forum

QAT Restructure Follow-Up

posted
Total Posts
105
show more
Nao Tomori
I think the random jury is better because it doesn't stand to only promote one type of vision for an extended period which is a problem we saw with older qat systems. Would like more details on how that works tho as well as an estimate when the first BN "round" becomes available. Overall looks quite nice.
UndeadCapulet
really think the jury idea isn't good cuz it'll be wildly inconsistent what is allowed and what isn't. there are a lot of very different understandings of "quality" among the bng, so one group will mass-overrule a veto and another would mass-approve it.

like if i veto for lowest diff having 80% sliders the current qat would all agree with it but a significant portion of bn's (the ones who nominate those maps) won't. if those bn's get rolled for veto mediation then the wildly-guideline breaking lowdiff would get through bc they don't care. compare that to an rng roll of xr-tier bn's supporting a veto on a random anime map for sliders not being totally parallel.

also isn't the reason this was proposed so vetos get mediated in a timely matter bc some bn's won't ever be bothered to vote? but this doesn't change with the jury system, those uninterested bn's will still be rolled and delay things or lead to unsatisfying results.

if you don't want every bn having to vote in on a veto mediation (which is understandable) then you could do something like making mediation duty an opt-in system like current qah is. then the people that want to mediate vetos will be doing it.

idk i thought one of the biggest complaints of qualified section in general was its inconsistent enforcement of various things. this just seems like it'll amplify that.

(other than that point it all seems nice, NAT is a cute name)
MaridiuS
Maybe make it so there are BNs that can apply to become veto checkers like we have qah nowadays? Cus some people may just be totally uninterested in that stuff
anna apple
problems:

-having Bns handle vetos is more of less same as handling quality > its more than just a running joke saying that BN is a good modder. I really don't think I have to explain it to current QAT

-having QAT handle veto's is a problem because wtf does the QAT even do lol (it takes forever for veto's to mediate and dq's on unrankables sparingly happen)

I already wrote an essay on the veto system, Until BNG is populated with good MODDERS and not A.I. modding assistant then we will have a good system for veto-ing. This most likely will not happen, but while it is out of effect, you should just remove vetoes altogether. I already wrote an essay on why vetoes just toxic and nothing really more than that. I don't want to write an essay why they are bad with our current group of BNs.

(and if you forced me to pick some veto system I would go with UCs but I'd rather not have to pick)
Sparhten
How would applications evaluations stand time wise aswell, will they just be done as they come in or would they be done in batches throughout the month, kinda seems inefficient with the amount of tests/grading that'll be needed if its as they come in.
pimp
"giving the option to return without the need of participating in a new bn application round..." but why only be valid for two weeks?
two weeks is about the same time people gets absent without being kicked, sometimes member stay absent for even longer than that.

if something like that would be implemented i think it would make more sense to be allowed to return only after at least two months.
Venix
ye i agree that randomly picked jury might be a bit weird, maybe at least roll from people wanting to become a jury? I think even nat could review not sure vetos as well, everything else looks cool anyways
Nozhomi
Veto could work if you really pick a good and diversified pool of BN, picking them randomly could end into a rng fest like stated above already.

Also I feel like rest of changes are just QAT name and more BN every month, and I'm not sure that's an incredible thing, unless it became more picky about it.

It would also be nice to know if the future NAT role change from current QAT or not, now than proposal get updated.
squirrelpascals
Overall this is an improvement. A few small things:

  1. I second what UC said about the opt-in system for vetos and overall agree what others are saying about the random selection. The current system feels like it relies more on the legitimacy on the veto in order to be ranked. And if that veto is "legitimate" it's pretty much 50/50 whether the map passes through.
  2. 2 weeks feels like way too short of a period to rejoin. If a bn leaves on their own accord, it's usually because of reasons that will take far more than 2 weeks to resolve (whether its because of external circumstances or if the bn is mentally exhausted). I think a month - 6 week period is more reasonable for this.
  3. If you're going to set a 3 month cooldown period for applications, you should also make changes to the test every 3 months. Don't know if this is a given but I think it should be stated.
  4. To me the score system seems underdeveloped, because it fails to recognize activity / the pool of maps each bn mods. I mentioned an improved formula for that earlier on here.
  5. It also seems like we're keeping the probation system which desperately needs to be reformed. Don't think it's 100% relevant to NAT but I still feel like it's an important topic be discussed while we're making changes to management. I made a thread for that here.


