The following changes serve to make contributing more easily accessible to the community, which consequently improves upon and simplifies all current systems in place for the mapping and modding community.

I assume you guys will do this but you should probably say what each of the different stages mean in an eval for the BN app transparency thing

I like this proposal a lot, but im kind of concerned about the execution of evaluating judgement abilities of applicants

Does this imply the standard for modding quality decreases in exchange for people that may just know how to appease the system (provide decent responses)?

How does this affect non native english speakers?



I think there should still be some baseline checking of modding quality - unless there is and I have misread .

this is GOOD, gj all of you!

Also, while I do not disagree that the current RC test is redundant, I think it could be useful to rework it to include relevant information. For example, I think a test so that possible BNs are aware of certain technical things would be good, specifically regarding metadata and audio quality. Maybe just have the scores not be impactful or something, but idk I just feel like the RC test could be reworked to be actually useful.

i'll go over each section with my thoughts

Reworking BN applications

i'd also suggest adding difficulty ranges to showcase that possible BNs may work with any sorts of maps, being high-end (8*+) or something more casual (enh sets/typical 5-6* sets), this would also guarantee more quality overall imo. the question "how did your mod improve the map" might be a little trivial and hard to answer, since this is a quite subjective topic and not really good overall. kind of against including it. other than that this change is good

Removing the RC test

i think removing rc test should've been done way earlier, especially it comes in clutch for taiko/catch/mania tests where you're potentially able to get a question regarding skinnable std elements (that you really shouldn't know) or the other solution would be creating different tests for gamemodes that contain questions mostly regarding relative gamemodes (but i the removal more tbh)

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status

how is this any different from what is currently done? i do not think this change is necessary, it just adds bullet point list on top of your evaluation - which might be pleasant to eyes but effectively speaking it's near the same as a collective that is more gathered into one single piece of text and more polished. very against this

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application

a good change, nice to see this being thought of

i think one of the axing reasons for test was cuz people doing tests in their freetime for a video game is kinda over the top on the serious scale dunno

re: fayew: the transparency part is so people dont like throw application into the box and receive an update like 2 to 3 weeks later, but instead have more consistent updates as to where in the process their application is, it's just more transparency for that

fayew wrote: 314356

how is this any different from what is currently done?

right now, you apply, your eval goes into a black box for 2~3 weeks, then it ships. with the proposed approach, you'll know at which stage exactly your application is in real-time, so you'll know if it's still in individual stage, if it moved to groups, if the consensus is set and so on.

i really don't see a reason to be against this, it's a direct transparency increase which is always appreciated.

Okoratu wrote: ct57

the transparency part is so people dont like throw application into the box and receive an update like 2 to 3 weeks later, but instead have more consistent updates as to where in the process their application is, it's just more transparency for that

Hivie wrote: x4v6x

it's a direct transparency increase which is always appreciated.

i see, thank you both

wafer wrote: 5t3h2h

I think there should still be some baseline checking of modding quality - unless there is and I have misread .

it will still be there (especially for sets they won't nominate): this is why we opted to not completely remove the mention of modding in the application form. the wording can still adjust the wording to be a bit clearer about this if you have any propositions

I like the simplified yet more engaging progress very much but just a few things I want to say.

Would this mean the future BN applicants require mapper's response and should care about their response?
as you guys are asking for how their mod improved the map as well as the updated version of osz for comparison.
For example, if a mapper decides to not respond or reject every suggestion, would this "mod" now be considered unusable for the application?

Also, rather than removing the RC test entirely, I think it would be better to give it a rework as an actually reasonable RC test instead of the previous English trick test.

@enneya ok cool

ok yeah u have my full then

really dont see the point in an rc test cuz if i can ctrl+f it while taking the test i can ctrl+f it while looking at a map to nominate

agree with sampling maps that the applicant would/wouldn't nominate, and imo that's something that could be expanded on further. like listing idk 2-3 more maps that you may not mod on thread, but just give tldr of what you might say + final judgement (nom or not)

Ozato Fumika wrote: 5u5i4b

Would this mean the future BN applicants require mapper's response and should care about their response?
as you guys are asking for how their mod improved the map as well as the updated version of osz for comparison.
For example, if a mapper decides to not respond or reject every suggestion, would this "mod" now be considered unusable for the application?

'how their mod improved the map' is supposed to be a subjective assessment so its not dependant on the mappers response. Therefore, even if the host rejects all the mods, we will still check them for validity like we always have, so it wouldn't be unusable per se.

Ozato Fumika wrote: 5u5i4b

Also, rather than removing the RC test entirely, I think it would be better to give it a rework as an actually reasonable RC test instead of the previous English trick test.

We removed the test entirely for now because it was pretty outdated and seen as unfitting for the reason that Oko mentioned. However, since we are using the Beatmap Managment forum now, the test can still be repurposed depending on new proposals.

I really like this proposal, I just have a question

with “Reworking BN application s”, does this mean that the box for application won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

if it is, I think it’s a bit redundant to remove it as it’s a really good way to synthesise the comments into a tldr, so I’d suggest both could be visible

fvrex wrote: 161e1m

with “Reworking BN application s”, does this mean that the box for application won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

Box will stay in case NATs have any additional notes to mention, but most of the important will be displayed directly in form of evaluator comments.

Seems like a good change overall to me, the RC test definitely had a lot of unnecessary coverage on it.

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety net, but I'm a little worried about it.

I do agree this proposal is a slay 🔥🔥

fvrex wrote: 161e1m

I really like this proposal, I just have a question

with “Reworking BN application s”, does this mean that the box for application won’t be there, and only NAT comments are visible?

if it is, I think it’s a bit redundant to remove it as it’s a really good way to synthesise the comments into a tldr, so I’d suggest both could be visible

For this by the way, basically application wont be included in the evaluation process. HOWEVER, if this is the case, then the should rather be applied into the actual NAT evaluators are giving them during the evaluations!!! Giving more detailed should be more prominent honestly.

Ryax wrote: 176y1d

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement.

I can also see an issue with this. It does seem sort of unfair on that part if you did all the means necessary for the BN, where they hadn't checked it.

Ryax wrote: 176y1d

Seems like a good change overall to me, the RC test definitely had a lot of unnecessary coverage on it.

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety net, but I'm a little worried about it.

This is a fair concern. However, the point of this is to attempt to determine the applicant's quality standards and ability to evaluate maps in a vacuum. That objective is significantly impaired if the map has already been nominated. The requirement would only extend to maps not bubbled at the time of submission, not throughout the life of the application. As such, I view this as a necessary tradeoff to better accomplish the goals of the system.

