I have never used this forum before so mind you I might be formatting this post wrong.

I want to take a look at a segment of this rule:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

No guest mapper should have more difficulties in the mapset than the creator, all modes together. For collaboration mapsets, the uploader should take part in all collab difficulties. The person who should upload the map is the one who contributed most to it. Maps with an ambiguous set of difficulties such as collabs will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the submitting mapper is properly accounted for.

Let's take this map for an example: Billain - Boogie, a 19 person collab submitted by me that has intentions of being ranked.

Today, a very small discussion has opened up in the thread of this map, and it had to do with something people have told me various times, here is the first post: p/5242755

TL;DR he is saying that I should map another difficulty for this set since my part is shorter than Len's part in the map. Upon reading the RC snippet he posted, I saw that the rule said "he person who should upload the map is the one who contributed most to it."

Here's where I see the flaw. Taken directly from my reply to him (mind the bad grammar):

Spaghetti wrote:

Given all the work i put into getting this organized, dictating how i want each part to be, putting in each part into the .osu, getting mods, doing m4ms for mods, and getting the collabers to CHECK their mods (which ive been checking mods for 2 parts cuz people are busy) and giving instruction to the sbers to get what i think is appropriate for the map, i think its fair to say that i put in a great amount more into the set than the average collaber.

Even people who are part of the collab acknowledge that I have put much more work into this than any of my fellow collabers.

Although I've seen this argument placed many times, I've never actually seen any discussion about it. All I've seen is people going with the DQ and fixing their parts or staff abruptly unranking the map and locking the thread.

People may ask "But Spaghetti why don't you just map another part of the song, why are you so lazy?". It's not a question about laziness, its about me not wanting to make the collab parts uneven and mapping parts of the song I feel would be better left unmapped, on top of possibly having to make another uninspired difficulty just to make the set rankable. Going back to Boogie, I prefer to leave this intro unmapped, as it fits the suspense leading up to the beginning of the map and gives the storyboard a good a good spotlight to display some info (this can also tie into the rounding error of Cry Thunder's DQ that unfortunately had to be acknowledged and changed by Jenny, sacrificing mapping quality.) Also, mapping another difficulty will take the point out of having such a map in my opinion. That will make the spread like "HERE'S BOOGIE THE 19 PERSON COLLAB BY THE EDGE and the diff that had to be mapped to fit the RC." As far as uneven parts go, people may argue "But Spaghetti, Len's part is longer than the rest isn't that uneven distribution of parts?" Of course it isn't. Each part is split as the song moves onto the next phrase, the ending phrase is longer due to the exaggerated ending of the song. I do not want to have a person collabing with me delete their part so I can map into it, also causing me to map in between phrases.

So, do you get what I mean? This rule only states that the submitter has to be the one who CONTRIBUTED THE MOST, not the one who mapped the most. It took me well over a month or two to organize the set and get all the hitsounding and mods, along with various nerfs and people abandoning the map, in which I had to find people to fill the gaps. Changing my parts to fit the rule would decrease the maps quality, as explained why above.

I believe that this rule should be discussed and evaluated, as it is very bland and presenting me with a pointless challenge that can only be fixed by decreasing the maps quality.

I don't see the problem with just making sure you get the largest part by a few seconds. 's not hard to organize.

Shiirn wrote:

I don't see the problem with just making sure you get the largest part by a few seconds. 's not hard to organize.

i highlighted the problem above lol, read the biggest chunk

the cry thunder dq has nothing to do with this why you would bring it up is beyond me. Cry thunder is not a collab what is it doing here.

How do you intend to measure contribution? Mapping time? Effort? Organisational effort? Quality standards of your sliderart?

I don't know this seems way too blurry. The draintime thing is in place because you can measure it. The thing you suggest is hard to measure.

Okorin wrote:

the cry thunder dq has nothing to do with this why you would bring it up is beyond me. Cry thunder is not a collab what is it doing here.

just an example of how a dq led to a decrease in quality, even though it didnt have to go that way

Okorin wrote:

How do you intend to measure contribution? Mapping time? Effort? Organisational effort? Quality standards of your sliderart?

Overall mapping, organization, submission, mod gathering and quality assurance.

Okorin wrote:

I don't know this seems way too blurry.

everything i just said here was in the original post so xd

Hi! I'm not really good at interpreting these rules of the Ranking Criteria but here I give my opinion:

Contribute isn't the same as mapping. The reason I say this is because if you're the owner you're, whether you want it or not, the one who should put more effort to get all the things ready to rank it is the mapper. This implies all the things you stated above: hitsounds, SB, mods...

The rule itself is somehow ambiguous and doesn't know explain how can the "contribute most to the mapset" can be labeled or organised to clarify. It has always been to the one who maps the most back in times. So a clarification would be way better than a "modification", because either way we've not reached an agreement on it, have we?

Best of success with your map!

Bring up relevant examples next time like the Depths dq?

you missed my argument completely that determining who put most of the effort into a submission is kinda difficult in itself and that that line can get especially blurry in such cases. Most importantly with the way this is currently worded you can actually plan it ahead for collabs

Spaghetti wrote:

a decrease in quality

So, that's simple, if you only care about quality in your case. Just map another easier difficulty by yourself.

