talked about it in osu!dev server and I agree with it
QAT reviews the case and decides to rule in BN1's favor. The veto is now upheld and the mapper must consider the feedback given by BN1 if they wish for their map to proceed to ranking.this really sounds like the map just cant get ranked if the qat agrees with the vetoing bn. like even if another bn comes to try to unveto it, the result will just be the same. i don't see how this takes community input into account at all. the main issue of a single bn forming a massive wall to oppose a map is still present, they just need a random qat to side with them. i dont think that's the intention of this tho, am i just misreading?
The proposal makes it seem like vetos are way too easy to do. If you're vetoing for something subjective you need to spend a good amount of time explaining the issue, why it's an issue, and possible solutions. If you don't provide enough weight to your side of the argument, people will just complain and ask why the veto was needed or just disregard you in general.I agree with what Sinnoh said here. A bigger problem I think should be addressed with vetoing is that both the current and proposed systems contain a voluntary response bias from whoever is placing or uplifting a veto. That basically means that whoever goes through the effort to place/lift a veto has a stronger than usual (be it good or bad) opinion on the map They usually care enough to nitpick everything through the map and keep it from getting ranked while facing backlash from the mapper. This also leads to problems because in both the current and proposed systems, BN1 and BN2 will basically be arguing with almost opposite opinions. This might be the case because vetos aren't seen as a usual part of the ranking process. They're for "special cases."