Decku wrote: 5w5c5t

For this by the way, basically application wont be included in the evaluation process. HOWEVER, if this is the case, then the should rather be applied into the actual NAT evaluators are giving them during the evaluations!!! Giving more detailed should be more prominent honestly.

It is already the case that is primarily organizing information from individual evaluations. We would of course make sure they are formatted to better communicate to the applicant rather than just each other. I believe the message box to reach out should also help in case any individual points are not clear enough right away

We've decided to move this forum post to Mapping Discussion so non-BNs (the primary audience of these proposals) are involved with this discussion.

Reworking BN applications

I know it could kinda "give answers" but I feel there should be an example "ideal" application that the NAT want/are looking for. How this is currently I as a new applicant have no idea how much I should write, or what I really am being asked for. I know its kinda like common sense for people who've been doing this stuff for years but new people :3c

I strongly agree with most of the proposed changes. Especially appreciate the increased transparency, removal of RC test (idk anyone that's actually failed that wasn't trolling lol), and a better option for dialogue between applicants and evaluators.

That said "[putting] more weight onto the candidate's decision-making skills and judgement" is a little vague to me. It'd be nice to have it a bit clearer to what extent a BN app hinges on nomination decision making skills (if my modding skills are good but I don't have well developed reasoning, will I be penalised severely for it?).

Also, I might be an odd one out here, but I'm not a fan of how the proposed application seems to really lean into the whole meta that folks ended up fixating on in the last however many years. The whole:

1. Map 1 = good map you will nominate
2. Map 2 = Severely/Fundamentally flawed map you will not nominate
3. Map 3 = Something to fill in gaps in demonstrated competency from Maps 1 and 2.

I kind of wish we'd have a bit more of a fresher take on the modding side of applications (though including a greater focus on nomination reasoning is definitely a step in the right direction imho)

"was improved by your mod" does this imply the mapper needs to reply to your mods?

good stuff, just one question i suppose mostly for clarification. as someone looking to become bn in the near future, im curious about why an applicant needs to demonstrate the capacity to mod something that they are absolutely unwilling to nominate. (im not saying that i dont see the merits in this, but i want to know the reasons more directly, and also why its entirely required.)

Nevo

I'm not sure we have an ideal in mind for any new formats until we can see from experience what does and doesn't work better for people applying, but compiling examples in the future sounds nice


________

Shii

What kinds of aspects do you think would be fresher?

________

Visionary

The wording implies that it has to be responded but it's not intended. We can update it. Thank you for noticing this. We can always look even if the mapper hasn't responded yet.

Reworking BN applications

I'm all for the change in paradigm, giving more weight to the decision-making process involved without fully butchering the need for applicants to show their modding capabilities. Moreover, an approach using questions makes it both easier for the applicant to understand what we'll be mainly evaluating from them whilst also giving evaluators a solid frame of reference to evaluate on.

That aside, @mint the reasoning mainly boils down to us wanting to see both sides of the coin. Also, I personally believe it is important to be able to mod a map -- even if you'd be unwilling to nominate it -- to show other kinds of soft skills found in modding. How forceful your mods may be, how helpful has your different perspective on the map helped the mapper and/or set, whether your judgement call on the map's nomination status is sound, etc...

TlDr; Good, but I'd like to see how well it works on practice, and whether it makes it any easier than the previous, less direction-driven method.

Removing the RC test

Begone. More often than not, the RC test was redundant. Applicants showed most of their knowledge in their mods. Even candidates who botched the test later on showed very promising applications. I'm somewhat not keen on bringing the test back or improve it either. We'll run into the same issues a couple/few years down the road.

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status

Yeah.

Reworking BN application s

Hold my own opinions on this. But so long our comments are truly as helpful as curated based on our previous notes then by all means.

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application

Having an official platform, is nice. I do not think this is enough as to really bridge communications between the BNG and the rest of the community, but it's a nice step having a formal procedure to have talks regarding apps.

Noffy wrote: 5c416y

________

Shii

What kinds of aspects do you think would be fresher?

Honestly good question. I can't really think of a solution that covers the aspects of modding skill required as a BN to the same level as the current or proposed systems, while also being similar in time/effort requirements for everyone involved.

Only idea I can think of is:

1. Scrap the existing application process
2. Allow Applicants that meet some abitrary thresholds, such as kds and/or modding activity, to become (pseudo) BNs.
3. Applicants spend some period of time acting as a BN, modding and "nomming" maps (with noms not contributing to the ranking of a map until after ing evaluation)
4. After x duration, Evaluators look through the activity of the applicant to assess their modding and nomination reasoning competency and ultimately kick/probation them.

But I strongly doubt such a system would work, especially cuz it massively increases the workload and complexity over the current/proposed systems, and I'm sure such a system would introduce new challenges/issues. I'm just bringing it up to spitball ideas :3

The idea of scrapping apps entirely was suggested. There are a couple issues that were mentioned when we discussed it, for transparency sake:

1. Apps are filters: Applications are in practice just filters. I personally agree the full picture of how one develops themselves as a BN is... by being a BN lol. But some filters have to be put into place, mainly to comply with the point below.
2. Unsustainable: This would mean there'd be quite the influx of "pseudo BNs". Essentially working like Trial BNs when that system was put into place, which added complexity to the system. Moreover, it'd be hard to keep track of everyone at the same time and so certain safeguards would need to be put into place, such as a maximum allowed number of people allowed to be in that state at the same time.

RC Test removal:
Fucking finally thank you

Nomination Decision Making:
Goes without saying but please disclaimer to people to not answer "no dont like song" even though that's what all BNs do, since it gives nothing for you to judge.

Or maybe don't, let the people who troll wait 60 days more.

This part can be really subjective so I hope that
1) Mistakes in English and terminology aren't criticized
2) Map isn't too heavily scrutinized. If evaluating NAT don't like the map that the applicant would nominate but the reasoning is sound and the map isn't riddled with intersubjective issues (or is modded out by applicant) I would hope that wouldn't result in a negative outcome for application

BTW I had previously written a doc on how to cheese BN apps so you guys just made that useless

Transparency:
Always good

Remove :
Ya no NAT liked writing this anyway, seeing individual thoughts is far better for the applicant as well.

It means ya'll would have to write the individual thing properly and not do what I used to do though ;3

Communication Channel:
Yes please!!! I've always wanted this, but the barrier of entry for applicants to discuss evaluations have always been too high. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS FOR CURRENT BN EVALS AS WELL so if a BN gets a non activity related warning they have somewhere to discuss about it I am 100% in of more communication and transparency

Overall love this

RandomeLoL wrote: 6j2w4

The idea of scrapping apps entirely was suggested. There are a couple issues that were mentioned when we discussed it, for transparency sake:

1. Apps are filters: Applications are in practice just filters. I personally agree the full picture of how one develops themselves as a BN is... by being a BN lol. But some filters have to be put into place, mainly to comply with the point below.
2. Unsustainable: This would mean there'd be quite the influx of "pseudo BNs". Essentially working like Trial BNs when that system was put into place, which added complexity to the system. Moreover, it'd be hard to keep track of everyone at the same time and so certain safeguards would need to be put into place, such as a maximum allowed number of people allowed to be in that state at the same time.

