This was brought up in a few separate places so now it has its own focused home (if i missed something about it re-share your opinions about it here)

The idea is:
If a map has significant concerns while a map is qualified, instead of initiating a veto with a disqualification, a mediation would come to resolve ongoing qualified map discussions. Either the concerned nominator or the mapper involved in the discussion would request mediation when an issue is at an ime and can't be resolved. The map would stay qualified.

points of this

1. Before, disqualification was necessary because otherwise the qualified timer would keep ticking. Now that pending issues lock a map in qualified until resolve, this is no longer the case.
2. This would be one step to help avoid false equivalence of veto = map is totally knocked from qualification process right away, it becomes a part of the ongoing steps.
3. If the issue relates to gameplay concerns, leaderboard data can help inform on how a map is playing for its audience, if there's any locations for common misses, why those happen, etc.
4. If the issue is dismissed and resolved, the map could resume qualification without needing to go through calling the nominating BNs back again.
5. Only when an issue is upheld would the map be removed from qualification as a veto.

Uhh it's a rough idea that was collected from a few sources, so thoughts are appreciated

ye this would help reduce amount of player crying substantially as well as protect vetoing bns from as much unnecessary backlash

+1

Good idea.

I don't think this would change much practically - vetoes take a long time, so having a map sitting there would just increase the likelihood of *any* changes, not just the ones suggested solely by the veto, being rejected to avoid a DQ - which is behavior that the system has been modified to discourage over the years. Also, I think that it might exacerbate the issue if some epic poggers 2k pp map gets a really good qualified score posted on it while in limbo and then gets DQd after the veto is upheld (if a veto will ever be upheld again).

The way to reduce the amount of player crying is to have people tell players unequivocally that being toxic dickheads is bad behavior and that they shouldn't do it, then enforce that, not to bend over backwards to 15 year olds with death threat macros every time it happens. Setting good examples and showing community-wide disapproval of the type of behavior would be much more effective than trying to brush it under the rug constantly.

Nao Tomori wrote: 68164u

I don't think this would change much practically - vetoes take a long time, so having a map sitting there would just increase the likelihood of *any* changes, not just the ones suggested solely by the veto, being rejected to avoid a DQ - which is behavior that the system has been modified to discourage over the years.

that's a fair point to me but only if the opposite happens often -- do people usually take the opportunity of a veto to mod the map in ways unrelated to the veto?

Nao Tomori wrote: 68164u

Also, I think that it might exacerbate the issue if some epic poggers 2k pp map gets a really good qualified score posted on it while in limbo and then gets DQd after the veto is upheld (if a veto will ever be upheld again).

I haven't seen this type of complaint in meaningful volume since the days of qualified maps giving pp so I don't think this would happen

Nao Tomori wrote: 68164u

The way to reduce the amount of player crying is to have people tell players unequivocally that being toxic dickheads is bad behavior and that they shouldn't do it, then enforce that, not to bend over backwards to 15 year olds with death threat macros every time it happens. Setting good examples and showing community-wide disapproval of the type of behavior would be much more effective than trying to brush it under the rug constantly.

I agree with your attitude here. I can't tell what you're suggesting that would actually look like in practice, though (or maybe you weren't trying to exactly). for me this is much less about what is "enforced" and more about what role models people have in the community and how much they understand the systems at play

e: should clarify I don't have any problem with like silences/restrictions over srs thing like death threats even off-platform, but that's not the same thing as the general, less extreme hostility you often see toward ppl who place vetoes, that at least imo do not warrant any kind of "enforcement" beyond cleaning up unhelpful posts on modding discussions or w/e

---

I don't think the proposal would dramatically improve anything but I also don't think it would hurt either I guess. some of the points listed are nice benefits imo, like being able to see the scores that would normally be hidden on DQ. I also think framing a veto as sort of "pending" until it's actually upheld is a little more accurate to its intention

... +0.5?

like the part where it avoid wasting time if veto is rejected, agree

i think this is useful for general stuff like veto for preview timing, bg choice, diff name etc, map related veto takes longer to discuss and fix, having this change or not doesnt make any difference

so overall a small gain

While the change is mostly going to be helpful optics-wise, I have the same reasonable objections clayton points out. This is not going to fix the core behavioural issues that should be handled elsewhere.

I agree though that the perceptions players would have could be different. And allowing a map to be almost instantly ranked if it's dismissed would definitely be a meaningful time saver. So overall it should be a non-issue for us to implement and try out.

However, if the veto is upheld, this means the map would spend severely less time the next time it is qualified if changes are made. I believe that this would only work if there was a way to forcefully reset the ranked timer on upheld sets. This would avoid the map from being ranked with the new changes without having no time to spend in Qualified, which in principle would be an issue if the set gets changed (Something something ship of Theseus).

Would say more stuff should be made if vetoes are this problematic however. Suggest looking at the still pending discussions and see what we can do from there.

+1 I like it

yep, that would be nice

ing this. Though it does not directly tackles the structural issue with the veto system, it is still a good intermediate solution before we decide the fate of the veto system in the future.

