forum

QAT Restructure Counter-Proposal for non-standard modes

posted
Total Posts
82
Topic Starter
Raiden
Hello! After the recent discussions that have been undergoing on this thread regarding the QAT rework, and a proposal was fleshed out, we (o!taiko, o!catch and o!mania QAT) also came up with an alternative proposal, which would affect all modes beside osu!standard.

You can read this counter-proposal here.

We will run this proposal parallel to the other, in order to agilize the process. As such, please do post in this thread until Tuesday, February 5th 23:59 UTC. We will collect feedback then, and decide on an outcome.
Ascendance
BIG BIG BIG support

however, if possible, allowing QAT to maintain their moderation privileges (or be at the very least given the same privileges, whatever they may be, as the new Moderation Team in the standard proposal) would be nice. From what I know, at least in osu!catch, those powers are in good hands and have been used fairly.
Lumenite-
massive support for this restructure, this encourages me to rejoin the BNG. and as for what ascendance said above me, the moderation privs in taiko have been used fairly as well.
MBomb
I highly agree with this proposal, it fixes basically all of my main issues with the original proposal that were a major concern in my eyes as part of the ctb community (and former part of the ctb bng)
Kimitakari
Camprating with osu!std QAT proposal this one is the most proper proposal for QAT rework though I'm not sure with moderation priveleges and stuff.
Ephemeral
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

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.
DeletedUser_6637817
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
Lumenite-

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.


the easy solution is to not give any bns the dq button xd

no but on a serious note, i don't see any basis of the concern that "minigame leadership circles didn't just become a closed-off cabal of community regulars." but more so than that, subjecting these smaller modes who, as raiden said, are much better at quality control that standard may be is absolutely a terrible idea. the issue with the relationship between QAT and BNG in the minigames is not in their role, but rather the people in those positions. they may be qualified but inactive, or rather vice versa-the work they do and the "clearness" of their role was never an issue present in taiko.

also, your point regarding the button being there and being instructed not to use it used to exist in the first probation test run and worked fine, and still exists for probationary bns if a full BN has not already nominated the map. this concern exists no matter what and has existed for a long time, but if people really want to be on the team they will follow the rules-that's what history has shown here. if you're okay with those systems going through-surely it wouldn't make a difference here.
Topic Starter
Raiden

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.

Hello and thanks for tuning in. In regards to the logistical overhead, it was one of the cons stated on the document. We also don't see the other proposal working in our modes whatsoever, not because of logistical reasons, but because of the illogical approach it means to treat every single mode the exact same, when only one of them is having the issues. This whole logistical overwork is happening because of a single mode. Maintaining our status quo is, if anything, easier to do than reworking permissions, adding usergroups and whatnot.

Minigame leadership would be exactly like QAT leadership has been till now. Those who are elected would answer to the higher ups in the name of their respective mode. I really see no issue here, even less the "closed-off cabal of community regulars"

For the second point: that has been like that always. Mode-specificity has been a made up thing on the get-go after the community in general observed how unpractical it was for someone in X mode to run around nominating other modes content. If anything, it is even shonkier to not have adapted this regulation logistically earlier, as it would have avoided all this trouble and made handling hybrids sets much easier.

In short, the logistical overhead is something we cannot do anything about, as it is out of our reach. The "leadership stagnation" thing, I can't even agree with it to begin with, leadership would not change from current iteration, and so far it was just fine and supported by everyone?

We simply cannot agree to let an event that does not affect us to drag us to a change we do not want to make. Thanks again for your comments and we expect to see more.
-Kazu-

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

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.
Topic Starter
Raiden

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

Absolutely disagree with this. The only point you are making here is that the system would be more complex due to multiple sub-systems and that would automatically imply our mode became more closed. If anything, uniqueness does attract a higher quantity of the playerbase. Plus, you are forgetting the essentials here: this system has been established for more than 4 years now, and has worked so far for our modes. A system that has held itself for so long generates more confidence than a brand new one that no one knows how it works yet, let alone the fact that the issues that propelled this new system do not affect us in the first place.

P.S.: I also find it unrealistic and illogical to approach all modes with the same mindset, ignoring its own idiosincrasies.
MBomb

-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.