I'd be in favour of having some sort of artificial limit - particularly when such a hypothetical system would be first introduced - in order to mitigate things like influxes in applicants.

I'd also be in favour of placing relatively high initial requirements to reduce the number of folks that could take part in the first place (200kds would be way to low for such a system, for example).

Both of those ideas have their own drawbacks which I'm sure aren't favourable either though. I also recognise the effectiveness of the current application process as a filter, as well the fact that systems like Trial BN introduce more complexity. As far as I understand, most of the proposed changes are about reducing complexity, so I very much understand why a system similar to what I proposed is not preferable over something like what has been proposed ^^

I appreciate the transparency by referencing stuff from internal discussions by the way

word

Forgot to ask, but how would the new applications be weighted? How much of it would still be reliant on the mods, or would evaluations heavily shift to evaluating the reasoning for nominations?

i agree with a lot here!! especially the rc test removal. i feel like the best way to learn rc is to actually mod stuff and learn from peers. can’t wait to see where these proposals go

i got a question with an option concerning spinners for mania 😔

very cool changes some points:

- i assume if a mod was done by a , then say a months later, a bn nomimates it. This would still be a valid submissiom right? evaluation will be made on the basis of the map before the bn check?

- the screen is simplified, but i still fail to see a pain point addressed for bn apping which causes some downtime particularly with first time applicatns. that is, defining the expectation of skill.

it would be possible for an applicant to submit charts, totally ignore checks for misc stuff like metadata and hitsounds, then be rejected even if the 3 submitted maps were to be technically rankable. i made a pastebin some time back then emphasizing the scope of work / skill expected

case 2 would be if an applicant is only interested in xyz types of maps or song choices.

Forgot to ask, but how would the new applications be weighted? How much of it would still be reliant on the mods, or would evaluations heavily shift to evaluating the reasoning for nominations?

There is no objective weight. We expect applicants to be proficient at both. It's possible that we may side towards decision-making though, as being a trustworthy BN requires some skills that go beyond how good an applicant's modding is. Wouldn't say "heavily" but it will potentially have a somewhat more present impact.

I would like to share some I've received and my responses.

1. Maintaining two oszs is burdensome
- agree, we should only request the version that the mods were posted on as we are already not particularly interested in whether the mapper applies the mods properly (+ we can just update the set to see the updated version)

2. does not directly address what we expect BNs to mod.
- I believe that moving to showing our notes rather than a homogenized format will help with this somewhat as we tend to be a bit more direct with the issues we find in maps when reviewing mods.

3. We are not being specific enough with what we're asking the modder to show with their app

- The general purpose of the BN application is for us to determine whether the applicant would be a good BN. I believe this statement is uncontroversial.

What makes a good BN? This is more subjective, but I think generally some combination of consistent activity, the ability to avoid technical DQs, the ability to determine what maps represent the songs well and don't, and the ability to properly explain mod points in a way the mapper can understand are all commonly agreed upon.

How does this application aim to give us the evidence needed to judge those traits?
- the main issue is differentiating between maps that are rankable and those that fall below the quality threshold commonly agreed upon. We are requesting one map judged as good (but not an overly safe map that has already been bubbled or by an experienced mapper) and one map judged as bad to get evidence around how the applicant determines what's rankable and not. Every BN makes this judgement on every request they get at some level, so that's why we're targeting it.
- being able to properly explain mod points is also important to avoid friction and ensure maps actually get better when the applicant mods them. So we request mods.
- we can't really judge activity, so there's just a (very low) minimum expectation that we hold all BNs to.
- the reason new BNs start off in probation is mostly in case they can't forestall technical DQs which causes a lot of work for other people (since we hope the full BN will catch those items if they don't).

So what should an applicant actually submit? Submit mods and maps that demonstrate your ability to judge good maps from bad and back up your judgement with an explanation of why. We are hoping to reduce the burden of "hidden" requirements by asking for what we need more directly than before. There isn't a one size fits all answer for what type of mods we are looking for. The main factor is whether the various components of quality in any given map that could be improved upon are properly identified and accurate suggestions are provided.

Overall I it.

The problem I have had with the BN app is that I didn't know what to aim for.
Mainly because many of the sentences in the were short or not in a clear format like PRS, so I'm looking forward to see how far the rework will improve it.
It is good to be able to ask directly other than , and it is good to know how far you have reached with the BN app status.
the RC test was difficult for me because I was not good at English, so I think it is good that it is gone.

Information such as what elements are required in the test, in this case You would nominate if you were a BN, etc., could be added with more detailed elements.
Perhaps the image in post #1 may not be enough.

Also, there are difficulties when applying again, so it would be good to have something on that point as well.

not fully against the rework for BN applications, though i do think mandating two osz's is probably a bit much just from a "review" perspective -- just having the old osz is probably enough, honestly (nao already said this above but i just wanted to affirm my for that)

no opinion on the ranking criteria test removal (i haven't been in the loop for that aspect for 5+ years now), though it seems like it'd probably be fine since the application itself is already being reviewed manually regardless

transparency on BN application status is good

the bn application part is interesting; off what i experienced in the bn evaluator trial i don't doubt that writing is incredibly exhausting and burdensome, but at the same time i feel like it'd be pretty easy to overwhelm someone with direct comments from what the evaluators are saying. wasn't the whole point of to condense what was said in a more meaningful and easy-to-read manner? i'm not really sure i agree with getting rid of that aspect, honestly :s

communication between NAT is fine and a welcome change

outside of the part i think this is overall a good proposal, i'm just really unsure about how that one aspect would work out in practice because it'd be harder to follow imo

Removing the RC test

Coming from the person who took the BN test most recently (yes I was the one that had done mine in the midst of it being shut off), It really came to sense that it was just a reading comprehension and CTRL+F test rather than what it was set up to be in my head; an actual test. On top of that, there were some niche questions thrown in there from the RC that wasn't exactly related to the gamemode applied for.

Having it be removed will be okay, It did feel pretty redundant and easy to cheese with the right tools.

Reworking BN applications

I'd like to see where this goes. This (in my opinion) seems better in the first look for applications, though osz's may seem like a far cry task, especially since you'd have to provide 6 of them... having the old system seemed fine cause even then, if the map was updated for the mods, it can easily be found, there isn't really a need to for 2 (I know it's not mandatory, but still feels like I'd need submit all 6 so to get a genuine review of modding skill).

