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
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
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...)
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
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
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.
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.
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).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)
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.
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.
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)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.
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.
I mean, the system is "fine" for you guys who benefit from the current system . It's not just higher ups who think this though.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.
-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.
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
Feerum wrote:
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.
"Beatmap Nominator Applications will always be open", did you stop reading right after the veto part ? What do you think will happen to the amount of BNs if applications are always open ? Current numbers are irrelevant, and even if they were, five votes is still better than the current system.-Kazu- wrote:
3. Vetos on majority of votes:
Taiko currently has 14 people (and for the record, Mania has 13 and CTB has 12), of which I definitely see 2-3 not voting (even on a large time window, like a week) due to not really checking discord or stuff like that. There's also the chance somebody doesn't want to compromise himself (for example agreeing with DQ'ing a friends' map but not voting just to feel like he really wasnt part of that, teehee oops i forgot to check discord *insert cute discord emoji*) The one who vetos can't vote, so that makes it around 10 votes, meaning if 5 people vote yes, its done. FIVE.
"we want to disband the QAT and replace it by a yet to be named “Management Team” that only focuses on promoting and evaluating Beatmap Nominators as well as making sure that the system runs smoothly" => this new team (QATs rename wew) is there for that behavioral issue.-Kazu- wrote:
As so, blindly taking for granted everybody will behave (or those who won't will be special cases easily solvable with a restriction) is not a productive system and definitely not one who will make osu move forward. And to me, sorry for not explaining all this right off from the start, things look grim the TCM community with those changes.
-Kazu- wrote:
You can go ahead and ask literally anybody in the taiko scene and you'll get told how this definitely can become a reality.
Nofool wrote:
"Beatmap Nominator Applications will always be open", did you stop reading right after the veto part ? What do you think will happen to the amount of BNs if applications are always open ? Current numbers are irrelevant, and even if they were, five votes is still better than the current system.
Nofool wrote:
"we want to disband the QAT and replace it by a yet to be named “Management Team” that only focuses on promoting and evaluating Beatmap Nominators as well as making sure that the system runs smoothly" => this new team (QATs rename wew) is there for that behavioral issue.
Read the thing properly and think of it as a whole instead of instantly refusing..
Nao Tomori wrote:
the current system doesn't really prevent these things anyway, does it? i mean in this field proposed MT and QAT actually have the same authority, because the difference between the two teams lies in modding related things not behavior issues (or BNs acting in bad faith)... i don't see how NOT changing the system is any better than changing it; if anything it just changes the paradigm for how to get vetoes dispelled from "convince nardo or ELSE" to "convince x amount of your peers" and as you noted, there are not exactly a ton of active taiko bns and very few new ones, so the chance of "jury stacking" or whatever is pretty low.
Nao Tomori wrote:
the second point:
the reason you agree with nardo is presumably because he explains things well, not because he's a qat right? in a system where qats words are not inherently much stronger than everyone else's, it is natural that people would focus on the arguments themselves rather than whoever is saying them. the current system is very heavily biased towards "well they're qats so you have to do it" rather than any sort of constructive discussion - i say this mostly from standard experience but from what i've seen it is even more like that in taiko. changing to a system where bns have equally strong voices and removing weight from what color a user's name is is better for promoting discussion and allowing standards to evolve and so on.