Recently there has come about issues regarding mapsets being qualified too quickly. There has been an unwritten rule (well written, in the qualification log at least) that cites power abuse for qualifying maps quickly which have glaring flaws or fundamental issues. In order to prevent any further issues and consequences dealt, I think there should be a new rule or guideline that deals with the behavior at the source - mappers aiming to have their mapsets qualified as soon as possible.

Before we propose a new rule or guideline, we must define what speedqualifiction really is. Speedqualification should be defined as mappers pushing their mapsets forward to the qualified status too quickly; either acquiring mods that do not improve the overall quality of the mapset well or by disregarding the quality in order to have their mapsets ranked before anyone else. With this definition, we can apply this to "ghost mapsets" that are graved in order to create the illusion of a longer period of time spent on the map when in actuality it was rushed when revived.

Of course, it is the responsibility of the members of the BAT to determine whether or not a set is ready for qualification or else face the consequences of an unqualification. However, we should not focus on the behavior of the BAT (they can be disillusioned by friendships and such), we should focus on the behavior of the mapper so that the ideology behind speedqualifications are rooted out.

Contest maps are excluded from this, however I do feel that they should be in the modding process for a longer time than how they were before.

I propose this:

Mapsets should remain in the modding process for as long as possible. Mappers should avoid having their sets qualified quickly. This is to ensure that the beatmaps in question have been improved to the point where they are deemed worthy of being qualified.

Feel free to leave your comments, concerns, and questions on this thread. If you can come up with a better wording (I know you guys can), please by all means post it!

The question is..how to define a Speedqualification correctly.
We need a more exact or accurate standard on this maybe?
But I dont think it is appropriate to set a rule about how many days does a map need to get qualified, that is too silly.

I offered up an appropriate definition in the thread. I do not think there should be a set period of time a mapper must wait, we will leave it up to the BAT to make sure it is ready and had spent a good amount of time in pending.

Lust wrote:

I offered up an appropriate definition in the thread. I do not think there should be a set period of time a mapper must wait, we will leave it up to the BAT to make sure it is ready and had spent a good amount of time in pending.

Yeah... We should emphasize more on the real quality in one map rather than just "days"..... So maybe it is better to make some in-depth guidelines about map's multi-aspects quality (especially including some fundamental issues which can be overlooked easily during a "speedqualification") rather than setting a time....
Even setting the number of mods is better than setting atime imo.

Do you have a definition of speedqualify ?

Under a week ? Two weeks ? One month ?

...please read the thread

"as long as possible" would mean the mapset has to wait for 2years in pending though, since many maps really do that

in this case you may be concerning, when the map was speedqualified, QATs were there, and have already prevented this case
and since qualified != ranked, this means the speedrank action was already failed

as you said, a speedqualified map would always be full of errors, so QATs can always fulfill their duty and disqualify them on time

but if you really want to add rules like this i won't care, becuase i don't rank my maps, 233333333

It is fine as long as the map itself isn't stepping on the edge or grey area. Having things confirmed by a lot of trustful mods from experience mappers/modders in a short time and getting ranked fast is always ok.

There is no need to hold it back too long if it's ready enough when sometimes, a mapper actually spent 24 hours on 2 years old pending map while one another spent a full of 24 hours on his 2 days map. The map age is utterly different but the work hours spent on it is fairly the same.
If the mapper knew that his/her map is safe enough to get ranked, it wouldn't be much problem when it gets qualified.

Leaving a period of time, 1 week or so, would be nice to open rooms for improvements and prevent unwanted disqualifyings so I vote this for a guideline.
It has always been risky to rank things in a short time but if it's safe and quality enough, it should be fine.

Added: considering the 2 maps got disqualified here, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/208193 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/224097
They were stepping on the edge as the first one was put by potentially inappropriate stuffs, and 2nd one contains of overmappings and mods refused in the thread.

I don't believe the map can get disqualified easily unless the mapper wants to challenge for something like the above cases.

