We have seen how he "helps" with decision making. Sure. And yes, I've been talking with Ephe in regards of that case so I kinda know what is what. Yuii has been taken to QAT before anyone else not just by occasion.

Btw, please stop defending your friends just in fear of getting purged off with the rest of your circle of friends. Eventually its gonna happen, if not soon - then in near future.

hi-mei wrote:

Now here we are, in the days where "quality" is a meme and everything is subjective, therefore you are "hater" if you raise any concerns to someone's map.

I agree with that topic. I'd not say back in the time, all maps were perfect cause it's wrong, but I'd say we for sure had less controversial maps. That's cool to push the boundaries indeed, however quality should still be the most important point to take care about, and I think that's what QAT (or however it will be called in the future) are supposed to do.

I'm glad to see things moving in the right path

himei its time to stop attacking people and go back to the actual discussions
if you want to attack sotarks and yuii- do it somewhere else i guess


on topic tho, can there really not be more clarification on what's planned? i read this and i'm confused on what even has to be discussed lol

Hakura wrote:

himei its time to stop attacking people and go back to the actual discussions
if you want to attack sotarks and yuii- do it somewhere else i guess


on topic tho, can there really not be more clarification on what's planned? i read this and i'm confused on what even has to be discussed lol

See? raising concerns is attacking now. Literally an exponantional example here. Any criticism is being considered as attacking.

While I somewhat agree with you, hi-mei, maybe you could have left names out.

hi-mei does have a point though.

Current system does reek of nepotism. Singling out individuals like Yuii and Sotarks is not the right way to go about it though imo. But the old system saw basically only Germans on the QAT (lol) and the system before that with Pasonia only saw Chinese BAT's getting continuously added. You'll always turn a blind eye to your friends, or be more willing to consider their antics as "funny" instead of "disrespectful". And calling your friends out for small stuff will always make you seem like a lame person or someone who can't have any fun. I mean nowadays you see QAT's in a lot of private discords and stuff. It's quite easy to influence them by befriending them etc...

I don't think there is really a solution. In situations like this, it is really the QAT's or higher-ups obligation to address and fix stuff like this, if they want to, or notice them because they are probably the only ones who can operate somewhat impartially. But they have to be willing to seek out behavior like this, and I don't think people like Ephemeral are engaged enough with the community to actually notice this happening, either that or just doesn't think it's an issue. So then there is no solution and we move on.

* QAT engagement in "controversial" maps, current QAT are too placid and passive

Hmm I do feel that this is something people want more of but in the end, it won't come out the way people would hope it would and it just would leave an undesirable outcome for those who are asking for this

What I mean by this that these people who consider maps controversial (such as my own if i need to put in example) not rankable standards, are low quality,etc is what these people are asking for more discussion and possibly keep away from ranking status which i believe is okay to have more of that and actually would be possibly be benefits for both sides in 1 way or another depending on the take.

But

The consequences of doing such a system would also lead to more discussion on stuff that they truly like and deem "the quality of the game" or whatever exaggerating thing i would put when they have the same amount or worst problems than the maps that consider to be "bad quality" with only differences in terms of the map looks in the eyes.

With that said we see that this type of system easily gets those people all rally up either way just as much as the current but possibly worst when they see that the maps they hate get ranked just as easily as before while the maps they like will be stuck in limbo

Even if possible maps they hate will actually get taken action and the maps they like will also gets locks away to balance out the situation will still leave in undesirable feeling to both sides and possibly more for the people who is asking for such a thing since for the most part, they only want it to happen for things they hate.

Personally whatever happen with this, ill take a neutral stance on since i'm not for or against on a system like this whether that will harm me/others alike or not.

----
fyi what i writing down below is trying to take on the perspective of someone who is mainly seeing the outside of things (just to make a point whether that is a valid 1 or not.)

I am aware there is more possibly going on in the inside that i have not seen/ too aware of but as a person who doesn't have the access to the inside this is mainly what most people see and why people consider the qat as a joke more than half the time.

What I mean by this is that for the most part all i really see is that they only take people who is capable of checking unrankables and obvious subjective things people would more or less agree with (low diff, spread issues, etc) and to me honestly sometimes I don't see that much difference between them as a bn and a qat other than the fact they have a red name and have the power to dq maps.

I do feel the need to say that having more people who is capable of others fields that will help the game/improve more than just the average qah check/dq discussion/etc should be more considered and having more options of getting qat without feeling like you need to have qah as a requirement nowadays (with an exception of those like yuii due to him already proven to have experience enough to do the job.)

If they are doing more than just looking at people's qah status already then possibly be more open about it and actually make it more clear that there is more ways to be qualify than people think so more people who is actually possibly qualify in a field in the qat can more aware and be motivated to possibly show that they have potentially a good candidate that otherwise would had been ignored due to how things is currently (like something about this in maybe in the next qat gazette for people who is actually interested in those things)

For ideas what more fields a qat can do aside from what i see majority of the time is something I would have to think of more myself and I don't have much complains on the current rooster since it has a bunch of needed experienced people capable (to me at least) to be that motivated with this part despite all i said.





This is just me giving an opinion and if I didn't make it clear the 1st time, i'm mostly neutral with everything that will happen.

The exams were to some extent a good base to determine whether someone is able to mod or not. Obviously, there should've been ways to figure out better whether someone cheated or not (speaking assessment, etc.).

What has ALWAYS been slept on, and what I always fighted for, was an attitude check. This came about 2 years too late with the tiers (horribly implemented) and came back now, somehow. I was always baffled by how certain QATs were against it, thinking that the exam shows their attitude.. anyways - the problem now is that, from my point of view, many people with a horrible attitude recently joined QAT / BN which results in a devil's spiral: As soon as someone with a corrupted mind joins, they somewhat get power to get other people into QAT, and that's because we are where we are right now. And before you call me out: I'm not anywhere stating that I've been doing better (especially after the "Ugly-Affaire").

tl;dr I hope that the responsible people to choose people with power finally wake up and actually check attitude in a proper manner (how people respond in threads to mods is ALSO one of these points by the way - saying that it makes sense just because that or this person wanted it like that should not belong anywhere close to a position with power...)

even if it is subjective

there is nothing concretely planned other than a grand desire to enact some sweeping change, hence why the announcement mentions that we're looking for proposals and thoughts on how to continue.

it's my hope that by soliciting direct feedback from lots of people instead of just keeping it clustered in-team like previous reworks have been, we might actually find some system that functions as a better compromise than the current one does.

so anything and everything (within reason) is on the table, really. people just need to write it out and get it into this thread so we can start discussing it.

Attitude check is in gray area here. Simply beacuse you can go afk for 3-4 months and come back claiming you have changed all this stuff. Sotarks does that on daily basis:
1. fuck up
2. apologize
3. go afk for some time
4. restore your reputation by doing nothing
5. repeat.

Just look back at the time he got restricted - he told the player to kys, said that hes happy about an artist's death, kept on insluting people not liking his maps. Then he kept silent for some time and people said theres no actual thing to hold him off BN. Now it repeats, and will repeat again and again.



