As the title suggest, this only applies to standard. (More on the taiko/ctb/mania situation later, in short: they run fine with the current veto system)

Content of the proposal:
Transform the veto system to a nuke system that runs in this way (non-formal wording, just a draft so numbers are of course up to discussion):
1) Any BN can submit a nuke request by DQing a map & state so in the DQ post, with or without prior discussion with the related mapper;
2) This nuke request will then be immediately put on the BN site for vote, with the same deadline setting as the current veto system. Such vote does not require mandatory comments, and the map can't be requalified until the voting is done;
3) The map will be marked as "nuked" if more than 80% of the BNG agrees with the nuke with a minimum of 70% participation rate;
4) Maps marked as "nuked" can't be ranked unless fundamental changes have been made with the map; in that case, mapper can ask a BNG member to submit a new request to remove the nuke immediately after such change has been done, which will be also put immediately on the BN site to vote in the same way stated in 2). If this gets dismissed again, another request can only be made at least 1 year after the new voting result comes out;
5) Any malicious use of the nuke system, which can be reflected by an excessively low agree rate of a nuke request (less than 20%), will be noted in the BN's evaluation.

Reason of this proposal:
1) Veto can't fix bad maps, but only marginally improve them from "really bad" to "still bad but whatever". I find it's hard to say in that case that current veto system does "stop the bad maps from being ranked" which is supposed to be its purpose. The proposed nuke system provides a more efficient way to achieve so & also gives a chance to those who do want to improve their maps.
2) Vetoes are highly inconsistent, because way more similarly bad, if not even worse maps got ranked safely as well. That's because most BNs are turning away from vetoes due to 1); the high influx of new ranked maps nowadays also makes it extremely overwhelming to follow everything.
3) A BN does not need to write an essay to prove why a map is bad. As trained individuals, BNs should be able to tell which maps are unrankably bad by simply give it a look, and such knowledge should be a common sense among the BNG considering how they have been educated & evaluated. By asking them to not write unnecessarily long reasons the threshold of nuke should also be higher than the current veto system as higher participation rate is expected.

Possible concerns and my answers to them:
1) What if a BN vote yes without looking at the map?
- This is not anything different with writing "agree with the original veto post, [paraphrasing the original veto post]" under the current veto system -- anyone can do do without looking at the map as well, and in that case the latter only takes more unnecessary effort, indirectly causing a drop on participation rate.
2) The mapping ecosystem consistency among different modes -- we shouldn't change such a global system for problems only occur in a single mode.
- Nuke system for standard can still run with the current veto infrastructure; we can simply mark standard vetoes as nuke requests and apply new thresholds on them. T/C/M modes can keep their veto system if they prefer. Adapting the ecosystem to the history/context of different modes per se would also be a better option for the game's environment, both as a whole and independent mode-wise.
3) Isn't this just another kneejerk solution to please those who don't understand mapping at all?
- The community backlash from the STD veto system has been escalated to an extent that's harmful to this mode's health, and since peppy always has been putting more weight on the community I believe addressing this issue is not a kneejerk but rather approaching to the future that peppy envisions, which is also beneficial team & game development-wise in my opinion.

More inputs are welcome.

Didn't someone mention that veto systems have to be consistent in all modes...

agree with all of this

but regardless of the outcome of this post something needs to change, vetos are becoming obsolete anyways as no bns are going to go near the veto system when you have the chance of becoming a community pariah by doing so

as for vetos systems being consistent cross mode, community backlash to standard mode vetoes is the catalyst for the veto system becoming unusable (and correct me if im wrong but i havent seen any significant community backlash from other mode vetos), so it makes sense for the veto system to be changed for standard alone to address this

YyottaCat wrote:

Didn't someone mention that veto systems have to be consistent in all modes...

My opinion on is in 2) of the "Possible concerns and my answers to them" part

So obviously I agree with this since I wrote tweet and been saying it for a while but I do think there's an issue of

How does a mapper know what has to change or what steps do they need to take to make map rankable.

