1. osu! forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments
show more
posted
I highly disagree with this proposal, but nao pretty much summed up what I wanted to say already.

One thing I'll add tho is how little sense it makes to expect more out of hybrid BNs. A hybrid BN is just a BN with more options as to what maps he can nominate, not some with twice the responsibilities. Being good in 2 gamemodes would essentially be a punishment now, given that twice the work is expected of you, fuck that. Being a hybrid BN is already harder than being single mode, by just forcing twice the expected work you're just asking them to quit one mode and not be a hybrid BN.

In a perfect world all BNs are active and everything is great, but BNs are real people with real jobs and real things to do and lives to have, and at the end of the day osu is just a video game, a hobby, a pastime. Forcing more severe quotas for nominations is the most perfect way to suck even more fun out of being BN and pushing away more people.
posted
ok before I reply to every point I will just sum up my thoughts:

While I share a similar attitude about the situation of inactive nominators in the end people will argue they do not harm anyone or anything. The only thing that happens is that people tend to avoid them and go straight to the active ones, also because they very likely will know the answer if they're going to ask inactives.

Also eh, the thing about multi-mode BNs is pretty unnecessary. The only reason people apply for several modes is to ensure they can be made responsible for hybrid sets and that they can take care for more than one mode at once. On the other hand they currently also have the issue like active members to have a higher chance to get stuff DQed. Requiring more work from them won't doo anything either.

Nonetheless I agree it is frustrating to see that four BNs (and Kazu who has not been put on list because he recently joined the QAT but was BN for months) to do the work of pretty much the rest of the Taiko BNG and that I understand the purpose of the proposal. Let's say I would love to see improvements in this section but I doubt most of the things pointed in the post will do that.


Might also mention this is quite a special case for Taiko, since the rest seems to have other issues or just work differently where the points of OP would not apply well either.
posted
i think nao summed it up really well and stefan even added the taiko-specific issue you're pointing out
posted

celerih wrote:

I highly disagree with this proposal, but nao pretty much summed up what I wanted to say already.

One thing I'll add tho is how little sense it makes to expect more out of hybrid BNs. A hybrid BN is just a BN with more options as to what maps he can nominate, not some with twice the responsibilities. Being good in 2 gamemodes would essentially be a punishment now, given that twice the work is expected of you, fuck that. Being a hybrid BN is already harder than being single mode, by just forcing twice the expected work you're just asking them to quit one mode and not be a hybrid BN.

In a perfect world all BNs are active and everything is great, but BNs are real people with real jobs and real things to do and lives to have, and at the end of the day osu is just a video game, a hobby, a pastime. Forcing more severe quotas for nominations is the most perfect way to suck even more fun out of being BN and pushing away more people.
The thing is that you can be a good mapper/modder and still not be a BN. The choice is yours. But I think that if you decided to become a BN you should know that you have some responsibilities. And one of them should be to be active. It's too easy to be active for a while and once you get BN you'll mod only 1 map every 2 months. As it was said, it's not new that some people get refused from being a BN for their activity, yet they're still more active than some people that currently are in the group...

If you're good at modding, but don't plan on being active for the community, then do occasional mod only, you'll still be helpful in your own way.

And well, everyone is busy. And modding is exhausting for everyone. Yet, as you can see in the spreadsheet BN 5 and BN 6 were, each, more active than the 9 less active BNs all together. And I'm sure those 2 BNs were also busy IRL, as well as with their own maps. Also, the proposal isn't to make BN full-time osu! modder, but to be somewhat decently active. If each BN (that weren't really active) would have made even one or two extra checks, it would have been huge for the group / as a group.

And let's be honest, one map every 3 weeks is nothing. When you see in the spreadsheet that multiple BNs didn't make a single check in more than 2 months... I'd prefer someone in the group that talks with a broken english but has more motivation. Because yes, I think that the problem isn't that those people are busy (otherwise they would have submitted an absence notice) , the problem is that they have no motivation. So maybe the process to get into the BNG should be based a little bit more on motivation? After all, this is the basis of volunteering and the key to be good at modding.

About the hybrid BNs i agree with Nifty as well, I don't think you should join 2 modes if you're barely able to manage a decent activity in one.

