QAT Restructure Follow-Up

posted
Total Posts
105
show more
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
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply