The following are notes from a recent discussion of the dev discord's mapping channel. They should provide context for what is being discussed currently

---

Conversation initially started with the proposal that 3 or 4 BNs would be able to veto a qualified map, along with other BNs being able to counter-veto to avoid abuse. It was based on the idea of "x BNs can promote a map, y BNs should be able to demote in a similar fashion."

The reasons from each person would, unlike regular vetoing, be able to be “ethical”, which was loosely defined as things like abusing pp through editing the mp3, manipulating systems in their favour or otherwise being made for bad intentions. These are not able to be objectively controlled through the ranking criteria. (iYiyo)

Apparently the above needed to be obvious to the point where if unsure, don’t do anything. The example used as an obvious case was the recently ranked Songs Compilation.

That was all a proposed solution to the problem where if 2 BNs qualify something, no one can do anything no matter how large the outcry is if QAT or higher ups don’t do anything about it. So essentially a community based solution, where the BNs represent the community.

Later turned into a suggestion where all BNs can vote on whether a qualified map should reach ranked or not, which somewhat would avoid the “more BNs but still only 2 nominations for qualify leading to lower quality of maps due to larger variety of individual standards” thing. (dsco)

1. BNs Vote yes/no
2. ⅔ or ¾ bns would need to be “no” for it to dq for a month before being qualified again (percentage of bns depends on how it’s used)
3. At least 10 bns are needed to vote for anything to happen (will otherwise go to ranked as any other map). Voting is optional, so not all maps will likely receive votes
4. Would work on top of the regular system, all maps could be voted on
5. Can’t vote on own map
6. Suggested we start by testing it on trial maps

---

Further related conversation should be documented here

Some points which should be addressed that may/may not have been discussed about already but are missing from the OP:

Stating reason for voting yes/no on a map

Vote Anonymity

Incentives for BNs/QATs to even vote in the first place

stating reason for DQ when a dq happens through this system

how would the system be implemented

its 5 am dont remember much woops

knowing the not-so-big amount of BNs and QATs, i think it'd be great if there can be trusted people privilleged to also vote

So far controversial maps which don't break any rules from the ranking criteria were going as official content to the game, but to what extent should the BNG/QAT promote those kind of stuffs? Should only 2 Beatmap Nominators have all that responsability? Somehow this discussion came so the community (BNG/QAT, as they should be more trusted people in the topic), could somehow nuke those kind of maps. A normal DQ leads us to what we are now with reports, which only assure that rules are being followed, not ethical things.

I mostly agree with dsco's idea, but there are things that should be polished more in order to really work IMO. Here are some suggestions:

Conversation initially started with the proposal that 3 or 4 BNs would be able to veto a qualified map, along with other BNs being able to counter-veto to avoid abuse. It was based on the idea of "x BNs can promote a map, y BNs should be able to demote in a similar fashion."

The reasons from each person would, unlike regular vetoing, be able to be “ethical”, which was loosely defined as things like abusing pp through editing the mp3, manipulating systems in their favour or otherwise being made for bad intentions. These are not able to be objectively controlled through the ranking criteria. (iYiyo)

That was all a proposed solution to the problem where if 2 BNs qualify something, no one can do anything no matter how large the outcry is if QAT or higher ups don’t do anything about it. So essentially a community based solution, where the BNs represent the community.

This proposed system would both be unnecessary and an additional barrier to ranking for individuals that do not fall within the current mapping meta. Right now we already have DQs which blocks out both nominators until consensus is reached and/or QAT decide reasonings provided are appropriate. Additionally, the veto system is in place where a nominator can counter the nomination of one nominator for whatever reason they want.

Not to mention that anything can be spun as "ethical" if desired - just as a mapper can "bullshit" any reason away, anyone with arguing capacity can do the same to maps they don't like on a personal level or are on fundamentally different plane of thought.

As a final note, if BNs really feel so powerless in the ranking process, they should be exercising such power through the systems already in place if they want to make a difference - it's not fair to the BNs investing their time into mapsets they want to promote nor to the mapper to be able to press a button and say "your map cannot be ranked because x".