As Nao said, indeed, the proposal isn't perfect, but I don't think the reason you gave are valid.
posted
I also completely agree with Nao.

There is absolutely no point in punishing for inactivity, we've had that a few years ago when the BNG was introduced and it didnt lead anywhere. Instead, reward those that have high activity and actually give an incentive to spend more time for people that have some extra to spare.

Thinking about it as well, if this activity check would be a thing, being a hybrid BN would be even less attractive than it already is due to it being an increased threat.
posted
peppy please notice this
posted
Totally agree with Nao.

Reading the draft itself, I feel that I really want to put my two cents here about the idea dreaming to increase activity by "punishing BNs" (or any other voluntary roles in osu!). It's simple. The "punishing might work (sometimes)" irl wont just work here. You cant make analogy with a paid job and a voluntary, mainly interest-driven "job" here.

The concept of "Punishing might sometimes work" in irl because people are afraid of losing substantial stuffs (like salary, or sth). But here in this game, what do BNs really have, might be able of "losing" or "being punished"? The purple user name in OLD forums and the title which makes you look a little bit more "gentrified"? The bling bling 2/3/4 year badge you spent hours a week for years to earn which reminds you every time you open your userpage that even you do that for 4 year this game wont regard you as an alumnus? Or the if ever BN M4Ms that some people are so overwhemingly sensitive about that even write a python code to monitor and detect your "circlejerking" activity and then threaten to submit a provocative 2,000 word report mainly saying "This BN's behaviour sucks because 25% nominations of him went for other BNs last 3 months)? I guess no. People won't be likely to lugubriously comfort you when you tell them you are kicked from BNG of osu! because of inactivity, or sth else. They will only ask you if you are referring to Ohio State University, or Oregon, or even Oklahoma.

This rule draft might intend to be benign, but back to Nao's post, the problem lies in its fundament. I hope people won't extinguish the last motivation of this group of people by adding punishing frameworks here and there. And this is especially more important for highly active BNs instead. They of course need more leniency as they are suffering too much right now: dq, probation, and so-called "punishments". At least, from the macro stance of being a productive, community-driven, sustainable game, they are better than those who ONLY perambulate throught the qualified section suggesting +3ms offset or missing hitsounds and then nominate those maps back to maintain their activity. I guess people might love to see the former more, but by punishing the BNs, it is not likely to have more those BNs, but probably less.
posted
The system is fine as it currently is; with no need of incentive towards active people. here is why out of multiple perspectives:

AS A BN:

I also agree with Nao about this and knowing myself how being extremely active can be perilous (higher chance of nominating something unrankable/generally bad maps), a possible solution to what you have described as a problem could look like leniency towards very active BNs. This would Benefit us as BNs, hence why this looks good at first glance!

AS A QAT:

ALTHOUGH all that is going to do is probably just make active BNs even more active, while the inactive BNs are still just busy with IRL and not having time to mod. Even an incentive might not make someone extremely active out of nowhere. Active BNs getting leniency can very well lead to a steady decrease in nomination quality, rectified with activity.

Lets say fictive BN1 has A+ Nomination quality, but D Nomination activity.
Also consider a fictive BN2 who has D Nomination quality, but A+ Nomination activity.

(According to your proposal, BN1 must be punished, while BN2 recieves extra leniency)

Now consider the QAT (as they are, do not want a big workload with reports, DQing, possible unrankables slipping through) and what they want to optimize in the BNG.
Would anyone as a QAT want to review a lot of reports daily just to have a BNG that is slightly more active? Maximize activity at the cost of being cluttered with work and risk of having to unrank maps/let maps of lesser quality get through?
Or would you rather be a QAT who manages a BNG that only has people who cause no trouble nor risk to the nomination milieu, at the cost of having slightly less maps in ranked?
If i were a QAT, i would prefer less work, minimizing the fuckups that BNs do, rather than maximizing activity that might be shit in the long run.

If one were truly to be a good BN, an incentive to be more active would not be needed. One would be able to get good nomination quality and high activity achieved simultaneously if one tried, so there is no need for extra leniency towards active ones.

Last note: If you have 5 people nominating 2 maps a month, thats the same as 2 people nominating 5 maps per months. You can just keep you nomination quality standards high, but place in more people to have enough activity combined. Not having enough qualified people is *NOT* excuse to let people with insufficient proficiency act in a role of someone qualified.
posted

celerih wrote:

I highly disagree with this proposal, but nao pretty much summed up what I wanted to say already.

