forum

QAT Restructure Counter-Proposal for non-standard modes

posted
Total Posts
82
show more
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.
clayton
if there are any development challenges on the osu-web side of things (that aren't crazy in scope) I'd be down to set some time aside to help. I know sometimes the employed devs have too much of a backlog to make quick changes for these sorts of things

e: I'm not going to follow this thread so msg me somewhere else if you want my help
Tailsdk
I think this in the right direction. The QAT in mania while sometimes busy seams to work. However i do like the always open bn applications from the other idea
Kurokami
Handling Game Modes differently is a wise idea and to answer Ephemerals concerns, it shouldn't be too much different than any other system. Like, your concern is that it becomes too complicated but that is not true, just leave them to do their things and occasionally talk with their leader to get information. Or just observe them as you did so far since it will be mostly the same.

Treating all game modes under the same blanket is one thing, but treating small game modes under the same blanket as osu!standard is another. These game modes sometimes just can't be as active as the other. Also, having a score based system is kinda unnecessary.

I am pretty sure, unless things changed since then, that the current QATs can keep their moderation powers, if they want to, only the new ones won't get it. The last part can be changed so the new ones will get it too. Being able to delete posts and moderate the discussions on sight is a huge benefit and should be maintained. Not because of power but because giving more job to the GMT is not the best way to go, especially when it comes to mapping/modding.

You do not necessarily need to maintain the moderator powers of the QAT, just simply put these guys into GMT (They should be asked about these additions of course but I am pretty sure their only concerns are the osu!standard guys) so they can keep moderating these convos.

With all that said, I am pretty sure that both systems can coexist next to each other without too much of hassle, but ways need to be found to make it work. I do not think that having some difference in how to handle game modes will hurt things.
clayton
just reading through some posts, here are some things I would like to respond to from random parts. i dont rly agree or disagree with the proposal but some arguments stuck out to me as being either wrong or just too vague to be addressed properly:

Ephemeral wrote:

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

if I understand the proposal correctly, the likelihood of this happening should not increase to anything more than it is right now. IDK if it's a problem rn, but if it's not, then it shouldn't be under this proposal either. also, even though each mode will be independent in some sense, it's not like their respective moderation teams (management team, qat, gmt, whatever) are going to be blind to each other

Ephemeral wrote:

(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...)

easy fix on the dev side of things; not a relevant concern

Nepuri wrote:

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

agreed that having such an amount of groups/systems working together would be confusing. however, this can likely be solved with clearer labels and more proper information made available to everybody, for example via the wiki or something. perhaps a tooltip on these roles' names that could help the average osu! player understand what they mean

Nepuri wrote:

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

again if I understand correctly there will be very little dev overhead apart from the initial switch (which, is already very present in the other proposal that will likely make its way into the live system). also I'll probably personally help out with this stuff so yea

Ephemeral wrote:

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.

I think you should provide concrete examples here; it seems like Raiden & others disagree with u because in their experience there really hasn't been a lot of "sickness" in this system since like 2015 or whatever

Raiden wrote:

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.

true, though the possibility is there. Ephemeral and Monstrata both have a very valid concern that this proposal lets a small group of people slowly turn their own opinions into the status quo and they might be able to exclude others without even realising it. maybe clarify in the proposal how this might be avoided, like some checks&balances on the QAT from the BNG or something. idk

---

overall I think y'all are overreacting when u say this proposal would be difficult to manage. it's basically just "keep things how they are for other modes" and then adapting to fit in with the proposed osu!standard changes

on the other hand, the only real argument at all I saw for not just accepting the other proposal is that other modes don't need it and change is inherently worse than no change because unknown things are unknown. which is kinda lame imo, a system will never improve if you don't let it change
Ephemeral
concrete examples:

Ascendance being stonewalled for the better part of several years due to broad, very personal concerns about his suitability that culminated in a QAT handling the applications being conclusively proven to interfere with them in an effort to prevent his addition - a situation that required my direct intervention no less than three times

the taiko QAT repeatedly resisting direct instructions from the QAT leadership to appoint more of them into their midst because they felt that their highly limited, closeted circle was "sufficient" (it wasnt)

this counter-proposal thus comes to me as no surprise, as it the initial proposal floated by the current QAT leadership essentially broadly removes the direct power that much of the small-mode QAT have over their specific gamemodes, the same power that is essentially relying on total benevolence in order to not strangle out their particular modding/mapping scenes. it gives this power instead to all participants in the system, and knowing what i know of how the other gamemode communities are, this appalls some people as it means that they now might actually have to consider the opinions of their peers seriously instead of ignoring or belittling them.