Maybe a remediation after changes? If the original nuker agrees it's enough now?

If the original nuker thinks it's enough changes and one of the bns thinks it's still awful can it be renuked?

lets make this more fun by instantly kicking anyone whose nomination gets nuked

Doesn't this exacerbate the current issue? Makes power tripping even worse if a BN can just nuke it with no prior notice. The problem with Bang Bang was that there was practically zero discussion or attempt to find a middle ground before sending in the veto. You should never allow such a "zero communicative effort" veto. It allows for DQing maps out of spite and causing harm regardless of if the BN will get warned afterwards.

DeviousPanda wrote:

regardless of the outcome of this post something needs to change, vetos are becoming obsolete anyways as no bns are going to go near the veto system when you have the chance of becoming a community pariah by doing so

i kind of fail to see how this fixes / addresses it in any way? people will still witchhunt the person who "nuked" the beatmap because the reason they are angry is that it delays ranking. in fact, i personally think that making it not have any sort of text associated with it might get people even more frustrated as there would be no justification attached to it.

the original post mentions that it isn't a kneejerk solution but honestly i believe that such a system cannot exist and that this is just a hopeful band-aid solution when the fact of the matter is that if the map already reached qualified no amount of mental gymnastics or "prettifying" will prevent the general playerbase from being upset if they do truly want it to go through

you could argue that "having it be reflected in the bn eval" would prevent this but this kind of also assumes that enough of the bn team reflects the current views of the playerbase at any point in time (subjective, but sounds unrealistic)

I agree with the addition of a nuke button. But I feel that lowering the nukes agree rate to 70% with 60% participation (to what the current veto system is), and then making vetos 60% agree and 50% participation would be much more balanced and fair.

Personally I feel that getting an 80% agree in the current state is already very difficult to reach, maybe even impossible, and 70% sounds more like of a reasonable threshhold. Expanding on the idea of why 80% agree may be impossible, when a group of BNs that likes certain maps votes to not nuke a set compared to the other groups, the set would pretty much have a garenteed immunity from being nuked. And having an average of around 10 or or people disagree on a set would instantly stop the nuke which seems unfair.

It technically does make sense that it should be much harder to nuke maps because a nuke should be used for extreme cases or to where the map is just not being a rankable map with obvious or arguable issues. But lowering the agree % would encourage the push of quality a little more imo.

^(Quick edit but I think a system to where having both a veto and nuke would be best.)

Someone asked me to post their idea about hiding the nuker identity (they have chosen to stay anonymous):

Hi, just saw your post. I dont know if this has been suggested in the past but adding a system where the person doing the veto to be hidden to public may also be good? With the crazy backlash saggin received its hard to really motivate people to veto maps


Also @Nevo I think maybe the mapper can just ask for help from people in the BNG regarding what to do to actually unnuke the map? As BNs should be capable to do so because it's just going to be a "modding bad maps" procedure

modules wrote:

. You should never allow such a "zero communicative effort" veto. It allows for DQing maps out of spite and causing harm regardless of if the BN will get warned afterwards.

While I do think people should discuss something the issue is when the fundamental map is flawed(from eyes of the bn) so no minor changes can solve the issue

WACK EXAMPLE (just to kinda show the point no nuke would be these extreme)
But if I nuked blue zenith saying I think the streams should be jumps then no discussion with the mapper will lead to that outcome cuz it's insanely wrong and then 70% or 80% of bns would think I (the nuker) am insane and dismiss it

If I nuked for something like "the streams are to big" then it would probably also be dismissed as it's not some huge issue enough to stop a map from reaching ranked

aesth wrote:

DeviousPanda wrote:

regardless of the outcome of this post something needs to change, vetos are becoming obsolete anyways as no bns are going to go near the veto system when you have the chance of becoming a community pariah by doing so

i kind of fail to see how this fixes / addresses it in any way? people will still witchhunt the person who "nuked" the beatmap because the reason they are angry is that it delays ranking. in fact, i personally think that making it not have any sort of text associated with it might get people even more frustrated as there would be no justification attached to it.

thats why i started with "regardless of the outcome of the post", im not saying that it will fix this issue im just pointing out the issues i see in the current system

Calling it nuke already sounds malicious at least in my opinion.

Also I kind of don't like that there doesn't have to be a written reason as to why the map is getting nuked, that seems like a big red flag to me.

Even if we are trained individuals it is important to note that many things in mapping are subjective and that providing more context is always good for clarity, I can see it being used maliciously due to the lack of communication between the person ''nuking'' the map and the mapper itself. Having it like you suggested currently seems like it would cause more toxicity than vetos do already, at least that is how I see it.

This way the mapper is completely cut off from the whole system and cannot defend themselves and it just seems too
oppressive for my taste.

--- Heavy disagree on this proposal unless communication between the mapper and the nuker is established.

I agree about making the nuker anonymous (or at least give the option to). We've pretty much seen how a decent amount of people reacted in the recent event with the amount of targeted harassment the vetoer received. I feel like with a "nuke" system, this will be even worse as it's just a press of a button to get it a map off qualified and wait for it to run its course as opposed to vetoes where you need to write what makes the map unfit for ranked.

While this may make it sounds more like a chance for people to pull a YOLO and don't care about being kicked, I feel like the benefit of making them anonymous outweigh the opposite. Plus additional punishment may be applied to the BN who abused it in bad faith (extended cooldown period before being able to join, an appeal etc).

Regarding the "how to unnuke a map", I think that there should be at least a sort of guidance for the mapper if they do get nuked. But the problem for me is in how should the guidance be provided. If they're just gonna list out issues then that's just going to make "nuking" essentially a veto in reverse order (which could work but I feel like that just ruins the purpose of nuke). And they also can't just tell the mapper to "ctrl + a, delete, remap" with padding to soften the blow.

Could allow for a nuke to be submitted then reviewed by nat for if it's extreme enough and valid to go forward or if it should be discussed with mapper via mods?

I agree with the idea of it just like with kibb's proposal from 2020, but there is some stuff that will inevitably be brought up (or at least similar were brough up last time)

1) Even if nuke ultimately requires no "discussion", shouldn't the BN nuking the map state the reason, and at that, what would be the extent of required "reason" within the post? Would saying "Not enough spacing variety" be enough, or would it have to be more? Would different reasons require drastically different writeup? My assumption is that BN nuking still must explain the reason, just unlike in current system without any specific examples (cuz fixing only them is useless and it's apparent in all recent vetos), instead focusing on general/fundamental problems
2) Probably biggest concern brought up in previous proposal was potential for abuse. Current system is in a state where people are severaly disincentivized from stopping map's ranking process, in a way introduction of a system with little friction MIGHT lead to a lot of people starting to more actively utilize the feature, possibly causing only more general dissatisfaction with ranking process and people acting/feeling as if they are an "oppressed" mapper group that can't get stuff ranked. I won't bring up possible individual person abuse because well, they would just get kicked if it's an egregious case anyway
3) Another popular sentiment was that whole point of modding is IMPROVING the map. Nuke button ultimately deems the map unimprovable, does that go against the entire point of modding system? Can every map get improved? Is it fine giving people a power to deem someone else's map beyond saving?

There are probably more points from old discussion but if need be someone else will bring them up again
Again I ultimately agree with the addition/change to the system, as current one is clearly inefficient/useless/toxic

maybe another idea that would lower community backlash is if a veto keeps the mapset suspended in qualified rather than an instant dq, (like how maps with pending issues are held in qualified right now), and only if a veto is upheld would it then be disqualified?

agree with DP

Main thing is that there needs to be communication between either the BN nuking or the people evaluating the nuke because 0 communication just isn't how things like these should be handled in my opinion.

But then we're just gonna run in circles like in the current veto implementation. Vetoer disagree with the map, vetoer points out timestamps on stuff that "can be improved", mapper disagrees, veto happens, vote, if upheld fix if not qf back.

