Recently I've noticed several other proposals involving both how vetoes and the 24h rule should work, so I thought I'd propose a way to solve various issues both of these systems seem to have.

I'll be using two as reference:
https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/823759
https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/833523

The first one involves the 24h rule and how determining what is a minor change can be pretty confusing.
The second one involves concerns regarding how vetoes work, and how doing these before qualified leads to less exposure.

Currently, vetoes can only be done while a mapset is bubbled. Once a mapset is qualified, there is no way to veto it*. In order for vetoes to be able to happen, there is a 24h time window between bubble and qualification, which gives an opportunity to veto the mapset.

* unless you can convince a QAT to agree with what is often a subjective concern, in order not to waste your time getting anything you post be completely dismissed being unable to do anything about it

This proposal changes two things:

1. Removes the 24h rule.
2. Allows nominators to veto qualified maps.

Reasoning:

1. Since the main purpose of this is giving a window to veto in, and the reason this was needed was that only bubbled maps could be vetoed, it is no longer necessary with #2. All other purposes, such as getting feedback on the map, can be done more efficiently in qualified, as this gives the map more exposure, as well as enables people to look at replays.
2. Since nominators may no longer unveto sets, and QAT mediation is a thing, it makes no difference whether the vetoing nominator vetoes one or two nominations. Additionally, since qualified maps retain their position in the queue, and there is no longer a 24h rule, a map may be instantly requalified should the veto be resolved or considered invalid.

#2 works by allowing nominators to request a disqualification with a veto post as basis, where a QAT first confirms that it includes the necessities of a veto, such as arguments and reasoning, before disqualifying upon the request of the vetoing nominator. Whether it is a valid veto or not is determined as per usual through QAT mediation after disqualification if necessary.

This solves the first proposal by no longer having a 24h rule to be confused about, and the second through providing all of the exposure, testplays and time needed for nominators to observe and form their opinion of the map. This additional time allows them to, for example ask for second opinions, look for solutions or alternative ways to solve some concern, unlike the short span of 24h where there just isn't enough time to do any of that reasonably, and any veto may more be seen as a planned attack on the mapper than anything else, even if it isn't.

tl;dr: This basically shifts and extends the time in which vetoes can happen, and thereby removes the need for a forced 24h wait on all maps and gameplay changes. Something which wasn't feasible before, but now is with recent changes to qualified and the veto system.

yes please

the entire point of vetoing bubbles was that 1 bn should cancel out 1 bns nomination, if you want to abandon that principle then this is a good way to do so but if not then this is not a good change. additionally this would shorten the time qats have to make a decision on whether a veto is valid or not because qats have vastly different ideas of what constitutes a good map and could arbitrarily decide if they are correct or not if asked one by one rather than as a group. so either you want to veto and run around asking qats till one agrees and dqs, or you want to veto, qat takes 10 million years to do anything as usual and the map gets ranked before a decision is made, or qat has to rush a decision in 3 days which as we know is not a good idea

Love it. A couple things I think you can add to the proposal for it to be more effective:

1) Add a timeframe between when the veto is first posted and when the map is disqualified for said veto. The said timeframe could be around a day or two. It would give the community time to look at these said concerns of the veto and give their input, based off of how players react to the map if needed. If the mapper agrees to the veto then sure, they can always request a dq before then. Still gives the vetoer ample time to voice their concerns as well.

2) Use the 24 hour rule if the map wont be qualified for long after a veto has been resolved. The 24 hours between the two nominations is meant to be a window for community feedback on maps that are about to be qualified. Removing it is a good thing because this is unneeded 95% of the time, but it can be useful in cases where drastic changes were made to a map that will only be in the qualified section for 2 days or so before getting ranked. Active members of the community who follow mapfeed channels have more of a chance to take a second look at the map.

I hope to see this proposal go places

@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.

@Naxess again :p
#1: Since we're already adding onto the time that nominators have to veto i don't think limiting the time you have to veto (before something gets ranked) is a bad thing. If there's an issue that's really worth vetoing for in a map, i feel it's likely to be pointed out before then (if 1 day is needed between the veto / dq, still gives the vetoer 5 or 6 days).

Personally i see a lot of people jumping into veto discussions to drop an opinion already. Adds into the time people have to share said discussions, in the bn server for example.

#2: I was thinking "long" would be about 2 days as well. If a veto really sparks an intense discussion then people will likely be interested in the changes made after the first nomination. Wether a drastic change was made or not it still gives the map visibility (so i guess it doesn't have to be a case by case basis).

This is just what i was thinking when i thought of this, would be nice to see what others think

Sounds good to me.