to cite my stance here more clearly, i'm not supporting this proposal. it is a hard no. we're not having an entirely separate collection of usergroups, permissions and addition/progression structure to house three gamemodes to sate the desire for relevancy and prestige of a handful of people. all gamemodes MUST be treated equally in this regard.

the fact that people on certain discords are citing this as gamemode "independence" speaks volumes as to how ridiculous the entire thing is.
Ascendance

Ephemeral wrote:

concrete examples:

Ascendance being stonewalled for the better part of several years due to broad, very personal concerns about his suitability that culminated in a QAT handling the applications being conclusively proven to interfere with them in an effort to prevent his addition - a situation that required my direct intervention no less than three times

the taiko QAT repeatedly resisting direct instructions from the QAT leadership to appoint more of them into their midst because they felt that their highly limited, closeted circle was "sufficient" (it wasnt)
Personally I believe that this just requires a change of roster rather than a full-scale rework (especially considering that first situation is a massive problem).

My biggest problem looking at the QAT rework is that generally it fixes things that aren't broken in the smaller modes, but does a lot more for standard. We don't have a massive ecosystem to support what's planned to be put in place. My other is that every nominator gets a DQ button, which, in my opinion, could end up being a potential disaster. After talking with an undisclosed member of the QAT, I wrote this up on a whim and it doesn't sound awful. Some people cannot be trusted with a DQ button, even if their modding proficiency is enough. I've seen enough times where maps are popped for reasons that don't exist. While DQ's are no longer as destructive as they used to be, a disqualification is a power that goes beyond a pop, and it should be treated as such.
Topic Starter
Raiden
To think I was already munching in my head reworks to this proposal to make it work better with the original one, and I come here to find this outrageous answer.

You have now just cut off the last bit of the rope that held us together. You have now just flat out accused us of simply wanting this proposal in order to maintain a position of power -basically called us power-hungry dictators-, which is not only a blatant lie, but also contains the aggravant of coming from someone on the higher ups. You have just now undermined YEARS of effort done in hopes of bettering and maintaining a game mode's environment stable and healthy, in the matter of seconds. You have just now ASSUMED that we, in our "thirst for power", ignored our peers or belittled them, and that the QAT somehow held insane amounts of power in the minigames. Where was it? I couldn't see it.

I already knew your stance would be an unchangeable "no" from the moment of your first post. Hard to convince someone who already convinced themselves they know what's best for everyone. And I find it again doubly ridiculous that you think this is all to maintain power. Your sense of distrust in people who have been spending years here in exchange for nothing is but extraordinary.

I normally respect people who make brave decisions. I'll give that to you. But to see those words coming from your own mouth, it wounds me.

With all things considered, this is game over for me. I tried my best but wasn't good enough. Good luck everyone.
Secre
After looking at Ascendance's post here https://puu.sh/CEE59/253f26785d.pngI have to really agree with this solution he brought up regarding the "BN DQ" button.

This gives QAH members a stronger voice in the community (as they should) while not giving the DQ button to everyone, potentially causing more chaos

+1
clayton

Ephemeral wrote:

we're not having an entirely separate [...] structure to house three gamemodes to sate the desire for relevancy and prestige of a handful of people. all gamemodes MUST be treated equally in this regard.

definitely agree on this part, I don't think that the words of a few should be dictating some parts of the modding/mapping scene. the examples u give are good for showing how the QAT (especially the smaller QAT groups formed in alt. modes) likely need to have some kind of implied check on their actions so they can't do unjust things like that

so in the context of this proposal I think that means either
1: drop the proposal, since the other open proposal addresses this concern by making BN and ex-QAT even players
2: add something to this proposal that would prevent the QAT from making poor choices as in the examples
Nao Tomori
re: the dq button stuff

a) people that want to check qualified maps (qahs) would apply and get it anyway, and dq maps
b) people that do not check qualified maps (not qahs) would not use the dq button
c) if abused people would just get kicked, i don't see how this is different from spam bubble popping