Later turned into a suggestion where all BNs can vote on whether a qualified map should reach ranked or not, which somewhat would avoid the “more BNs but still only 2 nominations for qualify leading to lower quality of maps due to larger variety of individual standards” thing. (dsco)

The perceived problem of lower quality of maps due to larger variety of individual standards is a non issue. It has already been established that people value different things in mapping, leading to vastly definitions of quality, and the attitude that this is a problem will only serve to homogenize mapping even further than it already is.

Nothing more to say, I completely disagree with any system that results from these trains of thoughts and think they will only provide harm to the mapping ecosystem.

Why would be a barrier and why would you be against it? If someone says something is unethical and starts a votation, and ended up being perfectly fine, then its alright. But right now 2 single bns can promote something, and as long as they dont break any gameplay rule, we cant do nothing about it. Do we care about subjective quality anymore? (Being that spitting on other people by their intentions behind maps, doing childish meme/jokes by editing mp3 in a way people could agree that it doesnt contribute anything to the game, etc etc)

whats the difference between voting no and vetoing now under the current system?

Generally agree with the direction of this plan, though careful attention needs to be put in such a system to prevent abuse.

I think it's very good that more BNs can effectively put their knowledge and opinions to use where in edge-cases such as recently ranked maps like PP Compilation or Rendezvous, there can be a call to action where BN votes will determine the outcome of such sets. That will effectively combat the problems that we've been seeing lately, where friends group up and nominate whatever they like, with very little anyone can do about it, regardless of map quality.

Nominating a set is very easily done (you don't really need a reason other than following rc to put something into ranked section), whereas countering a nomination requires a lot more than that. The current veto system, in its nature, puts too much pressure on either side to come to a conclusion properly, often leading to either drama or the opinion being shrugged off and the map being pushed regardless of what people said. Bringing more members to this process would elevate that problem.

I agree with what iYiyo said about anonymity, votes shouldn't be anonymous and should be describing the reasons they vote for or against the set. This is to prevent abuse of the system, personal grudges and what not.

All in all, I like the direction, not sure if this is the best implementation yet, but good to see concerns being raised at the least.

I looked and read through this in the discord (I didn't say anything due to how late it was)

i'll just be talking more about what I understood sorta ~

Like ones of things I see that from Mishima Yurara, Where is the incentives for BNs/QATs to even vote in the first place? The only benefit from this is those BN who consider things such as pp maps (music editing ones not the normals ones), highly controversial maps, etc as damage to the community and will have pretty easy to shut those maps down more than before with less work involved. i'm pretty much would take a neutral stances on most things so I would stay away from voting in general (unless there is something I highly agree/disagree which would be rare hopefully) - but those BNs who don't have a problem with the map, would probably seen this as more time consuming considering that you have to not only vote yes - you have to give good detail on why you said so and most bns probably wouldn't want to do so on a map they don't really care much for even if they do think it is fine which end up giving more power to the veto party which may not necessarily seems like a bad thing to those who disagree with the map and be happy that map that was 'low quality' out of the picture, but trying with that if your against it is pretty difficulty considering how a veto can already push back a map for even months at times even if said map was perfectly fine in some eyes and didn't really deserve it.

We all have to consider the name of the person who maps the song as well when thinking of such a system. For an example a top mapper who intentionally tries to abuses the system ~ a unknown mapper who just wants to map and has no intentions to abuse anything/could have the same intentions but wouldn't be as known obviously
Both mappers make very similar maps - the maps in question, is a map that has design choices such as editing the mp3 to make a better map for pp or whatever reason.
The top mapper did it to intentionally take advantage of the system - The other mapper could had whatever reason but the map is still a problem for the community to most eyes. Both maps are in the qualified section, so who is gonna get more attention? Obviously the Top mapper with a very fair chances that it will get shutdown while the unknown mapper can very well gets away it even though his map is just as bad for the community because people would simply keep a map from getting rank just because of the mapper rather than the map itself and it really hard to say that isn't true at times. In the end what we have here is a system that has a very flaw to it already that can lead to unnecessary drama because neither of the maps is gonna be treated the same and we see that this is going on with the current system of things. There is more to than that obviously but this is just 1 of the example of a problem that will likely occur