Excellently done Naxess, I'm satisfied with this proposal

[deleted as part of purging my old post history]

4n3c wrote:

insofar as the reasoning in https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/833523 is concerned the ideal timeframe is around the maximum time maps can stay in qualified before moving to ranked. or alternatively, within the 24 hours leading up to a map being ranked since this is the shortest time maps can remain in qualified when dq'd within that time. (any concerns resulting from this i.e nominators needing more time to check maps can be solved by adjusting the variables in squirrel's second proposal)

Yeah the longer the map is in qualified the more exposure it'll get, so I suppose what squirrel suggested is probably a good idea after all. Having the map be disqualified instantly would mean no one has access to testplays either since the leaderboard will be cleared.

Something like requiring that the map has been in qualified for at least 2 days (in total between all qualifications of the map) and that 1 day has passed since the veto post was made (as two separate requirements) before dqing is probably necessary. This way the earliest a map can be dqed for being vetoed is 2 days in qualified, if the nominator posts the veto within the first day. This way people can't veto/dq it too early, and encourages nominators to see how people receive/play it before vetoing.

So three requirements would need to be met before a veto can start applying (i.e. dqed for):

1. The veto post must be structured correctly with a clear problem and reasoning.
2. The map must have been in qualified for at least 2 days in total between all qualifications.
3. The veto post must be at least 1 day old, unless there is less than 1 day until rank.

This inherently also prevents nominators from vetoing bubbled maps, practically incorporating your proposal suggested in the last paragraph.

How does that sound?

4n3c wrote:

we should use a variable time in place of 24 hours to prevent situations where maps dq'd within 24 hours after surpassing the 2 days until ranked would take longer to rank after a veto is resolved than a map dq'd, for example, an hour before then. in other words, maps would need to wait 48 hours minus however long the map would stay in qualified before being re-qual'd

Like I mentioned previously this seems a bit counter-intuitive since it'd probably be better increasing the minimum time for qualified maps in the queue to 2 days (which seems reasonable and probably something we could do already, since the current minimum is 1 day iirc). This way there's be no need for people to keep track of how long the map has been in qualified, as it will always be in qualified for at least 2 days before being ranked, thereby replacing the time it would otherwise have to wait while bubbled using this.

++ from me

Yeah the added rules make this proposal a lot stronger imo. Has my full approval now :p

if the BN still need a QAT to disqualify the map and not an automated process like vetoing a map with only one nomination then there is almost no difference from just reporting a qualified beatmap?

a qualified map getting vetoed for things that are considered flawed concepts (but still not unrankable) by the vetoing nominator is the same as a reported qualified map getting disqualified for ongoing discussions.

that's how i see it, so for the sake of keeping things less complicated i think it's better to keep vetoes only for maps with a single nomination.

i agree with removal of 24h rule btw

[deleted as part of purging my old post history]

pimpG wrote:

a qualified map getting vetoed for things that are considered flawed concepts (but still not unrankable) by the vetoing nominator is the same as a reported qualified map getting disqualified for ongoing discussions.

The only issue with this, and why I'm suggesting to allow nominators to veto qualified in the first place, is that there's no guarantee that the map will actually be disqualified without this, meaning mappers often times choose to respond in a dismissive manner in order to decrease the chances of a QAT being willing to dq if it's something they (the mapper or the qat) personally disagree with. By being guaranteed to stop the process, the mapper will be more inclined to argue against the veto reason, as this may affect the outcome of a potential mediation.

In other words, people tend to not care and strive towards whichever path requires the least effort for the most reward, so by eliminating the reward for being dismissive it encourages actual discussion to take place. That's essentially how vetoes have always worked, it's basically just a system that ensures concerns are taken seriously and are considered valid until mediated otherwise.

@4n3c
For the minimum qualified time before rank, I think people generally agree that the current 1 day minimum is a bit too little time for everyone involved in the process to recheck things regardless of what it gets disqualified for, so it's likely we'd increase the minimum to 2 days either way. I do see where you're coming from though.

