Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

Ephemeral wrote:

i don't see this working at all, to be honest. the logistical overhead of maintaining multiple systems like this would be immense, not to mention the level of oversight required to ensure that minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars.

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

i'm floating a hard no on this one just out of the combination of logistical overhead and potential for leadership stagnation, unless anyone has any viable ways to address those two issues somehow.

Ephemeral wrote:

i don't see this working at all, to be honest. the logistical overhead of maintaining multiple systems like this would be immense, not to mention the level of oversight required to ensure that minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars.

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

i'm floating a hard no on this one just out of the combination of logistical overhead and potential for leadership stagnation, unless anyone has any viable ways to address those two issues somehow.

MBomb wrote:

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.

Nepuri wrote:

In support of ephemeral:
Even if there was 2 BN roles aswell as the QAT role + the MT role in the system at any given time, that would just confuse mappers who are looking to get into other modes or even mappers who have no idea how the ranking process works.

When a new mapper looks into this entire ranking thing and has to wrap his head around the QAT, BNG1, BNG2, probation BNG1 and probation BNG2, the MT and all that wazoop i just find that to be way too intransparent to outside people to even understand the system, which could lead to even more stagnation than eph already suggested. Taiko basically becomes more closed than it already is.

PS; I find it unrealistic that the devs and all the other internal staff will bother enough for such a workaround by having to continue support for the old qat and bng purely logistically speaking

-Kazu- wrote:

MBomb wrote:

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.

In my eyes, the true problem doesn't come with salty BNs burning down the house on their way out (which is a huge issue on its own) but with passive-aggresive/ill-intentioned BNs shooting maps down for issues that are more triggering than helpful.
Just think how the whole ADAMAS speedranking thing would've happened if the BNs/people who popped the other set/etc. had the DQ button. Technically they would probably be right and would have been a well deserved DQ. Technically.

Ephemeral wrote:

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.

you're right, they *could*, but it's still a big introduction of systemic bloat for not a lot of actual gain all up. i can't really stress enough how closed-off retaining the current system would make the various other gamemodes - they're already really shuttered from the broad scope of their relatively small communities for the most part.

half of the beef of the new proposal we've floated is to open them up as much as possible, and i've slowly warmed up to the Loctav approach of treating all gamemodes under the same blanket over the years.

This counter-proposal requires the elected QAT leaders to actually care and manage every administrative aspect, which can be a difficult task.

Monstrata wrote:

Really big issue that I really doubt can be adequately addressed with non-standard communities. By that I mean, complete freedom of leadership in these smaller communities will result in certain opinions and views being dominated. There are not enough people in leadership positions to give a fair assessment of scenarios imo... not when there are what, 2 active QAT's?

I feel like this proposal just cements leadership positions for non-standard QAT's, and doesn't leave a lot of room for differing opinions if QAT's are given so much more weight (than they already have now) in comparison to the BN's.

Monstrata wrote:

This counter-proposal requires the elected QAT leaders to actually care and manage every administrative aspect, which can be a difficult task.

Really big issue that I really doubt can be adequately addressed with non-standard communities. By that I mean, complete freedom of leadership in these smaller communities will result in certain opinions and views being dominated. There are not enough people in leadership positions to give a fair assessment of scenarios imo... not when there are what, 2 active QAT's?

Monstrata wrote:

Another thing... a lot of the "pros" are stuff you already do anyways, no? Like mediate your own vetoes, managing mapping/modding criterias... Some of the things, like managing your own BN intake/applications will be solved with Mao's proposal anyways.

I feel like this proposal just cements leadership positions for non-standard QAT's, and doesn't leave a lot of room for differing opinions if QAT's are given so much more weight (than they already have now) in comparison to the BN's.

Raiden wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

MBomb wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

there's no systemic demarcation between BNs of any given mode and making them adhere to different usage principles is shonky at best (aka: regular bns would be able to dw, other-mode ones would still have the button, but be expressly instructed not to use it, you can imagine the risk factor there...)

with all due respect to this point, a bn could easily face swift punishment for this, and any issues caused by the usage of it would be very short lasting, to the point of being nowhere near worth abusing, especially with maps having the same time until rank after a dq.

i think the chances of this being abused are just as low as someone spam popping (or even spam nominating) maps, which has happened so few times, at least within my time in the osu community, that it's a near negligible risk.

you're right, they *could*, but it's still a big introduction of systemic bloat for not a lot of actual gain all up. i can't really stress enough how closed-off retaining the current system would make the various other gamemodes - they're already really shuttered from the broad scope of their relatively small communities for the most part.

half of the beef of the new proposal we've floated is to open them up as much as possible, and i've slowly warmed up to the Loctav approach of treating all gamemodes under the same blanket over the years.

I simply cannot see how this logic works. People come and go all the time. How would you know that the modes would become "more open" by forcefully implanting a change that is not needed based on a series of issues another game mode has? Because it would make everything follow the osu!standard formula? If anything, that would maybe encourage one day players, but scare staying players away. Those players who wish to get to the mapping/modding scene require a stable environment they can grow in, and not to be forced out of it as soon as the next X mode encounters a major trouble that forces a rework again.