Speaking of community "collateral damage" also discussed above, I still think the majority of the community is not inherently with "ill intentions", but a lack of knowledge on how the veto system works. Unlike other components in the beatmap ranking procedure, veto is fairly a niche one from the perspective of the general public.

While we could surely implement penalties for egregiously malicious behaviors on related social media platforms, most of our efforts should still center around how to educate the community with those systems better. Therefore, in addition to this proposal, I would also suggest to further standardize the initial veto post, e.g., ask the nominator who initiates the veto to follow a certain format and add necessary informative contents such as the veto wiki page, and some brief introduction on the procedures and the outcomes.

While I wouldn't agree in principle, because the point of a disqualification is to start a discussion, not to end it, I agree that the optics of a veto would be improved by this to players who have limited understanding of the system.

However, if vetoed maps are qualified until upheld, why aren't maps under Content Review qualified until the BG/video/SB element fails? I get if it was the main BG visible on the website, but otherwise, it wouldn't affect the visibility of the questioned element much at all.

Therefore, I propose that either:

1. Vetoes do not disqualify a map until sent to mediation.
2. Vetoes do not disqualify a map until upheld, AND Content Reviews do not disqualify the map until failure unless it is the background visible from the website.

Mafumafu wrote: 3t19c

[...] Most of our efforts should still center around how to educate the community with those systems better. Therefore, in addition to this proposal, I would also suggest to further standardize the initial veto post, e.g., ask the nominator who initiates the veto to follow a certain format and add necessary informative contents such as the veto wiki page, and some brief introduction on the procedures and the outcomes.

I agree, and I feel there is lacking education on the rules and beatmap procedure in general.
I feel like making a video series about it would help, but Mafumafu's idea about making veto messages standardized and educational would help, since many people will only see that message without having read (or reading) the related wiki articles on procedure beforehand.

Therefore, I propose that an informal standard veto message is created by a group of BNs and NAT .
This veto message could explain:

1. What a veto is and why it can be placed (for subjective reasons).
2. The difference between a veto and veto mediation.
3. If sent to mediation, the rules for mediation, including turnout (7 days, 70% agree, 60% voted).
4. If upheld, the ability to challenge a veto after a year.

So simple suggestion, but how much it will simplify the proccess. Yeap, totally agree.

Yeah - this seems pretty neat. I'd agree with implementing this solution.

This sounds like a rly good idea.

Also, on a logistical note, does this mean that vetoes be placed with a suggestion timestamp instead of a problem stamp?
Because I feel like a problem stamp/DQ is meant to get the opinion of more players and mappers given that a large portion of the mapping community have qualified pings enabled, and if suggestion stamps are to be used it may reduce the visibility.

WALL-E wrote: 4p4i1l

Also, on a logistical note, does this mean that vetoes be placed with a suggestion timestamp instead of a problem stamp?

They would have to, yes. If any BN/NAT/GMT/ tries to put a Problem stamp on any Qualified map, it will instantly DQ it no matter what.

If a veto were to begin though, BNs would be more than notified about it, that I can assure you.

As for players/mappers, that I'm not sure. Visibility on vetoes is basically "hidden" in the BN Site. We could perhaps find ways to keep anyone interested informed. Can think of a few ways, such as an opt-in for anyone to be notified of when a Veto takes place, to a subforum or forum thread that mirrors any Veto that go up. This would make it possible to keep track of it from the platform itself. But that's a different discussion altogether. Would pin it down for later, if you were to ask me.

yeah that'd be nice. I think the only reason why veto summaries can be considered "hidden in the BN site" is because it's a third party, so I think a subforum would be a rly good addition.

+1

think this wud be a nice change to avoid maps spending an unnecessary time out of qualified incase the veto get dismissed

I agree.

+1

I don't feel like this really does anything, I think this is addressing the problem with the tiniest bandaid solution.

Basically what Nao said, more specifically, that this change would discourage other mods being made / applied on a vetoed map.

-1

Added on May the 4th, 2025. Marked as such. Vetoes can now be placed with suggestion stamps.

RandomeLoL wrote: 5z6613

Added on May the 4th, 2025. Marked as such. Vetoes can now be placed with suggestion stamps.

Can or should or have to?
The wording in the OP makes it sound like it would be standard procedure to keep the map qualified, but what if someone still uses a problem stamp to veto?

Do refer to the Wiki for that. It was changed alongside the update.

Pending maps need to be vetoed with a problem stamp, where its qualification status does not matter.

Qualified maps need to be vetoed with a suggestion stamp. This is what's new.

That sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, why not always use suggestions to be consistent when it makes no real difference for pending maps?

Also, the text on the wiki is not correctly updated because the entire last part about "how to proceed after mediation" is still based on maps being disqualified and then renominated in the case of the veto being dismissed, or not renominated if it's upheld.

That can be fixed with a Pull Request, so no biggie. Will be reviewed later today, by yours truly.

It's not necessarily complex considering that something worth Vetoing over is still worth being considered a problem. Just that any BN or with elevated permissions will instantly disqualify a map the second a Problem stamp is posted. This wouldn't be an issue if that was not the default behaviour, but alas. Realistically, if someone were to post it as a suggestion it would not be the end of the world.