Nonetheless, I feel like we should just change the entire concept of how it works, I have some thoughts in my mind that might work on a long run. Tho should discuss that in private with other people before releasing.

People are speaking about controversial maps and the QAT's failure in handling them appropriately. Can we identify the maps and what was controversial about them so we have something to go off of? There can be controversy in context of abusing the star rating or pp, but there can also be controversy in context of mapping and design choices or some other context. Labeling them all under one term "controversial" does not paint the full picture.

abraker wrote:

People are speaking about controversial maps and the QAT's failure in handling them appropriately. Can we identify the maps and what was controversial about them so we have something to go off of? There can be controversy in context of abusing the star rating or pp, but there can also be controversy in context of mapping and design choices or some other context. Labeling them all under one term "controversial" does not paint the full picture.

Well I once tried to analyze myself not liking these "freestyle" maps that been infesting the game for past 2 years.
Lets take an example off this Itari Ten map by Hailie, its like an ultimate apotheosis of what been happening on the scene for quite a while.


So lets start off basic mapping concepts that has been developed over the last decade:
0. rhythm (cuz ure playing a map based on a song xd)
1. flow (obviously u shud move the cursor right)
2. emphasis (u shud distinguish the loud/quiet sounds)
3. structure (to bring the visual apsect into the game, which can help in reading, recognizing the rhythm, spacing and so on)

So these are the most basic and obvious concepts that has been there for literally a decade. In past years there also appeared rhythm filtering, gimmicks, aesthetics, anti-flow/emphasis and other more advanced stuff.

So back to Itari Ten: technically speaking, it almost entirely ignores the one of most basic concepts - which is structure. Also, the emphasis (spacing/hitsounding/volume) is completely unbalanced, a lot of the sounds has way larger distance than they should have (loud sounds - big distance, quite - low distance - the most obvious definition for spacing emphasis). Then we got the rhythm, which is uncanny to the point where you simply dont know which layer of the music you are playing (esp with combination of low end hitsounding and volume control).

So I just pointed out the most basic and understandable stuff without going in-depth of mapping theory.

The issue there is that, nobody bothered to explain these concepts in RC. Its just a huge blank area which nobody takes care of. As I said above - lack of rules. Therefore you can continuously argue around it and not find a ground because you think that way, and the mapper think the other way. Even if the community is outcrying, the mapper is in a safe, especially having these sweet friends in BN who can renominate by a click of 2 fingers.

Just look at these discussions - (uc, hailie, halfslashed and so on) feels like they are just exhausting the modders which try to criticize them, so they would leave their "piece of art" in calm. There are literally walls of text being wasted into nothingness, people just give up on arguing because its like talking with a wall.

What most of these so-called "freestyle" mappers dont understand the most, is that if there is a HUGE fucking outcry in the community, which comes from both player/mapper base, that means they fucked up somewhere. And they should stop for a moment and think about it, ask for opinions and so on. I had the same issue, but I was smart enough to disqualify my map each time there were a concerns raised, because I genuinely felt like I am not the best one and people might be right. Thats how I completely removed 2 of my 200+ hours of effort maps because I failed. But here we have people not trying to change their minds, they just want to rank their maps, make people get the PP or just to fulfill their ego's needs. And the current state of RC allows them to do so.

the controversy is and always will be that people have dissonant values on what is important in a map. there just aren't a lot of maps that everyone agrees on are amazing or terrible. we can see this time and time again, i dont want to say it is like double standards because it isn't, but everyone has completely conflicting opinions on what is acceptable or not.

every time qats go and start nuking things, which is what this proposal aims for them to do again basically, they end up nuking something that the community at large thinks is good and then peppy comes and slaps them. like asymmetry for example, or what would probably have happened if atomosphere was stopped, or calling, or etc. etc. etc. everyone ideally wants qats to "enforce quality" or whatever (unless youre monstrata or uc) but only their personal definition of quality...

as a result qats get flamed no matter what they do, either for killing "good" maps, or letting "bad" maps pass, or not doing anything (like they don't do anything right now unless people really start yelling like crazy). and all of this random rework BS won't change how the community usually rejects things they do not initially like and then refuses to try and understand or compromise with which leads to a lot of arguments and toxicity

[]

more rules or whatever wont do anything about this issue because the issue is fundamentally that everyone thinks differently, and forcing some set of rules based on whoever is qat at the time does not do anything useful lol. you can't make a rule like "your map must use neat visual spacing" for example, or "loud sounds need to have higher spacing" because they are restrictive and only cater to one viewpoint on mapping...

you dont point fingers here unless clarifying what is it about.


however, you have said basically the same as I did above, which leads us to the point of ... yeah. where are the rules.

How can you write and enforce rules that properly enforce/explain how much structure a map should have, or at what point does the lack of structure is an issue, or even what kind of structure is acceptable, cuz FYI there's more than just visual structure. It's an extremely abstract concept.

You complain about vague rules, but then you're asking for extra rules to be added that would be so unbelievably vague. If you feel like rules need changing, go in the RC section and write a proposal, because I genuinely cannot imagine how such a rule could be written out or make any sense.

The discussion here is about the changes to the QAT, not changes to the RC, if you feel those are needed there's a whole subforum for proposals

If no individual can reliably judge a controversial map and the QAT are indecisive, then the only logical thing to do is gather feedback on a wider spectrum. I propose a last line of defense for the map, a decision to be invoked in agreement by both the QAT and the mapper, and can be invoked only once. Allow the map to sit in qualified for a longer period of time to gain player and only player feedback. This means prohibiting anyone with BN or QAT role from voting since they gave their opinions in modding discussion and that reached a standstill. Within the longer span of time the map sits in qualified, the map must reach a certain number of votes and certain number % in favor. The mapper can go around to spread the awareness of the map if the mapper feels like it will not get enough votes within the time span. To simplify the decision, players would be able to vote with only "yes" or "no". If the map doesn't satisfy the voting requirement to be ranked, then the mapper must adhere to what the modders/BN are saying or it will not be ranked.

@celerih
I didnt ask to add rules in regards of mapping concepts, I did say that we need rules in regards of regulating controversial maps. It may or may not include clarifying what is what in mapping.

But more importantly we need regulations to take place when its needed, because we always end up with no regulations and the maps are sneaking to the ranked section, which affects new mappers and they repeat the same stuff, then it affects the larger picture and so on. Domino effect.

the staff wants proposals so i think something like this could work

QAT dealing with controversial maps:
what we know so far is that many qat members often are not willing to make final decisions on discussions because they don't want to be flamed by the people on the losing side. but the community blames the qat for allowing controversial maps to reach ranked. so it's one side blaming the other mostly.
so we should aim to give the community's opinion more relevance on controversial topics. for example deciding if certain maps belongs in ranked section based on the rating, or at least take the map rating more in consideration for the final decision
beatmaps cosidered controversial must to force to vote after playing the map, and replace the current rating to upvote and downvote.