As for the last thing, I don't think keeping a map with serious concerns in qualified for a long period of time is a good idea. It may receive more exposure, but the next time it gets qualified there'll be way less time for everyone to recheck any potential huge changes that were made after the veto was resolved. Yes, you could have the map wait in bubbled just like the other suggestion for this, but this will need to happen for all vetoed sets in that case, as the most efficient strategy as a mapper would be to just wait until the end, so the next qualification goes faster and has a lower chance of being opposed (which controversial maps tend to be). It basically incentives the mapper to not cooperate in the discussion until after the dq, which is the complete opposite of what we want.

basically:

1. mapper benefits from better qualified queue position
2. gotten from keeping the map in qualified
3. gotten from not being dqed before then for not responding/CoC/similar assuming all issues are subjective
4. gotten from dismissing everything modders say until then or claiming you're away or whatnot

Preferably this sort of strategy shouldn't be viable as it goes against what we want happening and just wastes everyone's time. This is accounted for with the way the proposal is currently made since the mapper has no control over when the map will be dqed. QAT can also start the mediation process relatively quickly with the current proposal without being affected by status quo biases or thinking there's an option not to dq if people decide quick enough and thereby get a rushed outcome (think mediations should just generally not happen while in qualified).

The benefit you get from it being qualified is also often not substantial enough to justify a delay like that. This is for similar reasons we dq maps for discussion before the last day rather than letting it sit in qualified until then. It's also likely a large amount of people won't even notice it was being vetoed in the first place until it gets disqualified due to how events/mapfeeds work. The 1 day before dq requirement is more for the mapper and involved bns to be able to refer to replays if necessary, and the 2 day minimum before a veto can apply is more to encourage the vetoer to take their time with the map before writing their post. For these reasons I'd be against keeping it in qualified until the last day.

For the very last thing I would exclude letting anyone but the vetoer/QAT extend the period, and only if the mapper does not object to this. That way no time is wasted on trying to progress the qualified queue when deemed unnecessary until the veto is resolved, as extending the time is going to be in the mapper's favour regardless of situation.

tl;dr: There are definite downsides to keeping things in qualified for too long that I would say outweigh the benefits, and even extending the period would require a bunch of mechanisms in place to ensure people don't abuse it, so that should probably more be left on a case by case basis up to the vetoer/QAT if anything.

I completely agree with this proposal, after all most of the input from modders comes when the map is qualified and not so often during a first nomination. Removing the 24h rule would also make things way more clear and make the nominations more comfortable as well.

I'm in favor of this.

The implementation of the 24h rule was always wonky since we moved to modding v2

Also agree with the proposal 100%. Discussed with him a bit and I don't have any issues with that, it makes more logical sense and would remove a super confusing rule that we aren't even sure how to apply most time (24h thing)

the proposal seems pretty nice imo.
i agree with the removal of 24h rule especially, i always found it very confusing.

what's the wording for the bn rule(s) being added? i think the idea can work, but i'm not entirely sure without seeing the exact changes

Removes:

BN Rules wrote:

At least 24 hours must pass between a first nomination and a qualification on every beatmap set if...

1. the beatmap set has received no nominations prior.
2. a new difficulty/storyboard has been added.
3. a segment of a difficulty, its storyboard, or its hitsounding have been redone.
4. complex timing has been adjusted.
5. the beatmap set has been changed in response to a nominator's veto.

Other situations do not require a 24 hour wait. This gives other Beatmap Nominators and also the wider community the chance to provide additional suggestions before qualification and veto the placed nomination if necessary.

BN Rules wrote:

You can veto a beatmap set by placing a bubble pop icon or a problem stamp on the set that you disagree with being fit for being Ranked. Placing a beatmap veto over any kind of quality issues that you think need to be addressed before the map can move anywhere is one of your main responsibilities. A proper discussion with attempting to reach a mutual agreement by both sides of the argument has to follow.

Adds:

BN Rules wrote:

You can veto a qualified beatmap set by posting the issues you think need to be addressed before reaching ranked, and then contacting a member of the QAT. You must participate in the resulting discussion and attempt to reach a mutual agreement. The following conditions must be met before the veto is applied and the set is disqualified, however:

1. The veto post must include a clear problem and reasoning for stopping the beatmap set.
2. The veto post must be at least 1 day old to allow for observation of test plays and additional feedback.
3. The beatmap set must have been in qualified for at least 2 days in total between all qualifications.

Additional time in qualified may be requested by the vetoing nominator, or applied as deemed necessary by the QAT, as long as the mapper does not request a disqualification themselves.

Outside the scope of the BN Rules, this also changes the minimum time in qualified to 48 hours, as this both accounts for what we're changing as well as is apparently necessary regardless of whether we're applying this proposal or not, due to the last 24 hours being somewhat inconsistent and hard to work with.

im ok with this, but knowing qat changes are around the corner has made me hesitant to push for a change that'll be irrelevant afterwards aaa

if there's no opposition and no signs of qat development by the end of the month, let's make it happen

nice!

amazing

This was a mistake.

this seems to have happened, archiving then