One thing I'll add tho is how little sense it makes to expect more out of hybrid BNs. A hybrid BN is just a BN with more options as to what maps he can nominate, not some with twice the responsibilities. Being good in 2 gamemodes would essentially be a punishment now, given that twice the work is expected of you, fuck that. Being a hybrid BN is already harder than being single mode, by just forcing twice the expected work you're just asking them to quit one mode and not be a hybrid BN.

In a perfect world all BNs are active and everything is great, but BNs are real people with real jobs and real things to do and lives to have, and at the end of the day osu is just a video game, a hobby, a pastime. Forcing more severe quotas for nominations is the most perfect way to suck even more fun out of being BN and pushing away more people.
most hybrid bns focus all their work on one gamemode, and completely neglect the other. I consider this unacceptable. 1 nomination per 2-3 weeks is a perfectly reasonable and extremely lax level of activity.
posted

tatatat wrote:

most hybrid bns focus all their work on one gamemode, and completely neglect the other. I consider this unacceptable. 1 nomination per 2-3 weeks is a perfectly reasonable and extremely lax level of activity.
Having the period be 2-3 weeks is so not lax lmao, calling it an extremely lax level of activity is so out of touch with reality. Think about finals for university students (which a good portion of BNs are), that's automatically 3 weeks per semester where a decent amount of them do not do nominations to concentrate on exams and studying (which is what they should be doing). It's a stressful period, and after 2 semesters of uni, you'd be kicked under these new rules for choosing to focus on your future, good job system. During that time, it's completely understandable to want to not go comb through garbage maps with the low chance of finding something decent, and then spend a good amount of time analyzing said map to make sure if doesn't have 1 of a massive list of unrankables. But with a 2-3 week period you're fucked.

There's no chance to compensate on other months with this because the moment you aren't nominating something after 3 weeks you're already halfway to being kicked. That's really dumb and not lax in the slightest, saying it is is completely ignoring common sense. This proposal is way too extreme and definitely the best way to kill off most BNs who care but also have real lives, not just those who are inactive and don't care.

You complain that hybrids just focus on one mode, but this proposal only reinforces that and incentivizes them to stick to one gamemode only, making it worse, wow great!

Look, as a BN I averaged 4 ranked maps per month, which is more than what I'd have to do under this system, but I usually worked in batches, with sometimes gaps of a few weeks and sometimes very active weeks. My average nominations is much higher than this system requires (about 1.33 nominations a month vs my above 4) but I probably would've been kicked. That's stupid, and not well thought out. It forces consistent nominations and doesn't consider that ppl have varying free time and can work more in batches.

it just won't work, it's much too punishing and assumes consistent availability. yes some ppl stayed in while being inactive for way too long, but the solution isn't to go with the complete extreme and forcing consistent nominations with very little to no leeway
posted
Celerih: If you seriously aren't giving yourself enough time to check one map during finals, you are not treating yourself well. One does not just sit in their room and study for 18 hours a day, they have obligations such as work, clubs and etc. that they have to or want to do. One of these obligations is osu!. IMO, when you put yourself in a position of authority, whether it be a GMT, QAT, or BN, you are more involved, and that should be reflected in your activity. Also, just request a leave of absence, I mentioned that up to two months would be acceptable.

I understand people who work in batches, as I consider myself one of those, but if you looked at the chart, you will see that the people who do work in batches do so on a weekly basis, and none work in batches once every month.

Nepuri: I don't really care about the qat's workload. You know as a QAH how simple it is to check all of the qualified maps every week strictly for unrankable issues, when done well. If the qat is keeping inactive members just so they don't have to feel like they have to do much, then that is completely on them.

I see that most people (well, everybody) here instead would like a change in how active BNs are treated. I don't really think you could make a rule for that, and others (such as Nao) and I have already tried explaining to QATs the issue of activity not being rewarded, but every time we're told "just don't make mistakes" and ignored. I really don't know how to push that issue besides having more BNs agree on the matter to persuade the QAT to give fair punishment based off contribution or the lack thereof.
posted
At least in standard mode, quality > quantity. If the QAT rewarded active BNs or gave leniency to active members who did lots of mistakes, most BNs would farm the activity to get rewarded. Nomination quality drops, unrank happens, and all of us don't want to see that.
posted
Well, currently, I believe that both Nao and Fycho’s opinions make sense.