QAT management:
deciding if applicants are capable of being part of the BN could be made a priority and the requirements for staying on the BN should be made as low as possible. there are many talented people out there that did well/could do well on the group but simply couldn't keep up with the activity requirement, made a few mistakes or other reasons. the community will keep growing so the group should keep as much of it's members as possible. talented people should not be discarded because they can't meet activity requirements, if you give them the freedom to work on their own pace they will usually perform as well as the more active members and they will not resign the role if they know they are still welcome with lower activity. ofc the less active members shoudn't be elegible for QAT promotion, the 2+ years contribution badge or anything like that. if someone has been inactive for a long time he could just have his nominatior privileges revoked, if he wishes to return to activity he can just contact the QAT to allow him to nominate again(also it seems like it's how it works for people with osu!dev role, they keep the role even after years inactive just don't have the dev privileges allowed...)

Qualified period:
qualified period should be shortened for maps that are easier to judge (for example a map with a short song with a simple spread should be qualified normally or faster if no issues are found, while a longer map with a lot of difficulties should take several days more than a normal qualification) and if a map is considered controversial for whatever reason, it should stay on qualified section for indefinitive ammount of time instead of getting ranked by default (unless an unrankable issue was found, so the disqualify should be done imediately), this can also be used in case minor issues are found on any map, just don't let the map get ranked by default if the mapper is not around to respond to concerns, keep it qualified instead until the mapper is able to address issues.

tldr:
*give community's opinion more relevance on controversial maps so they can no longer blame only the qat for what reaches ranked section.
*don't make qat rush to decide if a map should be dq'ed imediately or just reach ranked.
*reduce the management work by mostly focusing on who joins BN, mainly kick BN's with a bad attitude, give inactive bn's the possibility to return when they want.

There are actually important things that should be discussed regarding the QAT/BNG but I'm getting to see a lot of this discussion going towards "QATs are letting Hailie/UC ranking their maps" and I'm pretty sure that's not the most relevant topic to be adressed guys :/

Neto, these cases are the most egregious and exponential consequences of whats wrong with the system now.

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6909423

wrote a blurb because having 15 different conversations about different posts and different people's ideas is rather disorganized xP. feel free to take stuff from there, and reject some stuff too.

pimp wrote:

and if a map is considered controversial for whatever reason, it should stay on qualified section for indefinitive ammount of time instead of getting ranked by default (unless an unrankable issue was found, so the disqualify should be done imediately), this can also be used in case minor issues are found on any map, just don't let the map get ranked by default if the mapper is not around to respond to concerns, keep it qualified instead until the mapper is able to address issues.

Consider some issues will be unresolved indefinitely and perhaps it's the mapper's goal to keep the issues resolved indefinitely to at least retain some sort of status for the map. In other words, keeping a map qualified indefinitely will make the qualified section equivalent to loved. If consensus can't be reached within a reasonable amount of time, I suggest it go to loved instead of being kept in qualified.

I tried reading as much as I could from the above posts, but seeing the hour it's kinda tough so I'll just list all the things I have in my head right now (and hopefully I'll re-organize my thoughts if necessary later on)


Let me start by saying this: the Q from QAT has been missing as of late (couple years?), and that's my main concern here. Before you start going on a tangent about it tho, let me clarify...
As everyone would agree, quality IS subjective and no one can do anything about it. And when you can't define that subjectivity through "objective metrics", you make it yourself. At least that's what I believe.
I honeslty had my fill of people saying and doing certain things just because they want to be "edgy" or simply piss off others on purpose (me included, someone could say) just because you can do whatever you want in the current ranking system (you just need two BNs to get your stuff ranked, amirite boiiis??). This is the result of, and please don't take it bad, bad leadership imo... or rather, non-existing leadership.
While being in the wrong is not the best of feelings, not knowing whether I am or not in the wrong is far more annoying I believe. Not having someone put down their foot and decide what's "good" is what brought us to the current situation and that's also why everyone with a little of influence in the community is trying to make their own values be the universal ones for everyone, hence why we get to the point where A doesn't stand B's mapping, B doesn't stand C's mapping and so on so forth...

---------------------------

Second point I wanted to make is about the lack of information going around in the community.
It's almost hilarious how we've passed ten years since this game has started circulating and wherever I look around I see, sorry again for the strong words, ignorant mappers and modders who give their own interpretations to what is what, without actually having studied them (so to speak) or tried understanding what others mean by those same words.
Now, don't get me wrong, different interpretations are the best thing that could happen in a creative environment like this, but the problem lies in the fundations.
Guides and tips of every sort are lying around the forum (please notice: they have some logic that explains why X is good and why Y is not for certain situatiosn), someone even took their time to list most of them in some threads, and yet people nowadays watch a couple of videos on YouTube and believe they know it all just because they can easily emulate a couple of random jumps they saw on a ranked map a week ago... Is that quality?
I may sound like a broken disk for those who know my theories, but you need some logic to what you do: it has happened way too often that I ask "how come this pattern is like this?" to mappers and they either avoid the question or simply never actually answer because, let's be honest, the actual answer is that they didn't think twice about it.
On a side note, the only beam of hope I had (the mentorship) quickly became what I feared, but that's for another topic.
Again, might not be the most refined way to put it, but that's the gist of it.

--------------------

Last point worth mentioning, which is not even that long, is: ranking is a privilege, not a right.
This might come off strange for newer mappers, but I'd like to remind you that "ranked" is the section considered as """official""" by the game, hence why we have leaderboards on those maps.
The thought of having every and each map respecting the Ranking Criteria in such section just doesn't make sense to me when there's clearly an over-abundance of looking-alike maps (which are not that good to begin with by my standards, but let's skip this part)




To sum it up and actually suggest solutions to all of this...
Being the lack of education on the mapper's/modder's side and lack of leadership on the QAT's side the core issues, I'd rather prefer seeing a) a stronger decision making for the QAT about what is good and what is bad and b) actually make a reference, subjective as it may be, for all the people who want to approach mapping and modding altogether.

Not so long ago, while still in the mentorship program, I thought of writing a small "book" myself where I could put together all my thoughts and ideas about mapping in a simple and organized manner, so as to make new mappers see the logic behind what I do and want to see done. Of course, such book WAS going to be subjective and I don't think that's a problem.
What IS a problem, instead, is that there are too few people that could be able to do such a thing: explain their own logic. As I said, it's hard to come across someone who clearly justifies what they did in their map, even less put it down neatly into an organized book. (still not impossible to do though, right?)

Imo the current system is not at fault. The fault is with the current mentality about mapping altogether and no one trying to stir it into the right direction.
If a change has to happen, I'd rather have the old one where a MAT nominates and a BAT qualifies something instead: it's tedious, it's slow and it's difficult to get through, but at least the obstacles could discourage those who just want to rank a bunch of boring maps, hopefully, as well as give more time to opinions to arise where we need them (pretty sure this was brought up somewhere recently but can't remember).
Of course, all of this implies that the "BAT" (aka QAT) is actually made of people with similar ideologies when it comes to mapping: having too many heads (opinions) around is what I call anarchy, if you allow me...