If we were to truly have to add a system like this then it should be more of a cases by cases basics for certain maps that we have problems alongside the current veto system we already have than to have such a system for every map in qualified because in the end of the day, only those maps should get that much attention to begin with and will get them naturally and those abusive cases can be avoided altogether because not every bn is gonna go out of their way to stop a veto regardless on whether it is justify or not and with many maps in the qualify section we will have some maps overlooked because they are more focus on a bigger shitshow and those other maps that we have problems with can still manage to get ranked (I gave an example above but there is more ways it could happen). having it where it is simply needed would be more ideal as that way votes won't be going all over the placed and it would be less headache for boths parties (it still would put more focus on bigger shitshows but it would keep it to more of those maps in general and be more organize about it)


Anyways ~ I'm not entirely against on a voting system and neither am I for it - just speaking what I feel about it because this isn't really going to change much or could make things a bit worst imo because this is just going to harm a lot of controversial maps in the long run and we will have even more safe maps/pp maps than before because more people be afraid to risk and with how things are nowadays we do need those risks and which will lead to more complaining blah blah, the cycle will repeat itself and back to square 1 where all of what what was plan became meaningless and useless

If I may have gotten confused or anything clarification is fine with me since I probably misunderstood some things

if the system was proposing a simple 51% no votes to dq the map and/or was a community-public vote and/or was a simple "do you like this map?" i would agree that it would be a roadblock for controversial mappers, but the question is quite clearly going to be worded as "do you believe this map objectively meets the quality standard for the ranked section?" and only people who are and should be trusted to ensure the quality of beatmaps in the ranked section are voting on it. a vast majority of maps will not be affected by this polling, anyways. it seems that in saying people wont vote or will simply vote poorly do not trust the BN group which is rather odd to me. perhaps there could be an elite subgroup comprised of QAT and BN alike that would vote on the map?

or perhaps: a two-"house" kind of thing where BNs vote and if the thresholds mentioned above are met, the QAT then votes and must reach a 50% consensus? similar to how laws pass the US legislature branch (congress & house of representatives).

i strongly believe that if 75% or 67% of BNs believe a map does not meet the objective quality standard for the ranked section, then it is fairly clear that it should not be ranked.

this system both prevents a small-group being able to circlejerk maps into ranked and out of ranked, given that the poll results are completely null if a voting threshold (10 has been suggested but of course, nothing is set in stone) isn't reached.

the most valid concern is that there is an inherent likelihood that if a person feels compelled to vote on a map it's because they do not like the map. however, since two people nominate the map and would thus automatically be yes votes, you need an extreme majority vote against the map (9 no votes to 1 yes vote from a bn who didn't push the map), which would be clearly indicative of major problems in the map that need to be addressed. as well, given that these polls are public and, in my opinion, ought to have required reasoning for the votes, i think that the discussions are open enough that participation would be well-encouraged, *especially* on maps that are close to or reaching the threshold for votes. it's already common in veto'd mapsets that other BNs or just modders come in on the side of the mapper, not the veto-er.

the recently formed QAH is going to be checking a certain number of qualified maps anyways, so i think this proposal would tie in nicely with these new responsibilities that some BNs have chosen to take on.

Seems like a good ideea, but i'm afraid of other bn's vetoing no just because they don't like the mapper, but i guess that'll be a reportable reason

I feel like one huge barrier that's stopping bns from vetoing, dq modding, and etc. is the sole fact that doing these things make it look like you just have bad intentions. Even if you want the best for the mapper and the game's ranked content, going out of a way to make a post or complaint about the map usually takes energy, which depending on the mappers response, makes the dq modder / vetoer look like the "bad guy." Because often times, the modder in question is fighting the mapper by themselves.

