too heavily scrutinized. If evaluating NAT don't like the map that the applicant would nominate but the reasoning is sound and the map isn't riddled with intersubjective issues (or is modded out by applicant) I would hope that wouldn't result in a negative outcome for application

BTW I had previously written a doc on how to cheese BN apps so you guys just made that useless

Transparency:
Always good

Remove feedback:
Ya no NAT liked writing this anyway, seeing individual thoughts is far better for the applicant as well.

It means ya'll would have to write the individual thing properly and not do what I used to do though ;3

Communication Channel:
Yes please!!! I've always wanted this, but the barrier of entry for applicants to discuss evaluations have always been too high. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS FOR CURRENT BN EVALS AS WELL so if a BN gets a non activity related warning they have somewhere to discuss about it I am 100% in support of more communication and transparency

Overall love this

RandomeLoL wrote:

The idea of scrapping apps entirely was suggested. There are a couple issues that were mentioned when we discussed it, for transparency sake:

1. Apps are filters: Applications are in practice just filters. I personally agree the full picture of how one develops themselves as a BN is... by being a BN lol. But some filters have to be put into place, mainly to comply with the point below.
2. Unsustainable: This would mean there'd be quite the influx of "pseudo BNs". Essentially working like Trial BNs when that system was put into place, which added complexity to the system. Moreover, it'd be hard to keep track of everyone at the same time and so certain safeguards would need to be put into place, such as a maximum allowed number of people allowed to be in that state at the same time.

I'd be in favour of having some sort of artificial limit - particularly when such a hypothetical system would be first introduced - in order to mitigate things like influxes in applicants.

I'd also be in favour of placing relatively high initial requirements to reduce the number of folks that could take part in the first place (200kds would be way to low for such a system, for example).

Both of those ideas have their own drawbacks which I'm sure aren't favourable either though. I also recognise the effectiveness of the current application process as a filter, as well the fact that systems like Trial BN introduce more complexity. As far as I understand, most of the proposed changes are about reducing complexity, so I very much understand why a system similar to what I proposed is not preferable over something like what has been proposed ^^

I appreciate the transparency by referencing stuff from internal discussions by the way

word

Forgot to ask, but how would the new applications be weighted? How much of it would still be reliant on the mods, or would evaluations heavily shift to evaluating the reasoning for nominations?

i agree with a lot here!! especially the rc test removal. i feel like the best way to learn rc is to actually mod stuff and learn from peers. can’t wait to see where these proposals go

i got a question with an option concerning spinners for mania 😔

very cool changes some points:

- i assume if a mod was done by a user, then say a months later, a bn nomimates it. This would still be a valid submissiom right? evaluation will be made on the basis of the map before the bn check?

- the screen is simplified, but i still fail to see a pain point addressed for bn apping which causes some downtime particularly with first time applicatns. that is, defining the expectation of skill.

it would be possible for an applicant to submit charts, totally ignore checks for misc stuff like metadata and hitsounds, then be rejected even if the 3 submitted maps were to be technically rankable. i made a pastebin some time back then emphasizing the scope of work / skill expected

case 2 would be if an applicant is only interested in xyz types of maps or song choices.

Forgot to ask, but how would the new applications be weighted? How much of it would still be reliant on the mods, or would evaluations heavily shift to evaluating the reasoning for nominations?

There is no objective weight. We expect applicants to be proficient at both. It's possible that we may side towards decision-making though, as being a trustworthy BN requires some skills that go beyond how good an applicant's modding is. Wouldn't say "heavily" but it will potentially have a somewhat more present impact.

I would like to share some feedback I've received and my responses.

1. Maintaining two oszs is burdensome
- agree, we should only request the version that the mods were posted on as we are already not particularly interested in whether the mapper applies the mods properly (+ we can just update the set to see the updated version)

2. Feedback does not directly address what we expect BNs to mod.
- I believe that moving to showing our notes rather than a homogenized format will help with this somewhat as we tend to be a bit more direct with the issues we find in maps when reviewing mods.

3. We are not being specific enough with what we're asking the modder to show with their app

- The general purpose of the BN application is for us to determine whether the applicant would be a good BN. I believe this statement is uncontroversial.

What makes a good BN? This is more subjective, but I think generally some combination of consistent activity, the ability to avoid technical DQs, the ability to determine what maps represent the songs well and don't, and the ability to properly explain mod points in a way the mapper can understand are all commonly agreed upon.

How does this application aim to give us the evidence needed to judge those traits?
- the main issue is differentiating between maps that are rankable and those that fall below the quality threshold commonly agreed upon. We are requesting one map judged as good (but not an overly safe map that has already been bubbled or by an experienced mapper) and one map judged as bad to get evidence around how the applicant determines what's rankable and not. Every BN makes this judgement on every request they get at some level, so that's why we're targeting it.
- being able to properly explain mod points is also important to avoid friction and ensure maps actually get better when the applicant mods them. So we request mods.
- we can't really judge activity, so there's just a (very low) minimum expectation that we hold all BNs to.
- the reason new BNs start off in probation is mostly in case they can't forestall technical DQs which causes a lot of work for other people (since we hope the full BN will catch those items if they don't).

So what should an applicant actually submit? Submit mods and maps that demonstrate your ability to judge good maps from bad and back up your judgement with an explanation of why. We are hoping to reduce the burden of "hidden" requirements by asking for what we need more directly than before. There isn't a one size fits all answer for what type of mods we are looking for. The main factor is whether the various components of quality in any given map that could be improved upon are properly identified and accurate suggestions are provided.

Overall I support it.

The problem I have had with the BN app is that I didn't know what to aim for.
Mainly because many of the sentences in the feedback were short or not in a clear format like PRS, so I'm looking forward to see how far the rework will improve it.
It is good to be able to ask directly other than feedback, and it is good to know how far you have reached with the BN app status.
the RC test was difficult for me because I was not good at English, so I think it is good that it is gone.

Information such as what elements are required in the test, in this case You would nominate if you were a BN, etc., could be added with more detailed elements.
Perhaps the image in post #1 may not be enough.

Also, there are difficulties when applying again, so it would be good to have something on that point as well.

not fully against the rework for BN applications, though i do think mandating two osz's is probably a bit much just from a "review" perspective -- just having the old osz is probably enough, honestly (nao already said this above but i just wanted to affirm my support for that)

no opinion on the ranking criteria test removal (i haven't been in the loop for that aspect for 5+ years now), though it seems like it'd probably be fine since the application itself is already being reviewed manually regardless

transparency on BN application status is good

the bn application feedback part is interesting; off what i experienced in the bn evaluator trial i don't doubt that writing feedback is incredibly exhausting and burdensome, but at the same time i feel like it'd be pretty easy to overwhelm someone with direct comments from what the evaluators are saying. wasn't the whole point of feedback to condense what was said in a more meaningful and easy-to-read manner? i'm not really sure i agree with getting rid of that aspect, honestly :s

communication between NAT is fine and a welcome change

outside of the feedback part i think this is overall a good proposal, i'm just really unsure about how that one aspect would work out in practice because it'd be harder to follow imo

Removing the RC test

Coming from the person who took the BN test most recently (yes I was the one that had done mine in the midst of it being shut off), It really came to sense that it was just a reading comprehension and CTRL+F test rather than what it was set up to be in my head; an actual test. On top of that, there were some niche questions thrown in there from the RC that wasn't exactly related to the gamemode applied for.

Having it be removed will be okay, It did feel pretty redundant and easy to cheese with the right tools.

Reworking BN applications

I'd like to see where this goes. This (in my opinion) seems better in the first look for applications, though osz's may seem like a far cry task, especially since you'd have to provide 6 of them... having the old system seemed fine cause even then, if the map was updated for the mods, it can easily be found, there isn't really a need to for 2 (I know it's not mandatory, but still feels like I'd need submit all 6 so to get a genuine review of modding skill).

Ryax wrote:

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety

I'm going to add onto this with the idea that, what happens if someone decides to get a bn for the map at the same time there is the application, would the sense of "missing points" big or small come into affect for how a modder's quality gets evaluated, especially in the new changes?

This comes to my next point as well, how exactly will the judgement be made in terms of modding quality and their understanding compared to the ones evaluating the answers given for "how did your mod improve the map" and such?

That being said, the way in which it has changed to incorporate maps you would and wouldn't nom seems pretty nice.

I appreciate that this discussion is open to public so everyone can comment.

This is a step towards a right direction, however i think it does not tackle how people percieve the application itself.

Whilst more transparency is welcome and the new tracking system is a good change, i still think that requirements to become a BN are staying pretty much the same albeit more strict with which maps they choose to submit.

Individual feedback is also great however from what i can see removing reduced CD would discourage some people or the ones who thought they previously had a chance to reapply aswell.

Whilst the weight being shifted onto judgment and not just modding is great, I see this as a change that would benefit the workload of the NAT more and not the applicants as much since the system remains about the same as it always was.

I would really appreciate if we could get a tl;dr on how this will impact the applications going forwards, i believe a majority of people expected a more significant change.

Anyways, still a step towards a good direction only feels quite trivial overall.

I would really appreciate if we could get a tl;dr on how this will impact the applications going forwards,...

The TlDr would be that a sense of direction is being added in the app process.

Currently, there is no objective basis we really went by. Only judged the maps an applicant gave. This made it really easy for users (especially those first applying) to get "lost". Its goal is to also reduce how much we evaluate at a micro level, focusing more on the macro aspect of an application.

The goal of the changes wasn't so much as to outright reduce the bar of entry into the BNG, but to make it less obtuse, easier to understand, more transparent to the end user, and finally give a sense of direction of what exactly should be prioritized when evaluating someone's work which would affect the way applications are approached from both ends. In my opinion, for the better, even if at face value it seems similar.

...i believe a majority of people expected a more significant change.

It's hard to drastically change the system without compromising some aspects.

- No apps, straight into probation. Explained in my response to Shii, but while I genuinely believe a BN's performance (or up-to-be BN) is better seen through how they work, keeping tabs on an indefinite amount of people at the same time could be an unsustainable model for the NAT involved. There'd be no way to filter out people other than by trying, which can be time consuming.
- Only focus on mods. That was the current approach. In my opinion, that is flawed. Someone can be good at modding whilst not have the best of mindsets or decision-making skills required of a BN. All of these soft skills aren't really something quantifiable via modding alone.
- Only focus on the decision making. Most of us agreed that we would still expect a certain level of competency on applicants' mods. This is in fact the 4th expectation that BNs have to abide by.
- Collective decide to lower the bar of entry, being more permissive. This is something that can technically be done under any system. Problem is, how do you decide where to draw the line?

I think all of these compromised can be argued for/against, so no option is necessarily better or worse. But it just gets to show that if the rope's pulled towards one side, the other side is going to be cut shorter. Though this thread was also made to discuss other avenues, if found reasonable enough.

Maybe now is the time to replace the RC test with something more rigorous?

Personally what I think would be useful is to have a stash of maps with intentionally left in issues that BN-applications have to then mod, as if they were modding it normally. Then they submit their mods with the prelude of 'assuming everything gets applied correctly I would nominate this', to allow NAT to compare their mods to known issues in the map. This could allow testing of more niche checks in potential bns, and not be a captcha-esque check like the RC test was.

ikin5050 wrote:

Maybe now is the time to replace the RC test with something more rigorous?

Personally what I think would be useful is to have a stash of maps with intentionally left in issues that BN-applications have to then mod, as if they were modding it normally. Then they submit their mods with the prelude of 'assuming everything gets applied correctly I would nominate this', to allow NAT to compare their mods to known issues in the map. This could allow testing of more niche checks in potential bns, and not be a captcha-esque check like the RC test was.

i dont think bringing back bn tests is a good idea

- ppl will just share them again / do them together in a vc
- the left in issues are sometimes up for debate
- the entire scenario is forced in the sense of you get people to map stuff that is intentionally broken in some way

at least i think u shouldnt need to take a formalized competency test to be eligible to become a nominerd

Sense of direction is a good change since it definitely shows the people what they should go for to become a BN, but i believe removing reduced CD would be a mistake since it gave incentive to continue trying. At least reducing to 40 days instead of 30 would be still a decent change whilst still making the workload manageable.


I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Fall wrote:

Sense of direction is a good change since it definitely shows the people what they should go for to become a BN, but i believe removing reduced CD would be a mistake since it gave incentive to continue trying. At least reducing to 40 days instead of 30 would be still a decent change whilst still making the workload manageable.


I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Fwiw I think you are on a different page because we have reworked cooldowns a few months ago. The cooldown we want to go by from now on is basically the 60 days that were previously reduced from 90 days.

Reduced cooldown in the current system sucked because the 30 days accounted for when the eval was being processed, so people would just reapply 1-2 weeks after being denied with a, in most cases, rushed application and fail again.

Personally wanna add some words about this. Generally, gonna say such changes (and read all the suggestion which noticed and aproved by NATs) is relevant and correct in current statement and will receive more "structure" eval about applicant. By the way, about Removing RC test dont thinking is necessary idea, still thinking to pass for new member is gonna be better idea to also check some technical issues and for understanding overall structure as ranked section as a whole or do it at will to test your technical skills in identifying problems. It will show the total score, but wouldn't been included for consesus.

For previous BN members might been skipped for this.

Okoratu wrote:

i dont think bringing back bn tests is a good idea

- ppl will just share them again / do them together in a vc
- the left in issues are sometimes up for debate
- the entire scenario is forced in the sense of you get people to map stuff that is intentionally broken in some way

at least i think u shouldnt need to take a formalized competency test to be eligible to become a nominerd

Maybe you don't think a competency test is necessary but surely you agree that there is a significant jump from modding a map for bn app and actually modding it to nominate?

Part of the reason for the RC Test being removed, besides not really offering any added value to either applicants or evaluators, is the fact that this is a Game. Part of the original proposal was to "Gameify" some of the systems. I really do think that any kind of test is going to both add an extra layer of complexity and potentially push some people off. Anecdotally, when I applied, I was scared shitless for a test I may have been as well fully prepared for.

Users should have a better, more fun time. Submitting mods that they may've done at their own leisure and pace feels to be less restrictive and mentally taxing.

ikin5050 wrote:

Maybe you don't think a competency test is necessary but surely you agree that there is a significant jump from modding a map for bn app and actually modding it to nominate?

Idk about other gamemodes, but in standard it's literally more difficult to mod for BN app than it is to mod to nominate. You can easily see the difference in effort put in on an average BN mod vs average mod for app.

Fall wrote:

I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Disagree with a test for not only reasons stated above, but modding for a test to spot answers vs organically modding an actual real map feels very different. Take it from someone who went through Electoz mentorship years back and he made us do the tests.

Firstly, when you are modding a "test" or "quiz" map, you find yourself looking for specific issues more than actually modding the map to spot areas of improvement. The idea that there are "correct answers" in modding in itself is already dumb (even if you set an intentional issue to be found, the solution/interpretation of how to resolve that issue will differ from person to person. How can you say one is right?)

But more importantly, modding should be done with the mindset of improving the map. Making the official process to get BN one where you hunt for issues in a map rather than trying to organically improve it sends the wrong message imo.