Map is still fundamentally the same while if we nuked (based on the current way it's written), it should help filter out maps easier.

(edit: I changed what I said on my 2nd sentence cuz the earlier one sounds confusing)

Or we could have the community vote as well would be cool

Mahiru Shiina wrote:

But then we're just gonna run in circles like in the current veto implementation. Vetoer disagree with the map, vetoer points out timestamps on stuff that "can be improved", mapper disagrees, veto happens, vote, if upheld fix if not qf back.

Map is still fundamentally the same while if we nuked (based on the current way it's written), it should help filter out maps easier.

(edit: I changed what I said on my 2nd sentence cuz the earlier one sounds confusing)

The reason why we run in circles with vetos is because they are subjective, if nuking a map means fundementally bad map then there should be no problem?

But communication is needed so the mapper and everyone involved understands what is happening and why.

I don't think the system needs to have no communication, just instead of writing 5 paragraphs with examples to ultimately state "Poor spacing choices and whole map uses 3 patterns total", you can write just that instead

If you can say 'BNG can decide whether this map is suitable for ranked section in single look so just nuke it without any reasoning on mod page', then why it should be BNG who vote for nuke

There's so many elite mappers who can do it, but too lazy to do BNG role. We can organize another new group for nuke that would be more reasonable

I think this system gives too much power to BNG, by simplifying the course of forced DQ

why can’t we just flip the system over on its side?

if someone dislikes a map they “veto” (or whatever term you want) it. this starts a voting immediately and alerts the bng (only for the first person to press it) but it does not DQ the map. if the threshold is not reached until the map is ranked the “veto” is dismissed.

Nukes in 2024, osu is saved

My input is that this doesn't solve anything if you're worried about "community backlash", "the future that peppy envisions", etc. People need to understand the current state of things and work based off of it or nothing will ever change.

The ranked section is being kept and mantained for decades now by mappers and modders, not the general community of players, even if that makes no sense when the end goal of it is a gameplay feature such as leaderboards, score and pp.

Any idea that doesn't acknowledge this reality feels like a dog chasing its tail. Bringing nuke back is just running in circles, repeating old mistakes in favor of newer mistakes, never really going to the root of the problem.

It's not going to fix the underlying issue of backlash though.

Communication of what the qualified section does is a more powerful thing, as as it stands, there's literally nothing DQing a map during qualified does to a player. It doesn't give pp nor would scores on there count anyways.

The backlash happens when people assume they deserve something they didn't actually have.

We need a source of information on this, either as a youtube video, or as a pop up on the qualified discussion channel for people who have first opened the discussion section to read.

I don't think the name nuke would work, as the modern community doesn't know the historical name sake, and would just see it as hostile.

Specifically to this rework, I agree with any change that allows BNs to have more say between BNs on what shouldn't get ranked. But, a high minimum threshold to bar it feels weird given the asymmetry of workload here. A BN who needs to nominate only needs to check their map. A BN who wants to engage with this veto system needs to check everyone else's maps.

Removing discussion with the mapper feels like a slippery slope.

Combining these two, it might be more productive for the BN and mapper to give their case to why this map should be vetoed or not, an NAT member to check the veto arguments are valid enough, and then for BNs to vote on it, similar to a jury system.
This helps to distil the case down to something that can be read in 5-10 minutes, which a BN can be expected to do outside of their nomination duties.

one thing to note is a systematic change as significant as this will need to apply to all game modes, so keep that in mind.

++++++++++++1

modules wrote:

Doesn't this exacerbate the current issue? Makes power tripping even worse if a BN can just nuke it with no prior notice. The problem with Bang Bang was that there was practically zero discussion or attempt to find a middle ground before sending in the veto. You should never allow such a "zero communicative effort" veto. It allows for DQing maps out of spite and causing harm regardless of if the BN will get warned afterwards.

