-rewritten-

osu players, non known/famous artists, must not be disallowed to modify songs just for personal reasons, forbidding any kinds of extended songs has absolutely nothing to do with assuring quality, it can be done right and yes, it can be done wrong, it's the BN's job to assure quality, such rule addition is just going to limit creativity and new creations

it's similar to controverse mapping styles, some like it some don't, some like the modified song version some don't, it's completely subjective and nowhere objective, the extended song version lacks in quality? then simply don't bubble/rank it

as said before, the poorly excuse to "protect" the artists makes no sense and has no place here, how many of you disrespected the artists for using their original content in osu without their permission? how many of you disrespected the artists for using a modified song version? if extending a song is "disrespectful", then shorting/cutting is as well, how about we add a rule to protect the artists so every mapper has to provide a proof that they are allowed to use their content in osu? won't end that well for you/the community, right?

no one of you is forced to only map one diff for 5min+ songs, but most of you are still doing it, why? too time-consuming? finding modders is too toublesome? I also think that some mappers here forgot why they started mapping beatmaps generally, did you map for fun or to distinguish oneself? mapping is not a fucking job, it's a hobby where you spent your freetime for creating fun and playable beatmaps to be played by the community and not a system to measure the quality of you as mapper or the beatmap

ranking criteria don't exist to protect the mapper's ego just because they can't tank/dislike it that some unknown/average/known mappers aren't spending as much time, putting as much effort and engagement into mapping as they do and/or by taking shortcuts to get their beatmaps ranked/approved, this will solely encourage them to map half-assed difficulties to meet the minimum requirement or send their current maps to graveyard

this whole rule addition doesn't feel right, not in its current state

I have to respectfully disagree with Natsu and Stefan

Stefan wrote:

Okay then.

Natsu wrote:

1. Extending the song its just a way to foolish the marathon length requirement Fully agree with this point and why I am against this method. The approval category is literally a category for lazy mappers to rank their maps. You could have mapped a full spread for your 15 minute song, but you chose not to, and instead only made one difficulty for approval. My argument isn't about length, but the fact that the purpose of the approval category is to give mappers the option not to map a full set. Extending the mp3 is just another technique mappers can use to take advantage of the approval category. It doesn't really make sense to disapprove of laziness when the Approval section is catered to lazy mappers. (Imagine if there was no Approval category and all songs required a full spread. Many songs would never see the light of day in the ranked section.)
2. I don't have time to make a full spread set its not an excuse, there are alot of mappers willing to map 1 diff for you Although some people lack on time, it's true you can ask other mappers and/or just stick longer on your project. No one will delete your work if you take longer than two months. I really feel this is only relevant to established mappers, and not the majority of the osu! playerbase that are new to mapping, or only have few ranked maps. Yes, there are people who like to make GD's but I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Basically "easier said than done". Generally people prefer to make GD"s for established mappers because its much more likely that the mapset will eventually become ranked.
3. Mods aren't hard to get, do M4M is super easy or ask modders to mod just certain diffs in your set. Basically the same I said in the last point but for modding instead. I can somewhat agree to this. Finding mods lies in the mapper's motivation to improve their maps and also their mapping capabilities. Extending the mp3 length definitely helps relieve stress in finding mods though because you aren't requesting as much from other modders, and in m4m's you don't feel like you need to scrutinize every tiniest detail so you don't feel bad m4m'ing your 25 minute drain time set with a 4 minute tv-size set. That said though, I also think this is "easier said than done", especially if you are a known mapper in the community because your mods are worth more. This is infinitely more true if you are a BN because everyone will want to m4m with you anyways. I think this is an overstatement too, and doesn't consider enough, the trouble that new/newer mappers face in trying to find mods and get BN's to check their sets.
4. There is not reasonable amount of time, any edit to the mp3 in case is a bad idea, because this promote the abusing of the system, first people started with 1 or 3 secs, now is the entire copy of sections, to avoid such cases we need a hard rule for this. Yep. I can't see how abusing the system is in any way negative to anyone other than the artist, and reading the discussion it seems people aren't even convinced editing/extending the mp3 is any more disrespectful to the artist than using and distributing their work without express permission. Abuse implies that there is a negative consequence, and I cannot see that here. You may say "well that means I could technically loop this 10 second song 30 times and it could technically go for approval". Stuff like this is would be precisely why mp3 editing should be handled case-by-case by the BN's and QAT's involved. And anything that needs to be handled case-by-case cannot be an objective rule.