But the point is, we wouldn't be allowed to use the dq button at all, even if it was available to us, and if anything, you're agreeing with the point that them having those permissions at all is a bad idea, something which is one of my many concerns with the original proposal, and that I like about this one...
Topic Starter
Raiden

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.
-Kazu-
So the thing goes like this: Don't give the dq button to BN (most people is against that anyway), let the main proposal get applied however they want causing us minigame QATs get renamed as Management Team.
Then we keep our current functions and from that we diverge on the way we manage things, how often BN apps are open, which considerations we take in order to raise new Managers, etc.
Thats how both proposals coexist. This proposal focal point is letting the minigames work like they have always done, and letting standard implement their formulas, methods, etc.
Monstrata
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?



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.
-Kazu-

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.


Yep, you got it right, that's why if this becomes a reality all mini-games will need to raise at least one new QAT, the number's up to each gamemode.
Topic Starter
Raiden

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?
I don't see how those opinions would dominate, given that the exclusive role of the QAT leader is to act as a bridge between the QAT and the higher ups. And there are more active QATs in the minigames than you are actually accounting for, which makes it a false statement from the beginning. Not to mention that 1 person handling a smaller community is much more feasible than 2 people managing the entirety of the mapping and modding scene (which has been happening till now and no one had any complaint?)



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.
That would not be correct. Every mediation has needed to be on a strict time frame set up by the QAT as a whole, no matter if the QAT of X gamemode did not agree on that specific time frame regulation; activity requirement is shared between modes and you are not allowed to open beatmap nominator applications whenever you desire. And again, for the last point, QAT leadership serves as a bridge, not as an opinion dictatorship.

If anything, there is the possibility of both proposals coexisting as -Kazu- said in a post above, which would allow some of the points from Ephemeral and Mao's proposal to be applied without changing much of the status quo.
Ephemeral

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.


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.
Arzenvald
For what I see, QAT system in mini game modes are as imperfect as it is, but it works as it is since the introduction of the system and after the undergoing changes, it's understandable that generally speaking, main game mode / osu!standard QA team is /failed/ due to the changes that has been made on the QAT system in the past recent year, but I hope the smaller mini game player base can retain the current system.

Also please don't introduce scoring system for mini games nominator. It was the most stressful nominatorship I've ever experienced in the past, not to mention that the system itself was very unpolished by today standard.

As for new application, wouldn't the new proposal about always open application works along with the current system?
Topic Starter
Raiden

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.

"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.

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.

In any case, please do read -Kazu-'s post above, as he suggested that it is actually possible for both proposals to coexist.
Ascendance

-Kazu- wrote:

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

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"


I feel all of these points are quite disputable, at least in catch, I am unsure about other modes, but I assume taiko and mania are the same.

a) The possibility of bn applications being open at all time I feel could easily be made readily possible even in Raiden's proposed system, taking that part and adding it to our systems wouldn't cause too much extra strain, especially considering the rarity of new people aiming for bn in our modes.

b) This has never been an issue, at least in catch, from what I've seen. New bn cycles regularly bring people not overly involved in the community, or even those that have a less positive reputation, if they prove their modding skill and that their attitude won't be a huge cause of concern in that position. I also don't really see what the initial proposal does to fix this even if it was an issue, since new BNs (I think) are handled by the management team in the new system, the same way the QAT does now.

c) Again, this may just be catch, but there's never really been any sort of blind deference to the QAT since around 2015, and the atmosphere of common disagreements and discourse already exists, people don't feel they have to think exactly the same as QATs except those who feel this way purely because of a difference in experience, a case which wouldn't change with the new system.
Monstrata

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.
DeletedUser_1981781
Strong support. I have nothing to add after reading my fellows' inputs on the matter.
I've been supporting the idea of different systems for different gamemodes for over a year now, so I'm happy to see a well structured proposal like this.
Topic Starter
Raiden

Monstrata wrote:

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.

Again, QAT leadership's job is to bridge the communication between higher-ups and the QAT. "From talking to old Taiko community" you can extract as much biased information as you want, that does not make it necessarily true. In their time it may have been like that, but things have surely changed. I don't know if for the better or for the worse. We don't have nearly as much authority as the old QAT used to have back in 2014-2015.

"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.

While I personally do not find this an issue, since we have not had any problem with this method of selection, there could always be alternate ways of choosing those on the top. Yes, even a popularity vote would be valid, if you stretch me enough.

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.


