Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development

Regarding recent changes to Beatmap Vetoes

posted
Total Posts
21
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,912 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoratu

JBHyperion wrote:

Hello!

QAT Branch Review

Disqualifications: osu!standard has fallen behind slightly due to pressures of exam season on its members, hope to renew motivation and add new members before the next cycle of probation BNs for osu! are added. osu!taiko, osu!catch and osu!mania struggled initially with new BN influx in March, but have since stabilised. DQs as a whole working as intended. Branch responsibilities now include veto mediation as set out in the new wiki article on Beatmap Vetoing.
so with that out-a the way half a month ago, I'll have to say the following about these new changes to how Beatmap Vetoing works. The main points i'll make can be summed up as follows:
  1. The QAT is a blackbox for anyone on the outside in this regard, you throw a complaint in about a veto and maybe post on a thread, they then take this, do whatever with it and throw a verdict at you within 48h - or don't - in any case you dont know why what is reached
  2. Depending on how available or unavailable (or possibly annoying) your veto gets or doesnt get processed
  3. The cases in which a veto is rendered void is not described: what happens if you veto and do not attempt having a reasonable debate? If you just veto to stall beatmaps placing a veto and not attempting debate is your best bet to at least stall things and you can easily claim you got hit by <schoolwork/your job/your dying grandma> and probably get off the hook
  4. Forcing a decision within 48h seems unjust provided that people that are rushed to vote will just vote something.
  5. This change was implemented because undoing a veto was too hard, arguably - undoing a veto with all the mediation stuff is not only more complicated, it's also harder for the side disagreeing, because they can end up going against the entirety of the QAT for a mode
  6. If the QAT agrees with a veto and you don't you can basically quit the map even if you and all 90% of the BNG think that it's okay without getting into compromises you disagree with.
  7. This system discourages people from thinking for themselves and arguing for any other reason than to be as loud as possible - you dont know which of your points, if any, are considered to begin with and you have to ask the QAT to do the thinking for you anyways.
Like it's nice that the QAT willingly subject themselves to all the edgelord teen arguments on this game, but I think this achieves the exact opposite of what was intended: Swift, painless resolutions for disagreements through mediation.

The mediation itself not being public domain is a key factor why I think this cannot work properly - it relies on people to just blindly trust that the QAT isn't preoccupied with other things and go ahead requesting resolving a veto anyways. In worst case if you are in disagreement with the QAT and they rule to uphold a veto there's not a thing you can do really (at least according to the current wording) until appropriate (judged by the QAT?) changes are made the the beatmap

I have no idea if this was what it intended to solve but I have reason to believe that this system isn't actually making things better.

I'd propose:
  1. Get rid of the blackbox surrounding all of this
  2. Provide a means to refute vetos if you disagree with the mediation
  3. If you want to make the whole process more simple, simplify more? I have no idea if mappers that have been veto'd even know that they have to ask for mediation
  4. While some instance having the final say on these matters is good, allow people to publicly surveil said instance to ensure that its processes are going fairly within
If anyone has better ideas than the above, please bring them forward and let's have a debate!
If you think this debate should be held at a different location, feel free to move this topic
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,225 posts
Joined July 2013
Ascendance
I filed for a veto mediation (I placed the veto) with a QAT on April 30 and still haven't received word of any mediation (osu!catch, if it wasn't obvious already) because the QAT I asked (no names) said "veto mediation is currently still progressing through the (largely std dominated) backlog". It feels awful not only as the nominator who placed the veto, but probably even moreso for the mapper who is forced to wait on something that shouldn't take that long for over a week.

I thought the idea of the new veto system is dumb since it overcomplicates things and forces the QAT to act on things that they aren't really invested in likely in the first place, but also because the final "verdict" of the QAT seems to be non-negotiable in some cases, where it feels like the mapper must fix the issues upheld by the QATs or you might as well just grave the map.

Overall, it feels to me like we lose agency as Nominators in regards to vetoing and overturning vetoes, and you feel powerless as a mapper where the QAT posts points that MUST be accepted or the beatmap cannot progress. I wish we could go back to the previous system except force nominators and mappers who overturn the veto to explain in detail why the previous veto should be overruled.

Just my 2c though.
Last edited by Ascendance , edited 4 times in total.
Lasse
Beatmap Nominator
3,596 posts
Joined June 2011
Lasse
After trying it for a few vetoes now, I honestly prefer the old system. This is just extremely painful and time consuming to deal with, while it doesn't feel like it's providing any advantages over the old system. Having to decide about vetoes on maps you have absolutely no interest in seems really dumb, let the people that care about the vetoed map handle that.
I was fine with giving it a try, but never really in favor of it, and with how these worked out so far, it definitely doesn't feel like an improvement.
Just noticed Ascendance posted while I was writing this and basically agree with what he wrote.



