Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[BN Rule] Clarification Regarding Beatmap Vetos

posted
Total Posts
7
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,252 posts
Joined July 2013
Topic Starter
Ascendance
Stuff happened over here recently with the removal of the 24h rule and the addition of qualified map vetos. Apparently, somewhere in transition, the BNs have lost the ability to veto a mapset that's nominated according to this finalization and showcased here.(mapset/problem link)

I thought the nominator was joking and that what they were saying was completely silly but after talking to QATs about it, I guess it's true. It seems like an oversight and I'm looking to post this for clarification that we maintain these powers as Nominators, and that if we do not, we get them back following what seems to be a mistake at the end of the previous proposal's completion.

(Also it seems that the BN rules haven't been updated reflecting the new veto system so idk)

Basically just add this back or find a way to combine the two rules:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

You can veto a beatmap set by placing a bubble pop icon or a problem stamp on the set that you disagree with being fit for being Ranked. Placing a beatmap veto over any kind of quality issues that you think need to be addressed before the map can move anywhere is one of your main responsibilities. A proper discussion with attempting to reach a mutual agreement by both sides of the argument has to follow.
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
should definitely be added back, even if removing it was intentional it won't stop anyone from popping maps for quality issues (which would essentially turn into a veto)
Naxess
Nomination Assessment Team
390 posts
Joined March 2016
Naxess
idk about reversing the whole thing since the old wording doesn't guarantee that the map gets dqed, which is the whole point of removing the 24h rule in the first place. It would work if the rework would be implemented, since then bns could just dq stuff by placing a problem stamp, so I'd wait for that before doing any major changes (this was a large reason why the proposal I did was delayed for as long as it was).

If it needs to be done now I'd do this (italics = added, striked = removed), since removing this part of it kinda destroys the reason to keep a lot of the rest:
You can veto a qualified beatmap set by posting the issues you think need to be addressed before reaching Ranked status, and then contacting a member of the QAT if it is qualified. You must participate in the resulting discussion and attempt to reach a mutual agreement. The veto post must include a clear problem and reasoning for stopping the beatmap set's ranking process. The following conditions must be met before the veto is applied and the set is disqualified, however:
  1. The veto post must include a clear problem and reasoning for pausing the beatmap set's ranking process.
  2. Unless the beatmap set reaches Ranked status in less than 1 day, the veto post must be at least 1 day old to allow for observation of test plays and additional feedback.
  3. The beatmap set must have been in qualified for at least 2 days in total between all qualifications.
Additional time in qualified may be requested by the vetoing nominator, or applied as deemed necessary by the QAT, so long as the mapper does not request a disqualification themselves.

Only issue is that it completely undermines a lot of the discussion and sub-proposals that brought the rule to that state. Things like exposure from the wider community won't be guaranteed anymore (or at least wouldn't if you couldn't already pop stuff normally) and you'd end up with the same echo chamber problem which the proposal would mitigate, where only one or two people actively follow the veto with little information (testplays, overall reception, etc) to work with.

Either way, we're going to need to make one of two changes:
  1. Undo this part of the proposal
  2. Explicitly only allow pops for unrankables
This change we're discussing happened in response to feedback here in the proposal thread, for reference.
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
Yes. If a BN intends to veto a map anyways, why wait until it's qualified. If anything what's the point of the other two BN's even nominating the map if they know it's getting veto'ed.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
as far as "giving a map exposure to the wider community" from what i've seen subjective pops in general often do that already cuz they show up in aiess and get discussed in discord servers and stuff (like the ppl that would look at qualified issues/report thread will usually see the pops, too). if a popped bubble is for something that the qat determines should get discussion in qualified for, that can just be the result they determine in their mediation.

but most vetos are a lot more cut-and-dry and dont rly need much input for the qats to come to a conclusion from what i've seen.

think it's better to just standardize "bn's can veto maps" at any time, cuz bn's will be able to dq soon anyway so then it's like the same action.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,812 posts
Joined August 2013
pishifat
went with the naxess revision https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/2156
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,812 posts
Joined August 2013
pishifat
merged or to be merged in like a day if this relates to https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/2160
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 7