For me, here’s the contradiction:
(1) Nao prefers to build a rewarding system based on BN activity which will raise BNs’ enthusiasm on nominating and then make a more active BNG, while
(2) Fycho believes that (at least in standard mode) rewards based on the activity may cause the “farming” of rewards and then a drop on nominating quality.

So personally, I think what we need is a rule based on a quantitive balance between the “activity”, “nominating quality” and “rewards”. Of course both saying “reward BNs” and “BNs will farm for reward” are too sweeping and will not help much on the discussion and the comprehension between normal people, or even some of the BNs, and QATs.

Here is what I decide to do: I’d like to add a new wiki page named “Beatmap Nominator Evaluation” and write some terms mainly based on Nifty’s original proposal and opinions I’ve seen in this thread and try to give them some balanced and optimized executable terms. They are mainly some terms having exactly the critical numbers to define “active”, “nominating quality”, “rewards”, etc. These terms are based on my working experiences in the BNG and some thoughts from worldwide mappers.
There are also some of my advice for the evaluating algorithm of BNG too (I’m still not sure if QATs using this to evaluate BNG members though...)
Hope my advice can help, and any kind of suggestions are welcome.

(Since I’m not an original speaker of English, terms I proposed will definitely need a better wording. Also since I’m a std mapper I may not that clear about what’s the situation of other game modes, please correct me if I’ve fucked up on that......)

(Also I assume that the evaluation will take place roughly every month.)
Beatmap Nominator Evaluation

The Beatmap Nominator Evaluation is an evaluation of members in the Beatmap Nomination Group, executed by the Quality Assurance Team. The Quality Assurance Team will take the activity, attitude and proficiency into account, looking at how many mods and icons a Beatmap Nominator has placed and whether he or she successfully pushed beatmaps to the Ranked section.
This page serves to give a detailed explanation on how the Beatmap Nominator Evaluation works.

Glossery terms

• Active: In a Beatmap Nominator Evaluation cycle, a Beatmap Nominator is considered as “active” if he or she has reached both of the 2 conditions below:
* Nominated at least 3 maps (2 maps for osu!taiko, osu!catch and osu!mania game mode) in total, and
* At least 2 of the maps (1 map for osu!taiko, osu!catch and osu!mania game mode) he or she has nominated have (has) been successfully pushed to the Ranked section.

• Inactive: If a Beatmap Nominator is not considered as “active” in a Beatmap Nominator Evaluation cycle, then he or she will be considered as “inactive” in this cycle.

• Deducted point: A Beatmap Nominator will receive 1 deducted point if he or she has violated the Beatmap Nominator Rules while nominating a beatmap.

• The number of nomination, maps that have been successfully pushed to Ranked section and the deducted point will be reset to zero for all Beatmap Nominators when a Beatmap Nominator Evaluation is completely finished (that means all members in the Beatmap Nomination Group are properly evaluated, and the corresponding measures are taken for every Beatmap Nominator based on his or her results of the evaluation)

Evaluation

• In a Beatmap Nominator Evaluation cycle, a Beatmap Nominator passes the Beatmap Nominator Evaluation if he or she meets both of the conditions below:
* He or she is considered as active, and
* He or she has accumulated no more than X deducted points, where X = [N/2] and N is the number of maps he or she has nominated in this cycle.

If a Beatmap Nominator doesn’t pass the Beatmap Nominator Evaluation, then he or she fails the Beatmap Nominator Evaluation.

• If a Beatmap Nominator passes an evaluation...
* If he or she is a Beatmap Nominator in probation: this Beatmap Nominator will become a full member of the Beatmap Nominators once he or she passes the evaluation.
* If he or she is a full member of the Beatmap Nominators: he or she will maintain his or her full member identity of the Beatmap Nominators.
* A Beatmap Nominator will be rewarded an one month osu!supporter tag if he or she passes one cycle of the Beatmap Nominator Evaluation, as an appreciation of his or her hard works and contributions to the osu! modding and mapping.