HappyRocket88 wrote:

Hi! I'm not really good at interpreting these rules of the Ranking Criteria but here I give my opinion:

Contribute isn't the same as mapping. The reason I say this is because if you're the owner you're, whether you want it or not, the one who should put more effort to get all the things ready to rank it is the mapper. This implies all the things you stated above: hitsounds, SB, mods...

The rule itself is somehow ambiguous and doesn't know explain how can the "contribute most to the mapset" can be labeled or organised to clarify. It has always been to the one who maps the most back in times. So a clarification would be way better than a "modification", because either way we've not reached an agreement on it, have we?

Best of success with your map!

i agree with the clarification, renamed the thread

seems like people dont agree lol i guess i tried

ill just leave this here

It's not that i don't see your point but your solution isn't really something i can see working. It seems to be so easy to abuse by just getting ppl to agree that you had the most trouble with the thing. At that point just about anything goes and i don't think that's what you intended to do here, right?

Besides the current wording is actually saying handle them on a case by case basis if the time difference is neglegible (whereas 40 seconds on a 5 min song seem to be not neglegible)

well its all about the matter you replied to my posts with, making me feel like im just spouting random shit and i that i just look like an idiot for trying to make a post like this isnt really motivating me to continue arguing this or any point in the future

take a look at how HappyRocket responded and reconsider how i might take reading that over "Bring up relevant examples next time"

Dude the way you presented this entire opening post reads like "I am facing a problem that i don't like so I'll try to bend the rules so that my problem goes away", I just tagged along with the underlying tone of that, what were you expecting? Sorry if that seemed rude, but apparently I take offense to people trying to be lazy. You were a bit rude in return so i hope that's k.

about your thing: the way i see it len has like ~10 seconds more than the rest or something while the thing is 360 seconds long the difference on the total of it is at around less than 3%, if you take the whole picture. the difference towards each other part is bigger, of course, but as a whole contribution to this is fairly even to the point where i would personally say it's neglegible.

then again you could have planned that beforehand before even starting this

As much as I love you, Spaghetti, I'll be on the opposing side here. If this gets let through, it sets a bad precedent for bending the rules, and makes it unfair to those who have suffered already from this rule, such as Depths. I haven't seen the map itself, but I'm sure taking 5 seconds from before and after your part from other collab members won't devastate them. After all, it's necessary to keep the map rankable.

Drain time is the best way to measure, unfortunately. Other means of "measuring" contribution aren't reliable or objective. Unfortunately, this is just how the rule works at the moment. It could definitely be more specific, to avoid situations like this in the future, however for now, I thinkyou'll have to reallocate drain times, or find BN's willing to push the map forward despite breaking this rule. If you want to make a case for why you believe you've put in the most effort in the map, I think depending on the reasoning, people could find it acceptable. But that would be better suited in the map's thread.

Spaghetti wrote:

ill just leave this here

What captin1 said here doesn't make much sense. The rule is known, so why'd you map the way you break it? If any other rule is broken, fixing it might change the original intention of the map, that's what people have to deal with. I don't think the problem here is the actual rule, or just the fact that some people just cannot manage the parts correctly. I get that you were probably getting all the mods and stuff, but that's not real contribution to the map, but contribution to map's later modifications. Basically anyone could get you these mods through M4M or so, but still doesn't "own" the map more than you. Time mapped is probably the most reliable at current time. If you had slightly lower time than someone else, but did a storyboard for example, then yes, we can consider something, but this looks just like not managing things properly and complaining about rules.

I cannot really see a logical statement that would tell a reason other than your map's problem, which is pretty easy to fix. Feelings of other mappers involved shouldn't afflict rules in any way. If you can come up with significantly better way of determining who contributed the most (in terms of map's content, not modding), then that's time when we should start reconsidering things.

Drain time is the only way to measure it, also I think making exceptions is a bad thing, is just like 5 mins marathon rule, if you let someone go with 4:59 , then other mapper will try with 4:58 etc..

I also fail to see the logic in mapping less in your own mapset lol..

I must say that he did a lot of things for the mapset, so just like what he said, he makes the most contributions for the map.

BUT, only the PARTICIPANTS can understand that.

For the other people they can't know (or even measure) those things you've worked on, so measure it by the drain time is unfortunately the only way. That can also make the whole process become more fair without making any strange dramas.

kinda sorry for spaghetti, though im one of the participants i have to stand on the opposite side.

Well I stated my opinion in the thread already so just posting this for reference:

Pho wrote:

I can clearly see your point that organization & management of such a big set is exhausting and requires devotion to it. Your argument is valid to me as well and certainly adds to 'who contributed most'; but given how the rule is worded at the moment and how none of this effort can be measured properly, pushing this forward seems pretty dodgy - at least for me. A clarification/rewording of the contribution rule would be really helpful before making the next move imo.

I see quite some people on the opposing site here as well, so I guess some change has to be made by you eventually. I also wanted to add this:
It might've been fine if we were just talking about hitsounds and the relative drain time everyone mapped here, but I really have to take the full-fledged storyboard into consideration since you technically didn't add anything to it - just saying what you want at each part isn't contributing to that. I don't know inhowfar this should influence the contribution rule, but given how much effort the two SBers seem to have put into it, it certainly is no negligible factor.

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.