I still think if we actually need vetoes (since apparently getting rid of them didn't happen), going back to the old system, combined with making it less painful for a previously uninvolved bn to unveto, would be the "best" option.

With that I mean something that already came up before but never happened: Let the BN that wants to unveto do so like it was done before (provide actual reasoning why they think the veto is invalid) to lift the veto.
Then either they (obviously only after actually checking the whole mapset) or the BN that got vetoed can rebubble it.
Just don't allow both of them to nominate it since that would make it possible to get a map that has an upheld veto on it to be qualified with only two bn, which defeats the whole point.
This would make it less painful than the old system since that always required them to take responsibility for the whole mapset if they wanted to lift a veto, whereas this change would allow them to only deal with the actual veto stuff.
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
i agree with lasse. the fundamental issue is putting a nuke on a map just makes everyone involved salty; just look at asymmetry, im sure you all remember what happened there, or it's 2018 cousin calling which has the exact same thing happening currently... with his system the idea of 1 bn = 1 bn is maintained, qats dont have to spend all their time mediating or complaining about having to mediate, and there isnt a ridiculous workload placed on the guy that wants to unveto.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
Old system was better, but still not ideal. The 3rd BN who wanted to lift the veto would be forced to check the whole map as a regular BN, or at least, would have some social pressure to do so because "wow, only pointing out issues on the highest diff? you must not be a good BN!!". I don't know where the proposition was lost to, but I originally proposed that BN 3 only had to discuss the points raised by the Veto'ing BN (#2), and provide valid counter arguments to those points, and only those points. The idea being that BN 2 and BN 3 would nullify each other in terms of workload, allowing BN 1, who should have checked the whole set, to renominate.

Example scenario:

1. BN #1 bubbles a map with 5 diffs, 4 minute drain per diff.
2. BN #2 veto's because of aesthetic issues with the Easy
3. BN #3 can nullify the veto by providing counter arguments to the points raised by BN #2 which in this case is aesthetic issues with the Easy
4a. If a consensus is reached, and BN #2 retracts the veto, BN #1 can immediately rebubble, and BN #3 can participate in the nomination process of the map (though they should check the rest of the difficulties now).
4b. If a consensus is not reached, BN #2's veto is nullified, but BN #3 cannot participate further in the mapset's nomination process.
5. BN #1, who has checked the whole set, can now rebubble.



This method has enormous time efficiency above the current and old system. If a map is veto'ed for a single difficulty, or a single issue, the entire map shouldn't need to be independently rechecked by a 3rd BN, since the 2nd BN didn't check it. Or you could even see it this way and assume BN #2 checked the whole mapa s well, and only found issues on one difficulty. Then it is inefficient for the 3rd BN to also check the whole map just to lift the veto.
Izzywing
osu! Alumni
2,248 posts
Joined March 2016
Izzywing
For a first point, I agree entirely with monstrata. If vetos are to stay, that is the ideal system to me.

Flaws with the current system -

1) It's not transparent. All the QAT discussion goes off behind closed doors, because...why? this is really easily fixable lol
2) it forces QAT to do shit they don't want to. It should be no surprise that putting a deadline on giving your opinion on a map you probably don't care about will lead to rushed decisions sometimes.

I would be okay with removing vetos (probably not going to happen) or going back to the previous system with the caveat that monstrata posted above.
Lumenite-
625 posts
Joined April 2015
Lumenite-
i agree with a mixture of what lasse said and what (i can't believe i'm saying this) monstrata said

the old system had one problem, and that was a nominator who wanted to bubble over a veto had to work a lot harder than the vetoer to move the map in any sort of direction, and before the new system was in place, i basically always did what monstrata talked about if i wanted to bubble over a veto since there's no need to exhaustively discuss any other part of the map unless it directly has influence on the parts in question

the new system isn't terrible, but the whole "after 1 week mediation will take place anyways" is kind of not smart, that deadline makes me personally feel like any decision made on the map in question is rushed and not completely thought through, and furthermore the 1 week deadline is just kind of a hindrance if you have other maps to get around to

z
Nofool
Elite Mapper
1,102 posts
Joined February 2011
Nofool

Ascendance wrote:

the final "verdict" of the QAT seems to be non-negotiable in some cases, where it feels like the mapper must fix the issues upheld by the QATs or you might as well just grave the map.
I was in that case recently, as a mapper having his map disqualified and deemed unrankable by a QAT for X reason. He did not say "this map is vetoed until X issue is fixed" so i don't really know if it is supposed to officialy be a veto or not (i don't know how it works in v2), but this is a veto situation anyway as the map was disqualified several times for the same X reason. So i did argue against that reason and demonstrated my point, but the QAT stood his ground without really being able to defend his own point.