Prevent someone from ranking their map if you believe that the quality they are trying to publish onto the official osu! beatmap listings is not acceptable. This can mean a low quality edit, or low quality mapping. Anything that says "this map is not a good contribution to the ranked section in its current state". Do not, however say "this mapper is lazy, so his/her contribution should not join the official beatmap listings". You might as well say "this mapper is ugly/blonde/smells bad/is a TSM fan, so his/her contribution should not join the official beatmap listings". Like those other reasons, laziness, a trait of the mapper, is not an adequate reason for preventing maps from being ranked. The character of the mapper shouldn't be considered when judging a map's rankability.

Interesting.

I dont even care why they extend or cut the song, I only care about quality.
imo you are just complicating an easy problem. Good map, pass; Bad map, bye.
Do players care about the mp3? No. They cares about gameplay(just means quality) and pp.

Hmm, agree with Yuki here. If the map is good enough, it's okay to me.

But I think common sense can be applied to most cases (with some exceptions), if it's a good cut that no one will really notice it's totally fine by me as long as the map is good enough,
but if it's really abused, like repeating big parts of the song or looping stuff too many times (when it gets really noticeable), then I think it's okay to disqualify for this.

I don't think you can expect a lot from mappers to go from a set consisting of 5 minutes drain time, to 4 * 5 minutes of drain time...

Enforcing this rule will only cause discomfort to many people, leading to lower quality maps, as you're basically forcing someone to map something he/she doesn't want to map at all.

Also, I think disrespecting the artist is done so many times already now... copyright can also be seen as disrespect imo... and I guess 99% of the ranked beatmaps never got permission from the artist. I can definitely understand where this is coming from, but I don't think enforcing this will do any better to be honest ._.

I find it amusing that people think copy paste is grounds for disqualification.

As to the main topic, it's not disrespectful and it's very lazy in appearance. As long as the mapper doesn't care and people still support the set, who cares? It meets the criteria we have established and I don't see anything particularly convincing to disallow remixing a song regardless how slight it may be.

Minakami Yuki wrote:

Interesting.

I dont even care why they extend or cut the song, I only care about quality.
imo you are just complicating an easy problem. Good map, pass; Bad map, bye.
Do players care about the mp3? No. They cares about gameplay(just means quality) and pp.

it's true

Stefan wrote:

Mahogany wrote:

- When you would say "It's inaccessible for new players" then that's a problem with marathon maps as a whole. I don't feel this is a legitimate point unless you disallow marathon single-diff ranking and require full spread for all maps, because otherwise how would that even be fair? In both cases the mapper has done the same (similar) amount of work, yet you're going do disregard what one of them has done purely based on the song they've chosen to use, while the other gets a free pass?

There are difference if the song you've mapped is legitimate above five minutes long or just poorly extended to suit the criteria. Of course you just cannot create for every map/song a full spread - starting from Easy until Expert (since Expert Difficulties became to something casual today) - but that's the wrong way we're going to allow people manipulating the song file (extending, looping, slowing the BPM) just because they decided to put less time and effort in their "work" - if you want to call it like that. Also, "It's inaccessible for new players" is a legitimate point, and you wouldn't really call a five minute map as marathon by common sense, do you?

In terms of mapping, I see no difference in the effort placed towards the mapping of a naturally 5m+ map, and the effort placed in mapping a song extended to be 5m+. The mapper is still doing functionally the same amount of work, if all other factors are considered equal. I honestly can see no difference between the two.

And this whole idea of "putting less time and effort into their work" I can't agree with. If the mapper has only a single difficulty to focus on, they're able to dedicate more time towards this single difficulty, and make it much more entertaining to play, and a better map overall. Just because there appears to be less strictly necessary work on the surface, doesn't mean the mapper doesn't put more work than this bare minimum. On the other hand, if a mapper has 5+ difficulties to look through, quality of each individual map is going to suffer significantly.