Those things concern 2 barriers in the current system:

1. The necessity of an anonymous say
2. The need for less energy to be put into the process (As mentioned earlier a mapper can just bs reasons out of the veto/mod)

I feel like if we took those two things out of the question, we would see a lot more responses to controversial qualified maps about to ranked. So it'd be a step further towards our end goal (more voice against lackluster maps).

Nobody has proposed a platform to do this on yet. My (starting) idea is basically to start a separate committee behind keeping Qualified to a standard of quality.

1. Put members of the committee into a discord server (our platform)
2. If a map receives a noticeable outcry from the community, post a google forms to a designated channel in the server asking if 1) The concerned map should move to ranked or not, and 2) a detailed explanation as to why.
3. If the map doesn't receive a certain percentage of yes votes out of all considered votes, the map would be dqed (or nuked lol) by a QAT for the reasons mentioned in the poll.

This is of course a rough draft of an idea (that still has some problems), knowing that discord and google forms are already used reliably by the qat / bng. There's a lot of different ways we can go about it too.

AncuL wrote:

knowing the not-so-big amount of BNs and QATs, i think it'd be great if there can be trusted people privilleged to also vote

I like the idea of not restricting the mapping community to just bns because there are a lot of people out there active in the community who also aren't a bn. I think if everybody had the chance to apply for a voting position, it would be more diverse, and a good way to show interest and activity in the community.

Halfslashed wrote:

This proposed system would both be unnecessary and an additional barrier to ranking for individuals that do not fall within the current mapping meta. Right now we already have DQs which blocks out both nominators until consensus is reached and/or QAT decide reasonings provided are appropriate. Additionally, the veto system is in place where a nominator can counter the nomination of one nominator for whatever reason they want.

I think that if we don't set this additional barrier though, we keep letting these controversial maps fall through as a cost. Today there are a lot of meta maps out there that people criticize heavily as well as cutting edge maps that people praise for execution and creativity. A process like this can only be used if necessary, and give the ranked status of a map more credibility. It would most likely eliminate the need for a single QAT to step in whenever the community as a whole disagrees upon something.

iYiyo wrote:

I mostly agree with dsco's idea, but there are things that should be polished more in order to really work IMO. Here are some suggestions:

1.- No anonymity. To avoid circlejerk abuse and conjectures within votes.
3.- Mapsets up for votation should be DQ'ed as soon as possible. So we avoid having endlessly discussion and risking maps reach ranked section before we get to a consensus. After the voting (proper voting so we don't have to re-vote again), if mapset is called as fine, then it should be requalified normally, if not, then map gets nuked.
4.- BNs are free to vote whether to not vote.
5.- At least 1/3 members of the BNG should vote for anything to happen, but that threshold MUST be reached in order to continue with the ranking procedure of the mapset. So there's a balance between all modes, rather than having a concrete number. And also that maps can be discussed properly and not just be requalified because there wasn't enough quorum.
6.- People who vote must give a reason as to why they think map should be nuked or not. So people can't go there voting to nuke maps just because they dislike the song/map/mapper/etc.

I think anonymizing will not prevent the "circle jerking" attitude whatsoever, most people who group up on things have been blatantly clear that they want to be recognized for taking down or trying to take down maps, reference the voli/irreversible collab map/dq, I personally would like to see a randomized system where a map is put on hold while QAT/BN are randomly selected and forced to vote(this is so BNs can't chose to vote to prevent something from being ranked), since they have to have some activity requirement anyways, and if the voters have not done so within a period of time they will be put on probation( or further kicked) and if not all the votes have been reached the map shall be allowed to continue the through the ranking process(to further incentivize the voting) I also think nuking a map is a bit far, why was this a suggestion?

pishifat wrote:

The reasons from each person would, unlike regular vetoing, be able to be “ethical”, which was loosely defined as things like abusing pp through editing the mp3, manipulating systems in their favour or otherwise being made for bad intentions. These are not able to be objectively controlled through the ranking criteria. (iYiyo)

Apparently the above needed to be obvious to the point where if unsure, don’t do anything. The example used as an obvious case was the recently ranked Songs Compilation.

