{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n lenpai<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,780 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n lenpai<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-21T13:58:49+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n wanna drop my 2c with regards to tests due to it becoming a point of discussionploping 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 theoreticalsthe current testing method really doesnt accomplish much as it is a ctrl+f test with reading comprehension of the questionat 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as a general recap of the ins and out of the RC but without really much internalizingat worst, it gives negative on outdated information as the RC changes every now and thenas for the prospect a more dynamic testing method like exam with a reference chart, i think this will hamper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 thisso i lean towards not having RC testssidenote: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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \ua4b0\u232f\u0352\u2022 \u032b \u2022\u232f\u0352\ua4b1<\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Doug<\/a>\n\n \n Beatmap Nominator\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n\n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 298 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Doug<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-21T19:30:50+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \u2022 The transparency about each stage of the application and the possibility of ing the NAT involved in the evaluation is interesting.\u2022 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).\u2022 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 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n clayton<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,978 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed November 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n clayton<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-23T23:26:38+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Reworking BN applications<\/strong>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 rankedRemoving the RC test<\/strong>I don't think this is too important regardless, but I find it odd that this is what was written about itby being more indicative of reading comprehension than BN abilities.<\/blockquote>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<\/strong>okReworking BN application s<\/strong>ok (and i think it doesnt ahve to be anonymous either but w\/e)Platform for communication between NAT and applicant post-application<\/strong>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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Nao Tomori<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3,078 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nao Tomori<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-24T02:04:09+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n roufou<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 995 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed September 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n roufou<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-24T03:07:04+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by roufou<\/a> 2024-03-25T01:22:52+00:00<\/time>, edited 2 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Yuii-<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 2,501 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed July 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Yuii-<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-25T15:52:49+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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 lifeactual 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!!!<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Okoayu<\/a> 2024-03-25T17:11:09+00:00<\/time>, edited 2 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n achyoo<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 442 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2016<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n achyoo<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-25T16:03:49+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by achyoo<\/a> 2024-03-25T16:04:46+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Shii<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 380 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed October 2016<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Shii<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-03-25T17:11:32+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n 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 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/span>Stuff<\/a>Osu!Classic Player10+PP as of October 20161000+ PP as of Jan 20171300+PP as of February 20171500+PP as of March 20172500+PP as of April 2017????+PP as of May 20173300+PP as of June 20175200+PP as of January 20186700+PP as of January 20197400+PP as of June 20197580pp as of May 17th 2020<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Nao Tomori<\/a>\n\n \n osu! Alumni\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 3,078 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed December 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n c2l4m