INTRODUCTION
In this post I will develop an argument as to why not having a theoretical framework harms ecosystems and generates fragmented groups of people who distort concepts to their convenience but in turn provide loopholes that should not exist. Undermining any kind of discussion, analysis or feedback. I will also give a soft touch to why seeking for minimum quality standards created this false dichotomy of “giving people what they want” or “forcing high standards”, and why seeking minimum standards goes back and forth on the fine line of conformity and mediocrity. Which gives rise to comments like this (even if it is hyperbole). Basically I cover several axes, so my solution probably leaves much to be desired, at least visualizing problems can spark creative minds.WHY WOULD NOT HAVING THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK BE A BAD THING?
Lacking theoretical consistency in modding undermines objectivity, as maps would be judged on subjective opinions rather than clear, shared principles, leading to inconsistency and potential favoritism. This lack of structure erodes quality standards, resulting in maps that might lack polish or coherence and negatively affecting the gameplay experience. It also weakens constructive criticism, making feedback feel extremely arbitrary and less useful for mapper/modder’s growth. Additionally, without a unifying framework, the community (as I will show below) is becoming increasingly fragmented into echo chambers with differing standards, making it harder for new mapper/modders to understand expectations. Ultimately, theoretical consistency helps ensure fairness, quality, and predictability, all of which contribute to a healthy and enjoyable modding ecosystem.SOME EXAMPLES OF THEORETICAL INCONSISTENCY
- CONTRAST AS A FALSE DICHOTOMY: In the current system, the only thing the RC mentions is over reflecting the intensity of the song. This is unnecessarily vague and creates loopholes where people can just distort it, for example: two sections are distinctively different, but have a very similar intensity, RC says that would be fine if both section's structures are similar just by appealing to their intensity. Although in the newest and simplified version of the RC, it low-key covers this loophole introducing the concept of “mapping ideas”, differentiating the “mapping element contrast” vs “mapper’s ideas contrast” to reflect the song. The thing is that in reality, it doesn't work at all similar, some NATs/BNs take this into account and others not at all. The contrast ends up falling into an oversimplification where one cannot logically debate whether a contrast is a “good or bad” contrast, rather than whether “there is or is not” based on its intensity.
- LOW DIFFICULTIES DOES NOT NEED TO REFLECT THE SONG: This was said by a NAT member in a recent discussion (and despite saying that it is only their opinion, they reinforce it in an evaluation). However, it is not a one-man thing by any means, there are several members who truly believe this (another examples). Why does this not make sense? Because the purpose of low difficulties, in the line of why spreads exist, is to present a simplified version of the set's top difficulty. So it would make no sense for it to arbitrarily lack their very purpose (to reflect the song) and difficulty progression can be logically substantiated. Intuitive gameplay for new players is intrinsically related to the difficulty level and has nothing to do with map design to reflect the song. All difficulties should reflect the song with the limitations of their respective difficulty and spread.
- MAPPING AND SPECIAL PLEADING: It's amazing how many times we fall into a double standard in modding. The hypocrisy of saying some do and some don't, makes it even worse, because for example this veto should not have been considered and it also makes no sense when we think about the veto before that one (even if the reasoning for it was bad, anyway probably all members knew what the veto was really about), so the overall feeling is just this. It also happens with comments such as the mapper's intentions, which is fine, since the mapper has an important voice in its creation and there are many spaces where a wide range of interpretations are left, however, they must be based on logical grounds and not just because they wanted it that way. Similar things happen with old maps, just because they are old they can be the exception? This only contributes to creating more loopholes.
- IRRELEVANT FEEDBACK IN EVALUATIONS: This veto was not just my subjective thinking, but was feedback taken directly from an evaluation whose comments sounded logical from my perspective. This creates a huge contradiction, since in the end everything that NATs evaluate is very far from reality and even if this case happened before the fall of the NAT, it continues to happen in recent evaluations, it is noticeable that there is a very personal analysis instead of resting on a logical argument. Also, there is no point in improving (irrelevant feedback) if you only have to do the bare minimum, why do you want over-trained workers? And it also makes no sense if the feedback is illogical for one group and logical for another, only further fragments the community. So the overall feeling is this: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - etc etc.
HOW SEEKING MINIMUM STANDARDS HARMS THE ECOSYSTEMS
- MAPPER’S PERSPECTIVE: When standards are too low, the significance of ranking as a benchmark for quality diminishes. If almost anything can meet the standard, it stops being a mark of achievement and becomes an expectation. This leads to a culture where ranking feels routine rather than celebratory. If the ranked section tolerates mediocrity, the drive to innovate weakens over time as there's no visible incentive to go beyond "acceptable". Moreover, higher standards foster an environment where boundary-pushing becomes the norm rather than the exception, so it encourages innovation and continuous improvement, leading to more creative and well-crafted results while setting a baseline of quality that benefits the entire community.