I also don't think disallowing extensions will encourage mappers to create full spreads. Rather, I think it will do the opposite and drive mappers away from mapping these songs. Why map a full spread for one song you like, when you could just forget about it and map an approval for a different song that is over 5 minutes? I can't see this new rule helping anything in any way.

"It's inaccessible for new players" is definitely a legitimate point. But that's exactly why I was arguing against this notion. I don't believe there's any real difference between a naturally 5m map and an extended 5m map, so I was making a statement that the only way to be fair in this ruling would be to either continue to allow extended songs to go for approval, or to remove the approval category entirely and require every map have a full spread.

Minakami Yuki wrote:

Interesting.

I dont even care why they extend or cut the song, I only care about quality.
imo you are just complicating an easy problem. Good map, pass; Bad map, bye.
Do players care about the mp3? No. They cares about gameplay(just means quality) and pp.

Basically this (except the PP part). Couldn't express it better; why not actually starting to care about quality instead of completely putting off useless rules?

Respectfully disagreeing, sorry, but this is not needed. I'm always surprised how people go crazy about stuff they literally don't have to care about (song length, or diff names).

100% agree with monstrata that extended edits that are blatant and poorly done should be prevented, but very minor extending (longer fade out) should be fine.

enforce quality, not rules

The thread is more about questioning the approval RC itself. It's still the very old problem that you have to make a cut somewhere and that people that are close to the cut but don't quite reach it will naturally search for some way to still make it.
Personally I dislike plain repeats that add nothing new and there's no other way to extend your mp3 by an amount that is significant enough to push your song over 5min when it wasn't really close to that value before.
Then again, extending a song by 5s with a longer spinner is not particularly positive in terms of quality either...In fact there is no positive way to extend the song as the only gain is that the map goes as a marathon and you got less work to do. If it would be positive in itself we would see it regardless of maplength right...?

People should be more courageous to cut stuff down instead as most 4:30 songs have a lot of repeating parts already. Almost no song is a bohemian rhapsody with 3 completely individual parts and no repitition. That's an easier way to reduce workload if reducing workload is the mapper's aim and a set with 4 3min diffs is already 6min shorter compared to an original 4:30 version and you don't cheat on worse players by only mapping your 5,5* extra-diff that is accessible by about 10% of the active playerbase.
And a technically clean cut is not harder to do than a clean extension...

That being said, approval maps aren't the best way to start mapping for rank imo. If you're unable to map a nice Easy-difficulty by yourself - and for some approvalmappers this is quite true - you probably miss out on some very basic understanding for mapping.

Let me throw an idea here.
Approval section should not be based on song's length anymore, but on score achieved by auto instead.
CB said : "I miss that old rule which says something like "If auto achieves more than 20M score, then the diff goes for approval" "

It is longer to map a 220BPM song than a 160BPM song, because the song is more dense, and there are more objects to put/map in a faster song.
But the score achieved by auto doesn't really reflect the song's length, rather its density, in most of cases, so its BPM ?
Players lose their stamina easier on dense maps with more combos, so with a higher "score per minute" achieve by auto. We call a "marathon" map for player's stamina or song's length ?


Just an idea, not my opinion.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

I miss that old rule which says something like "If auto achieves more than 20M score, then the diff goes for approval"

This won't lead to people extending the songs anymore, but they will change the maps, which is arguably worse. What if a map has 19,9M score? Just going to increase Slider Tick Rate or use a long slider instead of a spinner or something.

I still don't understand why does pple says it's direspectful when they cut mp3.

Endaris wrote:

Personally I dislike plain repeats that add nothing new and there's no other way to extend your mp3 by an amount that is significant enough to push your song over 5min when it wasn't really close to that value before.

Just would like to point out that I made a situation where a song went from 4:52 to 5:01 with a BPM drop of only 3 (base tempo of 100). 3 BPM is not going to be recognizable to the ear for anyone who actually knows the song and wasn't mapping it before, and it's not enough to cause audio issues where it can be assumed that it was modified.

I agree that people should cut songs a bit more -- but, if you've got a song that actually is just short of that mark and does have a ton of variance, are you really going to force them to map multiple difficulties? I think that's a bit absurd, and I think it's the reason why it should be case-by-case.