That was all a proposed solution to the problem where if 2 BNs qualify something, no one can do anything no matter how large the outcry is if QAT or higher ups don’t do anything about it. So essentially a community based solution, where the BNs represent the community.

I actually have no clue what is wrong with making maps like "pp compilation" it really seems to me the only reason to make it would be to get play count or something, but really how is that unethical, and why should we really propose a system put in to fight that kind of thing, it just makes it seem like the people who proposed this are actually just jealous of the popularity another mapper will receive by this, but please enlighten me ~ Please prove its necessary to unrank or veto maps with nothing wrong with them other than intention to increase playcount and overall game PP

iYiyo wrote:

Why would be a barrier and why would you be against it? If someone says something is unethical and starts a votation, and ended up being perfectly fine, then its alright. But right now 2 single bns can promote something, and as long as they dont break any gameplay rule, we cant do nothing about it. Do we care about subjective quality anymore? (Being that spitting on other people by their intentions behind maps, doing childish meme/jokes by editing mp3 in a way people could agree that it doesnt contribute anything to the game, etc etc)

My post explains why this system is a barrier for off-meta mapping and I already outlined tools available to you as a BN to stop maps of this sort. Every BN has a quality standard of sorts but this is not a shared standard, since each BN has different ideas for what make up that quality standard. Inappropriate submissions are also already being reviewed by a branch of the QAT.

dsco wrote:

i strongly believe that if 75% or 67% of BNs believe a map does not meet the objective quality standard for the ranked section, then it is fairly clear that it should not be ranked.

From the Code of Conduct:

Objective Issues - Prohibited by rulesets and must be fixed.
Intersubjective Issues - Not prohibited by rulesets, but are agreed upon as being “wrong” by a majority of people. Should be fixed in most cases unless there are opposing intersubjective arguments with equal size, or if the mapper can exhaustively explain why they feel it is acceptable
Subjective Issues - Something that you believe or think on a personal level. Might become intersubjective if many people agree with it.

Maps should not be getting ranked if they break the objective quality standard, so intersubjective is the ground this system wants to operate under, correct that thought process first. You also acknowledge that quality standards vary among BNs but as I mentioned before, that quality standard isn't simply "some BNs think low quality is ok, some think only the best of the best should be ranked", but rather"different BNs value different things in mapping".

dsco wrote:

this system both prevents a small-group being able to circlejerk maps into ranked and out of ranked, given that the poll results are completely null if a voting threshold (10 has been suggested but of course, nothing is set in stone) isn't reached.

Again, this is already doable with the current rulesets, just that BNs don't care enough to put in the effort to stop maps that they believe are an injustice to the ranking system, so this system is being proposed to lower the opportunity cost of doing so.

dsco wrote:

the most valid concern is that there is an inherent likelihood that if a person feels compelled to vote on a map it's because they do not like the map. however, since two people nominate the map and would thus automatically be yes votes, you need an extreme majority vote against the map (9 no votes to 1 yes vote from a bn who didn't push the map), which would be clearly indicative of major problems in the map that need to be addressed. as well, given that these polls are public and, in my opinion, ought to have required reasoning for the votes, i think that the discussions are open enough that participation would be well-encouraged, *especially* on maps that are close to or reaching the threshold for votes. it's already common in veto'd mapsets that other BNs or just modders come in on the side of the mapper, not the veto-er.

The line between "major problems" and "not liking the map" is extremely thin, if it even exists. Something controversial that defies what many consider to be basic conventions would easily reach extreme majorities given that on an intersubjective level, many people agree, leading to a roadblock for potential innovation.

I get the desire for improving quality, but risking potential for innovation is not worth the trade-off.

dsco wrote:

the recently formed QAH is going to be checking a certain number of qualified maps anyways, so i think this proposal would tie in nicely with these new responsibilities that some BNs have chosen to take on.

Another reason why this system is unnecessary. One of the underutilized tools for keeping quality in check is now being utilized again with the recently formed QAH, so I think issues like we've had with some recent maps will be less likely.