Just nominate a damn dictator already please

In case I wasn't clear above, my suggestion is to have a few people part of the QAT, deciding what gets through, and a bunch of people in the BNG who just "highlight" stuff they wanna see in ranked.
I personally see no need for so much new content anyway and it wouldn't hurt quality overall for sure.
Just make whoever can meet the bare minimum requirements joing the BNG and be really strict with whoever gets into QAT, that's all.

EDIT: Or just read MrTriangle's essay up there, it's prolly better than my half-assed, half-asleep ideas.

Going to post some of my ideas here.

About the current system, there are some problems regarding QAT and their responsibility and public image:

1. According to the changes in the past years, QAT has actually evolved to some roles that regularly do things in addition to just quality assurance with responsibilities raised to a more higher perspective.

2. Current system now places or regards nominations and nomination resets (disqualifications, specifically) with inequity – QAT (higher level in the system) has a privilege to disqualify a map while BN (lower level) could only nominate map. From the mappers’ stance, such natural discrimination (sorry I use this word) is one of the sources of bad image or hatred toward QAT and makes the QAT vulnerable to attacks. Honestly, bad image and disqualification right come together - whoever has the right to disqualify maps will be more or less hated anyway, as people tend to "love" those who nominate their maps and hate those who disqualify them, naturally. That might be why the QATs are growing to be more placid and passive especially when it comes to controversial maps - they will easily get attacked if they are not placid and passive!

So, some of my raw ideas would be:

1. The nomination and nomination reset should be done by the same group of people to avoid inequity and asymmetric information. This could be done by placing both nominations and nomination resets in the same level – When it comes to beatmap nomination and nomination resets, QAT and BN own the same power. Or rather, there’re no QATs or BNs when it comes to stuffs related to beatmap nominations - they are same.

The way to get a beatmap qualified should remain the same. (Some ideas of changing the current disqualification system to vote-for-approval (specifically for the "one beatmap could only get ranked with approval from a small group of people" system) is NOT a very good idea in my perspective. People will complain about how hard it is already to get their map ranked tbh.) Instead of forcing people to check qualified maps, beatmap nominators are still free to choose what maps they would like to check. Similarly, instead of a fixed number, the number of nominators to let a map pass or fail the qualified section should be dynamic since to force five or seven beatmap nominators checking one NH spread map is a waste of resource and man power.

For the new system: By default, there needs to be two approval votes from the nominators for one map to be qualified and then ranked (1st and 2nd nomination), just like what we have now. But if other nominators have additional concerns, they are free to join the voting (approval or disapproval) as well as participate the discussion on the qualified map. During the discussion (timeframe of qualified), the nominators are free to change their side (with some cooldown time of course).

I could understand, for the controversial maps, it would be an endless discussion. But in the system the map will finally reach a verdict stage when no consensus could be made before the deadline (7 days for a qualified map): the map will be ranked if the amount of BNs who voted approval is higher than disapproval. [This process could surely be improved with more discussion of course, this is just a raw idea.]

But whatever it could be, my core idea is to "return" the right of disqualification to BN. It is also a kind of community-driven idea since BNs are selected more directly from the community, though relatively. This could avoid QATs to be targeted and attacked all the time.

2. Then what will current QAT do?

As I said above, the current QAT has more responsibilities that are in a macro viewpoint. They will stay in the team but the orientation of the team will change: QAT's main responsibility could be raised to other high-level beatmap related topics like beatmap moderation, beatmap nominator evaluation (behavior and proficiency), initiatives in ranking criteria amendments, beatmap contest and tournaments organization, modding association, mentorship, spotlight and project of love, QAT gazette and interview, or even osu!weekly. I strongly believe there are a great deal of such works in need of hands (SOME of these projects are abandoned already because lack of hands) and there should be a team organizing all these and future amazing activities possible related to beatnaos. The QAT would naturally be suitable for these beatmap-related projects for their proficiency in mapping and modding.

In this way, the QAT would be renamed to something else. They will still be able to participate in the beatmap nominations but their power will be restricted to the BN-level as described above.

3. About beatmap nominator selections:
A combination of both tests and general check of QAT could act as a middle ground of the current debate over this topic. Some people argue that pure tests cannot reflect the modding proficiency while the others argue that only by check from QATs will end up in nepotism. So why not combine them together?

For more transparency, some statistics could be made public (test results and people who applied, accepted or rejected into the BNG) but this could be discussed too.

Questions:
1. "This system still does not state how the QATs are elected!"
Actually, this is an endless question since there will always be some people picking the others unless you apply a president-election-like method here. But, with the proposed system, when QAT are restricted to BN-level in beatmap nomination, this should not be a problem any longer. Since they will perform in a higher level, which aligns with GMT more, their selection will be handled similar like GMTs instead though they will still be promoted from existing BNs.

2. "What if a map with clear unrankable issues but it has a higher amount of approval vote than disapproval from BNs?" This should not be a severe issue since when the map attracts attentions and generates discussions, unrankable issues will most likely to be identified. This could also be more or less addressed by a new AI-mod.

3. "Are 7 days enough for discussion on controversial beatmaps?" Of course the timeframe required could be discussed. It could even be dynamic and elongated when necessary.

These are still my own primary and raw ideas so there could of course be more improvements and even reworks. So would greatly appreciate incoming opinions and comments.

it's sad to see how much this thread (or more specific people discussing here) has derailed into the want to set up rules to prevent specific types from maps reaching the ranked section. do you not see that this is not the point of this proposal. the proposal's goal isn't to disallow all controversial maps from getting ranked, it's about having more clear standards applied to them from the qat side. and we're talking about aspects of mapping here that can't and should never be put into rules on the ranking criteria cause the amount of edge cases probably overweights the amount of cases where it should apply, for each one.

if whatever happens results in a certain way of mapping being completely banned from ranked, it would be a huge step backwards. there are players and mappers for each type of map who enjoy them a lot, and yes, this amount is obviously still smaller for the maps you guys are discussing about compared to stuff like wub maps for example, but it exists. not only do players exist who enjoy uc/hailie/etc maps, there are also people who enjoy them a lot more than most other maps for reasons of song expression and how they feel when played (me included). you are always pointing towards user rating and pretending nobody likes these maps, when in reality a user rating of 6-7 (which most of these maps have) still implies a large amount of players liking them. we all know that most players who vote on these maps give either 0 or 10 stars, atleast a lot of those who hate it vote 0 so in order to get the user ratings to a reasonable level there are a lot of 10 star votes or high votes in general. it does not make sense to ban a certain type of map completely and call it a day, it's not the point of quality assurance and it won't happen, considering there are too many reasonable people in the bn and qat who wouldn't let something like that happen.

instead, what we need is more differentiation within certain categories of maps. in the case of controversial maps like hailie's recent map, the main problem here is that most people active in the mapping community have a really black-or-white opinion on it from the get go (either negative or positive) without really looking more deep into it and trying to judge the actual mapping. if someone's opinion is already set in stone without even looking at the map properly just from looking at the mapper's name, just because their general inacceptance of the way this mapper is mapping, then they won't be able to provide proper criticism. just like someone who is a big fan of this type of mapping is extremely likely to overdefend any criticism the map receives, just because they feel like the minority and having to work against the haters. neither of those people help very much to determine whether or not a map should be acceptable for ranking or not.

so the real goal of any proposal regarding this topic should be to find a way of judging quality on a map-by-map basis and not just being driven by general distaste or support of certain differing mapping fundamentals. the community is so developed at this point that a narrow-minded approach like that just doesn't work out. well, it could work out, but less people would be satisfied with the outcome than there currently are. after all, keep in mind that the ultimate goal should be to make the mapping process and general experience with the game more enjoyable for more people, including players and mappers, which in a community this diverse naturally comes with the personal sacrifice of maps you like not getting ranked, and maps you hate getting ranked sometimes. i'm all for finding a compromise by having stricter quality standards within each categoroy of map, but not just disallowing some completely.

thinking about it a bit, i think we should do a full analysis about why the current system has failed us first.

