In order to create a well functioning system we must first conclude what the issues are, and how we can design a system to tackle those issues. No matter how well though out or planned we create a system however, there will inevitably be conflict. Because of this, we must come to a conclusion that is both inclusive to a wide variety of mappers' styles and a system that still maintains quality. The following proposal focuses on:
Lets begin:
Instead of having two teams where one is 'better' or has more privileges than the other, there will be two teams that work together.
Team #1: Members in this team will be responsible for nominating, and qualifying beatmaps. They will not be allowed to veto, disqualify, or reset nominations of a beatmap unless it is for an objective, unrankable issue.
Team #2: Members of this team will be responsible for checking qualified (or nominated maps) and determine if they are suitable for ranked. They will reset nomination, veto, or disqualify for objectively unrankable issues as well as subjective issues. This team will not be allowed to push forward maps.
There will also be selected members who will also be responsible for evaluating BN's.
Everybody will be apart of the "beatmap management team", and will be filed into either team one or team two. This means we will have one half of the team pushing forward maps, and the other half ensuring quality. Any disputes between teams will be settled with a vote.
With this system we will have an equal level of pushing forward unique maps, as well as an equal level of 'quality assurance'. Although it may seem redundant (i.e why don't we just allow everybody to have all privileges) the reason this will be better is because each map going through the qualified section will have at least four pairs of experienced eyes on it.(see below). Members in 'team #1' will be able to voice their opinions of a map, as well as any community member, but the actual action of disqualifying/vetoing/resetting nomination will only be allowed by members in team #2. Keep in mind every 2 weeks - a month members in team #1 will switch with the members in team #2. (Hopefully by switching often, after a few cycles a generally agreed upon definition of quality is achieved, or at least we will have a better idea of which maps are suitable and unsuitable for ranked. By continually adding BN's, this viewpoint may change. (It will never settle in one place, it's unrealistic to try that without encountering the same issues as before).
Each map will require two nominations as well as 2 'checks' once in the qualified section.
Members in team #2 will now need to check qualified maps and either give it a pass, or disqualify it. The current system will still take place, however once a map is in qualified section there will now be two ways for it to get disqualified.
1) If a map in the qualified section fails to receive 2 approved checks from members in team #2
2) If a member in team #2 decides to disqualify the map directly
As said before, assuming the situation in which a team #2 disqualifies a map for subjective reasoning, and other team members disagree with it, a vote on whether or not the disqualification reason is valid or not will take place amongst all group members.
The BMT will be evaluated on their proficiency in pushing forward, as well as holding back maps.
A 'three-strike' system will take place. A BMT member will get one strike if they had one of their nominations reset for objective issues. The members selected to evaluate BN's may also choose to kick BN's for more specific, individual reasons.
A BMT member may also get a strike, assuming they are in team #2, if they are not active in checking qualified maps, or if the people in charge of evaluating BN's have individualized reasons.
Tests will always be open.
Similar to many other proposals, they will be open all the time. If you get denied, however, you will have to wait a time period proposed by the people evaluating your test (same people in charge of evaluating BN's.) For example, if they believe you are close to ready but still need practice, you may only need to wait 2 weeks. If they believe you could use a lot of work, you may have to wait 3 months.
This is all I have for my proposal. It's quite wild and probably wont see the light of day however, I wanted to share it nonetheless.
- Inclusive and diverse mapping styles
- Quality control
- Fair and accurate BN evaluations
- A more precise, agreed upon definition of quality
- Lesser conflict and controversy
Lets begin:
Instead of having two teams where one is 'better' or has more privileges than the other, there will be two teams that work together.
Team #1: Members in this team will be responsible for nominating, and qualifying beatmaps. They will not be allowed to veto, disqualify, or reset nominations of a beatmap unless it is for an objective, unrankable issue.
Team #2: Members of this team will be responsible for checking qualified (or nominated maps) and determine if they are suitable for ranked. They will reset nomination, veto, or disqualify for objectively unrankable issues as well as subjective issues. This team will not be allowed to push forward maps.
There will also be selected members who will also be responsible for evaluating BN's.
Everybody will be apart of the "beatmap management team", and will be filed into either team one or team two. This means we will have one half of the team pushing forward maps, and the other half ensuring quality. Any disputes between teams will be settled with a vote.
With this system we will have an equal level of pushing forward unique maps, as well as an equal level of 'quality assurance'. Although it may seem redundant (i.e why don't we just allow everybody to have all privileges) the reason this will be better is because each map going through the qualified section will have at least four pairs of experienced eyes on it.(see below). Members in 'team #1' will be able to voice their opinions of a map, as well as any community member, but the actual action of disqualifying/vetoing/resetting nomination will only be allowed by members in team #2. Keep in mind every 2 weeks - a month members in team #1 will switch with the members in team #2. (Hopefully by switching often, after a few cycles a generally agreed upon definition of quality is achieved, or at least we will have a better idea of which maps are suitable and unsuitable for ranked. By continually adding BN's, this viewpoint may change. (It will never settle in one place, it's unrealistic to try that without encountering the same issues as before).
Each map will require two nominations as well as 2 'checks' once in the qualified section.
Members in team #2 will now need to check qualified maps and either give it a pass, or disqualify it. The current system will still take place, however once a map is in qualified section there will now be two ways for it to get disqualified.
1) If a map in the qualified section fails to receive 2 approved checks from members in team #2
2) If a member in team #2 decides to disqualify the map directly
As said before, assuming the situation in which a team #2 disqualifies a map for subjective reasoning, and other team members disagree with it, a vote on whether or not the disqualification reason is valid or not will take place amongst all group members.
The BMT will be evaluated on their proficiency in pushing forward, as well as holding back maps.
A 'three-strike' system will take place. A BMT member will get one strike if they had one of their nominations reset for objective issues. The members selected to evaluate BN's may also choose to kick BN's for more specific, individual reasons.
A BMT member may also get a strike, assuming they are in team #2, if they are not active in checking qualified maps, or if the people in charge of evaluating BN's have individualized reasons.
Tests will always be open.
Similar to many other proposals, they will be open all the time. If you get denied, however, you will have to wait a time period proposed by the people evaluating your test (same people in charge of evaluating BN's.) For example, if they believe you are close to ready but still need practice, you may only need to wait 2 weeks. If they believe you could use a lot of work, you may have to wait 3 months.
This is all I have for my proposal. It's quite wild and probably wont see the light of day however, I wanted to share it nonetheless.