Too long, didn't read

If this voting system is really needed, then you had admit one of two things:

• 1) QAT are not doing their job
  2) BN are upset QAT did not follow the mindset of the ones vocal about the issue

Two specific examples were provided for why this voting system is needed:

• 1) Sotark's Song Compilation - QAT disqualified the map, but it still reached ranked status. If that tells you anything is that there is nothing inherently wrong about the map other than supposed ethical issue of targeting it for pp. BN are upset but QAT deemed it can go to ranking.
  
  2) Bearizm's Absolute Soul - This one actually did get blocked from reaching ranked so idk why this is even an example to why we need this voting system if QAT did their job

If there are any actual issues with the map the mapper doesn't want to fix, then the people in modding discussion will cry, the beatmap will be reported here, and it will be up to the QAT to DQ it. If the BN doesn't trust the QAT to do such, then that needs to be brought up. Arguably, if the BN can't trust the QAT after even after attempting to sort out trust issues with QAT, then how can one trust the BN to vote fairly with this feature either?

My issue with this is that since most maps won't even be voted on due to lack of anything controversial, the only maps people will vote on are ones they don't deem fit. You aren't going to go out of your way to vote "yes" on a bunch of maps you're indifferent to, right?

Because of this the voting ends up just being biased every time, and it ends up feeling like "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked" which just feels like a less intimate veto. The only way this system has any legitimacy is if people actually vote on every map, which will not happen.

I agree with hobbes, I feel like the only time a BN would go out of their way to vote yes is if they are either friends with the mapper or have very strong opinions on the map, and thus the votes would probably be skewed, and become what Hobbes said which was "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked".

I also want to add that having voting be required, or be randomly chosen and risk getting kicked from the BNG (which is what imbor described I believe) probably won't be a good solution because 1. It will create a higher workload for BNs (on maps they don't care about) and 2. Force BNs to vote yes or no on maps they are otherwise indifferent on which would also skew the votes.

also nuking seems a little extreme lol, not sure how this was brought up but i feel like it would cause some maps to be nuked for otherwise fixable reasons

pishifat wrote:

Later turned into a suggestion where all BNs can vote on whether a qualified map should reach ranked or not, which somewhat would avoid the “more BNs but still only 2 nominations for qualify leading to lower quality of maps due to larger variety of individual standards” thing. (dsco)

1. BNs Vote yes/no
2. ⅔ or ¾ bns would need to be “no” for it to dq for a month before being qualified again (percentage of bns depends on how it’s used) There is no need to restrict requalification by time. Chances are, if a map is so controversial that it receives this many votes, there's a good chance that there are clearly identifiable options and solutions for the mapper to take. Arbitrarily preventing the map from being requalified for a set amount of time is unnecessary.
3. At least 10 bns are needed to vote for anything to happen (will otherwise go to ranked as any other map). Voting is optional, so not all maps will likely receive votes Rather, almost all maps will not receive votes. You cannot expect BN's to vote for every map in qualified. Or if you somehow do, you cannot expect them to have examined every map in detail. It is more feasible for BN's to initiate a vote on the map in conjunction with posting a dq-mod or something to show why they have concerns for the map. Otherwise what is to gain from random maps being taken down due to a 10-vote but without any issues presented? Currently it doesn't seem like any BN needs to give reasons, only that they need to vote no on a map. Surely someone has to take responsibility and actually give reasons no matter how obvious they can be (even 85 note combo's which seem rather obvious to some BNs, clearly aren't so).
4. Would work on top of the regular system, all maps could be voted on Bad idea like I mentioned before.
5. Can’t vote on own map
6. Suggested we start by testing it on trial maps

If you want voter anonymity, you will get abuse. If you don't want voter anonymity, you will still get abuse, but probably less. It's easy to blame people when you can see their faces and know their names. It's harder when they are anonymous. But because they are anonymous, BN's will be able to circlejerk a lot more easily, whether to get a map dq'ed, or to keep a map from being dq'ed. Don't underestimate how many people either don't care about mapping quality, or support controversial maps. Don't underestimate how many BN's are willing to vote for their friends map because there are no consequences for it. I can tell you one thing, the BN's posting here represent a minority of the BN community who actually care enough about quality to post dq mods. And it's rather fitting that most of these modders are new BN's who haven't become jaded yet. To that, I say good job. Keep doing what you do. But realize your position too, and how you will be perceived. Realize whether you really care that much about quality to begin with.