How this can end in guideline for mappers if all bubble\qualification process goes only through BAT member? If you feel like you abused by friendships and such and this leads to bad quality of your bubbles\ranks just make straight rules for yourself.

setting arbitrary time limits for maps to remain in the modding cycle is not something we cover with the criteria - if a map is ready in less time/less mods, it's ready in less time/less mods. adding a clumsy, overhanded rule to deliberately extend the process for no reason other than the chance of potentially garnering more useful mods is to slow down the entire ranking process for literal hope.

unless loctav feels differently, i can't see this amendment happening in its current state, not without significant rewording to actually address the issue at hand

Here we go again, this topic always pops up from time to time and there is always the same outcome.
Anyway, seconding Ephe here.

Good map + slow rank = good
Good map + fast rank = good. No shitstorm on Guy's Ignite.

Bad map + slow rank = disqualify, but still okay. The mapper can fix it and get it reranked.
Bad map + fast rank = BAADDDDDD.

All I'd like to ask is why is ranking a bad map so much worse when it's speedranked? What about speedranking only makes it inexcusable when it's performaed on a bad map? If Chloe ranked the same map with the same objects a month later, could you still say the BAT members that ranked it had acted stupidly?

Keep in mind that earlier Chloe got the Fate/Stay Night Unlimited Budget Works OP ideal white qualified in 6 days, and it went through without a hitch. The same thing here, except it got unranked, and we end up with the map's thread locked and wcx kicked from BAT. Did that mean smallboat and CDFA were risking their positions as BAT when they bubbled/ranked ideal white? And likewise for the BAT members who did Guy's Ignite?

The question of the acceptability of speedranking aside, all the proposal really does is provide an explicit reason to punish the BAT for assisting in it. Since the wording sets no hard boundaries, it won't change a thing with mappers' attitudes because they'll just say pending for 3 days is long enough and the map is of enough quality. At best, it will scare off BAT from speedranking something they would originally have done, but there will still be some that believe a week old map is fine and ready to rank.

If a BAT member decides to bubble or qualify a Beatmap they're aware and agree to have checked a Beatmap carefully and being 100% sure with the action they do. Abusive usage is obvious to see so these people gets thrown out if they do shit. And I have seen enough maps which became speedranked (today speedqualified) which are justified for their rankability. No support here.

Lets just get this over with already and set a one week minimum RULE regardless of quality or amount of mods, etc. to prevent fiascos from happening.

For most mappers, one week is barely enough time to find enough mods from submission anyway. I'm sure there will be less objections anyway if we set the deadline.

It's also more convenient for the staff, modders, and mappers. No need to go around in circles debating on the definition of speed ranking.

yes, I know what I did and I apologize. Setting a rule to prevent stuff like this from happening is the better choice of action

Making this a rule/guideline about this is pointless, as this talks more about the modding/ranking process than the rankability/quality of the beatmap.

Pretty much this can be easily handled by BAT/QAT. BATs should look if the map has received enough feedback from experienced people before bubbling/ranking, and QAT do what QATs have to do.

On one side, if a mapset is deemed ready; good enough by players and BATs then there's basically no point of waiting longer for the rankage (since we're basically waiting for nothing)
On the other side, prioritization, favoritism and other subjective issues matters, leading speedqualification (this term is awkwardly stupid but w/e) considered had to be avoided.

Contradictions, contradictions.

The speed of maps getting ranked isn't the issue, it's the quality of the map that matters.

The reason speed ranking is so widely opposed is because it often results in a lower quality map set.

If a speed rank does not result in a low quality map set, then it isn't a problem.

The way this is written is really bad tbh

"As long as possible" is completely subjective. I feel like you mean to say "until mods are empty", but you have people like me who make very short mods, and then other people who make nazi mods about everything.

The issue is moreso an issue of BAT quality assurance.

Be aware that in the particular speedrank there is, there was just sort of a "uhhhh, ranked lmao.", and therein lies a large amount of the problem. Not the fact that it was ranked quickly, but the fact that issues weren't found at all.

You can sort of artificially solve this by modding bubbles by star priority or by their actual age in pending maps, since like, that's super cool instead of having maps bubbled for 2 months. But if a map is rankable, a map is rankable.

Why is this even being discussed again? wasn't it agreed that it was pointless to put a time limit last time this was discussed?

If nothing is wrong with the map then it's fine.