Glad to see this is making some progress
Beomsan
I totally agree with all the objections here(especially UC's). This may be a good improvement, but there are also a lot of risks.
Nikakis
imo this jury thing is a good step for bns to actually prove their modding/judging skills for a map/veto. and i think u shouldnt worry for the quality of the jury when there will be 12 different bns as the proposal says. i would agree with you if a veto/map before ranking should be judged by like 1-2 bns.
timemon
Having to opt in for trial might end up making the trial inherently biased, so I think they should be completely random.

I'm supportive of the BN jury, but outside of that, the system is quite identical to what it currently is.
Monstrata
I'm seeing a lot of what-ifs about the "rng-ness" of random trials. That, or "X is bound to happen". How do you guys know? I feel like the "possibility" (however low it may actually be) of "unfair" sample groups, should not rule out an otherwise very reasonable system.

Some ideas: we can put some limiters to the "rng-ness" For example, NAT have the power to do a re-roll if say three members of the NAT believe that the sample group of BN's might produce a too one-sided or biased judgement.

Another idea is RNG with some rules, such as a maximum 2 BN's can be chosen from any division. This of course, assumes divisions are working as intended right now (seems to be the case?).
Ascendance

Monstrata wrote:

Some ideas: we can put some limiters to the "rng-ness" For example, NAT have the power to do a re-roll if say three members of the NAT believe that the sample group of BN's might produce a too one-sided or a biased judgement.


That’s in their summary that NAT can re-roll the veto if they feel it is necessary.
Monstrata
Uh, lol yea of course...?

But saying "NAT will..." sounded too vague. Under what conditions will NAT do a re-roll? If it requires everyone on the team, then isn't that a lot of effort too for re-rolls? etc... You really need to set a parameter. Otherwise on the one end, which is what people are worried about, what if NAT see it as unbiased, or some NAT members may see it as a bias but not others? Etc...
Monstrata
Anyways,

From earlier post, that seems unaddressed even though there was quite a lot of support for it:

Being kicked from BN is honestly more severe than just failing to get into BN. 3 month cool-down for kicked BN's feels justified, but 3 month cool-down for applicants is quite harsh. I would recommend either 1 to 3 months based on how close the applicant was to becoming BN level. That way applicants who are denied also can get a sense of how much NAT members think they have yet to improve before they should try to apply for BN again.

If an applicant is only lacking perhaps in metadata checking, 1 months seems fair before they can apply again, since at that point it's a relatively simple skill that they need to improve on, and 3 months is just a lot of unnecessary time. However, if an applicant clearly only spams blanket/stack mods, clearly the maximum of 3 months is warranted. Giving out flat 3-month cooldowns can discourage promising modders from reapplying, (and also causes unnecessary social media meltdowns) and it does seem a bit unfair if someone barely missed the cut, that they still need to wait as long as someone who got denied for modding unsnapped bookmarks.
-Mo-
I'm wondering how much interest there would be to jury if we had an opt-in system. I would rather not have such a system if we'll only have a pool of 3 people to pick from (also keep in mind that the other modes have a much smaller pool of BNs).

BNscore system will need quite a bit of work to develop, so it won't be a priority for this restructure for now and we'll offer it in a seperate proposal in the future with more detail on how it'll work.
timemon
Maybe some sort of rewards/acknowledgement for being in the jury like counted activity. And as long as the rate of which the same bn is selected to be a part of the jury is reasonable.

Anyway, I assume NAT is going to organize the entire jury system.(there is obvious conflict of interest for BNs to handle this by themselves.) But it's not written in their title description other than ensuring the system runs smoothly.

The proposal also implies that QAH will be replaced by automated system eventually. I doubt you can make the system entirely automatic without human supervision due to the nature of RC (guidelines and whatnot)
Tyistiana

QAT Restructure Proposal [Updated] wrote:

Vetoes will be decided by the Beatmap Nominators
As the QAT will no longer exist, this task will be handed over to the Beatmap Nominators. The NAT will roll out the names of twelve BNs (can be less in other modes) that will form a jury and mediate the veto like the QAT did so far. The names of the people in the jury will be kept anonymous until the verdict is released. Participating in veto mediation is mandatory for every member of the BNs. Should a member drop out of the jury, they will be punished unless an appropriate reasoning is given. A new member is rolled in that case.
I have some concern here, for the minigame mode like taiko, ctb, and mania on this point.

