Hello! I know this title seems a bit ridiculous, but I'm entirely serious in this proposal.

So, as everyone knows, the bubble pop system allows a BN to veto a bubble. What I'm suggesting here is an addition by which another BN, not one that bubbled originally or the one that popped, can prevent the veto. This would count as their icon on the set, so they wouldn't be able to veto the popping BN and then bubble the map themselves.

What is the current situation?

Currently, the popping BN has a much "easier" time than the bubbling BN, since he only needs to find flaws in one diff, or one section, in order to stop the map as a whole. This, of course makes sense. However, there are many cases in which the mapper and the original BN (who bubbled) believe the pop to be rather unjustified, and will therefore deny most or all of the pop mod. Since they don't believe that the popping mod would improve the map, or make it more fitting for the ranked criteria, they have no reason to compromise with the popping BN, who will then veto the map since their concerns are not addressed in their view. The result, of course, is that the mapper needs to find a 3rd BN to check their map for a bubble. This could take a very long time or not happen at all, especially for less well known mappers who don't have good relationships with several BNs.

Why is this a problem?

I believe this is a problem because it is much easier for a BN to completely stop a map in its tracks, even if their reasons are unjustified (as interpreted by the mapper, other BNs, etc.) than it is for a BN to push a map forward. The time investment between making sure an entire set is fine compared to pointing out some patterning or structural errors on one difficulty is hardly comparable. I do not believe that the role of BNG is to stop maps from being ranked on the opinion of one BN, but rather by a "community" (which in reality is maybe 4 or 5 BNs, maybe more occasionally.) However, the current system allows one side to put in much less time to actually stop the map, which makes it much harder to get around a pop that seems unjustified.

How can this unbalance be resolved?

In order to make the situation more balanced, I came up with the solution I mentioned in the title, which is a bubble pop pop.

If a BN comes to the thread, sees the mapper's explanation and valid justification against changing from a bubble pop mod, and believes that the pop is unjustified or has been refuted well enough, then he can counter the pop. In effect, it's the same thing as a bubble, but it is fundamentally different since the third BN would not need to mod the entire map, but rather just explain why he believes the mapper's justification to be valid and the pop to be invalid. Afterwards, the original BN would be able to rebubble if he's satisfied with the explanations as well. This would retain the original idea behind BNs having equal power while also preventing bubble pops from being inherently more important than bubbles.

I believe this addition would make the system work more effectively with regard to improving the quality of ranked maps while not stopping maps completely in their tracks if one BN disagrees with the mapping.




Let me know what you think!

I like the idea mainly because it allows for more discussion between BN's too. Currently if the mapper and the bubble-popping BN disagree on fundamental levels. The opinions of other BN's are irrelevant to the ranking process of the map unless they are willing to nominate the mapset.

Hypothetical situation, a mapset is popped due to subjective issues on an Easy/Normal. BN's who disagree with the pop may voice their opinions, but their views will not engender any change to the situation if they are unable to re-nominate the set. If the set happened to have 9 other difficulties, perhaps the highest being over 7 stars, this makes it even harder for BN's disagree-ing with the bubble-pop to help the situation because they may not be comfortable nominating 7 star maps. (Yet they could agree with the mapper about the subjective quality of lower difficulties).

hm, disagreeing with a veto and agreeing with the map are two different things... fundamentally.

If you do not think a map should be veto'd but also do not think it should be ranked, why would you undo the veto then if you don't really care enough to go forward nominating it in the first place?
This case can happen (and is actually quite likely), but it'd enable the original bubbler to rebubble even though the one that disagreed with the map only was overvoted by someone that doesn't fully agree with the map either.

Vetos should be kept up if reasonable discussion leads to both sides agreeing to disagree with one another, so giving a third party a way to undo a veto without agreeing with the map seems kinda counter-intuitive to me

@Oko, I don't believe that a BN would unveto a map they believe is unfit for ranking. As you said, it's more or less the same thing as nominating it, but again, fundamentally different. As Monstrata mentioned, it's entirely possible for a certain BN to be unwilling to nominate a set for reasons other than quality - be it song choice, star rating, whatever - but they can still disagree on the reasoning behind a veto and explain why, thereby removing it. OFC removing a veto that the BN is unfit to judge (though I don't think that's the case for most times anyway) would be problematic, but I don't think that that will happen often and if it were to, rules can be amended.

The main idea here is to create a way for a BN to show support for a set that they are not nominating, since it is currently impossible to do so without becoming wholly invested in it.

