1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
show more
posted

Voli wrote:

pkhg wrote:

how is that a positive change
Does it have any positive connotations? It means that you need a social network in order to get your content out there. This has been an age-old problem with no real solutions. You could argue that circlejerk is good for the quality of the content (since bns arguably put out more quality works than your average mapper, although im not sure how valid this one is anymore), but it's definitely not a good thing for people who try to break through but don't have the right BN connections.
a lot of people already need social networking, its not difficult literally my first ranked map had 3 qat's on the thread and 2+ tier 2 BNs and I actually cannot speak to people irl very well lol, monstrata ranks maps as a non BN still as well, networking within BNG still needs to occur anyways because some BNs actually won't come near another BNs map even in the event of "b4b" so this

plus system proposed forces circle jerk around most popular mappers of a region/style so doesn't fix circle jerk at all lol

Voli wrote:

bor wrote:

you said you don't think the BNG or the QAT fufil their prior roles, could you define those?
Pretty much what I responded to cosmiccc's post. Their roles used to be to objectively assure quality and sort out maps that should and shouldn't be ranked, but the mapping community evolved to a point where people have huge differences in opinions on what should or should not be ranked. It's basically become much more of a sandbox than former times, so a system like this would fully embrace that idea, so to speak.
1, objective contradicts quality
2, point of ranked maps in general are just that they aren't game breaking so they are doing their job in assuring that
posted
i believe such a solution is not necessary for a few reasons.

first - quality of modding and bns. while it does indeed appear that there are "too many bns" (a sentiment which i don't exactly disagree with) the solution is not to nuke the entire system but rather to use the existing mechanisms more. probation at the moment is completely useless. i'll quote a certain someone here: "as long as you don't literally rape a girl on probation you'll pass." QATs can regulate the "quality" of bns by using probation and removal of BNs who consistently break rules, nominate over unrankable issues, nominate consistently low quality maps, only nominate maps of mappers in their friend group, etc. all these things can already be prevented by the QAT, they just need to start doing it more.

second - an arbitrary threshold is not a good way to judge someone's ability to contribute meaningfully. look at various bns who were active with, say, low amount of ranked maps. naxess, wishkey, dsco, as well as various others in times past. similarly, low kudosu count, or high kudosu count, isn't a good way to judge either. there are plenty of very high skilled modders who do not mod regularly or post mods, preferring to help people in irc or whatever. there are also a lot of not-good modders who have extraordinarily high levels of kudosu - not gonna name names for obvious reasons.

third - there are already a lot of unspoken "objective" criteria as well as the actual objective ranking criteria. you won't see many maps that do not even attempt to follow the song, despite there being no objective rule against it. i assure you that all these awful maps that you see being promoted are being promoted by BNs that have different values than you - not lower standards, not circlejerk, not malicious intent.

fourth - mapping is not more or less diverse compared to previous years. i promise you that these similar types of maps that you crusaded against were being promoted in 2012, 2013, whatever, as they are now. similarly, the type of maps that you promoted and see as quality content have also been promoted and are consistently promoted to this day. the difference is in the level of personal involvement with maps outside your "bubble" - you started looking at many more maps, i assume, which is why you started noticing these terrible maps more recently. i realize this sounds extraordinarily presumptuous, and it may indeed be completely wrong with regards to your experience. but i firmly believe that mapping has not evolved or devolved in quite a long time. the same ideas that are prevalent now were prevalent since a really long time ago. the only difference, really, is the inordinate amount of terrible 1-2 pp maps, but that has nothing to do with this proposal.

in sum: i don't think sweeping changes are necessary as the situation is not particularly unique. the tools to deal with "low quality" bns are already in place, simply unutilized as far as i can tell.
posted

Nao Tomori wrote:

i believe such a solution is not necessary for a few reasons.

first - quality of modding and bns. while it does indeed appear that there are "too many bns" (a sentiment which i don't exactly disagree with) the solution is not to nuke the entire system but rather to use the existing mechanisms more. probation at the moment is completely useless. i'll quote a certain someone here: "as long as you don't literally rape a girl on probation you'll pass." QATs can regulate the "quality" of bns by using probation and removal of BNs who consistently break rules, nominate over unrankable issues, nominate consistently low quality maps, only nominate maps of mappers in their friend group, etc. all these things can already be prevented by the QAT, they just need to start doing it more.

then how come this isnt happening? there should be a causation for this and i'm curious as to what it would be. My guess is that it's emotionally stressful to constantly engage in conflicts and have to ''disband'' people, upsetting them and what not, combined with the fact that all of these roles are voluntary so many people just don't want to deal with the stressful aspects of it. I agree with your description of regulation, but the issue is that many of those things (low quality nominations, nominating friends maps) are hard to determine and that those things always instigate drama and uneasiness.