Ephemeral wrote:

they'd become more open from the sheer fact that applications would be:

a) always open
b) only minimally influenced by the 'ruling circle' opinions on their personal worth (this is a HUGE issue with non-standard gamemode QAT at the moment and is one of the big reasons for the rework, funnily enough)
c) actually promoting an atmosphere of common discourse among a gamemode instead of blind deference to those "at the top"

stability is great, i agree. the BN have been extremely stable for the most part. the BN in particular have largely outperformed expectation in regards to keeping things well-oiled and moving, so we need more of them, and less of the rest. we want to empower people who want to get involved at the "depth" that they feel comfortable at, so that people don't think their opinions aren't worth anything just because they're not orange or whatever.

allowing the other gamemodes to cloister off into a defunct system that actively promotes leaving people in positions of power for years at a stretch is not the way i think anyone wants to see things proceed.

you might note this is a particularly scathing rebuke of this proposal, and this is largely because much of the sickness in the previous system manifested itself predominately in the other gamemodes. others outside the QAT were not privy to this - i was. standard dodged a bullet because it held the proportionally largest distribution of people which diluted much of the grossness down significantly. it is my hope that expanding the number of people involved in the other gamemodes will do the same there, too.

-Kazu- wrote:

So the thing goes like this: Don't give the dq button to BN (most people is against that anyway)

Ephemeral wrote:

they'd become more open from the sheer fact that applications would be:

a) always open
b) only minimally influenced by the 'ruling circle' opinions on their personal worth (this is a HUGE issue with non-standard gamemode QAT at the moment and is one of the big reasons for the rework, funnily enough)
c) actually promoting an atmosphere of common discourse among a gamemode instead of blind deference to those "at the top"

Raiden wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

they'd become more open from the sheer fact that applications would be:

a) always open
b) only minimally influenced by the 'ruling circle' opinions on their personal worth (this is a HUGE issue with non-standard gamemode QAT at the moment and is one of the big reasons for the rework, funnily enough)
c) actually promoting an atmosphere of common discourse among a gamemode instead of blind deference to those "at the top"

stability is great, i agree. the BN have been extremely stable for the most part. the BN in particular have largely outperformed expectation in regards to keeping things well-oiled and moving, so we need more of them, and less of the rest. we want to empower people who want to get involved at the "depth" that they feel comfortable at, so that people don't think their opinions aren't worth anything just because they're not orange or whatever.

allowing the other gamemodes to cloister off into a defunct system that actively promotes leaving people in positions of power for years at a stretch is not the way i think anyone wants to see things proceed.

you might note this is a particularly scathing rebuke of this proposal, and this is largely because much of the sickness in the previous system manifested itself predominately in the other gamemodes. others outside the QAT were not privy to this - i was. standard dodged a bullet because it held the proportionally largest distribution of people which diluted much of the grossness down significantly. it is my hope that expanding the number of people involved in the other gamemodes will do the same there, too.

About a), I can't say much. Agree nor disagree, as I don't have the empirical proof that this would work better than standarized timely applications.
I'm sorry but can you elaborate further on "b)"? I don't seem to be able to grasp what all of that means, unless this is a subtle way of implying that we don't care about work but only about our personal grudges.
Also, what does "promoting an atmosphere of common discourse" mean other than completely abolishing any existing quality standard (which is most likely what you wrote but trying to taint it in a bad light), which is what caused osu!standard to need this rework? The deference is not blind when those at the so-called top have rightfully earned their "top" title through long years of effort.

Maintenance of current system is your main priority, but this proposal puts way too much focus onto giving current QAT leadership complete control over everything. In practice this is already very much a thing, from talking to various people in old Taiko community.

"allowing the other gamemodes to cloister off into a defunct system that actively promotes leaving people in positions of power for years at a stretch is not the way i think anyone wants to see things proceed." Have you asked anyone here though? Having people for years in a position of power does not exclude other people joining in said positions of power if they do good enough.

Only the people at the "top" will be able to decide when someone is "good enough" to join a position of power under this proposal. You can see how this is a big issue.

On the last paragraph, it's been difficult for me to understand due to me not being a native speaker, but what I get from it is that you think our modes are actually WORSE than standard because of standard's bigger community dilluting down the "grossness". That's new. I never heard anything from you about this, which makes arguing kind of pointless here, especially if you already convinced yourself that you know what's the best for the other modes.

It's quite true though. Lack of leadership positions in minigame modes results in more constrained viewpoints. There are at most 3 people whose opinions and views are taken into consideration. For example, I don't know if Nardo still does this, or if the old japanese Taiko community just dissipated, but there used to be huge contention (not on forums of course) over how Nardo was checking spread issues and putting too much focus onto stuff like that. However, there was no way to "oppose" this. But this is from discord messages and community, etc... Gladly people in Taiko prefer to just suck it up and fix things instead of arguing, but this just illustrate potential problems in the future. What if another group of Taiko mappers emerges and has differing views to the current leadership position, but vehemently maintain that their method is sound?

Basically, with Mao's system, BN's are given more power to dictate these scenarios, and QAT's no longer concern themselves with this, and are instead concerned with administrative issues and "keeping the system working". Which is what you want right? A preservation of how these modes are currrently operating.