Ryax wrote: 176y1d

For Beatmap 1 in the application I could see some occasional issues cropping up with the 0 nomination requirement. I wouldn't want an applicant to end up being disqualified because a BN nominated the map, since that's something out of their control. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair to the mapper or BNs on the set to have to wait for the applicant's results before continuing to ranked.

I understand that this is meant to avoid having applicants pick maps that have already been approved by BNs as a safety

I'm going to add onto this with the idea that, what happens if someone decides to get a bn for the map at the same time there is the application, would the sense of "missing points" big or small come into affect for how a modder's quality gets evaluated, especially in the new changes?

This comes to my next point as well, how exactly will the judgement be made in of modding quality and their understanding compared to the ones evaluating the answers given for "how did your mod improve the map" and such?

That being said, the way in which it has changed to incorporate maps you would and wouldn't nom seems pretty nice.

I appreciate that this discussion is open to public so everyone can comment.

This is a step towards a right direction, however i think it does not tackle how people percieve the application itself.

Whilst more transparency is welcome and the new tracking system is a good change, i still think that requirements to become a BN are staying pretty much the same albeit more strict with which maps they choose to submit.

Individual is also great however from what i can see removing reduced CD would discourage some people or the ones who thought they previously had a chance to reapply aswell.

Whilst the weight being shifted onto judgment and not just modding is great, I see this as a change that would benefit the workload of the NAT more and not the applicants as much since the system remains about the same as it always was.

I would really appreciate if we could get a tl;dr on how this will impact the applications going forwards, i believe a majority of people expected a more significant change.

Anyways, still a step towards a good direction only feels quite trivial overall.

I would really appreciate if we could get a tl;dr on how this will impact the applications going forwards,...

The TlDr would be that a sense of direction is being added in the app process.

Currently, there is no objective basis we really went by. Only judged the maps an applicant gave. This made it really easy for s (especially those first applying) to get "lost". Its goal is to also reduce how much we evaluate at a micro level, focusing more on the macro aspect of an application.

The goal of the changes wasn't so much as to outright reduce the bar of entry into the BNG, but to make it less obtuse, easier to understand, more transparent to the end , and finally give a sense of direction of what exactly should be prioritized when evaluating someone's work which would affect the way applications are approached from both ends. In my opinion, for the better, even if at face value it seems similar.

...i believe a majority of people expected a more significant change.

It's hard to drastically change the system without compromising some aspects.

- No apps, straight into probation. Explained in my response to Shii, but while I genuinely believe a BN's performance (or up-to-be BN) is better seen through how they work, keeping tabs on an indefinite amount of people at the same time could be an unsustainable model for the NAT involved. There'd be no way to filter out people other than by trying, which can be time consuming.
- Only focus on mods. That was the current approach. In my opinion, that is flawed. Someone can be good at modding whilst not have the best of mindsets or decision-making skills required of a BN. All of these soft skills aren't really something quantifiable via modding alone.
- Only focus on the decision making. Most of us agreed that we would still expect a certain level of competency on applicants' mods. This is in fact the 4th expectation that BNs have to abide by.
- Collective decide to lower the bar of entry, being more permissive. This is something that can technically be done under any system. Problem is, how do you decide where to draw the line?

I think all of these compromised can be argued for/against, so no option is necessarily better or worse. But it just gets to show that if the rope's pulled towards one side, the other side is going to be cut shorter. Though this thread was also made to discuss other avenues, if found reasonable enough.

Maybe now is the time to replace the RC test with something more rigorous?

Personally what I think would be useful is to have a stash of maps with intentionally left in issues that BN-applications have to then mod, as if they were modding it normally. Then they submit their mods with the prelude of 'assuming everything gets applied correctly I would nominate this', to allow NAT to compare their mods to known issues in the map. This could allow testing of more niche checks in potential bns, and not be a captcha-esque check like the RC test was.

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

Maybe now is the time to replace the RC test with something more rigorous?

Personally what I think would be useful is to have a stash of maps with intentionally left in issues that BN-applications have to then mod, as if they were modding it normally. Then they submit their mods with the prelude of 'assuming everything gets applied correctly I would nominate this', to allow NAT to compare their mods to known issues in the map. This could allow testing of more niche checks in potential bns, and not be a captcha-esque check like the RC test was.

i dont think bringing back bn tests is a good idea

- ppl will just share them again / do them together in a vc
- the left in issues are sometimes up for debate
- the entire scenario is forced in the sense of you get people to map stuff that is intentionally broken in some way

at least i think u shouldnt need to take a formalized competency test to be eligible to become a nominerd

Sense of direction is a good change since it definitely shows the people what they should go for to become a BN, but i believe removing reduced CD would be a mistake since it gave incentive to continue trying. At least reducing to 40 days instead of 30 would be still a decent change whilst still making the workload manageable.


I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Fall wrote: 692nv

Sense of direction is a good change since it definitely shows the people what they should go for to become a BN, but i believe removing reduced CD would be a mistake since it gave incentive to continue trying. At least reducing to 40 days instead of 30 would be still a decent change whilst still making the workload manageable.


I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Fwiw I think you are on a different page because we have reworked cooldowns a few months ago. The cooldown we want to go by from now on is basically the 60 days that were previously reduced from 90 days.

Reduced cooldown in the current system sucked because the 30 days ed for when the eval was being processed, so people would just reapply 1-2 weeks after being denied with a, in most cases, rushed application and fail again.

Personally wanna add some words about this. Generally, gonna say such changes (and read all the suggestion which noticed and aproved by NATs) is relevant and correct in current statement and will receive more "structure" eval about applicant. By the way, about Removing RC test dont thinking is necessary idea, still thinking to for new member is gonna be better idea to also check some technical issues and for understanding overall structure as ranked section as a whole or do it at will to test your technical skills in identifying problems. It will show the total score, but wouldn't been included for consesus.

For previous BN might been skipped for this.

Okoratu wrote: ct57

i dont think bringing back bn tests is a good idea

- ppl will just share them again / do them together in a vc
- the left in issues are sometimes up for debate
- the entire scenario is forced in the sense of you get people to map stuff that is intentionally broken in some way

at least i think u shouldnt need to take a formalized competency test to be eligible to become a nominerd

Maybe you don't think a competency test is necessary but surely you agree that there is a significant jump from modding a map for bn app and actually modding it to nominate?

Part of the reason for the RC Test being removed, besides not really offering any added value to either applicants or evaluators, is the fact that this is a Game. Part of the original proposal was to "Gameify" some of the systems. I really do think that any kind of test is going to both add an extra layer of complexity and potentially push some people off. Anecdotally, when I applied, I was scared shitless for a test I may have been as well fully prepared for.

s should have a better, more fun time. Submitting mods that they may've done at their own leisure and pace feels to be less restrictive and mentally taxing.