Re: the second point, the third part would have to agree with the map to undo the veto since he's explaining why the veto is unjustified or why the mapper is justified in rejecting whatever mod led to the veto in the first place.

Basically the proposal of yours as a counter veto will be functioning as a nomination.

BN Rules wrote:

1. Do not nominate a beatmap without properly checking all difficulties of the beatmap all by yourself.

However, the proposal is somewhat conflicting with the following BN rule, and I'm not really sure if implementing such an exception would benefit the overall quality of ranked beatmaps. Like, how can we assure quality when we disagree with the popped reason but just nominate while not checking the entire map?

Also third party BNs are already able to disagree with the subjective pop reason, and can place a nomination which counters the veto. If the main concern of yours here is the hardness of founding that third BN, so is the difficulty after the change imo. I don't see any significant difference between them. The common difficulty of both situation starts with convincing the BN to make them at least take a look at their map, and the difficulty of that is rather the same.

When a pop with a complete nonsense happens such as personal insults, they can always get reported. Unless, there aren't really invalid pops since every BNs have their own opinion. Conflicts and disagreements may happen, but every opinion should get respected as long as it is done along their own explanation.

Okorin wrote:

If you do not think a map should be veto'd but also do not think it should be ranked, why would you undo the veto then if you don't really care enough to go forward nominating it in the first place?

The above statement is something I quite agree with. I think what the proposer is neglecting is the significance of a nomination. I wouldn't expect much responsibility placed when nominating a map just because they disagree with the popped reason compared to a nomination after checking the whole map.


But the thing is, I'm not really sure if the current situation was problematic to start with... Pop needs much more effort than a nomination in my case so maybe that's why our thought differs?

Actually if there is some kind of a problem in my view, I think it's the veto being seen as a negative situation to happen as the old DQ did which people just wants to avoid but guess this should be a different topic,,

Why dont you wait for tier1 and tier2 BNs instead.
We don't even know how privilegies will be handled and not even what privilegies, so give it time and then see how the situation turns out to be.

A third BN can already veto a veto by placing a bubble again and in any case:
popping is a positive thing, pushing forward not always (more modding always helps) so what's the problem, lol.

Sonnyc wrote:

Actually if there is some kind of a problem in my view, I think it's the veto being seen as a negative situation to happen as the old DQ did which people just wants to avoid but guess this should be a different topic,,

i think the main problem here is that many BNs who veto a map just simply pop it and leave without even trying to work with the mapper to fix it.
i know it's not necessary but imo its a bit unresponsible to pop a map and leave it without properly discussing with the mapper.

as for this suggestion. it just makes things unnecessarily complicated imo.

Kibbleru wrote:

i think the main problem here is that many BNs who veto a map just simply pop it and leave without even trying to work with the mapper to fix it.
i know it's not necessary but imo its a bit unresponsible to pop a map and leave it without properly discussing with the mapper.

That case shouldn't exist anymore since you're supposed to know if the BN who pop agree with your changes or not in order to move the set forward. It became quite obvious there should be a discussion. Just leave the bubble poped is not correct regarding the rule since you have to give feedback on what the mapper changed and if you still disagree or not with it, unless it's for an unrankable element on the map.

Also I would agree with Sergio here, to wait the BN split, since advanced tier will have to monitor the lower tier, this kind of rare situations should be resolved quite easiely.

According to the rules, it is mandatory for both sides to attempt to reach an agreement by discussing it. Just popping and never showing up again to even have this discussion is not how this rule is designed.
Anyways, I would argue that if you want to "overvoice" a veto, then yes, it is equal to a nomination. You need to see the impact of overvoicing here. In fact, you are putting it closer to Qualified, you say that the voiced concerns are void *and that the map is good to go to get Qualified, because the concerns are void and the map is actually good to go as it is*. If you just disagree with portions of the arguments being made, you don't simply overrule the entire thing, especially since you take the risk of a unproper map to hit Qualified just because you disagree with portions of the argument being made. Sure you can overvoice a veto, but that equals up to getting it back to Bubbled state, which pretty much translates into "The argument being made was not valid, the map is actually fine as it is and can be qualified because the arguments being made were no issues to begin with." - therefore you can not overvoice something without checking the map entirely for yourself and form your very own opinion on things and the entire mapset for itself.

Maybe you disagree with parts of the pop but would pop it for entirely different reasons? Would you overvoice the other pop then? No. You would just say "While I dont believe xyz is an issue, I believe abc is" etc etc