That simply does not happen anymore. First of all, the QAT does not have an inch of the authority they used to have in 2014-2015. Secondly, spread regulations, while having always been a very strict element of the taiko mapping/modding scene, have certainly softened due to the community's large input. If that said group of new taiko mappers reason well enough that their viewpoint is sound, there would be legit zero issue on letting them keeping that method. I insist, the leadership does not correspond to an opinion dictatorship; only to answer to higher ups in the name of the mode.

And lastly, BNs already have the power to dictate the scenario by sheer nomination power. The QAT in our modes have not expressed a desire to exclusively keep themselves occupied on administrative tasks, which makes the last point kind of unnecessary.


The input is much appreciated.
Monstrata
I mean, by virtue of being a QAT, you're already biased anyways, so no point saying my argument isn't good because it's biased. Everyone will have some xD. QAT leadership should be for administrative purposes, that is what the proposal is pushing for. But your counter-proposal is attempting to keep QAT's in this position of being the final word on any subjective matters, when it can be pushed directly to the BNG as their responsibility. One important change with Mao's proposal is that the current QAT will no longer have any say that is more weighted than a regular BN which is good imo. It means far less influence on the part of the QAT in terms of mapping and modding related issues, but allows them to continue with the upkeep and administrative tasks associated with QAT.

And of course, promotion to this new Management Team should be vote based, not based on QAT selection procedures. Of course, you might disagree, but you are a QAT after all, it's fair to say you'd be biased towards saying the current selection policy is good, no? Otherwise it's like you're shooting yourself in the foot by saying your own selection policy was somehow not good haha. (But honestly is appreciated).
Nofool

Counter-Proposal wrote:

Pros:
- We are no longer held back by other modes in special cases that would require explicit participation of other mode QAT members.
Which special cases ? What in the new proposal assumes that a mode will be "held back" by another ?

- We are able to run, with our own timer, every administrative process such as BN applications and probation reviews, veto mediations, etc.
The new proposal hopes to make BN applications always open, which creates a situation where active members can always apply so there is never a period of time that lacks of active BNs, what can possibily be better ? The new proposal forces 2 people to agree over applying a veto, which is better (as in less subjective) than only one. All other BNs then have to vote to mediate the veto, which is better (as in less subjective) than just a few people (as in current QATs) who were given this role through a non-transparent system. What better veto system do you propose ?

- We can apply our own criteria in every aspect of the mapping and modding community (e.g. make our own activity requirements).
What criteria should be different from one mode to another, apart from ranking criteria (which i assume will still be splited as a generalization is not stated in the new proposal) ? I don't see a reason to have a specific activity requirement per mode, for example.

- Each of the members will be taken care of more intensively because of the presence of QAT leaders for each individual mode. The QAT leaders who took care of the entirety of the 4 modes caused some of the modes to fall short when it came to noticing whether something serious was happening or not, and having a QAT leader in each mode would certainly prevent that.
The new proposal promises a montlhy checkup on every BN to see if they keep doing their job well, how do you make it more "intense" with your system ?


Without these answers i don't see how your counter-proposal, which doesn't seem very different from the actual system, is better than the other proposal. Your main issue seems to be about how the generalization badly affect non-std modes, yet it isn't stated that the new "management team" won't be "splited" to make mode-speficic decision-making.
Feraligatr
strong support for the counter-proposal.

Mao's proposal is mainly fixing the standard problems, but when taken to account for all modes, it is very weak imo

and I will agree with -Kazu- earlier that the DQ button SHOULDN'T be given to BNs; BNs already do a check before bubbling thus giving the DQ button to BNs is just a matter of opinion to the nominator(s) themselves.
Topic Starter
Raiden

Nofool wrote:

Counter-Proposal wrote:

Pros:
- We are no longer held back by other modes in special cases that would require explicit participation of other mode QAT members.
Which special cases ? What in the new proposal assumes that a mode will be "held back" by another ?
1. Voting on a Beatmap Nominator's dismissal, probation reviews, etc. So far, they required the entire QAT to vote, and you could be waiting days for them to vote.
2. Beatmap Nominator Applications. Although this would become irrelevant if they are open the entire time with the other proposal, assumed they are permitted to coexist.