second - an arbitrary threshold is not a good way to judge someone's ability to contribute meaningfully. look at various bns who were active with, say, low amount of ranked maps. naxess, wishkey, dsco, as well as various others in times past. similarly, low kudosu count, or high kudosu count, isn't a good way to judge either. there are plenty of very high skilled modders who do not mod regularly or post mods, preferring to help people in irc or whatever. there are also a lot of not-good modders who have extraordinarily high levels of kudosu - not gonna name names for obvious reasons.

yes. i agree very much with all of this and my suggestion (amount of ranked maps/kd) is far from a perfect/working one. It's hard to determine a general threshhold which makes someone capable or incapable of the function without unnecessarily ruling more special cases (like dsco or naxess) out. Though, the current method (qat picks out bns) or previous methods (like tests) still rule out these odd cases, arguably to a similar extent.

third - there are already a lot of unspoken "objective" criteria as well as the actual objective ranking criteria. you won't see many maps that do not even attempt to follow the song, despite there being no objective rule against it. i assure you that all these awful maps that you see being promoted are being promoted by BNs that have different values than you - not lower standards, not circlejerk, not malicious intent.

fourth - mapping is not more or less diverse compared to previous years. i promise you that these similar types of maps that you crusaded against were being promoted in 2012, 2013, whatever, as they are now. similarly, the type of maps that you promoted and see as quality content have also been promoted and are consistently promoted to this day. the difference is in the level of personal involvement with maps outside your "bubble" - you started looking at many more maps, i assume, which is why you started noticing these terrible maps more recently. i realize this sounds extraordinarily presumptuous, and it may indeed be completely wrong with regards to your experience. but i firmly believe that mapping has not evolved or devolved in quite a long time. the same ideas that are prevalent now were prevalent since a really long time ago. the only difference, really, is the inordinate amount of terrible 1-2 pp maps, but that has nothing to do with this proposal.

I don't agree with that. mapping has evolved at a very rapid rate especially the past 1-2 years, with the mapping community growing a lot and people finding out many more concepts (look at all the technical maps, maps that focus on just aesthetics, maps that only focus on movement, sv manipulation, low AR/reading maps, small/huge cs etc etc) and maps are a lot more diverse because of that (if you dont take into account the generic pp stuff, yes that has largely been the same). Yes, I might've noticed more diversity as i started to get more involved in mapping and modding myself, but even throughout the 3-4 years that I've been active I did notice large changes, people have progressively been getting more open to other ideas/less generic maps.

in sum: i don't think sweeping changes are necessary as the situation is not particularly unique. the tools to deal with "low quality" bns are already in place, simply unutilized as far as i can tell.
Thanks for your elaborate post, this is the kind of discussion I was looking for.

pkhg wrote:

if abuse or neglection is seen
how are you supposed to moderate thousands of nominators

also u wont get rid of circlejerking, its more like giving everyone the ability to circlejerk lol
yeah that would be the premise of it - it isn't circlejerking if there's no specific circle to jerk with. I don't think moderation would be a huge issue - it would be easily noticable if someone routinely abuses their rights just as it is now. It's not like the entire osu playerbase would be able to nominate maps - its just that the BNG has so many hurdles while the group is super inflated either way > might as well make it fully accessible to any experienced mapper who wants to contribute. What the threshhold for that would be? Hard to come up with something that is 100% viable on the spot. This would need to be considered and it would proabbly be a combination of things (activity and demonstrated the ability to produce rankable content, for example.)
posted
I agree with the idea of giving privilege to nominate maps when surpassing a certain threshold, but as you are aware of the quality control part, it should only happen when ranked maps have got a much more less meaning than now. Unless, the proposal seems to be fitting with this game's nature but will eventually have a negative impact overall in regards of map quality.
posted
Taiko doesn't suffer from these problems, therefore no thanks.


No seriously, I can only speak for Taiko and the problems you're stating just doesn't apply for this mode. And I honestly believe it goes the same for CTB and Mania.
posted
Alright, since apparently this kind of thing isn't obvious, I'm going to summarize this all real neatly.

osu!'s content generation system has been, from its very core, a peer reviewed process. This started off as simple as one of peppy's friends going "here i threw this together" and he went "sure fine". It's gotten a bit more complicated since then.

What is a peer review process? Well, most native english speakers would know offhand vaguely what the words mean together, and most non-native but comfortable english speakers would know a similar phrase in their own language once it's explained to them. (if you're not most, don't worry, everyone has to learn sometime.)

A native english speaker would say something like "that thing where other people check your work", often in review to scholarly pursuits. Wikipedia's first line on the article says "Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers)."