Kin: an actual cut/reasonable edit for length is something that I don't think anyone should consider to be disrespectful

Desperate-kun wrote:

This won't lead to people extending the songs anymore, but they will change the maps, which is arguably worse. What if a map has 19,9M score? Just going to increase Slider Tick Rate or use a long slider instead of a spinner or something.

As i said, this was just an idea, not a solution. There will be always "glitches".
And the most beautiful thing about this rule : overmapping, yea, note density abuse.

Why are single difficulty maps allowed anyway? If full mapsets of a song that's 4 minutes can be made, mapsets of songs that are 5 minutes surely can be, too.

I think we've long forgotten the purpose of setting rules.

"If auto achieves more than 20M score, then the diff goes for approval"

I second this, but only because that means i can now approve 3 minute 175 bpm stuff.

those wrote:

Why are single difficulty maps allowed anyway? If full mapsets of a song that's 4 minutes can be made, mapsets of songs that are 5 minutes surely can be, too.

I think we've long forgotten the purpose of setting rules.

Don't forget that "If full mapsets of a song that's 5 minutes can be made, mapsets of songs that are 6 minutes surely can be, too." etc...

Approval is there to give an option to mappers not to have to make a bunch of other difficulties in order to fill a set. Not everyone has the time to make a full set. I think we've discussed this aspect enough in the last 5 pages. Additionally though, not everyone wants to map certain difficulties either. I'm confident I can speak for other mappers too when I say that I can love a song, and be happy mapping out the Insane/Extra but still be unmotivated to map the Normal/Easy. It's not that I don't have the energy/time/dedication, it's simply that mapping this Easy/Normal/Hard feels more like a chore than an expression. If you are mapping a difficulty for the sake of filling a spread, it really limits your creativity, but more importantly, how you want to express the song.

Not to mention the fact that if you're forcing yourself to map something you don't want to, or a difficulty you're unfamiliar with, the map's quality will suffer. And not just the quality of that individual difficulty, as time spent mapping the undesired difficulties detracts from time that could be spent refining the desired ones.

Monstrata wrote:

Don't forget that "If full mapsets of a song that's 5 minutes can be made, mapsets of songs that are 6 minutes surely can be, too." etc...

Yes, that's precisely the point I was trying to make.

Mahogany wrote:

Not to mention the fact that if you're forcing yourself to map something you don't want to, or a difficulty you're unfamiliar with, the map's quality will suffer. And not just the quality of that individual difficulty, as time spent mapping the undesired difficulties detracts from time that could be spent refining the desired ones.

Thus, the beauty of the modding process. Maps don't HAVE to be ranked. You SHOULD have to earn it. It's a privilege, not a right.

I completely agree, even though this is a symptom of a deeper issue within the ranking critera. The fact that a mapset with a drain of 04:45 minutes needs a full difficulty spread while a map with a drain of 05:00 minutes can get ranked with a single difficulty makes no sense whatsoever. The gap in the amount of work needed is too big in my opinion and it only leads to -some- people cutting songs to make them shorter or extending them/removing breaks to make the map longer and reach the five minute mark (or not trying at all to get them ranked). The amount of difficulties required should be progressive instead of being cut in two categories.

Edit: wording.
Edit 2: added examples.

Oh there goes my brilliant idea to make an easy diff map that is 10x looping one minute song.

Natsu wrote:

1. Extending the mp3 its disrespectful for the artist Ok
2. Extending the song its just a way to foolish the marathon length requirement How many sets have you done all by yourself of 4 minutes+ ? (and unlucky for you including an Ultra? -> 6 diffs)
3. I don't have time to make a full spread set its not an excuse, there are alot of mappers willing to map 1 diff for you In 2 years, ya, I've already tried, no thank you!
4. Mods aren't hard to get, do M4M is super easy or ask modders to mod just certain diffs in your set. What about BNs ? Good luck find a BN ranking your 6 diffs of 4 minutes you made all by yourself
5. There is not reasonable amount of time, any edit to the mp3 in case is a bad idea, because this promote the abusing of the system, first people started with 1 or 3 secs, now is the entire copy of sections, to avoid such cases we need a hard rule for this.