Looking at just the recent cases (Guren no Yumiya and Shiten)
Guren has a shitstorm due to how we poorly handled that case.
Shiten had a shitstorm due to lack of action from us.

The thing is, i can't really see the result being different with any of the new systems being proposed
because inevitably, these controversial maps would still get qualified

i think this in the end boils down to mentality
most of the QAT (as well as the BNG) right now have more or less a neutral mindset on almost everything
shiten was a case that the outside community absolutely hated it
but within the BNG and QAT, most of us either stayed neutral or some even liked it a bit
and the ones who disliked the map refused to speak up about it, which inevitably caused it to get ranked pretty much without any resistance whatsoever

so,
with this being the case,
i believe the top priority here is to discuss how we handle cases of mass community backlash like this
or how the future system will deal with it better
because if we're just proposing changes to the ranking system, then i don't really see this changing at all tbh

Kibbleru wrote:

The thing is, i can't really see the result being different with any of the new systems being proposed
because inevitably, these controversial maps would still get qualified

i think this in the end boils down to mentality
most of the QAT (as well as the BNG) right now have more or less a neutral mindset on almost everything
shiten was a case that the outside community absolutely hated it
but within the BNG and QAT, most of us either stayed neutral or some even liked it a bit
and the ones who disliked the map refused to speak up about it, which inevitably caused it to get ranked pretty much without any resistance whatsoever

Wait why do you say the result wouldn't be any different with any of the new systems being proposed? There are suggestions that give an opportunity for the community voice to be heard much better in the event of BN and QAT indecisiveness as mentioned. Quotes by pimp and me:

pimp wrote:

the staff wants proposals so i think something like this could work

QAT dealing with controversial maps:
what we know so far is that many qat members often are not willing to make final decisions on discussions because they don't want to be flamed by the people on the losing side. but the community blames the qat for allowing controversial maps to reach ranked. so it's one side blaming the other mostly.
so we should aim to give the community's opinion more relevance on controversial topics. for example deciding if certain maps belongs in ranked section based on the rating, or at least take the map rating more in consideration for the final decision
beatmaps cosidered controversial must to force to vote after playing the map, and replace the current rating to upvote and downvote.

QAT management:
deciding if applicants are capable of being part of the BN could be made a priority and the requirements for staying on the BN should be made as low as possible. there are many talented people out there that did well/could do well on the group but simply couldn't keep up with the activity requirement, made a few mistakes or other reasons. the community will keep growing so the group should keep as much of it's members as possible. talented people should not be discarded because they can't meet activity requirements, if you give them the freedom to work on their own pace they will usually perform as well as the more active members and they will not resign the role if they know they are still welcome with lower activity. ofc the less active members shoudn't be elegible for QAT promotion, the 2+ years contribution badge or anything like that. if someone has been inactive for a long time he could just have his nominatior privileges revoked, if he wishes to return to activity he can just contact the QAT to allow him to nominate again(also it seems like it's how it works for people with osu!dev role, they keep the role even after years inactive just don't have the dev privileges allowed...)

Qualified period:
qualified period should be shortened for maps that are easier to judge (for example a map with a short song with a simple spread should be qualified normally or faster if no issues are found, while a longer map with a lot of difficulties should take several days more than a normal qualification) and if a map is considered controversial for whatever reason, it should stay on qualified section for indefinitive ammount of time instead of getting ranked by default (unless an unrankable issue was found, so the disqualify should be done imediately), this can also be used in case minor issues are found on any map, just don't let the map get ranked by default if the mapper is not around to respond to concerns, keep it qualified instead until the mapper is able to address issues.

tldr:
*give community's opinion more relevance on controversial maps so they can no longer blame only the qat for what reaches ranked section.
*don't make qat rush to decide if a map should be dq'ed imediately or just reach ranked.
*reduce the management work by mostly focusing on who joins BN, mainly kick BN's with a bad attitude, give inactive bn's the possibility to return when they want.

abraker wrote:

If no individual can reliably judge a controversial map and the QAT are indecisive, then the only logical thing to do is gather feedback on a wider spectrum. I propose a last line of defense for the map, a decision to be invoked in agreement by both the QAT and the mapper, and can be invoked only once. Allow the map to sit in qualified for a longer period of time to gain player and only player feedback. This means prohibiting anyone with BN or QAT role from voting since they gave their opinions in modding discussion and that reached a standstill. Within the longer span of time the map sits in qualified, the map must reach a certain number of votes and certain number % in favor. The mapper can go around to spread the awareness of the map if the mapper feels like it will not get enough votes within the time span. To simplify the decision, players would be able to vote with only "yes" or "no". If the map doesn't satisfy the voting requirement to be ranked, then the mapper must adhere to what the modders/BN are saying or it will not be ranked.

I think you guys focus way too much on trying to "tame" controversial creations. You simply have to embrace the fact that certain beatmaps and certain content creators will cause backlash, drama, or whatever else there is.

The system isn't fixed by simply finding methods to fairly decide how to deal with beatmaps that purposefully try to piss in your pot. The system is fixed by having a system that naturally keeps controversies in check and offers a sufficient gatekeeping that prevents people to simply bullshit around freely. A system should be robust enough to simply be able to embrace and tank people trying to play it.

Also I'd like to remember you that whenever you propose something along the line of "assessing people's proficiency", you are entering an assessment that either can't be ever fair or must be reduced to quantifications that are not considering quite a bunch of quality traits. Metrics like user rating, playcount, online favorites, are heavily warped by people making a vote for all the "wrong" reasons (e.g. voting 10 because they simply just like the song). Anything that involves people voting on matters while not occupying a position of responsibility (BN/QAT for the matter of mapping and modding) will always backfire. (It's almost like you let people vote on silencing someone because they made a controversial statement)

Also the repeating desire to just lower activity requirements will just lead to one thing: people that *are* inactive will remain inactive, they just don't fall under the threshold anymore, but yet don't do anything or a lot anyways (rendering them deadweight).