it just creates less "ok now ping a qat and put it on trello and post in the thread and shit nobody checked it in time now its getting unranked" kind of situations lol. how often do you really think people will get themselves kicked over dqing a map that shouldn't have been because they had a temper tantrum? and everyone makes mistakes, accidental pops are pretty much the same as accidental dq's (and both happen) so i don't see the reason that bns getting dq button suddenly upends the system when by and large everything remains the same with less moving parts
abraker
While I think it's makes sense for each gamemode to have their own system, I think this makes things a bit too brittle in regards to osu's future. We've had a certain defined number of gamemodes for quite some time, each vastly different from the other. This proposal solidifies that notion even further, like a solid block of concrete. I know peppy has plans that would allow people to make up various gamemodes like addons for the game and eventually allow those various gamemodes to have rankable maps, whatever they are. Consider a soup of gameplay elements mixed together to produce a whole variety of hybrids for which no distinct line can be drawn to mark that one needs to be operated differently than the other. Suddenly that solid block of concrete becomes too brittle to work, something more flexible is needed. The current system of having all gamemodes under one umbrella doesn't make much sense now, but this proposal is going to crash and burn in the future.
Monstrata
Agree with Ephemeral about the cases mentioned. Both Ascendance being stonewalled, and Taiko QAT environment. I don't think calling it a "dictatorship" is accurate, but it really did feel like certain QAT's were constantly imposing their views onto the entirety of taiko maps.

I'm sure things have improved a bit since last year when I was triple-mode BN but I distinctly remember these still being big issues back then. I'm not as close with the minigame communities nowadays but it's sad to see they still seem to be issues today, talking to current ctb and taiko bn's.

Not sure what's happening with Mania tbh, I feel like there's just not much leadership there to begin with but /shrug. (9K SEE YOU IN RANKED)
Ephemeral

Raiden wrote:

You have now just cut off the last bit of the rope that held us together. You have now just flat out accused us of simply wanting this proposal in order to maintain a position of power -basically called us power-hungry dictators-, which is not only a blatant lie, but also contains the aggravant of coming from someone on the higher ups. You have just now undermined YEARS of effort done in hopes of bettering and maintaining a game mode's environment stable and healthy, in the matter of seconds. You have just now ASSUMED that we, in our "thirst for power", ignored our peers or belittled them, and that the QAT somehow held insane amounts of power in the minigames.


correct!

it's very difficult to take the behavior i saw any other way, i'm afraid. i kept my mouth shut about it and my intervention as minimal as possible as per the terms of the upheaval, but after seeing a handful of some of the most strong-willed and valuable contributors i've seen in years be torn to bits by the system and the people it empowered, i'd choose literally anything else over seeing it continue again.

if we must have tyranny, it will be the tyranny of the majority and nothing else. ideally, involving as many people as possible will ease this somewhat, which is what the floated proposal aims to achieve by opening the BN up significantly and empowering them in the process.
-Kazu-
When exactly did "working in the bn/qat for a long time" go from an achievement and a respectable service for the game to a despicable act against the game done by the power-hungry dictators up there?
I refuse to believe those words came from anybody that cares for osu anymore, it really shows how distorted you guys views are.
Also it's been repeated several times, this just won't make things more complex to handle as it doesn't require any sort of special roles for us to work and the mental puzzle coming from having different system working is easily avoidable with accesible information.

And last, our proposal also speaks about the need of raising new QATs, while Raiden talking about also using BN Apps as frequently as the standard ones. How can you guys just argue against things we already got feedback for and will apply as per requested, ignoring the thread completely?
Nardoxyribonucleic
After reading the responses above, I am really shocked that the long-standing work and contributions made with the entitled responsibilities are regarded as inauthentic intention by the introduction of this counter-proposal. I honestly fail to see the correlation and am pretty sad to witness the distrust of a higher-up through this.

I would say everything in taiko and other non-standard game modes mostly worked fine with the existing system for years, which is the main reason we constructed this counter-proposal in attempt to preserve the usual workflow and organisational processes. Changes mentioned in the linked proposal seem to be unnecessary for these modes as similar flaws have not appeared since the beginning of my service as a BN and then a QAT.

