forum

Proposal for QAT system

posted
Total Posts
5
Topic Starter
Fycho
For better information collection and for the sake of responses wouldn't get cluttered, I am making an independent thread to post my proposal:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LI93mTTw_xVMuHZW_d11mBzaswfhdvGQXpau8KEZ5zY/edit?usp=sharing

and the main thread is:
https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/842601&start=78?n=78
Ascendance
I prefer this to the other proposals
Monstrata

Ascendance wrote:

I prefer this to the other proposals
Excuse me? -__




Anyways...

Sorry, but this sounds really similar to Loctav's system in terms of structure lol.

Just instead of BN's QAT's and Core Team, it's Role B, Role A and Role C...

I like the idea of (current QAT) / (Core Team) / (Role C) not being able to pick who becomes Role A (QAT) (Tier 2 BN) (Whatever you want to call them). And that these Role A (QAT) (Tier 2 BN) are instead voted in from the rest of the Role B (Probation BN's)/ (Tier 1 BN's). But the issue I have with this proposal, which is the same as the Loctav proposal, is that it isn't clear how you get into the "true" QAT. Role B in your system functions like tier 2 BN's. Yes, they can disqualify, but basically the "true" QAT's (your position) are still another group of itself. So I don't think this really addresses how people are to become Role C.

People who are "aiming for QAT" are really aiming for positions such as yours. Simply renaming the QAT to something easy to attain doesn't solve anything. Like I said, you can rename all the waiters in your restaurant to CEO's and say "look! it's so easy to become a CEO at our restaurant! (even though your job is still to deliver food and drinks, and ur pay is still below minimum wage) but you are now a CEO!!".

Some other issues: Role A are not supposed to use their subjective opinion? But then how do they do any work. Do you know how the "community's opinion" is supposed to be? Role A are supposed to represent the community and not use their subjective opinion, but frankly I don't think thats feasible or even good at all.

Also how does your proposal plan to address controversial maps? It seems like you are just going to trust that the Role A people will decide on what is acceptable and what is not. What happens with disagreements? What happens when one Role A member agrees and one doesn't? What happens if a significant portion of the community dislikes a map? Or what happens if a significant portion of the community supports a map, but Role A people believe it is low quality?

Also what will happen to the qualified section under this system? Will Role A be checking for quality control, or will there be no quality control any more? I don't see how this system will improve quality control, or adequately respond to controversial maps.
Topic Starter
Fycho
@Monstrata, thanks I did miss something, and updated the doc.

At most time The role A uses their professional knowledge to judge, only when their opinions differs each other, then regarding of "community opinion", that's mostly community voices, that are not somehow "clear" opinion, the Role A need to consider about the voices when voting when their opinions differ.
Mirash

Ascendance wrote:

I prefer this to the other proposals
cause it's a lot easier to implement
Please sign in to reply.

New reply