I don't see a future into having the community as a whole have a say in individual matters as long as they have nothing to lose (like their position of responsibility). This game can remain community driven by simply making is clear what the requirements are for receiving a position with responsibility (e.g. becoming a BN) and those who put the effort and time into earning these responsibilites are then entitled to make a call. Calling everybody and their mother for their opinion will only end up with a.) people voting that have no idea what they vote for, how a map is created and how to even open the editor and place a slider b.) people just ganging up on specific opinions without having a lot of insight c.) people voting for all the wrong reasons (e.g. ganging up on a map because the mapper is disliked)

Those who however have the will to simply learn mapping and modding and spend time into this are free to join the BNG and then attain the right to have a say on whatever matter is at hand.

Loctav wrote:

Anything that involves people voting on matters while not occupying a position of responsibility (BN/QAT for the matter of mapping and modding) will always backfire. (It's almost like you let people vote on silencing someone because they made a controversial statement)

If the BN/modders can't come up with an agreement with the mapper and the QAT are indecisive, then that is the only only option left. The proposed suggests it be part of the QAT's decision on whether to allow the map to be voted upon to determine its ranked status. So the decision would be in the hands of someone who full well knows the implications of doing such.

As I explained already somewhere else, I proposed a package of various changes to the QAT to gather feedback on them and trying to work with them on this before bringing this bundle of suggestions out into the fields.

We summed up this proposals here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eWMLHEJJcyy2rr-EtAF0gqiy3YCRcSVcPmtUV8E-3eM/edit

Please leave your feedback on that, as I feel like this is very workable proposal that can be transformed into something lasting. Make sure to also ask questions if you are unsure about something. I just want to advise you to not assume lacking details and that every detail that isn't explicitly described in there hasn't been completely figured out yet.

hey it's the tier system again but rebranded

You are not wrong though, please read the FAQ about that part.

This will not lead to an increase in quality control for a few reasons.

First, let's look at what damage the tier system did: by reducing the amount of active BNs to approximately 4, it also had the amazing side effect of completely removing their willingness to uphold any quality standard. I don't need to explain myself here - just go look at pishi's mods from that time, they are basically the same thing as what is being suggested the QAT to do here when qualifying a map. That is because people want more than 5 maps in qualified - something that is sure to happen when you only check maps that are assigned to you rather than ones you are interested in, you will either not icon them or icon them if they are rankable without modding them because you don't want to mod them.

Second, removing the ability to mod a map after qualification completely removes any semblance of community input on the ranking process. Arguing that maps can be "dq modded" before qualify is not realistic, given the difference in exposure between bubbled and qualified status. If the goal behind this rework is to shut people who think bad maps are constantly being ranked, it will 100% have the exact opposite effect because now these so-called bad maps will get ranked and they cannot even post mods to try and improve the maps because they won't have unrankable issues.

Third, given that QAT will end up either not iconing anything or yolo iconing everything after a rankability check (this is literally what happened with the Tier system, so I have every reason to believe it will happen here), there will be the exact amount of these low-quality maps getting ranked. BNs are not going to stop bubbling things that other people think are garbage (Sotarks 1-2 spam, Hailie extra diffs, etc. etc.) unless QATs also start evaluating them based on subjective icon quality (which they are extremely opposed to for some godforsaken reason).

The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.

Nao Tomori wrote:

The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.

I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".

I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".

Nao Tomori wrote:

First, let's look at what damage the tier system did: by reducing the amount of active BNs to approximately 4, it also had the amazing side effect of completely removing their willingness to uphold any quality standard. I don't need to explain myself here - just go look at pishi's mods from that time, they are basically the same thing as what is being suggested the QAT to do here when qualifying a map. That is because people want more than 5 maps in qualified - something that is sure to happen when you only check maps that are assigned to you rather than ones you are interested in, you will either not icon them or icon them if they are rankable without modding them because you don't want to mod them.

the tier system was confronted with severe shortcomings that resulted in that, with most of these issues simply not being present in this installment (see the FAQ for that).

Nao Tomori wrote:

Second, removing the ability to mod a map after qualification completely removes any semblance of community input on the ranking process. Arguing that maps can be "dq modded" before qualify is not realistic, given the difference in exposure between bubbled and qualified status. If the goal behind this rework is to shut people who think bad maps are constantly being ranked, it will 100% have the exact opposite effect because now these so-called bad maps will get ranked and they cannot even post mods to try and improve the maps because they won't have unrankable issues.

it sure does remove a semblance of community input, but let's take a step back here and ask yourself whether or not these feedback influxes necessarily had to happen in this frustrating fashion. I agree that maps in needs of feedback are not really exposed to the community enough, but I don't feel like Qualified is the solution to that, it only raises frustration for every person involved. The mapper is reluctant to receive feedback and the modder is reluctant to mod it because it is still a dick move to halt a map from proceeding instead of giving the feedback when nothing is rolling yet. Fixing the exposal issue by other means is advised here instead.

Nao Tomori wrote:

Third, given that QAT will end up either not iconing anything or yolo iconing everything after a rankability check (this is literally what happened with the Tier system, so I have every reason to believe it will happen here), there will be the exact amount of these low-quality maps getting ranked. BNs are not going to stop bubbling things that other people think are garbage (Sotarks 1-2 spam, Hailie extra diffs, etc. etc.) unless QATs also start evaluating them based on subjective icon quality (which they are extremely opposed to for some godforsaken reason).

You say that this is what happened with the tier system, but this isn't what happened in the original QAT installment either. So it can go either way, really, depending on who is put in charge. Equipping the elected people with the authority to actually evaluate maps based on subjective icon quality is one of the core ideas of this proposal and the elected QATs are directly advised to do exactly that.

Nao Tomori wrote:

The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.

based on the math we did and based on the organization required to keep the QAT up and rolling, maybe the average Qualified map per day will drop from 8,5 to 6 for a while, until you make both BNG and QAT scale up appropirately.

Kibbleru wrote:

Nao Tomori wrote:

The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.

I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".

I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".

Maybe there could be some lasting thing that remains on your profile after you've completed a QAT term, much like the BN badges now but in shorter terms. That has always been one of the things that offput me about the BNG too, you do volunteer work but once you leave, there's basically nothing to show for it (unless 2y plus). Perhaps a small section of the profile could be dedicated to that, just small icons showing how much time someone has put into those areas. I honestly don't see why not, it's part of creating incentive.

Besides that, if you're a likable QAT who does stuff the right way, there's probably a big chance you'll get to stay either way. Part of doing this kind of stuff is also being in line with your peers (BN/community).

Kibbleru wrote:

Nao Tomori wrote:

The end result will be a drop in qualified maps, no actual change in their quality as QAT standards drop due to burn out from being forced to mod maps they aren't interested in, and even more pessimism and toxicity in the community about terrible maps being ranked because there will be literally no recourse to stop them once they get qualified.

I can see this happening. You may argue the 4 month term system will prevent people from burning out, but in the opposite way, it prevents people from being motivated at all, or you may even end up with people just yoloing shit because "i will get kicked after my term ends anyways".

