Nao Tomori wrote:

second, and more importantly: unrankables and objective issues are not actually important or a good representation of a BN's skill. for example: BN A consistently pushes maps which have complex timing and snappings, which occasionally get DQ'd for some adjustments to timing or snapping. BN B exclusively nominates single bpm NHI 1/2 based anime maps which never get DQ'd.
BN A is at much, much, MUCH higher risk of getting kicked than BN B despite nominating more diverse or interesting content than the usual fare, and neither of the two maps getting DQ'd for being bad maps. Only counting objective DQ's does not mean that people can nominate risky maps - it just changes the definition of risky from "uses weird techniques" to "has an unquantized mp3" and doesn't address the core issue of people only wanting to nominate single bpm 1/2 based anime maps to avoid getting kicked for timing DQ's.
This is a fundamental problem with how QATs gave up on caring about map quality and only focusing on unrankables - unrankable issues are not major problems for the most part. A wrongly snapped slider takes a grand total of 2 seconds to fix. A 10ms red line adjustment is not a major problem that causes a good map to become terrible. Meanwhile people nominate all forms of complete and utter trash (Uta intro ver anyone?) which don't have unrankables and therefore suddenly they are fine.
I'm not saying to magically start giving a shit about mapping quality but this idea that a BN getting DQ's for timing is worse than a BN not getting DQ's because they nominate rankable trash is really stupid and shouldn't be in the score system. The score system should just be activity and SERIOUS unrankable issues (entire sections missing hitsoundings, large amounts of unsnaps due to fucked up green lines, 20+ms offset issues, etc.)

agree with this so much, and it's one of the reasons why I tend to be a bit more lenient in bn reevals/probation evals when it comes to minor unrankables, especially stuff like wrong snaps on songs with weird snapping etc.



now to the proposal itself:

proposal wrote:

Disband the Quality Assurance Team
- (...) To fix this issue, we want to disband the QAT and replace it by a yet to be named “Management Team” that only focuses on promoting and evaluating Beatmap Nominators as well as making sure that the system runs smoothly.

Seems more like a rename and removal of the "qualified map checking", considering many of the QAT right now mainly do paperwork/bn management stuff and maybe some veto mediation, but don't even come close to checking the amount of qualified maps each month they are supposed to.

also how is this management team going to be decided regarding who gets added to it later etc. ?

proposal wrote:

Give the Disqualify button to the Beatmap Nominators

Not sure how to think about this considering there are people that can barely be trusted with the qualify button

proposal wrote:

The Beatmap Nominator rules will be updated so that a map may only be disqualified if unrankable or objective issues are present, the mapper requests it, or in the event of a veto.

veto part here really needs to be highlighted, since I've seen people see this as a "maps can only be DQd for objective issues now" when it's not the case, since BNs can now also veto qualified maps. I think this makes some sense overall, considering how most DQs happen right now

proposal wrote:

Vetoes will be decided by the Beatmap Nominators - initiate a majority vote among all BNs (except for the one who placed the veto) of the respective mode.

sounds good at first but has one major issue: a lot of BNs don't care about vetoes at all, they joined the BNG to push forward maps they like, not discuss vetoes on some random anime map. should only involve a part of the BNs (randomly selected group, volunteer group similar to QAH right now, idk). Point is, forcing ALL BNs do deal with every single veto seems pretty overdone and will also results in people either just not caring about their votes on a veto, or leaving BNG altogether because that's just not what they joined it for.

proposal wrote:

Content related moderation will be handled by the Global Moderation Team

yes, good change. This probably should have happened a long time ago

proposal wrote:

A new score system for Beatmap Nominators will be introduced

again? Didn't work before and probably won't work now unless it gets heavily adjusted (see first quote)

proposal wrote:

Beatmap Nominator Applications will always be open

good, just needs more details. I supposed the applications will be evaluated right away? daily or weekly? biweekly? ???

proposal wrote:

If you leave the Beatmap Nominators on your own merit though, you will be allowed to re-join within the next two weeks after your removal.

this should be a month imo, so people don't change their mind all the time and constantly leave and rejoin. also this point opens a loophole. consider for example a bn messing up a lot of nominations and expecting to get kicked for that. with this system they could instead just leave the bng and reapply two weeks later. Might make more sense to use a one or two month cooldown before you can reapply regardless of the reason you were removed. this timeframe would also make it pretty similar to current situation, since in both cases they usually just need to wait until the next round of bn apps, which happen every few months.