Anyways as one of the mappers that always do full set of long songs, I can say that getting mods or gd is never an issue. If you intend to have an approval / marathon length ranked map and your song is 4:59 , then avoid mapping it, simple like that or do a full set of difficulties. Rules are there to be follow and doing this kind of shortcuts isn't right at all

I've never extended my mp3, but I can say that your points are wrong and I know what I'm talking about as I do all my sets (4mins+ by myself). If people wanna do that, as long as the quality is here.. Only point goes for the artist.

Yales wrote:

[*]Extending the song its just a way to foolish the marathon length requirement How many sets have you done all by yourself of 4 minutes+ ? (and unlucky for you containing an Ultra?) like 2 maybe o.O and some not uploaded ones ,
[*]I don't have time to make a full spread set its not an excuse, there are alot of mappers willing to map 1 diff for you In 2 years, ya, I already tried, no thank you! then you find not the tright people, I been mapping full ver songs since 2013, never did have any problem with a GD
[*]Mods aren't hard to get, do M4M is super easy or ask modders to mod just certain diffs in your set. What about BNs ? Good luck find a BN ranking your 6 diffs or 4 minutes you made all by yourself I even ranked my airman with 4 mods in like 3 months, I wasn't BN/BAT in that time, but map was good that's the difference i guess.. (did put this one as example so people don't come saying, bt you are a bn, I wasn't even a well know mapper in that time :p).[/list]

Anyways as one of the mappers that always do full set of long songs, I can say that getting mods or gd is never an issue. If you intend to have an approval / marathon length ranked map and your song is 4:59 , then avoid mapping it, simple like that or do a full set of difficulties. Rules are there to be follow and doing this kind of shortcuts isn't right at all

I never extended my mp3, but I can say that your points are wrong and I know what I'm talking about as I do all my sets (4mins+ by myself). If people wanna do that, as long as the quality is here.. Only point is to the artist.[/quote] I never did have a problem ranking any of my 30 full version sets o..o, quality have much to do , anyways opinions are opinions after all, I can't say you are wrong as you can't say I'm wrong .

As a mapper, if I am lazy and I am not allowed to extend the song, I will cut it into 2 minute long cut ver instead. I already did this, e.g. s/111635

Even that extending the mp3 is allowed, if a mapper is as lazy as I do, I won't map a 5-minute long map either, despite of coming up with patterns being mind-costing, having to find 2 bubbles is another difficulty, in most cases even more significant than mapping a long song.

That's my opinion. Seriously, how many people ever mapped full-sized songs? They won't have that much time unless they make maps for living.

The problem is not about App length is 5 min or 4:59, it is that: 1 sec can make a difference of 1 diff to 6 diffs.
Consider a song that is higher than 200 BPM and you made a 7 star diff, to make it spread nicely you now need to map 4:59 *6 (or maybe 5 if you control the difficulty really well)
or if you made a 5.5 star map, you still need at least 5(or 4) diffs
WHY?
Why can't we have a linear requirement?

Resulting making one more diff for 4 min song, 2 more for 3 min song. I believe with this rule, people will have less incentives to edit/destroy mp3.

That's a really interesting system. I like it because it focuses more on total mapset drain vs individual song drain. With a system that shadowland proposes, it would become more mapper-friendly to map long songs because you won't be obligated to make as many diffs. One major turnoff (imo) in mapping 3-4 minute songs is that you often have to include at minimum 5 difficulties to give an even spread if you want to include an Extra. I never understood why so much attention was being placed in "making low difficulty maps" for beginners. The 2.00 star rating minimum is quite an annoying rule to work with and allowing mappers to have different minimum thresholds based on song-length would really benefit mappers imo. Tbh I think beginners should be offended that mappers are required to make so many easy/normal diffs for them xD.

But I still have questions about the system Shad0w1and proposed.
Like, if there's a map that has a length like 2:50 or 3:50, I think some mappers would even extend the length again, so they can have 1 diff less.
I felt the system above would encourage mappers to map 4 min+ songs but it could cause even more extensions for "almost" 3-4 min songs.
And from my personal opinion I would make a full spread so that everyone can enjoy the mapset, not just for certain level of players. I would feel frustrated if I were a 6 digit rank, found a song I like but I can't play it because there wasn't easier diff enough for me to play.

