uh hi i was told to repost my proposal into its own thread so responses wouldn't get cluttered in the main one, so uh... here:

me wrote:

back in the bat days quality assurance was a very active process. bats nominated good maps. qat is not structured this way. instead, qat's quality assurance is a reactive process. people in the bng nominate whatever they feel like, and the qat are expected to respond to things in the qualified section that are low quality. if they do not react to something that some people find shitty, they are flamed for it. at the same time, if they react to something that some people don't find shitty, they are flamed for it. they have no option that leads to a content community, because the community is too diverse and at least some group of people can be vocal about how their action or inaction was wrong. qat literally warn new members ahead of time that their job sucks.

for those not around at the time, gaia's asymmetry set is still the biggest shitstorm in osu history, where people complained about how overly nitpicky and unreasonable the quality assurance was. it was such a big event that peppy told the qat to pretty much stop doing that forever. every once in a while they still do this, but it tends to lead to the same result, so they go back to not giving a shit about subjective quality, because the community honestly doesn't want that.

like i said, bat didn't have the issue of literally everything they do or don't do making them look bad. so the proposals that are structured in a way that brings this action-based quality assurance, instead of primarily relying on reaction-based ones, seem better to me. now, i wasn't around at the time, so idk what the problems w/ that old system were, but from how it's been described to me it was mostly just changed to segue into peppy's stackoverflow system. any older people can correct me on this if i'm wrong, i'd love to have more info on this.

as such, i have drafted up a proposal of my own: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yvbUE4lslgG4GYOsTrM9PtiHAaHg2YH90mCX262XfTc/edit?usp=sharing

this proposal aims to mostly combine the bng and qat into a single entity whose purpose is to actively control quality, instead of relying on "catching bad maps" in qualified. it draws from some ideas in loctav's proposal but keeps moderation privileges in the mapping community, which we do desperately need, and gets rid of all the tier2-esque stuff and team downsizing that would do nothing but lower overall ranked content. it's mostly but not totally finished, and pretty easy to iterate upon, so any feedback would be awesome to make it better.

full post with more context and responses to other proposals here: https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/6912225

This system is way too lax towards "quality standards" and "vetoes". I don't know how decided you are on your numbers, but I think if anything a majority is needed to unveto a map. Why? Because people are much more willing to allow maps to pass rather than obstruct them.

Also the thing about subjective changes will only lead to a change if the mapper requests it, I don't think that's necessary at all. Makes it sound like mappers can just deny anything they want and only make changes if a BN vetoes. This essentially devalues all community aside from BN's, and causes people who do have opinions on a map (but who aren't BNs) to start seeking out BN's to get it vetoed. The current system does not make that statement which is why I don't go around telling other BN's I know to veto maps. But I feel if a position on this is actually stated, I'd probably start asking ppl to veto stuff lol. It is an unnecessary stance imo.

My opinion each point of this:

1 wrote:

BN apps will be open at all times

good. something like this was discussed a few times before and it would definitely be nice, you'd just need to constantly have ~3 people available to check new applications

2 wrote:

Probation system is removed, being replaced with a three-strike system

seems worse than right now actually/more lenient. current system puts people on "probation" for bad conduct or low, mainly "objective" nomination quality (like non-subjective dqs etc.).
You can't get put on probation for the same reason twice for a while (usually a period similar to what you mentioned in your proposal), so current is more like two 2-strike systems (one for each main reason). though this is probably where I should mention the issue I have with probation right now: both reasons, even though they are very different, result in the same thing. it makes sense to probation people for messing up a lot since that means their nominations are more questionable, probationing them for behaviour though doesn't make too much sense? Sure, if they show terrible conduct they should be kicked at one point, but not "probationed". Probation should be exclusive to new BNs and BNs that mess up a lot of their nominations.

The current probation system is only locking QAT into feeling obligated to let a BN they find unfit stick around for another month.

Your idea basically lets them stick around for longer (all strikes for the same reason), or the same time (2x quality 1x behaviour or vice versa) so if anything a 2 strike system might be more reasonable if you want less leniency overall compared to current.

3 wrote:

QAT is rebranded into the Nominator Management Team

Makes sense with what a decent part of the QAT mainly does, especially if we consider the things from next points

4 wrote:

BNG will be given forum moderation and disqualification privileges, with a rule set in place preventing them from using powers outside of thread relocation in the Beatmap Management/Ranking Criteria sections, disqualification, and modding page moderation

too far. the furthest moderation capabilities for bns should go would be being able to moderate v2 discussions, but I think giving the bngsuch powers will end up making it less accessible since people with probably questionable behaviour can still fuck up a lot of things with these things, so they might be denied for that or whatever. Here it might be nice to still actually use some kind of trial/probation system for new BNs, and tie v2 moderation to being a "full" BN.
Really unsure about the dq part since it lets you do a lot of dumb stuff, and it also seems a bit unlikely that ability to dq would be given to such a huge group of people anyway.

5 wrote:

Veto mediation will be revised into a vote system among the BNG/NMT.

idk. 2/3 to uphold seems bit too much tbh. also having a voting on a veto doesn't seem too optimal since people might only agree with part of the veto, but really think that part should be addressed, so they will vote to uphold even though they disagree with a lot of it and the mapper then will have to deal the whole veto (or vice versa where people dismiss a veto they think makes sense because of one major point they disagree with). this needs a system that involves more discussion, more similar to current where qat tend to give their opinion on each (major) point of the veto and you might see only parts of it being upheld.

6 wrote:

Naxess’s Veto Proposal gets implemented

Fine, though personally I still think 24h between first nomination ever and qualify should be enforced so maps can't just get submitted into qualified as it just completely removes one stage of feedback and shifts it all into the 7 days of qualified, which now also doesn't reset on DQs. If a change like this happens, qualified time should be slightly increased at least to accommodate for it

7 wrote:

Qualified beatmaps will no longer be disqualified for subjective or intersubjective issues unless a contributor to the mapset requests it or a BN places a veto.

kinda agree with monstrata's points here tbh