Well, instead one "oner person's decision" it will be a collective decision amongst the BNs

aika wrote:

Someone asked me to post their idea about hiding the nuker identity (they have chosen to stay anonymous):

Hi, just saw your post. I dont know if this has been suggested in the past but adding a system where the person doing the veto to be hidden to public may also be good? With the crazy backlash saggin received its hard to really motivate people to veto maps

This was shit with the old QAT DQ system, I don't really seeing it work out. It just makes it completely inhumane. IMO You just need to tough out the backlash. Maybe have some system for the BN to discuss with other BNs prior to "initiating" a nuke, so that it's more of a collective effort rather than a single person. (ie. a discord thread..)

Maybe rename "Nuke" to something else, it sounds too negative right now.

DeviousPanda wrote:

maybe another idea that would lower community backlash is if a veto keeps the mapset suspended in qualified rather than an instant dq, (like how maps with pending issues are held in qualified right now), and only if a veto is upheld would it then be disqualified?

Doesn't this happen already? Kinda? AFAIK any qualified maps with a problem stamp open cannot move on to ranked without that being resolved. Maybe make it so that if a BN posts a problem stamp it suspends the qualified timer (and only let the poster or NATs resolve obv). That way proper discussion can happen *before* DQing to make changes.

my only concern would be how optically this looks even more negative to the average player than the current veto system

considering recent events surrounding excessive amounts of toxicity thrown at a bn for simply vetoing a map, regardless of merit, this would likely make it worse

i also have a feeling that with an 80% threshold to nuke a map it might take years before a single nuke actually works (not that i would have a problem with vetoes/nukes being as neutered as possible but thats beside the point)

i do prefer nukes over the current veto system however i also prefer just removing any sort of veto system at all, especially after map tagging system gets implemented, allowing people to just play what they prefer and ignore what they dont

either way +1

without prior discussion with the related mapper

A BN does not need to write an essay to prove why a map is bad

Maps marked as "nuked" can't be ranked unless fundamental changes have been made with the map

This just doesn't seem like a good idea. I get why a mapper would want to nuke a map; sometimes they're just that bad, but it seems like there's a fundamental lack of communication here.
So a BN can nuke a map without discussing with the mapper, or providing any justification to the mapper on what's wrong, yet the mapper is required and expected to make drastic changes? I get that a BN can tell what maps are bad without having to write an essay, but the whole point is the mapper gets feedback. If someone is trying to rank an unrankably bad map, then they clearly see no issue with it. Shutting them down and DQing them won't help, cause they'll have no idea what's wrong.
Maybe I just don't get it because I'm not a BN, but that means every mapper or player who's not a BN won't get it either, and you'll just end up with a load of angry people.

I get that we're probably all on twitter and see a lot of reddit threads now and then but IMO that stuff is still all off-platform. 99% of the complaining would not stand its ground in a proper discussion forum where off-topic posts are not allowed.

My opinion is that delaying ranking is a non-problem (with the exception of time-sensitive quests), but the potential of permanent blocking is. We should not tweak the system to make it easier to block out maps that are perfectly fine to rank just to appease 8 year olds who can't wait like 2-3 weeks for some more discussion to happen.

I agree that it should be possible to raise discussions without timestamps or specifics, since it leads to people masking their reasoning with fake reasons like song representation or variety. If you think a map looks bad, just say that. If you think a map goes overboard for jumps, just say that. Since we are already on the topic of veto/nuke, writing mods that may require complete remapping should not be tiptoed around.

Also, please make it so 2-3 people are needed to start this process at least. It's not a hard threshold to hit and makes the opposite side feel more credible, which may help avoid this problem of everyone dogpiling the original problem raiser

Kibbleru wrote:

DeviousPanda wrote:

maybe another idea that would lower community backlash is if a veto keeps the mapset suspended in qualified rather than an instant dq, (like how maps with pending issues are held in qualified right now), and only if a veto is upheld would it then be disqualified?