Right now i have no idea what i can do to counter this kind of "veto", a BN (+ those who qualified the map) agreed whith my point and even posted about it but from what i have seen he just got ignored. It doesn't seem like dragging more people in will actually change anything so yeah. . .

Okoratu wrote:

I have no idea if mappers that have been veto'd even know that they have to ask for mediation
If there is a procedure i am not aware of it, and if the procedure in question is handled by QATs themselves it doesn't really make sense.
MaridiuS
878 posts
Joined June 2014
MaridiuS
Why not simply pay the QAT so they actually have the motivation to do in depth mediation. Again any system that forces people to do stuff without reward is painful, in fact it only causes backlash like "wtf toxic qat nuke map cus bias".
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

MaridiuS wrote:

Why not simply pay the QAT so they actually have the motivation to do in depth mediation. Again any system that forces people to do stuff without reward is painful, in fact it only causes backlash like "wtf toxic qat nuke map cus bias".
They do get paid. In supporter
Mao
Elite Mapper II
2,963 posts
Joined December 2012
Mao
At this point it's either removing vetoes entirely or building upon the system we have right now.
Going back to the old system, even with the changes Monstrata proposed, seems counter-productive to me as vetoes in that system are extremely pointless due to lengthy discussions that lead to nothing anyways.

The system we have in place right now at least gives a clear path with the mapset either being fine or that the issues HAVE to be fixed. I agree with oko that we need to make it much more transparent and easier for the involved people to handle.

Also the thing Monstrata mentioned was already discussed on the osu!dev server and one of the issues we had with it was that like that, the mapper could for example just get their friends (in case they are BN) to post a justification he came up with and the BN would post it as they would not have to get involved in the set any further anyways. Moreover I think reverting would just make vetoes the same as previously, i.e. not worth even doing at all.

Anyways, I am just really confused what people actually want as there has been an outcry for clear decision making and quality assurance and now these people are amongst the ones to complain the most.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata

Mao wrote:

At this point it's either removing vetoes entirely or building upon the system we have right now. Removing veto is highly recommended to this system imo.
Going back to the old system, even with the changes Monstrata proposed, seems counter-productive to me as vetoes in that system are extremely pointless due to lengthy discussions that lead to nothing anyways. I guess you didn't really read the scenario because my proposition helps to avoid the lengthy discussions and unnecessary time spent on checking maps that results from a veto. BN #3 can nullify BN #2.

The system we have in place right now at least gives a clear path with the mapset either being fine or that the issues HAVE to be fixed. I agree with oko that we need to make it much more transparent and easier for the involved people to handle. So did the old system. Either the mapset was fine because the veto was nullified, or the map was not, and the mapper needed to make changes or find someone else to support it.

Also the thing Monstrata mentioned was already discussed on the osu!dev server and one of the issues we had with it was that like that, the mapper could for example just get their friends (in case they are BN) to post a justification he came up with and the BN would post it as they would not have to get involved in the set any further anyways. Moreover I think reverting would just make vetoes the same as previously, i.e. not worth even doing at all. This should not be an excuse for not attempting the system. It's possible some people might get their friends to post a justification, but that still means another BN is upholding the issues mentioned and saying they are fine. Nevermind friend or not. If you are worried about situations like this happening you should look at it from a behavioral issue. Also chances are, people who actually do have the connections to do this will probably already have their map qualified because their friends will just qualify after 24 hours. Lets be honest though, this situation only applies to popular mappers anyways. And those mappers have the connections to get stuff unveto'ed regardless, or don't even put themselves in this situation to begin with because they map good quality stuff.

Anyways, I am just really confused what people actually want as there has been an outcry for clear decision making and quality assurance and now these people are amongst the ones to complain the most.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet

Mao wrote:

Anyways, I am just really confused what people actually want as there has been an outcry for clear decision making and quality assurance and now these people are amongst the ones to complain the most.
simple, those people just want maps they like ranked without question and maps they hate nuked forever. they're just rly selfish, narrowminded, and lack the common sense that others have differing opinions. best not to try to reason with them.
Lumenite-
625 posts
Joined April 2015
Lumenite-

Monstrata wrote:

Mao wrote:

At this point it's either removing vetoes entirely or building upon the system we have right now. Removing veto is highly recommended to this system imo.
Going back to the old system, even with the changes Monstrata proposed, seems counter-productive to me as vetoes in that system are extremely pointless due to lengthy discussions that lead to nothing anyways. I guess you didn't really read the scenario because my proposition helps to avoid the lengthy discussions and unnecessary time spent on checking maps that results from a veto. BN #3 can nullify BN #2.