  1. Amount of the map that gets ranked/nominated may become lower than the present
    As this proposal make **all** BNs need to participating to mediate the veto. It means that BN needs to spare time to participate in the veto. Nominating a map requires a time. So veto too. This means that BN will have less time to nominating the map from participating veto mediation procedure. As a result, the process of the nomination will go slower in the overall. Especially for minigame mode which the amount of BN is much lower than std BN. Which you may see that the amount of ranked minigame map per day is like 1-2 maps only. This proposal may make this number become worse than this.
  2. This may discourage Beatmap Nominator to continue their duty
    This proposal makes participating in veto mediation is mandatory for every member of the BNs. I don't know how std BN works. But as I see in taiko BNs community, some of them just want to sit back in the corner and nominating some map only. Forcing them to participate in veto mediation may discourage them to continue their work as a BN (or discourage new people to apply for a BN too). This will result in more BNs resigning from their task. This may not a problem for std BN. But this could be a massive problem for minigame BN due to the significantly lower amount of BN. Yes, in additional, BN score system may also lower the amount of minigame BNs too.
This is only my personal opinion thus far. Sorry if I understand something wrong here.


Ignore that. I forget how the counter proposal ends.
Nikakis

Monstrata wrote:

Anyways,

From earlier post, that seems unaddressed even though there was quite a lot of support for it:

Being kicked from BN is honestly more severe than just failing to get into BN. 3 month cool-down for kicked BN's feels justified, but 3 month cool-down for applicants is quite harsh. I would recommend either 1 to 3 months based on how close the applicant was to becoming BN level. That way applicants who are denied also can get a sense of how much NAT members think they have yet to improve before they should try to apply for BN again.

If an applicant is only lacking perhaps in metadata checking, 1 months seems fair before they can apply again, since at that point it's a relatively simple skill that they need to improve on, and 3 months is just a lot of unnecessary time. However, if an applicant clearly only spams blanket/stack mods, clearly the maximum of 3 months is warranted. Giving out flat 3-month cooldowns can discourage promising modders from reapplying, (and also causes unnecessary social media meltdowns) and it does seem a bit unfair if someone barely missed the cut, that they still need to wait as long as someone who got denied for modding unsnapped bookmarks.
I completely agree with Monstrata on this for the 3 month cooldown for applicants. A good modder doesnt deserve to have the same cooldown with a ''pls fix blanket'' modder. We could rework the current system in a way where the NAT could give 1 extra month for a modder who was close on being a BN to prove with another 4 or more mods of the current/upcoming month that he improved on the specific aspect of his modding that hes currently lacking for. If hes gonna fail again, I guess the 3 month cooldown would be justified in that way. Right now the system is too unorganised and many modders are getting demotivated for waiting 3 months over and over again (I was one of them). So yeah, I think we could rework the BN apps in a better way than they currently are.
Monstrata

timemon wrote:

Maybe some sort of rewards/acknowledgement for being in the jury like counted activity. And as long as the rate of which the same bn is selected to be a part of the jury is reasonable.

Anyway, I assume NAT is going to organize the entire jury system.(there is obvious conflict of interest for BNs to handle this by themselves.) But it's not written in their title description other than ensuring the system runs smoothly.

The proposal also implies that QAH will be replaced by automated system eventually. I doubt you can make the system entirely automatic without human supervision due to the nature of RC (guidelines and whatnot)

-Mo- wrote:

I'm wondering how much interest there would be to jury if we had an opt-in system. I would rather not have such a system if we'll only have a pool of 3 people to pick from (also keep in mind that the other modes have a much smaller pool of BNs).


BNscore system will need quite a bit of work to develop, so it won't be a priority for this restructure for now and we'll offer it in a seperate proposal in the future with more detail on how it'll work.
To a certain degree, I feel this sort of "veto-mediation" responsibility should be expected of BN's since they are now given the power to DQ maps. I would rather have an opt-out system rather than an opt-in. Assume everyone is interested, and those who aren't can opt-out.

To incentivize, I feel like only BN's who opt-in to the voting system can be considered for possible candidates into NAT.
clayton
we're going to run out of letters to put before "AT" at some point :p

changes LGTM. nice work :D

for the jury, I think you should take a poll among current BNs to find out what percentage are actually interested in participating in that. if it is too few, that point should be reconsidered (because juries will not be concluded in a timely manner if its members aren't willing to participate, like UC mentions in his first reply). I'm sure there are plenty of other solutions to this problem if the jury thing doesn't work out.

and I agree with Monstrata's idea too about rejected applicants being less punished than removed BNs. after all, removal from BN means they had failed to do something, while being rejected just means that they didn't quite pass an evaluation. I think there's a big difference in severity there

I will look into the continuous application stuffs over my spring break hopefully, it's coming up soon /o/
hi-mei
Maybe, its better to ask people who dont want to participate in jury instead of asking these who want to opt-in?

I feel like its should be either obligatory or something.

In regards of promotion to NAT: I have no idea why do people still think that NAT is an upgraded BN??
By new proposal, NAT arent engaged in ranking and so on. BN is the only position you can obtain to have any influence on ranked section.

Feels like NAT should be something like a group of people who want to do stuff in managing area, instead mapping and modding.

I think whats important here, is to make sure that only BNs are relevant when it comes to considering quality, and no higher position exists to avoid stuff that already exists (ie fuckery with disqualifications when a mapper take his friend from QAT to help him out with his map to avoid dqs and shit or vice versa).
Topic Starter
Mao

hi-mei wrote:

By new proposal, NAT arent engaged in ranking and so on. BN is the only position you can obtain to have any influence on ranked section.

Feels like NAT should be something like a group of people who want to do stuff in managing area, instead mapping and modding.

I think whats important here, is to make sure that only BNs are relevant when it comes to considering quality, and no higher position exists to avoid stuff that already exists (ie fuckery with disqualifications when a mapper take his friend from QAT to help him out with his map to avoid dqs and shit or vice versa).


The proposal specifically mentions that NAT can still participate in the ranking process, just that their voice does not weigh any more than a BN's.

Proposal wrote:

Members of the NAT will still be allowed to participate in BN activities such as Nominations and Disqualifications. However, their word does not hold any more weight than that of a BN.
driodx
So from what I've read of this, I have a couple questions:

In the case of a BN's map (or guest difficulty) getting vetoed and brought to the jury, I'm assuming the other BNs of that mode would be in the jury. For some of the smaller modes, however, wouldn't this limit the pool of people eligible for the jury? Secondly, in the case of a minimum amount of BNs not being available for this jury, where would the pool go to? Would it go to the NAT? To BNs from other modes?

If I can think of another question, I'll either edit this post or make another, depending on if there's another post after this.
Kibbleru

pimp wrote:

"giving the option to return without the need of participating in a new bn application round..." but why only be valid for two weeks?
two weeks is about the same time people gets absent without being kicked, sometimes member stay absent for even longer than that.

if something like that would be implemented i think it would make more sense to be allowed to return only after at least two months.


Its happened a few times where people resign, but instantly regret it, so they reapply like a week after.

It's for those cases.
pimp
they know exactly what's being disabled from their account when they leave the group so that's childish. they are not forced to do anything while in the group, they don't even need to interact with the other nominators/QAT or even stay in the discord server so there is no pressure in staying inactive in the BN group and just being kicked for inactivity...

instead of supporting people to be childish we should support people that really needs to deal with their IRL issues

basically:

i need some time to deal with stuff / i'm a bit tired of the BN work and i want a few days~weeks to rest = stay in the group, inactive.
stuff happened i will not be able to do anything for a long time sadly = leave the group, return a few months later.
Monstrata

Kibbleru wrote:

pimp wrote:

"giving the option to return without the need of participating in a new bn application round..." but why only be valid for two weeks?
two weeks is about the same time people gets absent without being kicked, sometimes member stay absent for even longer than that.

if something like that would be implemented i think it would make more sense to be allowed to return only after at least two months.
Its happened a few times where people resign, but instantly regret it, so they reapply like a week after.

It's for those cases.
Yea this just boggles my mind. Why are you guys even bothering with cases like this? lol... People can always just take a break if they want, and they don't even have to give notice that they will be "inactive". They can just walk away from their computers.

If you resign, you should be sure of it.
clayton
yeah that does seem like an odd exception to make, no reason to encourage people making mistakes

IMO, just remove that bit entirely. let them re-apply whenever they would be eligible to do so as if they had never been a BN in the first place
Nao Tomori
the idea is similar to how qats can more or less insta rejoin qat instead of being a bn and being promoted first. so i think a longer grace period would make more sense than 2 weeks.
Hydria
wow like nothing changed in this updated proposal apart from naming convention updates and giving probations less power

The NAT may re-roll the members of the jury if they think it is needed to avoid bias.

Who watches the watchmen?
clayton
so... are we just waiting for one more revision based on the last comments? or is there discussion happening somewhere else?
Ephemeral
we're sorting out implementation particulars and further discussion points internally

such as what to do with the existing QAT, initial NAT numbers, so on, so forth
clayton
Death
Please sign in to reply.

New reply