Furthermore, there also needs to be a cooldown after failing your application, so people don't just spam apply all the time (same timeframe as ^?)



think that's all I have to comment for now, but might have forgotten something

i think it might work better if you just keep bng as it is, make bigger and easier accesible qat (picked from active qahs for example) with nominate and dq button but without moderation privileges and management team with current qat permissions (but without responsibility to check all qualfiieds) which would manage it all

i feel dqing maps is more demanding responsibility than nominating them (i also think there's much people would like to join bng to just nominate maps) so would be better to keep more control on it along with team which would be able to discuss vetos etc. instead of suddenly giving like 50 people dq button

also, i don't really see any radical changes being made with this proposal in practice (exlcuding rolling bn apps and scoring system, but it's not related to qat itself), giving qat more of a free hand in terms of dq would result very similarly without all of this chaos happening i guess

also, while reading it consider that im not inside this system so i might see things working a bit differently than they really do

Vetoes will be decided by the Beatmap Nominators through majority vote

Something I feel is missing here, is the step from the result of a majority vote to an actual post on the map thread. One good thing in the current system is that QAT can write a post that is tailored to the situation at hand, being able to pinpoint what a map's issues are and giving specific suggestions. With a majority vote I don't really see this happening.
It should be obvious that "this is the voting result, please comply with the modder" doesn't work, it's hardly "mediation" at that point and is too impersonal.
The new Management Team won't or shouldn't write a post, it seems like they are supposed to keep themselves uninvolved for vetoes. Having them write about a discussion and decision they didn't take part in seems kinda wrong?
That leaves the BNG, you could pick representatives of the winning side to deal with it. That however, is tricky when voting is anonymous since it might lead to the representatives losing their anonymity. Non-anonymous voting solves this, but honestly, I'm kinda scared of all the potential social dynamics that come with having statistically opposing parties within the same usergroup.
Other than that I agree with Lasse; voting works when everyone wants to give an input, not when everyone "should".

I'm also wary of the dq change. Generally permissions and responsibilities are distributed among people you trust with them, you trust that they don't have malicious intent -and- they are capable of making correct use of them. So, giving BNs the option to dq, as well as veto voting and a lack of QAT to deal with things for them is a huge expansion on those responsibilities, but they're still the same people. It seems very likely that mistakes will happen. It'll be very sad if this ends up having a reductionary effect on the BNG, or even another split into separate roles.

Also agree with Nao on the scoring system. You're not really encouraging anything here anyway, you're just not discouraging it. It's also the case that, whenever numbers get involved, people will always try to give a meaning to them, even if you only use them as a guideline.

The rest seems a bit up in the air. Disbanding QAT doesn't really remove the concept of quality, people might as well go yell at BNs for not vetoing maps they dislike. "Lack of Quality control in general" would be the easiest criticism against this.
Overall this proposal doesn't seem like it addresses the root of the problem and will likely be followed with another proposal in the near-distant future. The cycle repeats.

May we also allow edit access to the proposal in google docs? It will allow for easier conversation as people will be able to directly comment on specific areas of the proposal as well as make it easier to have compiled information rather than a bunch of posts on a thread.

Lasse wrote:

sounds good at first but has one major issue: a lot of BNs don't care about vetoes at all, they joined the BNG to push forward maps they like, not discuss vetoes on some random anime map. should only involve a part of the BNs (randomly selected group, volunteer group similar to QAH right now, idk). Point is, forcing ALL BNs do deal with every single veto seems pretty overdone and will also results in people either just not caring about their votes on a veto, or leaving BNG altogether because that's just not what they joined it for.