Easy, normal don't take much time to make, not sure why people always want to avoid making them, since they dont take much time to make, they don't need much modding o.o being honest you need to be really lazy to avoid mapping easy and normal :p

Natsu wrote:

Easy, normal don't take much time to make, not sure why people always want to avoid making them, since they dont take much time to make, they don't need much modding o.o being honest you need to be really lazy to avoid mapping easy and normal :p

But the truth is, they aren't avoid making a Normal or Easy, they're avoiding to make one more Insane (if the highest diff is Expert) or Hard, which takes more time to map and yet harder to map then Easy and Normal

osu! needs more tv size!!

Lol sorry but if you want to map longer songs and want to throw the spread aspect out of the window then you prolly shouldnt be mapping long songs to begin with.

Electoz wrote:

But I still have questions about the system Shad0w1and proposed.
Like, if there's a map that has a length like 2:50 or 3:50, I think some mappers would even extend the length again, so they can have 1 diff less.
I felt the system above would encourage mappers to map 4 min+ songs but it could cause even more extensions for "almost" 3-4 min songs.
And from my personal opinion I would make a full spread so that everyone can enjoy the mapset, not just for certain level of players. I would feel frustrated if I were a 6 digit rank, found a song I like but I can't play it because there wasn't easier diff enough for me to play.

For most mapper who like to map 4:50 kappa songs, they (or we because I map them a lot lol) don't really care to make one more diff for their song, or just find one GD. But as I said, when this came to a expert diff with 4:59 drain... You know that 1 sec can drive people crazy... That's not a bout been lazy, that is simply a question why should I spend 3 times of effort to make 6 diffs and rank it? And think about how many BNs will accept a 6 diff 4:59 song req lel.
Understand that with this old rule in mind, it simply kills most people' incentives to map 4 min song. People have their life. We want share great songs and like to express them. Not everyone can map like Riza Xd.

Okoratu wrote:

osu! needs more tv size!!

Lol sorry but if you want to map longer songs and want to throw the spread aspect out of the window then you prolly shouldnt be mapping long songs to begin with.

Not trying to be offense to TV Size mappers, but simply for most TV size they cut the best part of the song. Mapping TV size make me feel I am been too lazy to express the music.
I think variety should be allowed and mapper who like the full ver songs should be able to do less work to rank a 4:50 song.
Rank a 4min set is simply 3 times effort of tv size. I can tell. No matter you are finding mods or asking BN, that come with 3 times rejection chance.
And that is why people edit mp3

I know, I mostly map 3 - 4 min songs and do tv sizes whenever I feel like being a bit more lazy

Seems like my work morales about these are different than yours

On a different note the discussion about this is pfftopic to this thread so i recommend creating a separate suggestion thread

Shad0w1and wrote:

Not trying to be offense to TV Size mappers, but simply for most TV size they cut the best part of the song. Mapping TV size make me feel I am been too lazy to express the music.
I think variety should be allowed and mapper who like the full ver songs should be able to do less work to rank a 4:50 song.
Rank a 4min set is simply 3 times effort of tv size. I can tell. No matter you are finding mods or asking BN, that come with 3 times rejection chance.
And that is why people edit mp3

Like 25 of my 39 maps are 3:00 - 4:30 full sets, so I think your argument is invalid if you feel lazy about mapping tv sizes, then why you don't feel lazy about asking to avoid spreads, mapping a 3:00 mins songs indeed take more effort, but is still not that much (saying this as a person who map long songs), BNs will reject if they feel the map is bad, they will accept if they think the map is fine, most of BNs don't take request based on drain time, but quality :p. People edit mp3 not for not finding BNs, but to avoid spreads, that's all and is ¨fine¨, but please don't suggest to avoid spreads in under 5 mins songs.

It always came to a question; why 6min? Why 5 min? As I said that 1 sec can make a different of 1 diff to 6 diffs. Why would system allowed the app at first? It is for people's intensive to map longer song and for players who would like to enjoy full or marathon. Then why not a linear requirement? Yes been lazy is one part, but osu allowed it by app.
With the new rule, people will map 4 min full ver more. And before there are less people map them.
Always remember no one map them = the map not even exist at first or = the mapper made main diff then graves it.

This is only indirectly related to the discussion about extending mp3s so you should make another thread about your spread adjustment suggestion.

