{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n McEndu<\/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 1,274 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n McEndu<\/a>\n\n \n 2025-02-13T06:30:46+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Have to reread this multiple times, but is there any true addition to the RC here?<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \u3060\u304b\u3089\u50d5\u306fosu!mania\u3092\u8f9e\u3081\u305f<\/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 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 288 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 2025-02-13T06:32:23+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Personally believe this defeats the purpose of trying to standardize markers if we then just make it a \"free for all\" on who gets to choose how something gets capitalized, no? If anything, I personally believe the allowance was already quite a deviation from the goal of standardizing markers to begin with.Guess I'm more conservative on this matter, and by no means I'm not trying to be part of the Fun Police. It is true that currently whoever gets to choose a fancy, stylized marker will bone any map thereafter as it'd be stuck with the same styling, were we to follow ranked consistency to a tee. And I do not think the solution to it is simply speedrunning to see who can rank their set best.If people really are fond of alternative casing used for markers, I do see no point in holding these styles hostage to the first map to be ranked, and so explicitly allowing them to break consistency seems reasonable.But, personally, I do think the whole idea is antithetical to having a set standard of markers to easily identify song versions throughout the platform.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Molybdenum<\/a>\n\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 207 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed June 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Topic Starter\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Molybdenum<\/a>\n\n \n 2025-02-13T06:42:09+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n @mcendu the difference would be that exclusively marker capitalization would not be subject to ranked consistency while still following the `Alternative casing for markers may be used if the rest of the song title is stylised to fit the formatting` guideline.@randome Alternative capitalization of the markers I don't think will confuse players when seeing song versions, and maybe even help them identify certain maps that they like if two maps have differing capitalization.Correct me if I'm wrong (as far as I know, this was never publically stated so anyone not in a group that would need to know would know the written purpose of anything unless it's ed down) but isn't the purpose of markers so that we have a unified spelling of certain phrases? For example, players trying to if a song is ~Game Edit Version~, (Game Edit), or something similar? Alternative capitalization I don't think would violate this and I think saying it's unethical might be a little bit of an overstatement.I don't think a single player would get genuinely confused over alternative casing of a marker, especially when updated standardization measures have already caused ranked consistency to be broken to larger extents on certain maps, such as updated marker use being used for (Movie Ver.) causing this map<\/a> and this map<\/a> to have differing titles?This would also bring a maximum of 3 stylings for markers with a set only being able to utilize a maximum of 2 (title case, lowercase, uppercase) with none of them actually being spelled differently.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Molybdenum<\/a> 2025-02-13T06:48:11+00:00<\/time>, edited 3 times in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n This has been a Molybdenum production. Please like and subscribe<\/em><\/strong><\/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 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 288 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 2025-02-13T06:48:56+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n What you just described is the markers' goal, yes. Standardizing the way they are written. This, originally, also included capitalization, so that also has to be taken into . Hence wanting to emphasize my perspective is, by definition, way more conservative.We cannot make assumptions of what players will (or will not) find confusing. All I can say is that it's way easier to recognize a marker if both its characters and capitalization used stays the same. Our brain recognizes patterns, and changing the pattern makes recognition harder afterall.Also side point that I won't really push on but, no one said this was \"unethical\" (?). Not really sure how that was the conclusion drawn. I simply said that allowing to bend rules meant to standardize markers is antithetical<\/a><\/em><\/strong> to the purpose of said standardizing rules.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Molybdenum<\/a>\n\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 207 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed June 2019<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Topic Starter\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Molybdenum<\/a>\n\n \n 2025-02-13T07:00:18+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I misread \"thetical\" as \"ethical\", I'm not wearing my glasses, my bad.But saying we can't make assumptions of what players will or will not find confusing can't really be used as an argument here in my opinion since in order to make any argument on this, you would have to determine if players would find it confusing or not.As an analogy, if I write randomelol and RandomeLoL, you know I'm referring to the same person and that there is nothing confusing about that despite the capitalization being different. This logic can apply to song markers (especially since they're at the end of titles so players will already know what song they're looking at and listening to)While it's true that it's easier to recognize something if it's written with the same capitalization, I think it would be beneficial to take into how<\/em> much easier it is. I wouldn't say it's much easier as I don't think this is difficult, but I do agree that being used to something is easier than something slightly different.As you said, this originally included capitalization but as years have ed and this allowance was permitted, standards have changed so site-wide capitalization consistency of markers doesn't seem to be a huge deal anymore from my eyes.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n This has been a Molybdenum production. Please like and subscribe<\/em><\/strong><\/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 Stompy_<\/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 929 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Stompy_<\/a>\n\n \n 2025-02-13T11:10:56+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Imo, no need to change. Though I'm not sure if I understood the proposal correctly.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Stompy_<\/a> 2025-02-13T11:14:30+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 -White<\/a>\n\n \n Contest Committee\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 334 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed February 2020<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n -White<\/a>\n\n \n 2025-02-14T12:40:27+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Imo the whole ranked consistency thing was already flexible so idk if it's actually required to change the rules to explicitly allow this<\/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 Noffy<\/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 5n6t2j