I can agree that it keeps the system from stagnating, but it also stops people from "caring".

I believe a 4 month term system will only never give the QAT enough time to get settled into their position and become more experienced.

Btw where is this FAQ I am hearing about? I searched "FAQ" on every page in this thread and couldn't find anything..

Proposal wrote:

Glossary
Core Team
Members of the Global Moderation Team (or osu!team in general), whose main responsibility is managing the system rather than necessarily being part of it. I really don't think GMT should be managing anything mapping related, most of them have no idea how anything here works, granted there are a few exceptions but overall I think this is a bad idea



Membership of the Quality Assurance Team

Membership in the QAT is limited to a four months term. Beatmap Nominators get elected/chosen to occupy the vacant seats within the QAT in order to receive the ability to proactively assure the quality of the currently nominated content. Whether or not you want do that for all game modes or just standard is in the open. removing very qualified people just because their term is over doesn't make sense to me, I don't want to replace people with less qualified ones just because of that

The QAT lose their moderation permissions and only retain their Beatmap Nominator privileges together with the disqualification button. I'm ok with this as long as the GMT starts actually moderating beatmap threads when necessary

The Core Team compiles a list of possible candidates at the end of every term based on (yet uncertain) criteria. (Probably candidates applying for the position simply)
Members of the Beatmap Nominators can vote for member(s) on the list.
Once a QAT drops out of the team for any reason, for example by not being re-elected or reaching the maximum amount of re-elections in a row, they are on cooldown for the position equal to the duration of their just expired membership in the QAT. again, I'm very against the idea of blocking qualified people from this position, though the idea of making the qat position a bit more accessible isn't something I'm entirely against



Changes to the Ranking System

The Beatmap Nominators lose their right to qualify beatmaps (second nomination). literally why

The QAT is the only team that can qualify beatmaps. Thus, they are forced to proactively process through all nominated content and only push the content forward that is deemed to have a sufficient quality level. forcing someone to do a voluntary job makes absolutely no sense, yes sure you can just remove them if they don't fullfil their quota but nobody should be pressured to check a lot of maps they don't want to check

Once hitting Qualified, a beatmap may only be disqualified when it directly violates the Ranking Criteria, rendering all subjective-level concerns moot, as the map has already passed quality revision by the QAT. this basically says improving the map is not allowed anymore, what if the mapper wants to change stuff from mods? not allowed because it doesn't violate the ranking criteria

Maps nominated by members of the Beatmap Nominators will end up in a queue checked by the QAT. Whether they are being assigned or can pick maps by themselves has yet to be decided. being assigned to maps is the worst thing you could do, as you said it's still tbd but this really shouldn't be pushed through. if anything everyone should be allowed to pick what the want

New members of the Beatmap Nominators will need to go through the same application process as now, their applications will be evaluated by the Core Team. makes sense


Frequently Asked Questions

Why do you want to limit the membership in the QAT to a specific time period?
We are trying to combat two issues with that. First, people that occupy a position are eventually finding a comfort zone that they refuse to leave, making it hard to keep new ideas, new opinions and new views flowing and spawning. Second, people that occupy a position for a while but lose motivation are rarely resigning by themselves and usually simply stop doing things but are clinging to their title. As soon as you start to questioning the legitimacy of their position based on their activity and motivation, they usually come up with reactions that reach from “I am busy with school” to “I am super motivated now! (for two days)” By limiting the membership to a specific time frame, the QAT will always be restocked with new faces that bring new opinions along. Therefore, instead of keeping the QAT in a dormant state of always the same people being in charge, a highly volatile QAT assures that new eras are initiated more frequently. I actually kind of agree with a few parts of this, mainly the "they don't resign and stop doing shit" part. But instead of forcing a term limit you could just enforce activity requirements a bit harder and actually remove people from the team if they fail to meet them

Why will the QAT lose their moderation privileges along with that?
Putting someone in charge with critical moderation tools that can affect every user (silences, deleting posts, access to logs and account histories) requires a very specific kind of trust and faith into each individual that receives these tools. This trust must come from the higher osu!team itself. Given how the QAT are supposed to be chosen, the trust does not come from the higher osu!team directly. The BNG will put people of their ranks in charge, which is fine in itself, but this doesn’t make them automatically inherit the trust that, in comparison, the GMT receives when being entrusted with critical and sensitive tools and private information (e.g. the account standings that concern nobody but the moderators/admins and the individual user) as I said, I'm totally fine with the qat losing moderation powers, but I really think it would require the GMT to become A LOT more active in terms of moderating beatmap threads to prevent them from getting out of control (see guren / shiten / etc). And I think most GMT actually care about any of this happening which is why I believe that it would be better for the qat to keep moderation powers. Also aren't new qat approved by mao who is an admin from what I know?

Wouldn’t the core team basically be what the QAT is now? How does that change anything?
First and foremost, the core team sure has its origin in the current QAT. Their task is also a task that needs to be continued. The reason why we don’t want the elected QAT to handle the incoming BN applications is simply because we want to avoid the creation of echo chambers. The core team - being in charge of conducting the BN applications, the application assessments, running the QAT elections and compiling the QAT candidate lists - is way smaller than the current QAT. Also their only task would be to conduct these management tasks and therefore forfeit their say in the matters that concern the elected QAT. They will stay separate and focus on running these tasks neutrally, so that the QAT and BNG can focus on their task while the organization and logistics is conducted with full transparency by the core team. They would be responsible for providing the BNG/QAT a proper work environment by running the applications and elections and by running the logistics and oversee the entire system in moderation fashion without injecting their mapping/modding opinion into any of these. what how is denying the "core team", who are supposedly higher than the qat, from anything else that isn't strictly what you listed a good idea? aren't they supposed to be more qualified?

How would you avoid that the core team isn’t just denying applying BNs or QAT candidates arbitrarily?
This is achieved by having the criteria for being a BN and QAT way more defined. While a behavioral and activity assessment is necessary to assure that the incoming people are not complete douches and actually do things in a satisfying quantity, we have to reconsider whether or not a proficiency assessment is worth it at this level. Given the QAT is supposedly returning to proactive quality assurance, incompetent people in the BNG would have their output gatekept and have their performance eventually be reported as insufficient by the QAT to the core team. pretty much agree with most of this, though you'll never be able to keep things completely neutral so why are you trying