Shad0w1and wrote:

It always came to a question; why 6min? Why 5 min? As I said that 1 sec can make a different of 1 diff to 6 diffs. Why would system allowed the app at first? It is for people's intensive to map longer song and for players who would like to enjoy full or marathon. Then why not a linear requirement? Yes been lazy is one part, but osu allowed it by app.
With the new rule, people will map 4 min full ver more. And before there are less people map them.
Always remember no one map them = the map not even exist at first or = the mapper made main diff then graves it.

first was because score limit IIRC, second app maps become marathon that's why you need the lenght in consideration, 5 mins is already little and I believe will not be even shorter, Second we want to encourage full spreads and discourage app maps (I think), people will map and rank their love song not matter time. Also as Oko said this is being offtopic, if you want to discuss this then make a new thread about it.

What Oko an Natsu already said.
The idea itself doesn't do any harm but it is a bit offtopic here :p

moved to t/432739
if anyone is interested:/

I would like to see an update and input from those in charge on this. As it currently stands, there's been no final answer on "yes this is allowed" or "no, this isn't allowed."

I personally dislike the idea of extensions especially if they're made, just so that the mapper can be lazy and reach the 5min approval minimum, but if the extensions make sense then I can work with it. I do not think that extensions that add segments of fluff (1-2 seconds) spread out over the entire song should be allowed however, such as is the case in current hot topic: t/454951

I feel that they're nonsensical and lazy, done only for the purpose of not having to map a full spread since you're adding little bits of fluff (usually ambience or extended notes) that don't really add to the song in any way or form.

It also opens the door to everyone trying to do it. "Oh, this guy extended his song from 4:58 to 5:00, so I can probably do it from 4:57." Then the next guy will extend his from 4:55, then the next guy from 4:50, and then the next from 4:45, then the next from 4:35, etc etc etc ad nauseam. Eventually you'll reach a point where a fraction of the map is literally just extensions.

edit: fixed wording

I believe that some songs do work well when extended, and it's something that has been happening for a while now (e.g. this map did it well). The problem happens when it's something like A-L-I-E-N where Monstrata deliberately copypasted/slowed down parts that aren't even the main song, like applause and silence, just to make the map over 5 minutes. Apparently, the reasoning behind this was that "the song is bad so no one would like a full spread of it" but... why even map the song if you think it's so bad?

tl;dr no need to completely restrict mp3 extensions, but at least make it less abusable because it's currently way too easy to just find a workaround over the current wording.

I honestly see no problem in slowing down the fade at the end, to push the map over 5 minutes. As long as it isn't clearly noticable, I'd say there are no problems with it

@Kiyohime, this thread is a request to disallow it. That means, that in its current state, it's perfectly fine!

Bara- wrote:

@Kiyohime, this thread is a request to disallow it. That means, that in its current state, it's perfectly fine!

Sorry, I realized when rereading my post that I had worded it incorrectly (double negatives).

I'm currently in the state of mind of not wanting to allow extensions to be rankable, but I'm also not going to say that all extensions are innately bad if they make sense. If a song is 1-2 seconds off from 5min, then while I personally still don't agree with it, I can at least understand the reasoning behind the extension. In A-L-I-E-N's case, however, the song is almost a full fifteen seconds out. That's just way too long to artificially extend.

Bara- wrote:

I honestly see no problem in slowing down the fade at the end, to push the map over 5 minutes. As long as it isn't clearly noticable, I'd say there are no problems with it

This makes absolutely no sense, why not just allow mappers to rank it anyway then since it would be basically the same thing without a stupid 15 second slider mapped to some random copy paste shit at the end of the song.

I'm totally fine with various songs being merged together if they fit though (like Kyshiro's Pavor Nocturnus), it can make some maps even better.

While we are in the mindset about disrespecting the music/artist can we also discuss cutting the music as well? It's been bothering me for a long time now and I just figured most of the community didn't care about the lack of quality. Let's be real though, people still don't care they just don't want to see monstrata rank another meme and are looking for excuses to prevent it from happening

If taking a 4:40 song and extending to 5:00 is a problem because its effectively 15 minutes less of map that the community gets then cutting like a 4:40 song down to a 1:17 cut version is equally as bad because across 4-5 difficulties you are losing just as much map.

To be clear I'm not talking about tv sizes since those "cuts" are official and released long before the full size single. TV sizes at least retain their novelty until the full size comes out. Cut sizes aren't novel for any period of time.