The system we have in place right now at least gives a clear path with the mapset either being fine or that the issues HAVE to be fixed. I agree with oko that we need to make it much more transparent and easier for the involved people to handle. So did the old system. Either the mapset was fine because the veto was nullified, or the map was not, and the mapper needed to make changes or find someone else to support it.

Also the thing Monstrata mentioned was already discussed on the osu!dev server and one of the issues we had with it was that like that, the mapper could for example just get their friends (in case they are BN) to post a justification he came up with and the BN would post it as they would not have to get involved in the set any further anyways. Moreover I think reverting would just make vetoes the same as previously, i.e. not worth even doing at all. This should not be an excuse for not attempting the system. It's possible some people might get their friends to post a justification, but that still means another BN is upholding the issues mentioned and saying they are fine. Nevermind friend or not. If you are worried about situations like this happening you should look at it from a behavioral issue. Also chances are, people who actually do have the connections to do this will probably already have their map qualified because their friends will just qualify after 24 hours. Lets be honest though, this situation only applies to popular mappers anyways. And those mappers have the connections to get stuff unveto'ed regardless, or don't even put themselves in this situation to begin with because they map good quality stuff.

Anyways, I am just really confused what people actually want as there has been an outcry for clear decision making and quality assurance and now these people are amongst the ones to complain the most.
anna apple
1,245 posts
Joined March 2014
anna apple
firstly the current veto system is just a redundancy to the disqualification system (hopefully this won't need to be explained) so some change probably should be made the ranking system in general

previous veto system: two qualified members of some group were tested and now they are ready to perform their duties and rank someone's map! Evil BN comes in a vetoes for their reasons and then a third qualified member is required instead of two?
problem was how can you tell if its circle jerk or real issues? Why should there be real issues if these members are qualified??

current veto system: two qualified members are ready to perform their duties and rank someone's map!! Ultimatum from not clearly qualified group forces mapper to conform or kill the map :(

Seems like we are so hyped to build a system that doubts its own ability to have actually qualified people running it than punishing the ones that abuse it lol. And you go look at all the vetoes and people who want this kind of system you just see a bunch of spite/hate and sometimes just overall lack of qualification for this position.

But the real question here is: why even rank maps? what the fuck is the ranking process even for if its just surrounded by all this hate and spite

We should remove the parts of the system that encourage/facilitate all this negativity and work on improving how we look at each other.
The Modding meta created by modding v1 and lack of enforcing the Code of Conduct for modding (even from BN's and QATs) was massively at fault for all of this hate we hold for each other

In short, I really agree with Okoratu on this point
A black box QAT is bad because myself and other more knowledgeable mappers don't believe QAT are qualified to really determine the whole mapping meta. Past that I think we should just remove the veto system all together
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,225 posts
Joined July 2013
Ascendance

bor wrote:

A black box QAT is bad because myself and other more knowledgeable mappers don't believe QAT are qualified to really determine the whole mapping meta. Past that I think we should just remove the veto system all together
this is probably too far
timemon
Beatmap Nominator
1,305 posts
Joined November 2012
timemon
lets make a Mapper Union, when disputes cannot be settled. JUST GO ON A STIRKE.
same for QATs if mappers being stubborn just close qualified section for a week.


/s but seriously: you guys should weigh your veto with the face of QAT. Between letting a meh map through qualified, and people hating on QAT (even though unjustified). One of them is an everlasting damage that corrodes the public face of QAT.

Asymmetry case when I was a player, I didn't know anything about the case but I already hated QAT because I heard they dq'd for silly stuff. Whether the dq was justified or not the damage has been done to the QAT and it is permanent.
Last edited by timemon , edited 2 times in total.
Pachiru
osu! Alumni
2,957 posts
Joined June 2013
Pachiru

Hobbes2 wrote:

1) It's not transparent. All the QAT discussion goes off behind closed doors, because...why? this is really easily fixable lol
2) it forces QAT to do shit they don't want to. It should be no surprise that putting a deadline on giving your opinion on a map you probably don't care about will lead to rushed decisions sometimes.

I would be okay with removing vetos (probably not going to happen) or going back to the previous system with the caveat that monstrata posted above.
I entirely agree with them.
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,912 posts
Joined May 2012
Topic Starter
Okoratu
So?

Anything going to change here?
Mao
Elite Mapper II
2,963 posts
Joined December 2012
Mao

Okoratu wrote:

So?

Anything going to change here?


Well, we discussed it in the public meeting two weeks ago and for now we will make statistics and see if the system is feasible.

If the system is going to stay however, we'll definitely need to make adjustments to it regarding transparancy and efficiency.
Kibbleru
osu! Alumni
5,844 posts
Joined August 2013
Kibbleru
Why even bother with vetoing since it's just the same thing as the current DQ system.

What's the point in having this redundancy?
Last edited by Kibbleru , edited 1 time in total.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 21