This, I agree.

Nao Tomori wrote:

second, and more importantly: unrankables and objective issues are not actually important or a good representation of a BN's skill. for example: BN A consistently pushes maps which have complex timing and snappings, which occasionally get DQ'd for some adjustments to timing or snapping. BN B exclusively nominates single bpm NHI 1/2 based anime maps which never get DQ'd.
BN A is at much, much, MUCH higher risk of getting kicked than BN B despite nominating more diverse or interesting content than the usual fare, and neither of the two maps getting DQ'd for being bad maps. Only counting objective DQ's does not mean that people can nominate risky maps - it just changes the definition of risky from "uses weird techniques" to "has an unquantized mp3" and doesn't address the core issue of people only wanting to nominate single bpm 1/2 based anime maps to avoid getting kicked for timing DQ's.
This is a fundamental problem with how QATs gave up on caring about map quality and only focusing on unrankables - unrankable issues are not major problems for the most part. A wrongly snapped slider takes a grand total of 2 seconds to fix. A 10ms red line adjustment is not a major problem that causes a good map to become terrible. Meanwhile people nominate all forms of complete and utter trash (Uta intro ver anyone?) which don't have unrankables and therefore suddenly they are fine.
I'm not saying to magically start giving a shit about mapping quality but this idea that a BN getting DQ's for timing is worse than a BN not getting DQ's because they nominate rankable trash is really stupid and shouldn't be in the score system. The score system should just be activity and SERIOUS unrankable issues (entire sections missing hitsoundings, large amounts of unsnaps due to fucked up green lines, 20+ms offset issues, etc.)

I saw alot of my friends having good intention to nominate complex timing and snappings. But they all got punished by how many dqs they got, ofcourse there will be a lot of dqs, and I think that's inevitable. For starter, maybe reduce the punishment of these because imo many bns especially new ones are getting push to nominate stupid 1-2 jumps etc etc,

Beatmap Nominator Applications will always be open

Ok lets handle this topic for a second.

The applications will still be composed of two parts, a ranking criteria proficiency test and a manual evaluation by members of the “Management Team”.

So, inevitably, the answers for the ranking criteria proficiency test will be leaked, secretly ofc, because the questions won't be unique (you haven't got that powerful of a team to do so) so they will be known to pretty much everyone applying, whilst the staff have been unaware for lets say 2 weeks - 2 months at the worst level of ignorance.

What happens then?

Ofc you can't allow any more people to take this test because it's no longer a test if they have the answers literally handed to them.

You really only have one choice, which is to close off the BN tests to re-write the questions in a way so that users can't just sail through in 10 min...but how long will this last until you're back in the same situation? Less than a month most likely.

There's a reason why no tests across the world are open 24/7, because it doesn't work. Sure, maybe having them open more frequently might be better, but always open isn't going to work. Also, that's putting a lot more stress on BN-checkers than they already have to deal with.

to be completely honest i dont think that even if the answers to the rc test are leaked it is a huge issue for 2 reasons:
1. the test itself is ridiculously easy
2. people who cheated to get in would presumably fail probation for bubbling a bunch of unrankables that they didnt know about

Nao Tomori wrote:

to be completely honest i dont think that even if the answers to the rc test are leaked it is a huge issue for 2 reasons:
1. the test itself is ridiculously easy
2. people who cheated to get in would presumably fail probation for bubbling a bunch of unrankables that they didnt know about

then what's the point of the test in the first place

the "RC test" is basically an open-book test since you will be referring to the RC as you take it. I think the point is just to make sure that the applicant can interpret it correctly--- in this case, even if they know the answers before-hand, it doesn't really matter, since they'll still be made aware of the correct information as they answer the questions

cheating here just turns the test into a lecture. I don't think it's really a big deal if anyone cheats on it

Nao Tomori wrote:

to be completely honest i dont think that even if the answers to the rc test are leaked it is a huge issue for 2 reasons:
1. the test itself is ridiculously easy
2. people who cheated to get in would presumably fail probation for bubbling a bunch of unrankables that they didnt know about

I think there is a reason for it to be easy. Well~ it's not really easy imo, more like tricky. especially for those whose just got into a process of being familiar with the RC test. Easy unrankables is the issue that BNs will mostly find throughtout their modding carrier. They can still learn while being a bn, myself have found some problems that I've never seen when I'm not a BN and I'm abit aware of that issues in the future. The process of knowing hard to find unrankables is still possible. Moreover, it happens rarely and only happens in complex maps. So if they are doing hard maps to nominate, they will know whats coming.


and yes, don't cheat please. if you cant pass an easy test like this. you pretty much deserve'nt becoming a BN.

Uta wrote:

I think there is a reason for it to be easy. Well~ it's not really easy imo, more like tricky. especially for those whose just got into a process of being familiar with the RC test. Easy unrankables is the issue that BNs will mostly find throughtout their modding carrier. They can still learn while being a bn, myself have found some problems that I've never seen when I'm not a BN and I'm abit aware of that issues in the future. The process of knowing hard to find unrankables is still possible. Moreover, it happens rarely and only happens in complex maps. So if they are doing hard maps to nominate, they will know whats coming.

and yes, don't cheat please. if you cant pass an easy test like this. you pretty much deserve'nt becoming a BN.

Yup, it's more tricky than being easy.

Also, even if someone tried to cheat and got through, the way they'll perform thier duties will reflect on how they really are fit to be a BN or not.

Learning more about things is a natural process, the only thing that differs is the growth pattern of each individual. Cheating will take you somewhere; but not that far enough to cut through.

There's more to learn about, but not written; experience will tech you those instead along the way - and that cannot be cheated.

any progress being made on this? what's currently holding it back?

exam season mostly i believe

will be resuming full focus on this myself once a few backlog projects are cleared later this month/nearly next month

Hello there! We are finally able to present you a new version of our proposal, improved with the help of your feedback.

Proposal [Updated]

Here is a short summary of all the changes we have made:

1. The "Management Team" will be named the Nominator Administration Team (NAT).
2. BN applications will have a three month cooldown starting from the day of submission.
3. BNs will be promoted roughly once a month.
4. BNs that rejoin within two weeks of leaving of their own accord may only do so once every six months.
5. Vetoes will be handled by a random jury of BNs. This random jury can be re-rolled by NAT if deemed necessary.
6. BNs who leave the jury will be replaced as needed by another random member.
7. Probation BNs will not be able to disqualify or participate in a veto jury. They may veto maps themselves however.

Moreover the proposed BN Score will be a future implementation that will be handled with its own proposal, similar to this one.

We are still taking feedback on this new version until Friday, March 15th 23:59 UTC+0. After that, we will go over into the implemenation phase so be sure to voice your concerns or approval now!

Mao wrote:

Vetoes will be handled by a random jury of BNs. This random jury can be re-rolled by NAT if deemed necessary.BNs who leave the jury will be replaced as needed by another random member.

Bad idea imo. Its like the RNG rounds to get into BN but for getting your map ranked lol. No thank you

rest is great

So this is basically the same system as currrent one but just a rename of the QAT ? Or am I missing something important. Oh yea having jurys for vetoes is pretty bad idea tho, it will just end up being a circlejerk of veto, it's better to have the NAT themselves to handle it not actual BNs.

I mean at least people now will stop blaming QAT for "not assuring quality", this is good idea!

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.

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)

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

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)

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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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...

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'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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

we're going to run out of letters to put before "AT" at some point :p

changes LGTM. nice work

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/

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

so... are we just waiting for one more revision based on the last comments? or is there discussion happening somewhere else?

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

The restructuring has been completed: https://osu.ppy.sh/home/news/2019-05-05-bn-and-qat-restructure