Quoting Natsu because everything he said about extending maps also applies to cut versions oddly enough. Instead of abusing the approval rule it's abusing the rule allowing for cuts of maps which is pretty clearly targeted at songs with excessive intro/outro sections that you really wouldn't map anything relevant to anyways.

Natsu wrote:

1. Extending the mp3 its disrespectful for the artist
2. Extending the song its just a way to foolish the marathon length requirement
3. I don't have time to make a full spread set its not an excuse, there are alot of mappers willing to map 1 diff for you
4. Mods aren't hard to get, do M4M is super easy or ask modders to mod just certain diffs in your set.
5. There is not reasonable amount of time, any edit to the mp3 in case is a bad idea, because this promote the abusing of the system, first people started with 1 or 3 secs, now is the entire copy of sections, to avoid such cases we need a hard rule for this.

Anyways as one of the mappers that always do full set of long songs, I can say that getting mods or gd is never an issue. If you intend to have an approval / marathon length ranked map and your song is 4:59 , then avoid mapping it, simple like that or do a full set of difficulties. Rules are there to be follow and doing this kind of shortcuts isn't right at all

Seems fine to me to extend song length for few seconds.
I've personally faced that problem of getting 4:58 drain time, so had to low bpm of map by 1 to extend drain time to somewhat 5:02.
That's not the case tho cos in the end i ended up with mapping full set anyway but maybe for someone else it's better solution to gain extra 5-6 seconds instead of mapping 3-4 more difficulties.

The purpose of extending an mp3 is to get a song ranked. You are able to promote the artist's works through the ranking process. There are both pros and cons to song extension. However if you aren't the artist, you can't speak for the artist and say mp3 extension is disrespectful. What if the artist is fine with it and wants their works promoted? Also don't you think uploading their song onto a site to be freely downloadable by everyone is disrespectful too? Especially if an artist doesn't want you freely downloading their stuff. (Stop stop osu upload?) If you guys want to argue mp3 editing as disrespect, I think there are other factors to consider.

I can answer questions on mp3 extension specific to alien on my map thread. Let's keep this thread on topic.

Monstrata wrote:

You are able to promote the artist's works through the ranking process.

If that is at all an objective or goal, then at most it can be only be secondary. The real objective would be to get your song mapped. A map doesn't have to be ranked in order to promote anything; BSS is open to all registered users.

You're all trying to come up with arguments on the basis that getting maps ranked is in the natural order of things instead of it being a privilege, and that's why this isn't getting anywhere. It's ludicrous how I made a very similar comment 5 months ago and we're still at a standstill.

More people will play a map if it's ranked, that's for sure. I still think a system that allows mp3 to be extended but doesn't allow the same song to be ranked without being edited due to an arbitrary length rule is heavily flawed.

those wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

You are able to promote the artist's works through the ranking process.

If that is at all an objective or goal, then at most it can be only be secondary. The real objective would be to get your song mapped. A map doesn't have to be ranked in order to promote anything; BSS is open to all registered users.

You're all trying to come up with arguments on the basis that getting maps ranked is in the natural order of things instead of it being a privilege, and that's why this isn't getting anywhere. It's ludicrous how I made a very similar comment 5 months ago and we're still at a standstill.

In an ideal system, a map doesn't have to be ranked in order to promote the song/artist/mapper/map/etc... But we all know just how much more popular a map/song/artist/etc... becomes when it is ranked. I understand your point though, that ranking should be considered a privilege. However, I think that view is dated... Ranking has more or less become a right, and modern mapping, along with the current nomination system has made it so. I'd rather operate under that assumption than to try and change an entire meta's view on ranking privilege.

I don't think condemning lazy mappers for not doing a full set is how we should go about pushing this rule forward. It seems that this rule is being pushed in order to prevent mappers from being lazy, instead of preventing low quality stuff from entering ranked. I don't agree with the motive because then we'll start pointing fingers elsewhere at people being lazy (cutting songs/getting too many gd's/getting 60 people to collab their 5 minute approval map).

With the change of how the Ranking Criteria Subforum works from now on, topics like these are obsolete. I will send a PM to the author of the topic that encourages him to bring it up to one of the council members.