@nao
We have already abandoned that principle when we disallowed nominators from unvetoing sets. Practically, one nominator can stop any amount of other nominators by just vetoing, now that mediations are a thing, as long as the veto is considered valid by QAT through mediation if it comes to that. This proposal does not change that. So whether you veto 1 or 2 nominations doesn't matter.
Furthermore, there is no need to ask multiple QAT to disqualify, since as long as you have a proper post that fulfills the requirements of a veto, like pointing out what the problem is, bringing arguments for that, etc, any QAT will dq the map for you upon request (the QAT is not held responsible for the disqualification, but rather the vetoing nominator requesting it). The QAT won't check whether it's valid until after disqualification if necessary, since as you say, that would take way too long and be a rushed process otherwise.
This way it's basically the same thing as regular vetoes - there is no one questioning whether your veto is correct or not until after you have reset the nominations. The nominator is given the benefit of the doubt that their veto is valid until mediated. This pauses the process and allows discussion to happen. If a veto turns out to be complete nonsense, the vetoing nominator will be punished for that, and the map may be instantly requalified (since there's no 24h rule) with the same position in the queue, etc.
You could see it as if nominators were able to disqualify, except they are required to structure the reason for the disqualification properly, and whether it stays disqualified or not is up to the QAT as per usual with mediation.
@squirrelpascals
#1 sounds like a good idea yeah, as long as the map won't be ranked before that obviously, although unsure of how many people will actually look at the veto until it's disqualified for it, doubt people would go into the discussion page and look among all the tabs for any qualified map they try, could probably use more thoughts on that.
#2 will need to define how many days "long" is, and may actually be better resolved by just making "long" the new minimum time the map is in qualified, as I doubt it would get much exposure while bubbled, and you'd need to define what a "drastic change" is as well, which brings back some of the original problem. May be better to just avoid the 24h thing entirely and instead change the other aspects to solve those issues. Thinking "long" should probably be 2 or 3 days.
We have already abandoned that principle when we disallowed nominators from unvetoing sets. Practically, one nominator can stop any amount of other nominators by just vetoing, now that mediations are a thing, as long as the veto is considered valid by QAT through mediation if it comes to that. This proposal does not change that. So whether you veto 1 or 2 nominations doesn't matter.
Furthermore, there is no need to ask multiple QAT to disqualify, since as long as you have a proper post that fulfills the requirements of a veto, like pointing out what the problem is, bringing arguments for that, etc, any QAT will dq the map for you upon request (the QAT is not held responsible for the disqualification, but rather the vetoing nominator requesting it). The QAT won't check whether it's valid until after disqualification if necessary, since as you say, that would take way too long and be a rushed process otherwise.
This way it's basically the same thing as regular vetoes - there is no one questioning whether your veto is correct or not until after you have reset the nominations. The nominator is given the benefit of the doubt that their veto is valid until mediated. This pauses the process and allows discussion to happen. If a veto turns out to be complete nonsense, the vetoing nominator will be punished for that, and the map may be instantly requalified (since there's no 24h rule) with the same position in the queue, etc.
You could see it as if nominators were able to disqualify, except they are required to structure the reason for the disqualification properly, and whether it stays disqualified or not is up to the QAT as per usual with mediation.
@squirrelpascals
#1 sounds like a good idea yeah, as long as the map won't be ranked before that obviously, although unsure of how many people will actually look at the veto until it's disqualified for it, doubt people would go into the discussion page and look among all the tabs for any qualified map they try, could probably use more thoughts on that.
#2 will need to define how many days "long" is, and may actually be better resolved by just making "long" the new minimum time the map is in qualified, as I doubt it would get much exposure while bubbled, and you'd need to define what a "drastic change" is as well, which brings back some of the original problem. May be better to just avoid the 24h thing entirely and instead change the other aspects to solve those issues. Thinking "long" should probably be 2 or 3 days.