Lefafel wrote:
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
repeating same things again
First of all, if you don't even consider and try to diminish my points, maybe you are the one acting in bad faith.
Lefafel wrote:
It is FAR worse and unhealthy to let you mappers butcher songs to a third of their length and rank them under identical names to the full versions. I'm willing to bet this is the overwhelming majority opinion amongst all active players. How "high quality" your hatchetjob is, shouldn't even factor into this. The current proposal already addresses insignificant modifications, what more do you want?
Just because you think cuts are bad doesn't mean everyone else does and prohibiting them is not only irrelevant to this thread but also complete nonsense.
Lefafel wrote:
You can trip over definitions and what ifs all you like, fact is the identification in song titles is sorely needed (and already greenlit by the relevant staff). That is because, if the tag is not there, the implication is that you've mapped the official version. That is not only false, it's misleading and in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of.
I don't know where you got this from but if it really were "sorely needed", it probably would've been implemented a long time ago or at least proposed but I don't recall that happening in the past years. It's also not true that the implication is that it's the full version, why would you think that? There's no full ver label on maps, that's why the length information exists. Also, how is it "in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of"? Cutting songs is allowed and there's nothing wrong with unless it's low quality but you said that it doesn't matter yourself so yea
Lefafel wrote:
I don't see how you can argue that no indicator is somehow more accurate than having "Cut Ver." (or a similar tag, call it "Unofficial Cut" if you prefer) on cut songs' titles.
I never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players?
Lefafel wrote:
How is it not? It serves as a prompt to actually check what the mp3 is (because it's not an official one), and that is exactly what it needs to do. It is an indicator of an alteration. It can't be infinitely accurate and descriptive because it's indicating something that is unofficial and not standardized, but that doesn't make it useless. That's the bad faith in your argument; "If it isn't perfect, it's useless".
None of this makes any sense, just because the title includes Cut Ver. doesn't mean that you can "check what the mp3 is", you still need to actually listen to it in order to know what it sounds like. Yes, it is an indicator of an alteration, but so is (TV Size), (Short Ver.) and even (xy Remix), that information is simply not sufficient to warrant a complete overhaul.
Also stop portraying my words as "bad faith", maybe you simply don't understand them.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
You keep saying that you would like this to change, but you are not providing any further arguments or reasons for this. You also still didn't address my point about the similarity of official/unofficial cuts.
dong wrote:
The TV size marker in the official metadata exists because it makes a distinction about length. An unofficial cut has no distinction about length despite being shortened in a similar way to a TV size version. This is my argument for including this information in the title of an unofficially cut song - it is otherwise misleading to not include this information. I don't understand your point about the "similarity between official/unofficial cuts" If it's official, it uses the official metadata. If it's unofficial, it should use my proposed marker.
So the problem is the length difference, and as I already said, the solution for that is to simply look up the length before downloading/playing the map.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That doesn't make sense because when you download the map you usually don't know what the original length of the song is so it's not misleading. You can usually only judge whether it's a cut or not based on length (as Eph's tweet proves) and you can find the length information on the map's web page or in-game.
dong wrote:
So you've found another problem in that without this marker someone might download a song they don't know without this marker and think that it's the official full version of the song. Let me get this straight: I believe that the original versions of the song should use official metadata, and that any unofficial deviation from the official song (which is most commonly a cut version) should be expressed in the title, because I and many other players find it both misleading and annoying to deal with these bad cuts (something which is addressed in UC's cut proposal) or being disappointed after already comitting to downloading the map through osu!direct.
If they don't look at the length, then yes, they might think it's the official version, but there is no way for them to know anyways because they didn't know about the original length in the first place. I don't understand this logic at all, you're saying that unofficial cuts are bad and annoying to deal with, but they are nearly the same as official cuts, but apparently those aren't a problem? Whether you or most players like short maps is not relevant here, if you want to avoid them you need to look at the length in any case because for example every visual novel/eroge/video game short ver map that doesn't have the marker in the official metadata source can't be distinguished from the full version either so this proposal wouldn't actually fix the issue. For songs whose original release is the short version, you would also think that it's the full version so you can't really avoid it being "misleading", although i don't consider that a big problem to begin with, it's not like you are forced to play certain maps.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
What would your solution for this problem be then? I only mentioned this because it could cause problems and you should find solutions for this kind of issues if you want to go ahead with your proposal.
dong wrote:
I think that the mapper can include their own marker stating that it is their own mix of the song. Perhaps there's a more specific music term than 'mix'. I'm not a musician, but for example if UndeadCapulet made a 'mix' of a song he can include the marker (UC Mix), or something to that effect. Not something that I've fleshed out because this wasn't considered in the original proposal and I don't think it falls under my proposal, but if you do, then that is my opinion. I find the fact that this is allowed to be done in the first place without and restrictions or additional metadata in place utterly ridiculous. If I was annoyed at the state of things before, I sure am annoyed to find out that the hole goes even deeper.
Disallowing this kind of edits is a whole different story and as I said, markers like Remix, Mix or Edit are supposed to be used for actual alterations of the song itself, not its parts.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Well, of course the people who post in those threads will most likely be the ones who agree because the ones who disagree or don't care about it won't be bothered to comment. And again, it doesn't really matter how many people agree, you need arguments if you want to be convincing.
dong wrote:
Ok. You've argued that it looks bad. I disagree. If you can get more people to express the same concern as you that the aesthetics of your title outweigh the importance of information then I might consider this point, otherwise, I don't know how to respond to it.
Of course I could ask some people to just say "agree with Haruki" but that doesn't change anything, it doesn't make my arguments stronger. Just like a bunch of people agreeing with you doesn't make it more important.
dong wrote:
I saw on one of Sotarks' recently ranked maps he included the the "(Unofficial)" which I find to a pretty nice, short, all-encompassing tag, though it doesn't mesh well with other tags.
If this marker isn't included in the metadata source, it's technically incorrect to use it. I'm not sure whether this is official or not though.