• If a Beatmap Nominator fails an evaluation...
* If he or she is a Beatmap Nominator in probation: this Beatmap Nominator will be dismissed from the Beatmap Nomination Group and cannot apply for the Beatmap Nominators until the next available cycle for his/her desired game mode.
* If he or she is a full member of the Beatmap Nominators: he or she will be put into the probation.
posted
Do we really need to add another evaluation and/or ranking to overcpmplicate this once again?

Like, sure, give reasons for people to spend more time on osu if they can do so, but dont try to force something just because you do. Some are more active, some are less active. Some might have reasons behind them and some might not. We're all just normal people and we do have a normal life beyond osu!
Someone mentioned earlier, if you happen to have university finals, you're basically fucked. Your focus should not be on osu! in such a time, but on your general future. Saying that you should just allocate more time into a game when something else is more important is a really ignorant thing to say.

Im all for people being more active, but dont go back to the start of the BNG where literally everything was somehow put into a rating and if that rating didnt match another number then you'd be off. During the entire timeframe of that being a thing, quantity was worth more than quality. You could rank 5 different boring E/N spreads and it would be worth a ton more than sitting down with a beginner mapper, spending hours to refine their maps just to have it actually rank - or sit down with someone who made something outstanding/extremely difficult, make sure everything is proper and then push it forward. I can see the same thing happen when another general and big activity check comes around like this.
This isnt a motivation, but instead just causes stress and a bad general climate around us. I'd say that there's a reason why so many people joined and left the BNG in short timeframes around when that was introduced.

The rewards that could be there dont need to be something ultra cool provided by peppy, but can, just as others said, be more leniency if something stupid happens. We're all just here to help mappers make their maps rankable and then push them. There's no need to handle this like a real job.
posted
fwiw I think activity in it's current state is abysmal. the amount of activity required to get into the bng is very high in comparison to what you need to maintain your membership in the bng. there are many cases of people who have insane amounts of activity, get accepted into BN, and then their activity falls off a cliff. we don't need a ranking system to punish people for being inactive. the current cycle-based probation is too slow and easily abusable (people just wait until the cycle is about to end and mod like 5 maps suddenly they're active again). start putting people on probation as soon as their inactivity starts to show and stop letting people get a free ride. if you have only placed 1 icon in 2 months, you should not be a full BN.

also, people shouldn't need INCENTIVE to be a good nominator. then fycho's problem actually comes true, and people start farming for rewards. this causes people to care about getting something out of being a BN, rather than being a BN because they want to help the community.
posted
1 mod each 3 weeks and you can just say you're busy, get the deal while it's hot

Also Fycho: At least in standard mode, quality > quantity.
sorry but this ain't true anymore. . .
posted
Also, why should nominators be allowed to idle and do nothing, and after years of idling get badges? It sounds like you're rewarded for doing nothing. It really devalues the badges for people who actually put in the effort and really care about their position imo.
posted
i reread this thread daily and it's hard for me to contribute to conversation since everything i want to say has already been said

ascendance said the problem, the activity required to get into the bng is much higher than what is required to stay in the bng. but adding a bunch of numbers and evaluations and complicated processes to address this issue will suck the fun out of being a bn, as celerih said.

we all have real lives and jobs and sometimes unexpected stuff happens. that's what #excuse notice exists for in the bn server. but what this should really come down to imo is the qat being more strict about activity while still understanding why people aren't active, because people understand people and these numbers and restrictions don't understand people.

if you're inactive for x amount of time and you don't have an excuse notice, the qat should reach out to you first. if inactivity continues after that, to the qat's discretion, they can warn them a final time or just remove them from the bn. all these specific lengths of time just makes it seem exhausting and creates a sense of stress amongst nominators and that sucks
posted

Irreversible wrote:

Also Fycho: At least in standard mode, quality > quantity.
sorry but this ain't true anymore. . .
posted
Personally don't like the idea of forcing people to do (mostly voluntary) work, since that can be a source of demotivation for people, even for the ones who can sit comfortably above the threshold.

Maybe there is a problem that BNs can get away with being too lax, and that the activity we look for when recruiting BNs isn't consistent with what want when they get in. I don't fully disagree with that. But personally I'd want to keep being a BN as comfortable a position as possible.
show more
Please sign in to reply.