lmao my suggestion is actually becoming a reality

supported. I won't write a lengthy explanation as to why though

Hobbes2 wrote:

My issue with this is that since most maps won't even be voted on due to lack of anything controversial, the only maps people will vote on are ones they don't deem fit. You aren't going to go out of your way to vote "yes" on a bunch of maps you're indifferent to, right?

Because of this the voting ends up just being biased every time, and it ends up feeling like "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked" which just feels like a less intimate veto. The only way this system has any legitimacy is if people actually vote on every map, which will not happen.

I think the idea is more that in cases where there's a lot of internal disagreement, a vote can be brought up involving the entire BNG, or at least the ones who want to vote. So not on every map, only where needed pretty much.

fundamentally this issue that is trying to be resolved is caused by the massive anti-quality backlash against vetoes, embodied by monstrata's post and people like UC who rebubble maps for the sake of spiting the system. this doesn't actually solve any issue because a) if you vote against a map and it's public, you will get all the flame and issues that come with stopping a map from being ranked (like with vetoes) and b) if it's anonymous, there will be no interest to actually check the map and most people will just vote based on if they like the mapper's username and avatar or not or whatever. this issue is compounded if you force random bns to do it.

the actual way to stop this issue is to somehow remove the stigma around telling someone their map sucks, and any number of delaying tactics like moving from bubble pops to disqualifies, or from disqualifies to voting before disqualifying, will still suffer from the issue. which is that people don't like being told their map sucks, and will immediately refuse any advice or changes suggested to them since they feel personally attacked.

this proposal does nothing to address these issues and it will not succeed if implemented.

big part of the reason vetos cause so much backlash is bc they create a massive workload for any future interested bn, since they have to both mod the entire set and also respond to the entire veto post in order to get the map back on track, making it way way harder for mappers to find bn's. so any time a bn vetos, they get a load of shit for it.

instead of adding another system on top of this, why not just fix current ones?

1. remove the bn rule that doesn't let bn's renominate dq'd maps if a compromise isn't found. it's hard to promote discussion when one side of the discussion gets immediately punished. if a compromise isn't found, bn's can just veto.
2. change the unvetoing process from a full mod and nomination into merely being a written disagreement with the veto reason. so the process goes: BN1 bubbles, BN2 vetos, BN3 says the veto is dumb/unvetos, BN1 rebubbles. BN3 can't nominate the map past this point. The end result is the same as current veto system but with a significantly reduced workload.
3. reduce the amount of redundant paragraphs bn's need to write. after a while there's nothing more to say in a discussion than "i agree with x user". if a BN4 shows up to the previous scenario, all they should need to say is "i agree w/ BN2" in order to veto. further decreases the workload for both sides of the debate.

Yeah, I personally agree with Monstrata. I feel this might not work in the long run when ppl get tired of analysing the quality of qualified maps.

And I do believe that voting for friends is a thing xD

thank god its happening

voli and irre died for this

Voli wrote:

Hobbes2 wrote:

My issue with this is that since most maps won't even be voted on due to lack of anything controversial, the only maps people will vote on are ones they don't deem fit. You aren't going to go out of your way to vote "yes" on a bunch of maps you're indifferent to, right?

Because of this the voting ends up just being biased every time, and it ends up feeling like "Get 10 no votes to stop a map from being ranked" which just feels like a less intimate veto. The only way this system has any legitimacy is if people actually vote on every map, which will not happen.

I think the idea is more that in cases where there's a lot of internal disagreement, a vote can be brought up involving the entire BNG, or at least the ones who want to vote. So not on every map, only where needed pretty much.