Lastly, in case the linked proposal realises and this counter-proposal cannot co-exist with it, I hope the non-standard game modes could stay good and continue to thrive without encountering disastrous situations.
Hydria
I think what we've realised here is that we need a more qualified "Community Manager" or w/e Ephemeral's role is.
MBomb
It's kinda worrying to see this sort of response from a community manager I agree, but especially when I know the case for ctb is taken highly out of context. Whilst ascendance is a great friend of mine now, his attitude during the time he was being "stonewalled" from the bng had the potential to be a huge issue, and even caused issues for the start of his return to the bng. You can say it was a dictatorship, but that's just simply not true when the reasons for not letting someone return should be the knowledge there has been no change since the reason they were kicked.
Ascendance

MBomb wrote:

It's kinda worrying to see this sort of response from a community manager I agree, but especially when I know the case for ctb is taken highly out of context. Whilst ascendance is a great friend of mine now, his attitude during the time he was being "stonewalled" from the bng had the potential to be a huge issue, and even caused issues for the start of his return to the bng. You can say it was a dictatorship, but that's just simply not true when the reasons for not letting someone return should be the knowledge there has been no change since the reason they were kicked.
the case(s) he is referring to is not in regards to attitude, but it's been something that's largely private and behind the scenes (cuz my attitude was only really an issue back in 2016 and early 2017)

if you're actually curious you can poke me ig
Nofool
If anything, reactions from QATs on this thread only validate what Ephemeral said. The only difference between this counter proposal and the original is that the power stays withing a few people's hands, promoted through a non-transparent system, as said before.

Nothing in the new proposal stops QATs (renamed "Management Team" to make it look like they disappeared) from managing each mode in a different way. The proposal doesn't disallow a mode specific part of the Management Team to get its own activity requirement, score system or whatever.

The only clear forced changes are :
- BNs having a DQ button (which is a joke compared to the veto right that is waaaaaay more powerful, and that they already had)
- New veto mediation system (which is much more fair than the actual system)
Kibbleru
The one thing we severely want to avoid is the "black box" of mediation.

A map is sent through, who knows what happens, and an answer is put out for who knows why. The new system is to prevent the QATs from having all the power of deciding vetoes, but they can still participate, just their opinions will not recieve any elevated weight.

The main arguments i see as to why this wouldn't work is that they "don't trust" their BNs to handle this responsibility, which seems to be the core issue that you want to resolve. There are other ways to solve this than having a prestigious group handle them i think?

Btw, i don't see any comments from any mania, and ctb QATs so is this problem only for taiko?
Myxo
My perspective is the perspective of mostly an outsider regarding the other modes, but I always thought the situation was questionable when I still was part of the QAT. Ever since the system where QATs had full power over the qualified beatmaps was abandoned, I felt that the leadership of the different gamemodes barely worked together and the quality standards, management etc of each mode has drifted away from each other more and more. I think this is a bad thing and a lot of changes and improvements to the mapping and modding system could go by a lot more smoother if the different gamemodes wouldn't already each do their thing.

To give a personal example, I've been ranking my first taiko mapset in years last month and the situation in taiko seems a lot different from standard. Of course one major difference is the size of the team - it's just natural the BN of taiko is smaller than standard's BN team because the gamemode has fewer players, mappers and modders. However, there were other differences which I really couldn't get behind. Like why the guideline part of the taiko ranking criteria seems to be enforced in such an uncritical and unthoughtful way, with the people enforcing it seemingly for the sake of it, instead of actually thinking about what improvements or damage it would provide to a map. Or why I get told by BNs to change something in my map, then when I discuss with them it turns out they don't actually think the change would improve the map (if anything arguably make it worse) but they mentioned it for the sole reason of "There have been maps disqualified for this in the past".

This is of course just an example, but I could give more examples of differing approaches to quality assurance and other topics from the time when I was still QAT. I don't understand why stuff like this would be managed any differently across multiple gamemodes. The only meaningful difference between the gamemodes should be the size of the teams. But in reality, there are other differences and (like the one I just mentioned) not all of them are "worse" in standard than on taiko or the other modes, like you constantly wanna put it.



Your goal with this proposal seems to be to manage the other gamemodes in an even more different way than standard (since right now, all gamemodes technically run under the same system, and even here the differences exist). Why not allow to bring them back together? I don't see why taiko or catch or mania should enforce quality in a different way. If anything from the other proposal clashes with the smaller team sizes in other modes (for example, the majority vote thing in the BN), then that's a valid issue to bring up. If anything from the other proposal clashes with your ideals of how quality assurance should be handled, then bring it up, but in that case it won't just be relevant to one gamemode or three gamemodes, it would most likely be relevant to all gamemodes. Otherwise I don't see the need for handling everything in a different way.
-Kazu-

Myxomatosis wrote:

My perspective is the perspective of mostly an outsider regarding the other modes, but I always thought the situation was questionable when I still was part of the QAT. Ever since the system where QATs had full power over the qualified beatmaps was abandoned, I felt that the leadership of the different gamemodes barely worked together and the quality standards, management etc of each mode has drifted away from each other more and more. I think this is a bad thing and a lot of changes and improvements to the mapping and modding system could go by a lot more smoother if the different gamemodes wouldn't already each do their thing.