- MODDER’S (BNG) PERSPECTIVE: Objectivity in feedback is compromised when standards become vague or overly flexible. If there's no consistent baseline, feedback often devolves into subjective preference rather than constructive critique. Standards serve as a common ground to anchor discussions, ensuring feedback is actionable and fair. Being a BN or evaluating BNs and BN applications gains significance when tied to upholding meaningful standards. If ranking focuses solely on minimum criteria, the BNG’s role shifts from quality assurance to mere gatekeeping. This not only undermines the BN title but also weakens the purpose of the application process. Encouraging higher standards reflects the importance of these roles in the community.
- PLAYER’S PERSPECTIVE: External systems like the pp system do indeed play a significant role in shaping mapping trends, as they reward players for achieving higher scores, pushing them to aim for maps that can help them maximize their performance. However, the ranked section itself also holds a considerable influence over the community. Maps that consistently appear in the ranked section, particularly those that are more simplified or less complex in their design, set a certain standard for what is considered acceptable or even desirable in the game. Why develop skills to play more complex maps when you can play an intuitive map type and gain the same pp? For example, players in the "golden era" were exposed to that standard of intuitive/comfortable (easy) maps, setting a false standard of skill that relies on oversimplification of maps for the benefit of pp.
BEATMAP NOMINATOR MENTORSHIP
The BN mentorship system was intended to help possible applicants get better in a shorter time with the guidance of a NAT member. While this sounds like a good idea, some aspects were approached too carelessly. Having NAT members who reinforce beliefs that are not true generates a greater spread of misconceptions, but also that they bring other like-minded individuals to support their claims (organized lying) creating an echo chamber and ultimately creating an environment incapable of holding a coherent discussion. The purpose of constant lying is not to replace the truth with the lie, the purpose of constant lying is to undermine the character of factuality itself. The agenda of organized lying within modding is to make facts seem like matters of opinion. And once facts turn into opinion then there is no factual account of reality, there is no agreed-upon basis for human action, modding becomes meaningless. BN mentorship generates cognitive biases, conflicts of interest (showing that the mentor is capable and that the system works) and prioritizes personal connections. Why does this happen? because there's actually a tangible reward dangling at the end of the mentorship. This could be solved if there were no such free pass and there was a solid theoretical framework."WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS JUST ELITISM"
It’s important to understand that striving for excellence in any field is not about exclusion; it’s about raising the bar for everyone. This doesn’t mean shutting out new mappers or demanding perfection, but rather fostering an environment where effort, creativity, and skill are encouraged and celebrated. By encouraging the pursuit of higher standards, we create an atmosphere where learning, collaboration, and progress are the natural outcomes. A culture of excellence benefit not just top-tier mappers but the entire community, as new mappers learn from a system that encourages improvement and creativity. By continually pushing boundaries, we create a dynamic environment where everyone can contribute, evolve, and be motivated to improve. It’s not about excluding individuals but about cultivating an atmosphere where skill, effort, and creativity are rewarded, and everyone has the opportunity to rise to their full potential. Can also help break down silos by encouraging open, constructive dialogue about unconventional ideas.Wasn't the beatmap spotlights supposed to be made for all that? Beatmap Spotlights were created with the intention of highlighting the best maps, showcasing innovation, and rewarding mappers who go above and beyond in their design. However, despite these good intentions, they can inadvertently contribute to the negative perception of high standards in the community. The problem with systems like Beatmap Spotlights is that, instead of encouraging excellence, they become a mechanism of exclusion. The very platform designed to highlight the best of mapping can unintentionally create the perception that high standards are an unrealistic, unattainable ideal. The ranked section should serve as a collection of quality maps, where each map has a solid technical foundation, and the discussion centers around why it stands out, not whether it's "good enough" to be recognized.
MAPPING IS SUBJECTIVE
While mapping is inherently subjective, using that subjectivity as a shield against feedback undermines the very process of growth and improvement within the community. The beauty of subjectivity lies in the diversity and creativity it fosters, but it doesn't negate the value of constructive critique grounded in shared standards or principles. Theoretical framework provides a foundation for analyzing maps beyond mere personal preference. Rejecting feedback by labeling it as “just an opinion” risks stifling meaningful discussion and fostering complacency, where conformism gives way to mediocrity. Other art forms demonstrate that subjectivity can coexist with objective evaluation, offering a balance that enhances both the technical and creative aspects of the craft. By embracing critique, even in a subjective medium, mappers not only refine their skills but also contribute to a culture where quality and diversity coexist harmoniously. Mapping should celebrate creativity, but it should also recognize that striving for excellence requires openness to thoughtful, constructive feedback.We can make an analogy with the world of cinema: even if you dislike a movie, it’s important to articulate why. Your critique holds more value if you explain, for instance, that you didn’t enjoy the film because it oversimplifies the concept of schizophrenia or adolescent development. These critiques are rooted in logical frameworks or research, making the discussion more meaningful and productive. Similarly, mapping thrives when subjective preferences are paired with thoughtful analysis supported by objective principles. This is consistent with the difference between fun vs good, and why the relevance of the same video has lasted over the years. Perhaps the director of that film intended to simplify these concepts to make them easier to digest but that does not mean it would be a good representation of them, even if they remain consistent within the film’s internal logic. This parallel is particularly relevant in song interpretation and music theory.