[Proposal] Artificially shortened audio files

posted
Total Posts
10
Topic Starter
Stefan
Since the proposal to make the spread requirement more flexible, I'd like to take up the discussion about audio files that are artificially shortened by users. This does not include so-called short versions of songs that are either openings/endings or just edited for something else but edits that are NOT official.

Now that you can exclude lower difficulties - speaking of Easy/Normal - from mapsets with a drain time of 3:30 and longer, the necessity to shortend songs becomes more and more obsolete and as we know it's been abused quite a lot over the last months and years. Additionally to the guideline that disallow artificial extensions with few acceptable exceptions I want to see something like that for cut-offs and poor short versions.

So it'd be quite similar to the said guideline above and I'd come with the following conditions:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

The audio file of a song should not be artificially shortended, exceptions can be done to songs that repeats too much.
(wording is wip)


The idea is to still allow to shortened audio files when it's actually sensible, for example a four minute song that repeats after the 2nd minute while full songs with verses, refrains, intros, etc. should not be cut just to save time in mapping/modding. I haven't put a minimum time of lenght the song must have to be shortened since it works on a case-by-case basis.
Kibbleru
i think cut versions are still fine..
Sieg
Aim for this?

If this tends to discourage bad cuts wording should refer to the completeness of the cut. i.e. - minimum structure requirement like in any average tv size.

If this tends to discourage cuts as a whole it makes little sense because what's the difference between 4 min long song custom cut into 1.30 and a tv-series cut if they both done on appropriate level of quality.
Nao Tomori
I disagree. There are many times when a song is pretty much literal copy pasted and really makes it demotivating to map. Cutting it allows for a more engaging experience since the map is not dragging on for 2 years over boring filler parts in a song; mappers would be more likely to map it. Much like the spread discussion, the choice is not full vs cut in many cases; it's cut vs not existing at all because the full is boring or annoying or bad sounding or whatever.

BNs already can utilize discretion to not bubble terrible cuts like 40 second cuts of despacito or something. If they want to promote content like that then it is their choice, just like it is their choice to not promote maps without low diffs in the new spread rules, or maps of songs by artists they don't like. There isn't a reason to add this to the RC; it should be regulated by BNs intersubjectively.

- I generally agree with Sieg's first point, if the idea is to prevent these terrible types of cuts then it's reasonable. But I doubt there would be a good way to determine whether a cut is fine or not so it would fall on the BNs in the first place, who should not be ranking this type of cut if they don't like it anyway...
Noffy
Strongly disagree with this.. Just because it's an option to make a 3:40 set with just HIX spread, doesn't mean you should disallow the option of instead making a 1:20 cut with a full ENHIX spread. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages, and this shouldn't be a case of disallowing one of them entirely.

I agree with Sieg and Nao about poorly made cuts tho,
or potentially having a guideline against song edit less than <20% of the original length or something, because beyond that point it's just getting silly.
LwL
As much as I personally dislike cutting of songs, if people wanna do it then let them. Sieg's point is valid though, a song retaining some of its musical structure is a good goal and requiring it for cuts could be a positive change.
tatatat

Noffy wrote:

Strongly disagree with this.. Just because it's an option to make a 3:40 set with just HIX spread, doesn't mean you should disallow the option of instead making a 1:20 cut with a full ENHIX spread. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages, and this shouldn't be a case of disallowing one of them entirely.

I agree with Sieg and Nao about poorly made cuts tho,
or potentially having a guideline against song edit less than <20% of the original length or something, because beyond that point it's just getting silly.
you could ya know... just make a ENHIX spread for that 3:40 set.
I believe there should be clearly defined quality control when it comes to the quality of cuts, such as fade outs aligning with beats and not being garbage.
RealMetMuster
I agree with the original post.

Some user made cuts out there are ranked and I would say that many of them are not suited for that.

If a song is too repetitive/boring to map in its entirety then just don't map it or use official cuts/edits/remixes.

Besides I think that unofficial song compilations should also be addressed alongside your suggested rule/guideline.

e: Lengthened files should be regulated by the rule/guideline too
pishifat
extending a song for meeting a new lowdiffthreshold means reducing potential content, while cutting a song doesn't. that's the argument i hear a lot for allowing cuts but not artificial extensions

seeing as almost everyone is in favor of allowing cuts, i don't think that'll be worth restricting on the rc

for the concern of bad cuts that replies brought up, that's more or less being controlled by modding already. misaligned cuts don't make it to ranked, so they don't need to be mentioned in the rc i think

unless there's a new argument to be made for disallowing cuts, i'll be archiving this
pishifat

pishifat wrote:

unless there's a new argument to be made for disallowing cuts, i'll be archiving this
Please sign in to reply.

New reply