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

[Proposal] Keep Vetoed Maps Qualified Until Upheld

posted
Total Posts
11
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,684 posts
Joined April 2012
Topic Starter
Noffy
This was brought up in a few separate places so now it has its own focused home (if i missed something about it re-share your opinions about it here)

The idea is:
If a map has significant concerns while a map is qualified, instead of initiating a veto with a disqualification, a mediation would come to resolve ongoing qualified map discussions. Either the concerned nominator or the mapper involved in the discussion would request mediation when an issue is at an impasse and can't be resolved. The map would stay qualified.

points of this
  1. Before, disqualification was necessary because otherwise the qualified timer would keep ticking. Now that pending issues lock a map in qualified until resolve, this is no longer the case.
  2. This would be one step to help avoid false equivalence of veto = map is totally knocked from qualification process right away, it becomes a part of the ongoing steps.
  3. If the issue relates to gameplay concerns, leaderboard data can help inform on how a map is playing for its audience, if there's any locations for common misses, why those happen, etc.
  4. If the issue is dismissed and resolved, the map could resume qualification without needing to go through calling the nominating BNs back again.
  5. Only when an issue is upheld would the map be removed from qualification as a veto.

Uhh it's a rough idea that was collected from a few sources, so thoughts are appreciated :)

p.s. my reaction when veto thread for the nth month in a row
Basensorex
Beatmap Nominator
313 posts
Joined January 2018
Basensorex
ye this would help reduce amount of player crying substantially as well as protect vetoing bns from as much unnecessary backlash

+1
Net0
Beatmap Nominator
1,272 posts
Joined October 2014
Net0
Good idea.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,106 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
I don't think this would change much practically - vetoes take a long time, so having a map sitting there would just increase the likelihood of *any* changes, not just the ones suggested solely by the veto, being rejected to avoid a DQ - which is behavior that the system has been modified to discourage over the years. Also, I think that it might exacerbate the issue if some epic poggers 2k pp map gets a really good qualified score posted on it while in limbo and then gets DQd after the veto is upheld (if a veto will ever be upheld again).

The way to reduce the amount of player crying is to have people tell players unequivocally that being toxic dickheads is bad behavior and that they shouldn't do it, then enforce that, not to bend over backwards to 15 year olds with death threat macros every time it happens. Setting good examples and showing community-wide disapproval of the type of behavior would be much more effective than trying to brush it under the rug constantly.
clayton
1,917 posts
Joined November 2013
clayton

Nao Tomori wrote:

I don't think this would change much practically - vetoes take a long time, so having a map sitting there would just increase the likelihood of *any* changes, not just the ones suggested solely by the veto, being rejected to avoid a DQ - which is behavior that the system has been modified to discourage over the years.
that's a fair point to me but only if the opposite happens often -- do people usually take the opportunity of a veto to mod the map in ways unrelated to the veto?

Nao Tomori wrote:

Also, I think that it might exacerbate the issue if some epic poggers 2k pp map gets a really good qualified score posted on it while in limbo and then gets DQd after the veto is upheld (if a veto will ever be upheld again).
I haven't seen this type of complaint in meaningful volume since the days of qualified maps giving pp so I don't think this would happen

Nao Tomori wrote:

The way to reduce the amount of player crying is to have people tell players unequivocally that being toxic dickheads is bad behavior and that they shouldn't do it, then enforce that, not to bend over backwards to 15 year olds with death threat macros every time it happens. Setting good examples and showing community-wide disapproval of the type of behavior would be much more effective than trying to brush it under the rug constantly.
I agree with your attitude here. I can't tell what you're suggesting that would actually look like in practice, though (or maybe you weren't trying to exactly). for me this is much less about what is "enforced" and more about what role models people have in the community and how much they understand the systems at play

e: should clarify I don't have any problem with like silences/restrictions over srs thing like death threats even off-platform, but that's not the same thing as the general, less extreme hostility you often see toward ppl who place vetoes, that at least imo do not warrant any kind of "enforcement" beyond cleaning up unhelpful posts on modding discussions or w/e

---

I don't think the proposal would dramatically improve anything but I also don't think it would hurt either I guess. some of the points listed are nice benefits imo, like being able to see the scores that would normally be hidden on DQ. I also think framing a veto as sort of "pending" until it's actually upheld is a little more accurate to its intention

... +0.5?
Last edited by clayton , edited 1 time in total.
Drum-Hitnormal
Beatmap Nominator
1,727 posts
Joined March 2011
Drum-Hitnormal
like the part where it avoid wasting time if veto is rejected, agree

i think this is useful for general stuff like veto for preview timing, bg choice, diff name etc, map related veto takes longer to discuss and fix, having this change or not doesnt make any difference

so overall a small gain
Last edited by Drum-Hitnormal , edited 2 times in total.
RandomeLoL
Nomination Assessment Team
222 posts
Joined September 2015
RandomeLoL
While the change is mostly going to be helpful optics-wise, I have the same reasonable objections clayton points out. This is not going to fix the core behavioural issues that should be handled elsewhere.