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

Maybe you don't think a competency test is necessary but surely you agree that there is a significant jump from modding a map for bn app and actually modding it to nominate?

Idk about other gamemodes, but in standard it's literally more difficult to mod for BN app than it is to mod to nominate. You can easily see the difference in effort put in on an average BN mod vs average mod for app.

Fall wrote: 692nv

I also agree with Ikin here, having a Electoz-styled test or similar would be a good change to the current RC Test to show proficiency aswell however i am not sure about long-term of it since people will eventually leak the maps though it's up to discussion.

Disagree with a test for not only reasons stated above, but modding for a test to spot answers vs organically modding an actual real map feels very different. Take it from someone who went through Electoz mentorship years back and he made us do the tests.

Firstly, when you are modding a "test" or "quiz" map, you find yourself looking for specific issues more than actually modding the map to spot areas of improvement. The idea that there are "correct answers" in modding in itself is already dumb (even if you set an intentional issue to be found, the solution/interpretation of how to resolve that issue will differ from person to person. How can you say one is right?)

But more importantly, modding should be done with the mindset of improving the map. Making the official process to get BN one where you hunt for issues in a map rather than trying to organically improve it sends the wrong message imo.

I would like to start a related discussion on reintroducing the tiered BN system. Here’s the post for reference—I wonder if it will pique anyone’s interest: https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/community/forums/topics/1899201?n=1

Gamifying the process might make it more fun and I understand why my thoughts are inconsistent with that.
I ask you to consider this: If we gamify the process of becoming BN and remove tests does that not open the door to people's attitudes being less serious and their rigorousness/thoroughness in checking maps being lax?

ikin5050 wrote: 643w3e

Gamifying the process might make it more fun and I understand why my thoughts are inconsistent with that.
I ask you to consider this: If we gamify the process of becoming BN and remove tests does that not open the door to people's attitudes being less serious and their rigorousness/thoroughness in checking maps being lax?

I don't know how a test that only shows your english comprehension (the original intend of the RC tests back in the days) or your competence to google regularities assures attitude.

I firmly believe that the true attitude can only be assessed *during BNship* in of continuous evaluations of the choices they are making under the role. Every attempt to preemptively weed out the "less serious" will eventually fail, because you basically attempt to scry into the future.

Gamification helps getting people interested in the system in the first place and the process can be considered a "spam protection", a rather basic filter. The proposed changes will try to preemptively determine what decisionmaking and actions they will perform with this role, but it won't be all conclusive and a test won't fix that flaw. The entire overhead of evaluations, applications and having the candidate provide insight on their decision making and beatmap assessment process already sets a rather stringent tone of what expectations come along with the role. The continuation of that will make clear that even while having that role, they can not just that hurdle and then do whatever. They will have eyes on them - all the way through their BNship - and this won't change (and is actually the most important aspect to keep things serious)

theres ways to cheat any test unless u want introduce photo Id, video recording + keyboard mouse recording + time limit + frequently updated questions

removing test is good, the main judgment of someone is good bn or not is dependent on the nat eval

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status

Reworking BN application s

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application

These seem like good changes and are definitely long overdue so it's nice to see them added. My only concern is that individual from each evaluator could potentially be inconsistent, contradictory or confusing due to different views, so when making these comments available to the applicant, it would be important to make sure that they're easily understandable and not conflicting with other evaluators, and to adjust them if necessary.

Removing the RC test

I'm not sure how I feel about this one honestly. On one hand, it is indeed a tedious test for applicants, and maintaining it is probably tedious for the NAT as well. But on the other hand, it might still be a valuable tool to determine knowledge/comprehension about the ranking criteria, BN rules, modding code of conduct etc. While it's true that looking up the answers is possible, it still teaches people about these things which they might not even read or know about otherwise. Therefore it could be seen more as a lesson than an actual test, which I don't think is bad. Whether it helps filtering out incompetent candidates or not is another story and it's hard to judge without knowing how many people are ing/failing the test. Assuming that the vast majority of applicants the test, perhaps increasing the threshold for ing could be an option to make it a more efficient selection process. Adding more questions that really test the person's knowledge, understanding and judgement could also make it more useful.

Reworking BN applications

First I want to address the proposed changes and some of the comments posted in this thread so far (I will talk about other issues and my own suggestions in a separate post later).

I was anticipating bigger changes, but I suppose all the talk about it just blew them out of proportion. I genuinely don't see much of a difference between this and the previous format, there are still 3 maps of different quality to submit and comment on. The questions are slightly different but still similar, so I guess the main difference would be supposedly shifting the focus from individual mods to decision-making skills and judgment, as stated above. However, it's unclear what this actually entails and how it affects the evaluation. Is it an actual different approach in how the modder is evaluated, or does it just mean that the selected maps and the answers will be more important while the mods themselves will be a bit less important than before?
I have a lot of doubts about the questions too because it's not clear how they should be answered. For example, when answering "How did your mod improve this beatmap?", are applicants meant to describe the issues and corresponding suggestions they made and how they would make the map better, are they meant to explain how the map in its current state differs from how it was before the mod, or are they meant to link certain timestamps as examples of things that were fixed (or a combination of these)? The question "Why do you believe this beatmap is ready to be nominated?" is also strange to ask because whether a map is suitable for ranked is usually not determined based on the presence of positive aspects, but rather based on the absence of negative ones. Neither BNs who nominate a map nor evaluators who assess the nominating BNs have to explain why a map is fine to be ranked. Therefore, an answer along the lines of "The map doesn't have problems" would be perfectly reasonable, but I doubt this is the type of answer that is being looked for. What is the expected response to this question though? That the map has good structure, represents the song well, and plays well? These things don't really provide meaningful information for the application. Also, how detailed should these answers be? All of this can be very offputting for those who apply and it could impact their application negatively if questions are misunderstood or they don't know how to reply, even if they are good at modding and judging maps.

achyoo wrote: 2rd30

Goes without saying but please disclaimer to people to not answer "no dont like song" even though that's what all BNs do, since it gives nothing for you to judge.

Or maybe don't, let the people who troll wait 60 days more.

It's not trolling to give a valid reason not to nominate a map, just like "I don't like the map" is a valid reason. This is why the questions' objective should be very clear. If certain answers are not wanted, the questions should be formulated in a way that doesn't allow said answer to be given.

