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:
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.
2.- Every map should be up for votation, but only if it's called for. This kind of unethical cases shouldn't be happening too often (no more than 5 times a year? hope less). So if something controversial appears, the BNG/QAT should be notified so they could vote at the right moment. With that we avoid obvious unneededly workload for all BNs/QATs.
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 (or similar) 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.
2.- Every map should be up for votation, but only if it's called for. This kind of unethical cases shouldn't be happening too often (no more than 5 times a year? hope less). So if something controversial appears, the BNG/QAT should be notified so they could vote at the right moment. With that we avoid obvious unneededly workload for all BNs/QATs.
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 (or similar) 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.