Why do you make the Beatmap Nominators lose their right to nominate? Why is the QAT supposed to nominate now?
By making the QAT being the ones that put the final nomination onto a beatmap alone, we assure multiple things:
The beatmap is being approved by the QAT instead of disapproved. This is a positive reinforcement. A quality assessment that eventually results with approval will always cause more positivity than a group of people being solely dedicated to “disapprove or ignore” created content. The only approval a mapper received from the QAT so far is that QAT just ignored the map, completely uncertain whether or not is has been assessed or not. By having the QAT actually put an “ok” or “not ok” onto each map, every mapper at least received some sort of feedback from the QAT instead of just interpreting the radio silence as either the QAT actually being fine with it or the QAT being just lazy and ignorant to it.
Beatmaps being approved instead of disapproved solves a core issue with the Qualified system. The Qualified system is a system built around anticipation. Once you get your map qualified, you are anxiously watching the 7 days passing by. During that time, instead of being filled with positive anticipation, you are rather afraid that some asshole QAT comes around the corner and disqualifies your dear creation. It’s 7 days of horrible uncertainty. “Are they assessing it? Does anybody care? Does my map fly under the radar? Oh god, someone posted on my map, soon the QAT will spawn and nuke it! All the delays!” - You see, instead of creating an environment of willing cooperation, open discussions and finding a compromise by *agreeing*, the current system makes the QAT shoot down maps, which is by its very nature perceived negatively. In order to fix that, the QAT is supposed to deliver the final approval instead of being the Damocles sword that hangs down from the ceiling, impaling your creation by sheer chance. QATs delivering an approval brings certainty to mappers and community that this creation is good to go and actually has been proactively assessed. the idea of a more active approach instead of reactive is something I definitely support, but all this is going to accomplish is shifting the blame from BN x to QAT Y, people will just get even more mad at a different person because now it'd be "qat approved" and you can't do anything whatsoever against it

Isn’t that just another try to do something like the BN tiers we used to have?
Yes it is and it shows a lot of parallels. The BN tiers weren’t a bad idea in itself, however had several shortcomings: how were tiers not a bad idea? do we really want to go back to having what, 5 qualified maps at a time?
The assessment of who becomes a second tier BN was done via a test. Not only are tests itself always a very slippery slope in terms of validity, but also were all BNs forced to undergo this revision. Aside the rather disappointing outcome, the result led to people ending up in the second tier that never asked for it while keeping away those who actually wanted to be second tier but never have been given the chance to do so. By having the QATs elected, attaining such an equal position is done by choice, because the candidate wants to be a candidate and the BNs actually want this person to be in charge. valid point
The second tier BNs were by all means not organized. They were confronted with a wall of bubbled beatmaps they were supposed to check all alone. While this still holds true, the idea is to organize the QAT way better than the second tier BNs were organized (they weren’t organized at all). organization isn't gonna change much, people will still be overwhelmed due to the much larger number of BNs than QATs (even with the proposed system)
The second tier BNs were still facing a nomination limit which hindered them to nominate more than one map per day. This isn’t a thing anymore. that doesn't guarantee people will actually make use of it, many people never even hit the limit (speaking of current times at least)
The second tier BNs didn’t have the authority of a title and also did not receive additional prestige despite their higher rank. The QAT still existed above them, making the second tier BNs an unloved group of people set between the normal BNG and the QAT that would still shoot them down. In this suggestion however, the last nominators are also equal to the last gatekeepers, as Qualified will only account for Unrankables or deep deep disagreements from the very own team the new QAT will operate in. a "title" isn't neccessary)
It was absolutely unclear when new second tier BNs would be appointed and under what premise they are appointed. Having the QAT be assembled by recurring elections makes sure that there are always other people put in charge and that there are always enough active people around that are willingly taking the seat and people can actively pursue this position without being accounted to arbitrary choices of promotion from the former QAT. makes sense

This sounds like getting a beatmap ranked will be quite harder again, as you need to not only get yourself a BN but also a QAT now. What’s the point?
The point is that you can’t have it both ways. You can not ask for a dedicated team to proactively assess quality and at the same time have the same valencies available. Asking for better quality assurance will indefinitely raise the difficulty in getting something Ranked, whether it be simply taking longer or the quality requirement itself just rising. In order to combat the concern of being lost and forgotten among all nominated beatmaps and to not have the community play “fetch the QAT” after having fetched a BN, the general shared queue is organized by the core team, where all nominated maps are being collected and eventually distributed for revision among the residing QAT, so that eventually every beatmap nominated will receive some sort of feedback from the QAT. Whether or not the feedback will lead to a qualification or the QAT just leaving the workable feedback behind so the mapper can keep working on their creation is some other topic. The general queue assures that every nominated map will receive QAT feedback and combats uncertainty and the impossibility to “fetch a QAT”. However, in order to fulfill the gatekeeper and quality assurance task, the feedback can also be “negative” and will not always lead to a definite approval by the QAT either way. Sometimes, beatmaps are just in such a distant state from Ranked in their perception that beatmaps can be possibly bounced back to the BNG entirely (“popped without rebubble”), declaring that this needs way more polishing while pointing out the cornerstones of what it is lacking. The QAT will not be giving you a step-by-step introduction on what to fix exactly how but is only advised to word the shortcomings understandably and offer a direction, not a direct manual. this isn't going to assure quality at all, it only lowers the amount of people who might be "okay" with your map. do you actually every bn is in love with every map they nominate?

Why would you decline feedback being provided during Qualified stage? What about the community feedback?
Having the community leave feedback during Qualified stage is a nice idea on paper. You have experts or dedicated people push a map forward and present it on a silver platter to the community. However, as described in another question, in case of the map being *not accepted by the community*, it gets charged up with massive negativity. Getting your map disqualified is always a huge letdown. The Qualified stage is also a huge window of uncertainty. It puts mappers and supporters in anxiety, praying for nobody to show up and nag on something. Is this what we want? Hoping for people to slide through a critical revision phase without anybody bringing up suggestions? While suggestions are all appreciated and even dearly wanted by the mappers prior Qualified stage, as soon as the map hits Qualified, most mappers become massively reluctant to listen to the suggestions people provide then. The map already jumped through a lot of hoops, it has been assessed by modders, BNGs and QATs, people that are deeply involved into the scene of map creation. While we understand the desire to also offer the creation to the community, we also have to embrace the fact that you can never make it right for everybody. Qualified stage as it is now is also easily exploitable in order to gang up against specific mappers or maps, to keep a map in a limbo forever, especially since you can hold something back indefinitely for reasons that can be entirely subjective and are a simple matter of taste. By having the QAT proactively assess the quality of beatmaps BEFORE the Qualified stage is reached, we assure that every map hitting Qualified are “actually good to go”. Community feedback sure is valuable but feels a lot like a hindrance when only brought up during a phase where the mapper is the most reluctant to receive this feedback. By limiting Disqualifications to direct Ranking Criteria violations alone (as in seeing Qualified like a grace period for human mistakes to happen) and by limiting it to a stage where fellow QATs can deeply disagree with the assessment of their colleagues (avoid abuse, checks and balances), we make the Qualified stage be a stage that is way less filled with anxiety, because as long as your map sticks to the RC and isn’t over the top terrible, you have the certainty that your map will slide through because of the certainty of the map being good to go, as it is QAT approved. This change also assures that the community brings up their feedback at the point of the map review process where it is most desired by mappers: before it hits Qualified. I totally understand the "anxiety" part you mentioned, in fact I feel very nervous myself when I have something qualified and keep checking the thread very often, but while your "solution" removes this part, it will also add a part of "feeling disappointed / defeated" for anyone that disagrees with the map, as they are unable to do anything whatsoever against it

on top of that I agree with everything nao said