Well this is much different than the proposal. Simply having every bn vote on controversial maps is different from the proposition unless I’m missing something here

I think that people are misunderstanding the point, this system will likely take place only for extreme cases, we might not even see it used more than 3 times a year. Controversial maps will be mostly safe to the point that I doubt even rendezvous would get nuked. The system's purpose is to assure healthy content in the ranked section not high quality one. One example would be to discourage abuse in the system like with mp3 editing which was done with no other reason than to make the map have more room to do PP patterns, we all know the editor of the original version had no actual artistic intentions with that.

BNs are understanding. Sure they may be a couple that might not care or are immature, but in average BNs care for the quality. In average they can also tell between controversial maps and trash / abusive maps, they have enough experience to know what they disagree on and why people agree on the things they disagree. If we are trusting BNs to push maps in ranked section with some standards, so we can trust them to disapprove some maps as long as enough people back up the idea.

QAT have no voice now in reacting to qualified maps because of the long past drama of the QAT wall which was badly appreciated, they just react to DQ reports with opinions that are not theirs but only for quality concerns. This system is important because literally the community has no vote, we're on the mercy of 2 BNs. Outcry for pp comp was in the thread, discord, forums, twitter, reddit, everywhere. People were complaining left and right but nothing was done because the issue was not quality of following the songs, the issue was mapper's intention of breaking the system's algorithm and have it promoted as official content. Official content that basically makes fun of the system it's in is unethical. Same could be said for content making fun of a mapper or a group of people.

Also, you cannot really veto for unethical reasons, that's like... unethical lol. Imagine being the single one stopping a map for your ideologies of the community rather than quality concerns. I think I don't need to explain the backlash of that.

_________________________________________________


It shouldn't be anonymous, people should stand behind their concerns, I doubt that a whole group would get backlash for that, its much easier to simply bully one guy that's alone. Not being anonymous will also stop obvious circlejerking.

Also I don't think BNs should be even obliged to take a look at every qualified map. Every qualified map will be eligible for voting but no map will be obliged to get voting on it. If a qualified map deserves voting it will most likely grab a lot of attention so that people can react to it.

naotoshi brings up a really good point imo. there is already a huge stigma towards the veto system and implementing this system would only heighten it.

even if the votes are anonymous, people are gonna find out who voted anyways. so many things get leaked through from private servers that it's hard to say anything and have your opinion kept private. eventually, someone is gonna find out who voted no on their map. and having it be public is still going to cause shit. seeing who specifically said "your map sucks" causes a lot of tension over mappers.

I really agree with naotoshi in which removing this stigma will help. The problem is that it will never work because people are human. Mapping has become really personal these days. Telling a person their map sucks hurts them because people think maps are an embodiment of themselves rather than content for a game they made.

This system will not work because it will heighten tensions between mappers who already do not like each other. It will cause more and more drama and cause a greater divide between people in the mapping community if this is used even a few times.

osuskrub wrote:

naotoshi brings up a really good point imo. there is already a huge stigma towards the veto system and implementing this system would only heighten it.

even if the votes are anonymous, people are gonna find out who voted anyways. so many things get leaked through from private servers that it's hard to say anything and have your opinion kept private. eventually, someone is gonna find out who voted no on their map. and having it be public is still going to cause shit. seeing who specifically said "your map sucks" causes a lot of tension over mappers.

I really agree with naotoshi in which removing this stigma will help. The problem is that it will never work because people are human. Mapping has become really personal these days. Telling a person their map sucks hurts them because people think maps are an embodiment of themselves rather than content for a game they made.

This system will not work because it will heighten tensions between mappers who already do not like each other. It will cause more and more drama and cause a greater divide between people in the mapping community if this is used even a few times.

Again it will mostly not be used for "your map sucks" that will most likely be solved with people dq modding and calling a QAT like it is done these days.

The system is for a different purpose.

tbh sounds like delegation of unwanted responsibility from people who can't show their will for consecution in doings, anyways better than nothing. Shouldn't be used often tho, like as being said maybe up to few times a year and only for ethic things not quality.

anything happening to this otherwise it should just be archived or something lol

discussion about this both in the thread and the dev discord have long been inactive, so archiving