And in good old wiki-walking fashion, [url=let's find out what the world's best "do my thinking for me" resource says on "Peers":

actually you know what rant over my energy for this stopped here honestly if this isn't a difficult concept and if it's reached the point where people are seriously so rabid over anti-circlejerk that they'll happily throw away the one thing that's kept this game running for years despite promises for a new, totally re-vamped client and content generation system (Which I am still hoping for, despite all odds) they're really not going to be convinced by reason anyway
posted

Shiirn wrote:

Alright, since apparently this kind of thing isn't obvious, I'm going to summarize this all real neatly.

osu!'s content generation system has been, from its very core, a peer reviewed process. This started off as simple as one of peppy's friends going "here i threw this together" and he went "sure fine". It's gotten a bit more complicated since then.

What is a peer review process? Well, most native english speakers would know offhand vaguely what the words mean together, and most non-native but comfortable english speakers would know a similar phrase in their own language once it's explained to them. (if you're not most, don't worry, everyone has to learn sometime.)

A native english speaker would say something like "that thing where other people check your work", often in review to scholarly pursuits. Wikipedia's first line on the article says "Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers)."

And in good old wiki-walking fashion, [url=let's find out what the world's best "do my thinking for me" resource says on "Peers":

actually you know what rant over my energy for this stopped here honestly if this isn't a difficult concept and if it's reached the point where people are seriously so rabid over anti-circlejerk that they'll happily throw away the one thing that's kept this game running for years despite promises for a new, totally re-vamped client and content generation system (Which I am still hoping for, despite all odds) they're really not going to be convinced by reason anyway
Fair - even if you throw the circlejerk thing out of the equation though (this wasn't the main point of the post by far), there are still the other things to look at. The BNG seems to be reaching its tipping point as it's overflowing with members (at least for STD), so I reckon a change like this wouldn't even make that much of a difference (because a lot of people already can noiminate) - It'd just remove the unnecessary hurdles and workload, while, at the same time, dealing with the veto problem - if mappers have equal rights, no one can really enforce their opinion on each others creations anymore, unless there are game-breaking flaws. From my experience, that is the direction we're headed in as of today. This is the gist of it, and therefore I thought it'd be a nice thought experiment.
posted
not being able to enforce an opinion has the same result as not having one.

Making less points of conflict for the sake of less conflict is just going to homogenize things further.

this shit ain't rocket science


sick of these thot experiments
posted

Shiirn wrote:

sick of these thot experiments
why? Conversation and communication is necessary for progress. Even if you don't agree with any of the proposal's Voli has made, this thread is an opportunity to sort out thoughts and come to new conclusions. The ranking system is quite obviously not perfect, and not like it will ever be, but if we don't talk about it and other issues, they can never be improved upon. Try having an impartial view point on the matter at least.
posted
fwiw, wasn't the original idea of modding v2 basically exactly this, except that the thresholds were based on modding activity rather than mapping? The original BN/QAT arrangement back in 2014 was supposed to be a manual test run of how such a system would work, which was also why the requirements for being a BN at the time were lowered and they were demoted to just "regular users who can nominate maps" from "osu! staff members" (the old BATs).

I'm not sure what the plans for moddingv2 (or what you want to call it now) is in the future, but if the plan is still the same as the one back when work first began on modding v2, then I guess the stuff proposed in the OP will happen eventually.
posted

cosmiccc wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

sick of these thot experiments
why? Conversation and communication is necessary for progress. Even if you don't agree with any of the proposal's Voli has made, this thread is an opportunity to sort out thoughts and come to new conclusions. The ranking system is quite obviously not perfect, and not like it will ever be, but if we don't talk about it and other issues, they can never be improved upon. Try having an impartial view point on the matter at least.
Discussing idiocy for the sake of discussion is idiocy.

No rational person who has the slightest bit of understanding of what constitutes mapping would ever even conceive of a situation in which peer review was intentionally avoided.

Mapping is, in itself, a peer review process.

Ranking requirements exist because peers came together and made a list of rules.

These peers largely chose eachother based off their own determination on eachother's value as a peer. Those who were considered experienced or knowledgable were generally placed higher than those who were not. Nepotism canceled itself out in various ways - but obviously still existed - but an alternative was never really considered because the system worked.

This obsession with killing nepotism has reached the point where there are people who want to remove any sort of influence "knowing the right people" has on becoming a nominator. It is trying to remove personal bias because they feel - rightly - that you shouldn't only be able to be a nominator by being friends with an existing one or whatever absurd delusion they have.

I'm not saying this kind of intention is bad.

It's good. Obviously. It's like, obviously something that should be right because it sounds right, right?

Well, it's more complicated than that.

The entire peer review process relies on the fact that we have peers to begin with. A peer isn't just a person, it's a hypothetical equal, someone whose opinion should have some value to you in some shape or form.

So if these values and opinions are forbidden from having any weight because "Well it's unfair that people who are seen as better are more likely to be promoted" (that's seriously what you guys sound like to me at this point rn really) or worse, "We can't scare people away by having anything but a positive, clean-looking environment" (because everyone knows every good community has no drama or conflict in it....... right?)

well, it just goes to show exactly how far the mighty have fallen, that this kind of "discussion" is even taking place.
Please sign in to reply.