I agree though that the perceptions players would have could be different. And allowing a map to be almost instantly ranked if it's dismissed would definitely be a meaningful time saver. So overall it should be a non-issue for us to implement and try out.

However, if the veto is upheld, this means the map would spend severely less time the next time it is qualified if changes are made. I believe that this would only work if there was a way to forcefully reset the ranked timer on upheld sets. This would avoid the map from being ranked with the new changes without having no time to spend in Qualified, which in principle would be an issue if the set gets changed (Something something ship of Theseus).

Would say more stuff should be made if vetoes are this problematic however. Suggest looking at the still pending discussions and see what we can do from there.
Last edited by RandomeLoL , edited 1 time in total.
Stompy_
Beatmap Nominator
873 posts
Joined March 2020
Stompy_
+1 I like it
Daycore
Beatmap Nominator
931 posts
Joined January 2015
Daycore
yep, that would be nice
Mafumafu
Nomination Assessment Team
3,372 posts
Joined August 2013
Mafumafu
Supporting this. Though it does not directly tackles the structural issue with the veto system, it is still a good intermediate solution before we decide the fate of the veto system in the future.

Speaking of community "collateral damage" also discussed above, I still think the majority of the community is not inherently with "ill intentions", but a lack of knowledge on how the veto system works. Unlike other components in the beatmap ranking procedure, veto is fairly a niche one from the perspective of the general public.

While we could surely implement penalties for egregiously malicious behaviors on related social media platforms, most of our efforts should still center around how to educate the community with those systems better. Therefore, in addition to this proposal, I would also suggest to further standardize the initial veto post, e.g., ask the nominator who initiates the veto to follow a certain format and add necessary informative contents such as the veto wiki page, and some brief introduction on the procedures and the outcomes.
niat0004
220 posts
Joined September 2017
niat0004
While I wouldn't agree in principle, because the point of a disqualification is to start a discussion, not to end it, I agree that the optics of a veto would be improved by this to players who have limited understanding of the system.

However, if vetoed maps are qualified until upheld, why aren't maps under Content Review qualified until the BG/video/SB element fails? I get if it was the main BG visible on the website, but otherwise, it wouldn't affect the visibility of the questioned element much at all.

Therefore, I propose that either:
  1. Vetoes do not disqualify a map until sent to mediation.
  2. Vetoes do not disqualify a map until upheld, AND Content Reviews do not disqualify the map until failure unless it is the background visible from the website.

Mafumafu wrote:

[...] Most of our efforts should still center around how to educate the community with those systems better. Therefore, in addition to this proposal, I would also suggest to further standardize the initial veto post, e.g., ask the nominator who initiates the veto to follow a certain format and add necessary informative contents such as the veto wiki page, and some brief introduction on the procedures and the outcomes.
I agree, and I feel there is lacking education on the rules and beatmap procedure in general.
I feel like making a video series about it would help, but Mafumafu's idea about making veto messages standardized and educational would help, since many people will only see that message without having read (or reading) the related wiki articles on procedure beforehand.

Therefore, I propose that an informal standard veto message is created by a group of BNs and NAT members.
This veto message could explain:
  1. What a veto is and why it can be placed (for subjective reasons).
  2. The difference between a veto and veto mediation.
  3. If sent to mediation, the rules for mediation, including turnout (7 days, 70% agree, 60% voted).
  4. If upheld, the ability to challenge a veto after a year.
Addendum regarding penalties for off-platform misconduct
This is a different topic, and a significant one. I believe the misconduct has to be significant to be given a penalty on osu!.

I believe that, in descending order of severity, the following measures should be imposed:
  1. Restriction: For extreme harassment (or significant sexual misconduct). Could last 3 months or be indefinite depending on the person's significance and the severity.
  2. Indefinite silence: For other threats, harassment, toxicity/hate speech, etc.
    Would last a minimum of 28 days (minimum may be higher depending on the significance and severity) and be appealable through the account support team (and appeal-review@ppy.sh) once certain conditions (e.g. reform/apology) are met.
  3. Silence: For less serious misconduct that is still meaningful enough to warrant punishment. Could be ¼, ½, 1, 2, or 4 weeks.
Last edited by niat0004 , edited 2 times in total.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 11