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

We are requesting one map judged as good (but not an overly safe map that has already been bubbled or by an experienced mapper)

This is another example of "hidden expectations" within BN applications that have been a huge problem. There is no mention anywhere that a "safe map by an experienced mapper" is not desired, so expecting people to know this is unfair. Aside from the fact that there is no objective definition of such a map, I also don't get why it would not be appropriate to choose. Sure, if the map is very polished there might not be much to point out, but a good modder still has the possibility to find areas for improvement and mistakes that should be fixed. Also, aren't BNs supposed to nominate high quality maps (which are often created by experienced mappers)? This even shows they are capable of recognizing maps that are better than average.

RandomeLoL wrote: 6j2w4

The goal of the changes wasn't so much as to outright reduce the bar of entry into the BNG, but to make it less obtuse, easier to understand, more transparent to the end , and finally give a sense of direction of what exactly should be prioritized when evaluating someone's work which would affect the way applications are approached from both ends.

Unfortunately I fail to see how these changes concretely achieve these goals or even move closer to them, at least from the perspective of applicants. The transparency improvements are good, but other than that I really don't think this would make things "less obtuse, easier to understand" or give "a sense of direction", it's just slightly different than before but essentially the same process.

RandomeLoL wrote: 6j2w4

s should have a better, more fun time. Submitting mods that they may've done at their own leisure and pace feels to be less restrictive and mentally taxing.

I don't think there's even a single person who is having fun or treating BN apps like a game. Even without the BN test, applicants are preparing for it like an exam and usually getting nervous. Sometimes people might "yolo" apply without caring too much but usually those attempts are not successful, unless they're very experienced.

Mainly a response to the above, but to somewhat give my (after) shower thoughts:

Regarding treating it like a game
I'm not saying that's how it's currently being treated as, or if the proposed changes fully achieve that. In my opinion, they do not. But regardless that's the direction that we should probably strive forwards. Removing the test by itself, doesn't seem much. But it's just one less burden applicants have to interact with. And anecdotally in Mania, most of the times the test never really decided the outcome of an application. We've had people with extremely low scores show that they know the stuff when put into practice.

Regarding current changes not achieving the goals
Same as before, do think we're being far too conservative in some places. Despite that, I disagree that the proposed change is the same as the old one. The way you present a question or a problem is as important as the contents of the question themselves. Not only can the wording of a question make it easier/harder for the applicant, but it can also set a rough guideline of both what evaluators are exactly trying to look for while trying to steer applicants towards a clear direction.

The current system boils down to "Just do good mods, do a lot of them, and be varied" which is beyond vague.

Why "I don't like the map" would not be a valid reason
Beyond whether an applicant likes a map or not, they have to be able to explain why exactly they do not like it. Other than subjectivity, the new model would expect applicants to be able to justify this answer in a reasonable manner. Evaluators do not get any meaningful information out of an answer like this, other than assuming the style of maps they would not be willing to nominate.

-------------------------

With all this said, I ultimately agree with the sentiment that the needle isn't being moved too much. We should start being less conservative, see how things work, and re-asses whether the compromises made to make the application process overall less obtuse and easier to interact with are fair & square.

Problem with all of these changes is that it's a game of balance. Evaluators may prefer a stricter system to allow a better comprehension of applicants, while applicants just want to have an easier time. I do not think any side is wrong in that regard.

Serizawa brings up very valid points and I also echo these concerns.

Removing the BN test on paper is a progressive move, but reflecting upon my experience as a Trial BN, I can say the main reason I failed was because I didn’t (and kind of still don’t) understand the RC. Wording errors can be forgiven and improved on, but technical errors are not taken as lightly. At least when I applied, the test actually led me to fully look at the RC. Removing the test I think are leading potential Probation BN’s to making more technical errors as I did (Say for example audio or BPM adjustments that aren’t 100% explicit in the RC). It becomes much easier to get in without these aspects being fully evaluated, especially since you should mod a map that the NAT expects you to nominate. Of course you are not going to nominate a map that has so many unrankabales, and if the map is by an experienced mapper it gets harder to prove you fully understand the RC.

I’m assuming the question ‘What map would you NOT nominate?’ would be the proof of technical understanding but it’s pretty easy to catch egregious errors with the help of tools like Mapset Verifier.
Perhaps a solution to this could be a reverse BN test - A shorter test designed for probation BN’s to demonstrate technical knowledge, but it being after acceptance removes the reliance on a good score. The questions would be redesigned, mode specific (no more std questions for a mode like Taiko) and relevant. They can use it to check their knowledge rather than test it, and if they have questions they can ask NAT and brush up on that specific area. Also removes the stress and pressure since you’re already an accepted BN at this point.

Another point that does need to be examined are the questions in the answer section. I don’t hold as much issue for the 3 types of maps - I do think they are much more clear than before and I kind of made up my own guidelines - but the written part allows for really nonspecific answers that could make an already qualified applicant look pretty bad.
I also believe that the questions are redundant - you’re nominating a map because it lacks bad things, just as Serizawa said above. Adding guidelines would be useful or complete readjustment of the question such as ‘What makes this map unique?’ or ‘What does this map offer to the Ranked section?’ could offer more creative answers whilst still being objective.

‘How did your mod improve this beatmap?’ seems a bit silly no? First it implies that the mapper has to accept all the mods. Mods can still have value without being implemented as previously mentioned on this thread. But also, you would be able to see that yourself by checking the map in the before osz right? Why make the applicant craft an answer to an already self explanatory answer? I personally don’t understand the value in this.

Maybe I don’t fully get some things but those are just my two cents.

I pretty much always wanted this system to be more welcome to beginners, so agreeing with changes, people shouldn't go through what too have gone through.
From personal experience i only learned how to be a somewhat decent nominator through actually being one for some time and under casual mentorship of other bns, like checking 2nd bn mods on the same map you've modded was the most powerful thing. All of that + having the ability to push maps that you like was very satisfying to me, hence why i stayed so long.

Like this change. Previously, the only way to disagree with NAT (assuming you privately asked for it in the first place, or asked somebody else due to the NAT ignoring you) was to rally against them on twitter. I only hope that NAT are willing to put in the effort to satisfy (or try to satisfy) applicants. If providing was one of the most exhausting and delaying tasks, knowing what was previously given, I can't see how making each NAT write more cohesive individual will be less exhausting.

I do however think it is a bit silly to ask applicants to submit a map they would not nominate. I don't know any BNs who routinely mod maps they don't nominate, so I don't see why that would be something we would look for in a prospective BN. Not much information about the applicant would be given from a map they wouldn't nominate, especially when a BN's reason for not nominating a map is usually simply not liking the song, the map being too easy/hard, or some other really simple and boring reason.

Nifty wrote: 1c3z5h

Like this change. Previously, the only way to disagree with NAT (assuming you privately asked for it in the first place, or asked somebody else due to the NAT ignoring you) was to rally against them on twitter. I only hope that NAT are willing to put in the effort to satisfy (or try to satisfy) applicants. If providing was one of the most exhausting and delaying tasks, knowing what was previously given, I can't see how making each NAT write more cohesive individual will be less exhausting.

I do however think it is a bit silly to ask applicants to submit a map they would not nominate. I don't know any BNs who routinely mod maps they don't nominate, so I don't see why that would be something we would look for in a prospective BN. Not much information about the applicant would be given from a map they wouldn't nominate, especially when a BN's reason for not nominating a map is usually simply not liking the song, the map being too easy/hard, or some other really simple and boring reason.

Regarding the individual point, we already do this currently, it was quite labour intensive to go from writing thoughts individually to then collate it into one sole message. It also serves as nice proof of our work for our own evaluations and an archive to look back on, so I think it's nice to keep.

On a personal note regarding the other point (other NATs may not agree), I think whilst it would not tie into their potential future BN work very heavily, it's great for evaluation purposes. We want to ensure that applicants can identify unrankables and equally as importantly identify issues not directly covered by RC, which they might not encounter in maps they do want to nominate. I fear removing this may end up with applicants ing without a proper grasp on issues, and forcing them to find maps with each issue under the sun is a main reason why we wanted a change for the application process in the first place.

BN eval looks at DQs...

DQ mostly related to RC

RC is removed from test

applicants can become BN with poor knowledge of RC and just nom safe and simple map alongside experienced BN so it doesnt expose their issue with RC, but this is fine since they dont cause any problems.

but new BN are usually higher availability due to not burned out like experienced BN, so they are saviorv of new mappers trying to get first ranked, now less skilled bn have to worry about their eval and make it into direction of less new mapper friendly

Drum-Hitnormal wrote: 69x30

but this is fine since they dont cause any problems.

Oh this sounds like we can make everyone a nominator lol



Hmm, has anyone taken into the mapping skills of the BN? It doesn’t need to be perfect, but I believe a skilled modder or nominator will likely demonstrate their expertise in mapping. There must be something we can look at don't you think so? If you guys are getting rid of the test, let them provide something to demonstrate their expertise on basic mapping theory :/

wanna drop my 2c with regards to tests due to it becoming a point of discussion

ploping straight into actual BN work is really the best way to get actual practice with the technicalities of the RC as the will be able to come into direct with the bns and discuss stuff and whatnot -- even learn from others' DQs. me having failed probation, had an extended probation, and now full, it doesnt quite compare to theoreticals

the current testing method really doesnt accomplish much as it is a ctrl+f test with reading comprehension of the question
at best, it allows people to be reminded of some niche scenarios and acts as a general recap of the ins and out of the RC but without really much internalizing
at worst, it gives negative on outdated information as the RC changes every now and then

as for the prospect a more dynamic testing method like exam with a reference chart, i think this will hamper the inflow of BNs for TCM (taiko catch mania), since it would necessitate batches of applicants and more frequent changes to the test itself. Would the extra effort in facilitating this (when said effort can be used for tasks of more priority) be worth it? This would be on top of giving to the applicants. I dont really have optics of the average performance of bns across all modes so feel free to build upon this

so i lean towards not having RC tests

sidenote:
i do like to reiterate, probably for the benefit of the nats and the applicants. A clear example of what counts as "good modding" or a general reference of what should be checked could help with the process. There are initiatives such as modding mentorship that helps with the process but for thee others, clear expectations can bridge the gap

• The transparency about each stage of the application and the possibility of ing the NAT involved in the evaluation is interesting.

• I don't have a clear opinion about removing the RC tests, they may seem useless and an extra burden, but it was because of this test that I felt like reading the whole RC and I learned things that I had no idea existed, and I was able to apply them in practice on the maps that I sent in the application.

Just my opinion, but the RC test was the most fun part of the BN app, since looking for suitable maps for the BN app is very stressful and can take weeks in some cases (not complaining, just pointing it out).

• Regarding the changes in the maps to be sent, I don't see a real change. It's just become a bit more specific in of what the NAT wants, but the process is still the same: 1 map that you would nom, 1 map that you would NOT nom and 1 random map to complement the other two.

The part about answering the questions is just written differently (which may have made it a bit more specific), the old question about whether or not you would nom the beatmap in question already covered all of them, but with a slightly higher chance of getting answers like "the map isn't ready", so the changes only seem to affect those answers a bit.

----------------------------------

Honestly, I see some positive points and feel that we are heading in the right direction to improve the whole process. It seems to me that some points can only show whether they will be effective or not after some test period, in which NAT could make another post like this one reporting the result of the changes and allowing some more discussion about it, that would help the whole system to improve more and more

Reworking BN applications
it seems good but I also want the clarification mint asked for ("im curious about why an applicant needs to demonstrate the capacity to mod something that they are absolutely unwilling to nominate"). if I were a prospective bn, the only time I would even encounter this is if I think a map is great at first glance but uncover problems as I dig into it deeper, and for some reason those problems can't be fixed or the mapper is unwilling or something. it seems difficult to provide a good answer here if you're the type of modder/nominator to have high standards about the maps that you want to help along to ranked

Removing the RC test
I don't think this is too important regardless, but I find it odd that this is what was written about it

by being more indicative of reading comprehension than BN abilities.

isn't that the entire point of the test? understanding the sometimes meticulous wording of RC is important when you run into new examples of the edge cases it was designed around.

Increasing transparency on a BN application's status
ok

Reworking BN application s
ok (and i think it doesnt ahve to be anonymous either but w/e)

Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application
I can't appreciate why this is meaningfully different than the mentioned "group DMs", but I will just take your word for it that it's helpful since it must have been run by enough people to include in this forum post

The main logic for why we want applicants to explain their thought process is because, essentially, every BN is always making an evaluation as to the quality of the map they are requested, based on issues they see when they look at it. We want to make sure that the applicant can similarly identify those issues and, if needed, actually provide solutions and work with the mapper, even if in practice that sort of thing is a bit rarer due to the large amount of requests BNs get.

As an update, we've rewritten the application guidelines to be much more clear on what we are asking for and why, taking into the from y'all. That's currently under discussion internally but we're generally happy with the spot the app changes are on and intend to reopen applications soon.

While I currently can't say I have any ideas for how, I think this system could be improved even more. However it seems like a great step in the right direction. (or a better direction?)

I can't say for sure, but I think it's easy for people who could make for good BNs to think "why bother?" due to application being a bother, and I think it'd be better if it was at least slightly less tedious than it is currently.

My only real concern is that some people who may be good BNs could have trouble formulating their thoughts on some of these questions (particularly if we want to make BN more accessible to people who don't speak english super well). I wouldn't say it's a super huge concern, but I think it's something evaluators should keep in mind, albeit maybe this is so obvious it's something that won't cause problem?

edit: thought about that part above some more and it's probably not something that needs too much of a concern, it's probably fine.

I should say I'm mostly speculating based on my impression, so maybe the current system isn't as bad as I think.

this current BN test is extraordinarily dumb because it's only based on... 3 mods? and you get stuff like "subjective, mapper's intention" which is the biggest bull i have ever read in my entire life

actual good modders being left out of the BNG (again, 2017 all over again) for an application that is at its worst, by not hiding the applicant's name

reapplying every 2 months doesn't make sense, especially if every piece of is subjective and you cannot even respond other than " the NAT".

<removed comment>

ya, remove the written part because it's useless, very easy and it's the same 20 questions on every single test. like who the hell cares about "skinning"? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

<removed comment about transparency in the system not being good enough, poster thinks applications depend on how much the NAT likes the applicants and suggests bringing back old BAT system from 2014>

anyway, fun system!!!

Who hurt you? Incredibly cynical take and useless reply especially considering you've been away for so long I fully doubt you actually have a full grasp on how things are currently. Bring back BAT and the vouching thing is a hilarious thing to say, considering the leaks that happened 2 weeks ago about a canned proposal which tells me you made zero effort to actually understand what is even going on in the mapping ecosystem right now. This kind of unwarranted ego is kind of crazy considering oBWC'21 proved you fail to understand even things like decimal OD. But go off oomfie

Please that this is a place for actual discourse, not the malding ramblings of someone who clearly has a hateboner for the current people in charge. If you can't try and argue sensibly, just leave cuz you're not adding anything.

That said:

"subjective, mapper's intention" is a skill issue - you really should be able to understand mapper's intention whether you're a good modder or a bn (these are two distinct but overlapping things fwiw). I understand you might have difficulties with mapper intention, based on obwc, but don't feel too discouraged!

As above, good modders aren't necessarily good bns and vice versa. Hiding applicant name is irrelevant when writing styles and whatnot are pretty clear (and evalers could find out easily by other means anyways).

2 months is plenty of time to absorb and address the concerns raised in an application - personally I think 3 was fine but I don't see the arm either. And if that's all you can gleam from bn app I am seriously concerned for your reading skills.

NAT aren't required to be exceptional mappers (not that the current ones are bad) to be able to evaluate BNs or uphold precedent or whatever. I also don't know why you're shittalking mapper skill when you're not exactly hot stuff yourself.

Quiz was a formality for all but the worst applicants - you could easily ignore niche questions for shit like skinning and still just fine. The rest of the questions are indirectly answered in your mods anyways, so there's no loss.

The proposed changes do increase transparency as well. You're trying to equate some amount of inherent bias to a system that encourages circlejerking, which really goes to show that you're complaining in bad faith. Yes there'll be some bias. But have you considered that the applicants who're friends with NAT/BNs do better not because of the social connections, but because they have access to and resources?

Ayu's own response hammers in my other thoughts so just read that. Now, can we get some actual sensible discourse on the proposal again

Please see below for the updated application guidelines. Let us know your thoughts. As a note, the evaluation generally does not rely on the mapper responding to the mods at any point.


Map 1: Submit a "BN check" mod on a map that you believe is close to a rankable / nominatable state. If the mapper were to address your mods, you would immediately be ready to press the nominate button. Briefly describe why you believe the map is ready for ranked. The map should not have any nominations at the time of submitting your application.

This is intended to provide information on your ability to conduct the final steps of the modding process as well as independently evaluate a map's overall rankability.



Map 2: Submit a mod on a map that you not would nominate unless significant improvements are made. Additionally, briefly explain why the map was not in a rankable state when you modded it; your modding should generally address those concerns. The map should include a full spread of difficulties. The map should be hosted by a different mapper than the first map (including collab participants).

This is intended to provide information on your issue identification skills, communication and wording, and ability to evaluate a map's overall rankability.



Map 3: Submit a mod on a map that, in your opinion, would be helpful to us in evaluating your ability to judge map quality and readiness. Indicate whether you would or would not nominate the map after your modding has been addressed. The map should be hosted by a different mapper than the first or second maps (including collab participants). The map should not have any nominations at the time of submitting your application.

This will provide you with an opportunity to further improve your application, keeping in mind the intentions stated in the descriptions of the previous submissions.

I think these improve on the aspects that you can use to judge applications

to clarify:

- "mock BN check" still means posting a normal mod to a real discussion, right? just the wording throwing me off here cuz "mock" makes it sound like it's a manufactured scenario in some way. if I'm understanding it right I think you can still just call it a "mod", and the rest of the description explains what you're looking for

- if map 3 is intended to be a wildcard mod of the applicant's preference, I think that could be worded a bit clearer (specifically "judge map quality and readiness" is vague to me, I don't know if you meant for this to describe all good mods or not). if that's not what you were going for then idk what it means

and I guess my earlier concern isn't as big of a deal if the applicant can show the before-mapper-updated version of the maps

Appreciate the . Updated the wording on the first one. For the third map, it is supposed to be a wildcard for the applicant to "shore up" their app. It's supposed to be pretty vague - I wanted to avoid giving extremely specific instructions (well to be honest what I actually wanted was 2 of map 1 and 2 of map 2) so that it didn't become way too formulaic as it kind of has been in the last few years.

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

Appreciate the . Updated the wording on the first one. For the third map, it is supposed to be a wildcard for the applicant to "shore up" their app. It's supposed to be pretty vague - I wanted to avoid giving extremely specific instructions (well to be honest what I actually wanted was 2 of map 1 and 2 of map 2) so that it didn't become way too formulaic as it kind of has been in the last few years.

Imo the proposed changes are already formulaic because they clearly lay out a setup similar to what people have already been using in their apps for years (1 nommable map, 1 bad map, 1 filler).

I reckon you could get away with some more specifics (perhaps offering suggestions for how to fill the wildcard?) without railroading the app process too much though :3

I think these are a lot better changes, and much more specific. Being formulaic shouldn’t be a concern - it’s still an application and the more focused it is, applicants are able to provide much clearer signals that they would be able to perform as BN, saving headaches down the road. They still have the choice of spread, song, style etc that still provides vagueness and choice for the applicant.

1 - The term BN check may still throw some people off. Does this mean they don’t have to be as detailed? Does this mean that they have to rely more on their explanation of choice (since if the map is really up to standard there probably won’t be many mods)?
I don’t think it’s something super of concern, but maybe something to think about.

3 - As mentioned above this ‘wild card’ could be more specific. Adding details such as ‘Must be in a different style to Map 1 and 2’ makes it clearer for the applicant, rather than just assuming they know all the maps should be varied.

So far this is definitely on the right track of becoming more accessible and easier to understand.