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
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.
I have some concern here, for the minigame mode like taiko, ctb, and mania on this point.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 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 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.
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)
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.-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.
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).
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.
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.
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.Kibbleru wrote:
Its happened a few times where people resign, but instantly regret it, so they reapply like a week after.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.
It's for those cases.
The NAT may re-roll the members of the jury if they think it is needed to avoid bias.