{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Share<\/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 335 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed April 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Share<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T05:26:11+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Orange fox <\/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 2024-06-09T05:30:49+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I imagine just telling evaluators to be more clear about their or giving basic writing tips on-page would go a long way to fixing what was pointed out here. but the more formal suggestions sound fine to me toomelleganol wrote:<\/h4>judging posts: It would be a good idea to go with (+) \u2219 (+\/) \u2219 (\/-) \u2219 (-) marks to improve the display and prevent any misunderstanding. So the evaluators can continue to write whatever they want, but their position on the matter is clear from the outset.<\/li><\/ol><\/blockquote>I wouldn't understand what these slash things mean if it wasn't explained to me beforehand.<\/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 WALL-E<\/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 100 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n WALL-E<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T06:07:35+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Agree with clayton<\/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 Drum-Hitnormal<\/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 1,778 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Drum-Hitnormal<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T06:18:13+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n agree should be clear and let applicant know how severe , just not sure whats meaning of the \/i think its important to mention the things thats done well, to encourage applicatnt to keep doing those things and avoid being too subjective on whats issue, look at objective issue only<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Drum-Hitnormal<\/a> 2024-06-09T06:20:44+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 melleganol<\/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 628 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Topic Starter\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n \n melleganol<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T06:50:23+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n clayton wrote:<\/h4>I wouldn't understand what these slash things mean if it wasn't explained to me beforehand.<\/blockquote>Yumenexa wrote:<\/h4>Agree with clayton<\/blockquote>Drum-Hitnormal wrote:<\/h4>just not sure whats meaning of the \/<\/blockquote>added clarification<\/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 RandomeLoL<\/a>\n\n \n Nomination Assessment Team\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 294 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed September 2015<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n RandomeLoL<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T11:49:45+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Do have to point out that a couple of the things suggested are a regression of the systems we've been changing over the years. Especially the more recent changes.I personally agree with points 1 and 2. Sometimes there's incongruent coming from different evaluators. It's important to realize that during group stage, these differences are settled. And while that's clear to us, I agree that unless specified in the general , it's hard for the evaluated to know which opinion is the right one.However I don't see much value being added by the solutions proposed. Other than standardizing the way everything is written and making it quite strict, it doesn't necessarily mean that the writing itself will necessarily be more\/less confusing. Which is precisely how it worked before.Personally, this isn't so much a systematic issue (plus writing changes a lot<\/strong> between modes, so this is not something that can be generalized either). If anything, as evaluators we should probably be more mindful of what's written and understand that it has to be understood by someone else - not just us. But I do not think the solution is to constrain the way is written all across the board. What works for one, may not work for another.I would also encourage replying to an evaluation with a message asking for clarification on anything that may've not been understood or properly explained. Making use of that new tool should help getting answers when the writing itself doesn't provide them.So yeah tldr I do agree with clayton. In mania at least we used to have templates for , but ever since we've relied on our individual comments to do most of the talking, we've just tried making sure the general cleared up any incongruent messages found in them.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Serizawa Haruki<\/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 1,722 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed June 2015<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Serizawa Haruki<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T13:55:52+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I do agree this could be improved, but I think the way is presented is far from the only issue with BN apps.Just to name a few things:Even after the recent changes, there are still arbitrary expectations not written anywhere. For example, on 2 BN apps I saw evaluators mentioning that the map chosen for nomination is a \"safe pick\" because it was made by a famous mapper and therefore doesn't showcase the applicant's ability to identify what's suitable for ranked. But what's wrong with picking a popular mapper's map? They also need modding and improvement sometimes and if anything, it shows the candidate would pick high quality maps which is a good thing. Another example was about an app having 3 TV size maps which was considered insufficient for some reason. If such maps are really not wanted on BN apps, why not communicate this beforehand to avoid it?<\/li>Some comments are way too subjective and not relevant\/helpful at all, for example \"this part of the map is really boring\" and similar stuff. Only things that are actual issues should be brought up and not preferences.<\/li>There really should be the possibility to appeal, which is not the case based on the response here: https:\/\/bn.mappersguild.com\/message?eval=6613776f12d9dee58c2d1d3e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>For a more in-depth analysis, read from this post onwards: community\/forums\/posts\/9486889<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Serizawa Haruki<\/a> 2024-06-09T13:57:14+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 melleganol<\/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 628 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Topic Starter\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n \n melleganol<\/a>\n\n \n 2024-06-09T18:55:21+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n RandomeLoL wrote:<\/h4>However I don't see much value being added by the solutions proposed. Other than standardizing the way everything is written and making it quite strict, it doesn't necessarily mean that the writing itself will necessarily be more\/less confusing. Which is precisely how it worked before.<\/blockquote>It shouldn't be that hard for the evaluators to add the marks, plus the focus of the post is readability, but I have in mind that I can fix other problems like:Drum-Hitnormal wrote:<\/h4>i think its important to mention the things thats done well, to encourage applicatnt to keep doing those things and avoid being too subjective on whats issue, look at objective issue only<\/blockquote>Serizawa Haruki wrote:<\/h4>Some comments are way too subjective and not relevant\/helpful at all, for example \"this part of the map is really boring\" and similar stuff. Only things that are actual issues should be brought up and not preferences.<\/blockquote>SEV rating can also solve this thing. Evaluators should mark these comments so that the applicant can visualize the obviousness\/severity, but this also makes the evaluators more aware of what they are writing.<\/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 RandomeLoL<\/a>\n\n 3t174v