To give a personal example, I've been ranking my first taiko mapset in years last month and the situation in taiko seems a lot different from standard. Of course one major difference is the size of the team - it's just natural the BN of taiko is smaller than standard's BN team because the gamemode has fewer players, mappers and modders. However, there were other differences which I really couldn't get behind. Like why the guideline part of the taiko ranking criteria seems to be enforced in such an uncritical and unthoughtful way, with the people enforcing it seemingly for the sake of it, instead of actually thinking about what improvements or damage it would provide to a map. Or why I get told by BNs to change something in my map, then when I discuss with them it turns out they don't actually think the change would improve the map (if anything arguably make it worse) but they mentioned it for the sole reason of "There have been maps disqualified for this in the past".

This is of course just an example, but I could give more examples of differing approaches to quality assurance and other topics from the time when I was still QAT. I don't understand why stuff like this would be managed any differently across multiple gamemodes. The only meaningful difference between the gamemodes should be the size of the teams. But in reality, there are other differences and (like the one I just mentioned) not all of them are "worse" in standard than on taiko or the other modes, like you constantly wanna put it.



Your goal with this proposal seems to be to manage the other gamemodes in an even more different way than standard (since right now, all gamemodes technically run under the same system, and even here the differences exist). Why not allow to bring them back together? I don't see why taiko or catch or mania should enforce quality in a different way. If anything from the other proposal clashes with the smaller team sizes in other modes (for example, the majority vote thing in the BN), then that's a valid issue to bring up. If anything from the other proposal clashes with your ideals of how quality assurance should be handled, then bring it up, but in that case it won't just be relevant to one gamemode or three gamemodes, it would most likely be relevant to all gamemodes. Otherwise I don't see the need for handling everything in a different way.


It's interesting that you mention that, but that happens to be an issue regarding the Criteria and not the way the current QAT enforces stuff (most the time we also see ourselves having our hands tied by the criteria). This is also something we could strive to work towards fixing if we are to get the green light about being able to do so.
Monstrata

Nardoxyribonucleic wrote:

After reading the responses above, I am really shocked that the long-standing work and contributions made with the entitled responsibilities are regarded as inauthentic intention by the introduction of this counter-proposal. I honestly fail to see the correlation and am pretty sad to witness the distrust of a higher-up through this.

I would say everything in taiko and other non-standard game modes mostly worked fine with the existing system for years, which is the main reason we constructed this counter-proposal in attempt to preserve the usual workflow and organisational processes. Changes mentioned in the linked proposal seem to be unnecessary for these modes as similar flaws have not appeared since the beginning of my service as a BN and then a QAT.

Lastly, in case the linked proposal realises and this counter-proposal cannot co-exist with it, I hope the non-standard game modes could stay good and continue to thrive without encountering disastrous situations.
I mean, the system is "fine" for you guys who benefit from the current system :P. It's not just higher ups who think this though.

Anyways, since it's unlikely that this counter-proposal will be adapted, it might be nice to explain what parts of the current proposal would result in "disastrous situations". I feel like a system that you might not agree with, or consider "disastrous" might be better for the community too. It just might not be something you like :P
Myxo

-Kazu- wrote:

Myxomatosis wrote:

...


It's interesting that you mention that, but that happens to be an issue regarding the Criteria and not the way the current QAT enforces stuff (most the time we also see ourselves having our hands tied by the criteria). This is also something we could strive to work towards fixing if we are to get the green light about being able to do so.


Yeah okay but this was just one specific example I gave about modes not working the same way on a quality assurance related topic. Restructuring vetoes and disqualifications are other topics in a similar sense where your proposal goes against Mao's proposal for (in my opinion) no good reason.
Tailsdk
The reason you see no comments from mania is how it works. The mania QAT doesnt really veto anything per say, but acts as a person who disqualify something if an issue is found by the QAH. Then they will give their opinion on the issues if they have not been solved. Thats why i dont think the system should change for mania. Theres no real issue and most people dont mind the QAT. Mania as a mode is also pretty dead currently so putting all the power on all BN's would just resolve in more dq's over subjective stuff and make the mode even more dead. I just dont think mania is at a size where the standard proposal would work for the mode. I do like the proposal to keep bn applications open at all time since that will help a lot making the mode less dead.
Nao Tomori
i personally believe the only thing that really won't work in the 'standard' proposal is the majority veto mediation stuff - because there's only like 3 bns per minigame at any given time (not including qats who would also be involved in the voting). everything else is remaining more or less the same, as you guys would still be handling apps, still be dictating changes in RC (as kazu mentioned), and so on. while eph was extremely aggressive for no apparent reason i don't think he's really wrong about the fact that managing these gamemodes completely differently is a bad idea. in my opinion you should try to focus on adapting the proposal that is very likely going to be forced on you anyway into a form that is compatible with your views on how the mode should be run, given the terms of the proposal. staff doesn't really like "uppity community members" snapping back at them =D
Feerum
Hey there!

I was sitting a little bit in the background for a while now after this proposal we the TCM QATs posted in the forum and have read most of the posts. Now i thought is the right moment to post here to represent the mania-view in all this.
I apology that my writing could sound a bit emotional or a bit to personal. I try to keep everything as professional as possible. It may also contain a bit “off-topic” stuff, not directly related to the proposal or the replies to it.

(TCM stands by the way for Taiko/Catch/Mania, because i find names like “Special modes” or “Minigame modes” simply not correct for such an important matter.)

Okay. So, let’s see where i start.
First of all i would like to thank everyone so far for the reply. It is heartwarming to see such an positive reply and support from most of all TCM people who have posted here. Not everyone was for this, but almost.

It’s already for years, that whenever the standard osu game mode run into trouble on the organization side of things (BNG/QAT etc) every other game mode has to apply changes too, not considering if these would affect the game mode in a positive or in a negative way. For any non-TCM person saying now that this is not true, you simply has not such a relationship to our game modes as we have and simply could not see what was going on for real. I’m not telling that every change was negative, my problem here is that the standard game mode is still considered as the “one and only” - game mode and that the opinion of the other modes never really was respected or didn’t matter at all. It was often just a “Yeah, just talk, we do it still the other way”.
And now, right before some really huge changes in the management of beatmaps and the teams which working in there, it is once again the case that just because standard run into trouble, may it be vetos, mediation, BN applications or whatever, all other game mods have once again to suffer under this.
I’m now QAT for over 2 years (Not such a long period as some standard QAT, but still a long one if you ask me, long enough) and it was really always the standard game mode who run into trouble. Problems with organization, vetos and mediation seem to be the biggest issue here.
But does it mean it did not worked in the other one? No. Sure, we are not as big as the standard game mode, therefore we do not having a lot of vetos or mediation, yet we always managed to solve these in most of the cases with a positive outcome for both sides.

Now let’s talk about the “Management” aspect. Let’s take BN applications and evaluations/re-evaluations as example.
I am not sure where the problem here is. Don’t get me wrong. Having the BN applications open all-time is actually a really neat idea. I am not against it and i would welcome these changes in cooperation with our proposal.
I also know that in the past the applications were not always running fair or smooth. Results were delayed or, one of the biggest issue, people did not get in because some QAT were biased against the person so they have not get in.
It happened, yes. Not with every QAT but it was unavoidable. I admit it happened to me too, right at the beginning of my QAT time and the first BN applications. Throw stones at me and scolt me for this, but i stand to my mistakes.
But i learned from this very fast, as did the other who did this.
We tried ways to avoid this. Like anonymized modding posts we could check. But did that help? Not really. We QAT are not dumb. After a long time in within the modding community we simply can recognize the persons by how they are writing their mods.
What i want to say. It will never be possible to have a completely unbiased evaluation team. Even if we would replace these people with volunteers from the Beatmap Nominators. There will always be a person who doesn’t like the other and will find some ridiculous ways to not let someone pass.

Now i want to bring up one more thing i have noticed over the years. It may be only me but i think one of the core problems is that the QAT weren’t seen as a “Management Team” for a long while now. In the past there was the BAT (i think, it was before my time in osu!), later the early QAT who had some authority within the mapping community. Once a decision was made by the BAT or QAT, people accepted it. May it be negative or positive. Was it negative, of course there was some backlash on it. That’s unavoidable. But at some point it still got accepted.
Now it’s basically like this:
1. QAT declares their decision. (May it be mediation or BN Applications)
2. A person who this was directed to did not accept the decision.
3. Person contacts Ephemeral
4. Ephemeral comes to us and asks us why this decision was made.
5. After hours of discussion, it mostly turned out that we had to take back our decision and “decide” in favor of the complaining person.
6. QAT lost, person won.

This happen so often in the past, that whenever something happened we were basically ready for Ephemeral to appear and let us discuss our decision once again.
Before we ever made a decision, we discussed this with all QATs. Everyone could bring up their thoughts on it. We spent hours of discussion before declare it.
And this all was basically for nothing because everyone could at some point go to Ephemeral and in most of cases this person won.
And now we are at a point where people lost most of respect to the QAT and the QAT lost most of his authority, since our decision would have been mostly lifted after Ephemeral.
I am not saying that people shall not have a opportunity to contest a decision, but i think this went the wrong way.
I am okay with reviewing it, i am also okay with being it Ephemeral who brings it up. But at the same time, Ephemeral should have stay out of the discussion and let us do the work, since not being involved from the beginning in it.

The QAT is a capable Team of mapper and modder who can handle this. Of course not everyone will be happy with our decision, but i think it would be way better to give back the QAT the authority they had, instead of removing them completely from earth.There will be unhappy people. It’s not to avoid. In any game. Be it a huge MMO, some MOBA or be it osu. You can not satisfy everyone.

Last but not least i have some words to Ephemeral regarding his last two posts:

Ephemeral. You was always a person to me i have respected. Same goes for ztrot and Loctav in the time they were still active. I have a bit “looked up” to you and the other because you really tried to change something. I respect the effort to make the game more community driven. I am all for this. That’s what i always tried as QAT too. I always was someone like “Okay, this is something new but let’s first see how the community reacts to it”. That’s why i have loosed up the “standards” and have let pass more and more new beatmaps into the ranked section. Way more than the past QATs did before me. I even had to “fight” a bit with my mania QAT mates on certain beatmaps. Not everyone was happy with this, it went so far that i or the other mania QATs were called “Incapable of this position”. Just because we tried everything to involve the community more in what gets ranked or what not.

But with your last post, this respect went down so hard. It changed my view of you drastically. You do not seem to even try to read through the community responses. Almost all TCM people here are happy with our proposal. You always insist that we shall involve the community more, you always try to act for the community sake.. but here, you seem to ignore it completely because you think it would be too difficult to have the standard system and our proposal running side by side. As Raiden already stated, you are calling us indirectly “power-hungry dictators”. If intended or not, but this is simply not right.
It’s not because of the power. It is to maintain the “peace” within the TCM - game modes.
Me and all other TCM - QATs have put so much heart and effort over the year to make our game modes to what they are now. Our decision were not always correct but our game modes are running smoothly and to 95% peaceful. Even with knowing that people from the standard game mode or even other staff member didn't take us serious. And now we shall throw away everything we did.
This is not right and i simply can not see how this will be turned down by a simple “no because no”.
I love my game mode. I love it no matter how much i have to defend it. Mania is not perfect and i often have to read “Mania is trash, game X is much better”. Yet i keep staying here.
I quit QAT once, but it was just for a short time because i simply knew i am missing something.
Many people are happy on how mania changed from the past, some are not. And i am 101% sure, this is also the case in the other game modes. They all changed positively because of the effort of all BN and QAT which love their game mode as i do love mania.

Two mistakes were done:
  1. Posting the first “decision” without even discussion it first with the QAT. It was about the QATs fate and it was like “Here’s your fate, please discuss it”. Only the higher ups and the QAT leader were involved into this and i do not find this fair. I do not find it fair to decide about the QATs and BNs fate behind their backs and then just post an outcome for discussion. At least the QAT should have been involved from the beginning.
  2. Ignoring our complains completely now. We were shut by a simple “no”, no matter how much we try to defend our system.


That’s all i think. There are much more, much of personal feeling i would love to bring up in here but i think it went already a bit out of hand.
I can only hope for you understanding and why we want to keep our system and improve it with our proposal.

Cheers
Lumenite-
wowie, that was uncalled for

regardless of whether you agree with the proposal or not, i believe that was a step too far.
Drum-Hitnormal
Let mini-game ppl manage themselves
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply