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

[Discussion/Proposal] Clarifying veto rules about lifting vetoes [General]

posted
Total Posts
6
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,282 posts
Joined May 2014
Topic Starter
Maxus
Hello guys!

We are currently discussing about the veto procedure and clarifying certain circumstances on when there are situation where the rules not stated specifically how it should be handled.

In this case, we want to discuss about what happened if the veto mediation got upheld, but the BN who originally veto the map already resigned?

Currently the rules stated that only the BN who upheld the map can make the decision, which is the crux of the current status quo:

So we decided want to do proposal as below:

Proposal
if the vetoer is still part of the BNG, they are free to uphold and dismiss as they see fit before or after mediation.

if the vetoer is not part of the BNG anymore, the NAT has to uphold the latest mediation's consensus instead.

-----------------------

In the 2nd case, the NAT will judge and oversee the original veto reason and deemed whether the map already have enough change to have the veto be lifted, or still not enough and require another mediation. The judgment will be specifically be based on the original vetoers opinion and not gonna have NAT personal opinion back this up in order to purely observe the veto from neutral standpoint.

There are surely other question or clarification regarding veto that need to be added and might miss from original procedure, which is why the discussion exist here. If there are other part of the rules that are not specified, we are more than glad to discuss with the community and gather consensus that are able to satisfy the majority so we can add it to the wiki pages rules.
Last edited by Maxus , edited 1 time in total.
McEndu
1,161 posts
Joined March 2019
McEndu
Looks like a good change.

Though, would the former BN have a say in dismissing the veto even after resigning?
Scotty
Nomination Assessment Team
286 posts
Joined October 2017
Scotty
agree that having more clarity for this will be useful, a vetoing BN being resigned/inactive isn't a super rare occurrence especially for older vetos. this creates an ambiguous situation where even if the mapper has changed the map to suit veto requirements, there would be nobody around to verify the changes and lift the veto

Maxus wrote:

if the vetoer is still part of the BNG, they are free to uphold and dismiss as they see fit before or after mediation.
i think for cases where the veto has undergone a mediation with a decision to uphold, then the vetoing BN can only lift the veto if they confirm the map has been changed in a manner to satisfy the veto. since an uphold decision will now require a supermajority vote from the whole BN, it'd be a bit strange if a BN can override that majority decision if they somehow decide to retract the veto post-mediation with the map in the same state
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,282 posts
Joined May 2014
Topic Starter
Maxus

McEndu wrote:

Looks like a good change.

Though, would the former BN have a say in dismissing the veto even after resigning?
They won't , which is the main point of the proposal.

The member who are not part of elevated group are not supposed to influence the decision anymore, which is the crux of why any of the anomaly happening becoming NAT responsibility to manage, in order to have the veto comes to completion.

Scotty wrote:

i think for cases where the veto has undergone a mediation with a decision to uphold, then the vetoing BN can only lift the veto if they confirm the map has been changed in a manner to satisfy the veto. since an uphold decision will now require a supermajority vote from the whole BN, it'd be a bit strange if a BN can override that majority decision if they somehow decide to retract the veto post-mediation with the map in the same state
It is fair point to discuss ig, since currently based on the BN veto rules, it is entirely on the vetoer decision, if community agree to make that changes, it might worth it to try make some changes on that so the entire mediation results is not entirely thrown off by one person alone.
Last edited by Maxus , edited 2 times in total.
SupaV
467 posts
Joined November 2020
SupaV
I am not sure how far this discussion has gone internally, but I believe that if a BN has resigned/kicked from the team, then they automatically leave all things behind. In this case, wouldn't it be better to just straight-up lift the veto instead of having the NAT mediate it? Most of these vetoes but the BN has resigned usually occur after quite a lengthy amount of time, from 1-2 years to upwards of many years.

Judging and overseeing the original veto reason as another group, completely independent of the user vetoing, is counter-intuitive to the veto since now there likely will be two different directions in which the NAT and the vetoing user wants to go. Not to mention that the NATs and the vetoing user likely will have different standards on how much change is exactly needed, and either side can overexaggerate the amount of changes needed. On top of the likely outdated view of the veto, I don't feel that throwing off the veto to the NATs as another observing group works.

If the contents of the veto are still relevant in current times after a lengthy amount of time, I believe that even if the veto were to be lifted and the beatmap qualified as-is, there will be another nominator willing to place a veto if the issues are pressing enough. This way, at least the veto still stays relevant in current times instead of checking something out from a couple of years ago.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
222 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
I completely forgot to give my thoughts on this. In short, I agree with the proposed fallback clause. Currently there isn't an official stance on what to do on these cases, and the one proposed sounds reasonable.

SupaV wrote:

but I believe that if a BN has resigned/kicked from the team, then they automatically leave all things behind. In this case, wouldn't it be better to just straight-up lift the veto instead of having the NAT mediate it?
I believe if a veto has gone all the way through mediation, then the veto becomes a responsibility of the entire BNG, not just the Vetoer. The group voted to either uphold it or deny it, and so it splits the responsibility between all members of the team. The original vetoer should be able to dismiss a veto if, and only if mediation hasn't started. Up until that point it is their opinion and call to make. And such, their call to lift it.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 6