Doesn't this happen already? Kinda? AFAIK any qualified maps with a problem stamp open cannot move on to ranked without that being resolved. Maybe make it so that if a BN posts a problem stamp it suspends the qualified timer (and only let the poster or NATs resolve obv). That way proper discussion can happen *before* DQing to make changes.

yea in practice it's exactly the same, but if the map is in a qualified state it would probably reduce the harassment current bns get for initiating vetoes by a lot (as most community members that dont know how vetos work are just looking at the map state and making judgements off of that)

the specifics idk but in general this seems pretty good to me.

vetoes should accomplish something significant when they do happen. veto-ers using the system in its most impactful way -- trying to stop bad maps from entering ranked -- usually have to dance around the formality of concrete examples and exact/timestamped issues when the reality is often that they are just trying to say the map is "bad" in a general, collectively understood way, for more broad reasons than are typically required to initiate a veto currently. it doesn't help anyone involved to be unclear about what the veto represents and I think this proposal would solve that issue

don't have much to add but I strongly agree w/ everything you've said in the "Reason of this proposal" part

also I am hopeful that the simplicity of this proposal (compared to current) would encourage the function to be used more often

---

for naming: this isn't far enough away from what vetoes are supposed to be doing that it needs a new name imo. also I don't think "nuke" makes a lot of sense other than working similar to a long-gone system most modders now probably aren't even familiar with -- a system that got its name from an also long-gone phpbb icon.

for "there should be discussion prior" thing that a few ppl mentioned: I don't think this actually helps a lot for less concrete issues and it's one of the reasons that current vetoes are so ineffective. how I understand it, the proposed nuke thing is meant to be a much simpler and quicker implementation of vetoes that doesn't need to be predicated by drawn-out arguments (and as OP said, nukes would be more difficult by numbers to uphold because of this). a discussion would be helpful if the mapper of an upheld nuke honestly does want to significantly change their map to resolve it, but in any other case not so much.

Hivie wrote:

one thing to note is a systematic change as significant as this will need to apply to all game modes, so keep that in mind.

strongly disagree w/ this every1 else already said why

solution that can work for alternative gamemodes if maintaining parity between all gamemodes is important:

add the nuke, and maintain the veto
there have been (admittedly, very few) vetos in standard that were upheld for discrete issues while most of the mapping community agreed that the map at large was good - therefore, I'd say that the nuke button doesn't completely make the veto obsolete

example: beatmapsets/897884#osu/2070541

that way, other gamemodes can choose to continue using the veto as they see fit if they think it's important

the only concern with this is systems bloat, but the average player is already completely clueless about the veto system/qualification as is, so I don't think adding a third method of disqualification is a major concern

____

thoughts on the proposal itself:

I think 70% participation is very low considering comments are not required at all. Mandatory participation should be considered, given that maps being indefinitely barred from the ranked section set massive precedents for mapping metas going forward.

I also think 80% is too high of a threshold: traditional supermajorities in voting systems are usually 66%, but even 70% or 75% is already incredibly high and represents an overwhelming dislike of the map.

I also think 20% is way too low for "malice" - BNs have a responsibility to understand the mapping meta, and honestly I'd say that submitting anything that's under 33% is just stupid. People choosing to nuke a map should be able to understand that this process is not for maps they personally dislike or could be better, but rather reflect large quality concerns coming from the majority of the mapping community.

This sounds the same as a veto except even worse. How exactly does this fix any of the problems with the veto system? Also, it's extremely unlikely that 80% of BNs manage to agree on a map being unfit for ranked since views on mapping can be so diverse, making it a useless feature if it was implemented. And even if it happened, that would only be seen as a way for BNs to nuke maps they personally dislike without having to discuss or present arguments at all, which would cause even more backlash than a regular veto. It completely goes against the principle of constructive criticism, not helping the mapper improve their map in any way.

Agree with Serizawa Haruki, it's a veto but worse, since it:

1. Seems unconstructive, due to the lack of explanation for the veto.
2. Sounds hostile due to the term "nuke".
3. Doesn't give the mapper the theoretical chance to concede to the nuker and make the changes desired.