- We are able to run, with our own timer, every administrative process such as BN applications and probation reviews, veto mediations, etc.
The new proposal hopes to make BN applications always open, which creates a situation where active members can always apply so there is never a period of time that lacks of active BNs, what can possibily be better ? The new proposal forces 2 people to agree over applying a veto, which is better (as in less subjective) than only one. All other BNs then have to vote to mediate the veto, which is better (as in less subjective) than just a few people (as in current QATs) who were given this role through a non-transparent system. What better veto system do you propose ?
As stated in the proposal, we would run our own. If standard's proposal worked well enough we could implant it to our own mode, this is not a rigid proposal.

- We can apply our own criteria in every aspect of the mapping and modding community (e.g. make our own activity requirements).
What criteria should be different from one mode to another, apart from ranking criteria (which i assume will still be splited as a generalization is not stated in the new proposal) ? I don't see a reason to have a specific activity requirement per mode, for example.
"Criteria" here implies a general, "joker" word. And I don't see why activity requirements should be the same for all modes? Every mode has its own intricancies and we would empirically find what's optimal for each and every mode. E.g. modding an osu!catch set may be more difficult than a taiko set, therefore making activity requirements lighter for catch.

- Each of the members will be taken care of more intensively because of the presence of QAT leaders for each individual mode. The QAT leaders who took care of the entirety of the 4 modes caused some of the modes to fall short when it came to noticing whether something serious was happening or not, and having a QAT leader in each mode would certainly prevent that.
The new proposal promises a montlhy checkup on every BN to see if they keep doing their job well, how do you make it more "intense" with your system ?

One of the proposed methods in the proposal is to enforce minimum QA work by every QAT if necessary, added to the already present QAH. Not only that, but our proposal also makes it clear that every QAT member will be closely reviewed by the QAT leader who will have the administrative power to contact higher ups, should one of the QAT members sway away from their duties or misbehave in some way. The rest of the QAT team would do their usual monthly activity check on the BNG, just like it has been happening till now. That's not a change on the other proposal nor on ours.

Without these answers i don't see how your counter-proposal, which doesn't seem very different from the actual system, is better than the other proposal. Your main issue seems to be about how the generalization badly affect non-std modes, yet it isn't stated that the new "management team" won't be "splited" to make mode-speficic decision-making.

I don't fully understand the last sentence, mind elaborating?

Thanks for your time.
frukoyurdakul
Special activity requirement is something that indeed should be considered, as the minigame community is smaller than osu!standard community in a huge way and having the 3-month elaboration makes most of the solid modders' chances to go away, because mostly they get bored seeing same stuff and decide to give up even after a month due to variety issues. It also should be strictly approached inside BNG community as, for example, instead of examining the activity in a month, it should be done in a week or 2 weeks.

Besides that, if the BNs were capable of managing veto systems by themselves, then why a QAT member is assigned to solve the problem and make it go away if something has happened and couldn't be solved? There was a reason why this was implemented, and it should stay in minigames (or, from what I've seen, in Taiko) since it seems to be working.

I'm supporting this proposal, however there is a big "con" that is mentioned in the proposal itself.

Raiden's proposal wrote:

Dissonance in hybrid set management. Since every mode would work differently, there may be disagreements in the handling of a set, especially if it comes to the point that the osu!standard QAT completely dissolves and we do not.


This particular one would make hybrid mapsets with osu!standard disappear, as from what I've seen the chances of having disagreements between osu!standard BN and minigame BN are pretty high. Considering all gamemodes are using the same modding system, I can only say hybrid mapsets with osu!standard and a minigame should be disallowed.

Sorry for my lack of English, by the way. I'm not a native speaker.
Kibbleru
I mean.. sure but to implement this you actually need the devs to add even more usergroups lol..

Peppy's busy with lazer, so i don't really see him coding in even more usergroups for different game modes.
Nao Tomori
i support anything that brings incandaddy back to bng
-Kazu-

Kibbleru wrote:

I mean.. sure but to implement this you actually need the devs to add even more usergroups lol..

Peppy's busy with lazer, so i don't really see him coding in even more usergroups for different game modes.


Our proposal doesn't require to add new groups, they don't even attempt to separate minigames from standard in the game code, the difference comes only at how we handle the stuff mentioned before
-MysticEyes
Really, really amazing proposal.

I think imposing a solution to an issue that applies only to standard onto all 3 modes doesn't take into account the unique intricacies that each mode has and this proposal provides a happy medium between standard's solution and this solution by allowing them to co-exist. Mad respect to the QATs who came up with this.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply