Current rule:


The removal of the rule for "A difficulty's name must not solely consist of one or more names" has already loosened naming restrictions, but the current rule about possession in difficulty names remains restrictive and introduces an inconsistency for Mapset Hosts.

Some examples of inconsistencies within the current naming practices:

beatmapsets/2293067/discussion/4896324/general#/4860899
The current rule forces us to either remove ownership completely, or to force the NAT to allow/disallow it on case-by-case bases like this since the difficulty name is both possessive and a nod to the song's title. The spread is already progressive which creates no problems for players in understanding what the difficulty levels mean.

beatmapsets/2287859#osu/4881501
Arles isn't allowed as a difficulty name if the mapper hosts, while beatmapsets/2237410#osu/4904540 was just recently allowed as a GD. The diffname describes the mapping style itself given its historical context, while also contributing meaning and fitting the thematic context of the mapsets difficulty given it was even featured in last years OWC. Why allow it for GD’s, but draw the line when the mapper themselves hosts the set??

beatmapsets/614286/discussion/3466641/general#/4752405
Similar to the example above, the other modes with well known established difficulty names like "Taikosaki", which have indicated for over a decade the difficulty you can expect, are disallowed only if the mapper themselves is the one hosting it. But again being possessive, since it’s the same as saying “Onosaki’s Taiko”, means this cannot be used since it breaks this rule.

beatmapsets/2078730#osu/4352790
In the case of “Satellite” where the mapper and the artists doujin circle shares the same name, the rule is not being broken since it’s not “possessive”. Technicalities like this just serve to further complicate things, and fundamentally the mappers name being in the difficulty name causes no issues here, so why does it create problems in the above instances I mentioned?

The constant need to evaluate whether possession is relevant, or if the diffname is a reference to something related to the song, be it the title or another factor, leads to inconsistency and additional work for Mappers, Nominators, and NAT alike.

Whether it’s a mapper using their name in a possessive form, a guest difficulty wanting to credit its creator, or just using possession to align with the title, these cases should all be treated the same.


name difficulty names are already allowed for spreads as long as they are progressive, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to restrict the host specifically from going along with that naming scheme.

Conclusion:

Removing this rule which prohibits the host’s possession in difficulty names would eliminate unnecessary confusion and provide greater flexibility in naming conventions. The current system, which relies on subjective case-by-case evaluations, introduces inconsistency and ambiguity, ultimately undermining the original intention of the rule. By allowing possession, this would better align with community practices and creative intent, ensuring a more straightforward and transparent approach to difficulty naming.

3/12/2025 Edit
After further discussion, it seems most everyone is in (with 1 being neutral) of the rule being removed. I'm in favor of Okoayu's guideline suggestion at community/forums/topics/2052052?n=16 for further clarification to prevent abuse of the rule removal.

Still open for further discussion in case anyone has concerns about the rule being potentially removed or the way the guideline suggestion is worded.

I'll edit it here what the current consensus is:

fair suggestion and the theoretical benefit is clear. the main elephant in the room I'm seeing here is the hypothetical of someone arbitrarily prefixing their name onto every diff of a solo set, or something like that, where it's obviously redundant and silly, but it'd be harder to argue any particular reason why they can't do it. in that sense, I think the change could create a shift from interpreting a rule to interpreting the lack of a rule, contrary to the full objectivity that you desire here. but if the argument is that those would be easier edge cases to deal with, compared to how it is now, then I think I'm in

Kataryn wrote: i5lj

fair suggestion and the theoretical benefit is clear. the main elephant in the room I'm seeing here is the hypothetical of someone arbitrarily prefixing their name onto every diff of a solo set, or something like that, where it's obviously redundant and silly, but it'd be harder to argue any particular reason why they can't do it. in that sense, I think the change could create a shift from interpreting a rule to interpreting the lack of a rule, contrary to the full objectivity that you desire here. but if the argument is that those would be easier edge cases to deal with, compared to how it is now, then I think I'm in

I agree edge cases would be easier to deal with in that context. Obviously there's nothing currently stopping people from writing their name in giant letters on a maps background either, but we don't get many cases of that since obvious bad faith would be quickly brought up. These cases should be handled like any other modding discussion.

Here's an example if I made a set for the Anime Great Teacher Onizuka:


The above is a cool nod to the title and acknowledges the contribution of the GDers, while not overshadowing the actual song content itself.


Obviously this would be excessive self-promotion and overshadows the actual song content being represented making the focus more about me than the song itself. Handling these edge cases should come down to community standards and what the overall consensus is in the modding discussion, rather than referencing an arbitrary rule that is easily misconstrued.

got it, makes sense & seems like a fair thing to leave up to community standards, like you said. +1

agree

Agree with this, never liked this rule anyways +1

agree it shouldn't be a rule, as it has been brought out with many examples here already, when a custom difficulty naming gimmick is used, claiming possession of one's own difficulty can make sense. however, i still believe this rule should be applicable when it comes regular difficulty naming, because as kataryn pointed out, i don't think it's a good idea to completely allow using this in all circumstances. claiming possession of any of your difficulties is often not only redundant, but can also create confusion as this is generally used for guest difficulties, so one might assume the host is actually a guest on a given mapset. therefore i do think it would be better to still keep it as a guideline, which would allow the usage of this naming gimmick in specific cases where it makes sense, but still avoid it being used more generally.

Sadu wrote: 4a4u1s

claiming possession of any of your difficulties is often not only redundant, but can also create confusion as this is generally used for guest difficulties, so one might assume the host is actually a guest on a given mapset.

The mapper’s name is already clearly present on both the song select and the beatmap page, so there's no real risk of confusion in of ownership. Guest difficulties are also clearly labeled "mapped by" on site which is present on Lazer.

Sadu wrote: 4a4u1s

i do think it would be better to still keep it as a guideline, which would allow the usage of this naming gimmick in specific cases where it makes sense, but still avoid it being used more generally.

There's already a guideline in place which is applicable here:


I believe this already discourages using possession since a mappers name, being a descriptive element, isn't always clearly related to a level of difficulty, but can be depending on context.

+1 agree. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Maps require at least 2 bns to get ranked and thus require both of them to agree on the difficulty naming scheme being appropriate. In the case of abuse we have vetoes, NAT, and just talking it out to take care of it.

I think it's silly that for instance Starrodkirby86 wouldn't be allowed to make a [Kirby MIX] difficulty for his own set without needing to resort to silly arguments like "the Kirby in Kirby MIX indicates style and not possession" or whatever.

To be quite frank, I'm all in all neutral. But we already removed the other tangentially related difficulty name rule. And even then I'd say this rule makes even less sense than difficulty names being comprised of one or two+ s' names.

That said, I would not bring up the first example into the mix. If there's a reason for that word in possessive form to be used, I would say that abides by the spirit of the rule. If anything that kind of wordplay or coincidences is fine. And this kind of justification could be done even with the current rule in place. Same about Arles, it was thought to be fine back when even with its respective rule in place (Plus it's not claiming possession whatsoever so...). Or Ono's diff for that matter. Point is that this rule disallows explicit ownership from the host on their solo diffs.

The guideline that discourages ambiguous difficulty names or complete nonsense ones should be enough of a deterrent if this was removed. And yes, nonsense names would still be brought up by modders, BNs, and anyone who wishes to discuss them.

RandomeLoL wrote: 5z6613

That said, I would not bring up the first example into the mix. If there's a reason for that word in possessive form to be used, I would say that abides by the spirit of the rule. If anything that kind of wordplay or coincidences is fine. And this kind of justification could be done even with the current rule in place. Same about Arles, it was thought to be fine back when even with its respective rule in place (Plus it's not claiming possession whatsoever so...). Or Ono's diff for that matter. Point is that this rule disallows explicit ownership from the host on their solo diffs.

My issue with this is, a rule should not exist or be phrased in a way to ever require any kind of justification since it's not a guideline. The first example I mentioned was disqualified by a NAT member due to this technicality. The first example I mentioned was brought up as an issue while qualified and given a special exemption, and cases like these have been happening a lot recently which could easily be avoided if the rule were removed.

One of the main arguments against Arles was that "it's a shortening of their previous name 'arlequin91'," essentially turning it into a single possessive ("Arle's"). Even if some of the discussing NAT believed this to be acceptable within the rules verbiage, I was unable to re-qualify it without an NAT vote.

According to my sources, this vote was specifically kept vague and was to decide whether "the freedom dive diff could use Arles". After the vote ed, I was still unable to qualify until after the RC change went through for the other aforementioned (now removed) rule, which was a separate requirement to whether the diffname itself could be used, whether possession was intended, or not.

"Taikosaki", "Kirby MIX" and any other similar cases follow this same naming logic, and will easily be raised as an issue again in the future if not addressed. Ideally, we should take steps to prevent similar cases from arising moving forward. Regardless of the wording or the intent/spirit of the rule, it should always be clear and never open to interpretation.

+1

Then there I don't really see eye to eye. To me at least the current rule's point is quite clear, and claiming that some of these examples are claiming ownership is, in my honest opinion, a stretch and a half.

I mentioned the examples to explain said stretch, not to delve deep into them. But no, the first example given was not disqualified.

As for "Rules should not exist if they require any sort of justification" I believe is not really pragmatic? I more than agree that rules must not be ambiguous and only cover what they are meant to cover. If that is the problem, then it can be fixed. I just don't agree with the comment made. Discussions are bound to happen and rules are expected to be brought up. Not the best of examples but like, that is the point of laws.

In any case, won't delve too much into it. Whether the rule stays or not, in my opinion, nothing would change given the examples above. I do not think those fall into "possession" in the literal sense of the word.

Read the thread. @RandomeLoL: I experienced this myself how people look at this rule, and your interpretation is a first to me at least. I like it and would . But many others see it differently. Especially in the Taiko community people want to use these kind of difficultie names (see: Raidcore), but say we are not allowed for the possession reason. It really is a headache to me at least. Instead of talking about mapping, I have to explain myself everytime about a difficlulty name I use since 15 years and which the whole community knows about its meaning. Meanwhile, people can have difficulty sentences like "this is a tragic love of-..." etc..

It's not that people disagree. They just don't know what the rule really wants from them, so they go the safer route (see the Taikosaki case before the rule change). So in theory you might be right, but pratically, it doesn't fly in the (taiko-)community.

At that point the problem does not fall on the rule but on something else entirely. But that is outside the scope of this discussion.

As I initially said I'm neutral, so this is not a hard block whatsoever. Just can't force myself to interpret it how it is being interpreted.

I think we should add a guideline among the lines of the list below & remove the rule to address what Kataryn had said


pls note that this is just my first idea about the problem, but i hope that addresses the concerns had on the thread while still getting rid of the hard rule sort of stance that ppl seem to

agree

Okoayu wrote: 5h5s3i

I think we should add a guideline among the lines of the list below & remove the rule to address what Kataryn had said

Difficulty names should not be misleading.

1. For collaboration difficulties, the s attributed should be clear from context and mentioned on the description of the beatmap
2. The host should not include difficulties such as Host's Insane, unless necessary for technical reasons or theming of the beatmap.
3. Descriptive difficulty names should have a relation to the song.

If it is unclear, a discussion should be held to come to a consensus on whether the difficulty name can be used or should be changed.

pls note that this is just my first idea about the problem, but i hope that addresses the concerns had on the thread while still getting rid of the hard rule sort of stance that ppl seem to

Agree with this guideline if the rule is removed, guessing the Avoid difficulty names with descriptive elements not clearly related to a guest difficulty creator or a level of difficulty. (e.g. Beatmap Creator's Tragic Love Extra) guideline would need replacing/rephrasing as well.

Edited my proposal to include your suggestion.

Added the assigned tag for now, will write a draft PR tomorrow to see what adding this would do, i think that way we can more easily figure out if we've forgotten to handle a certain case

I'm not too sure about this, the way it's written seems rather unclear/inaccurate.

Okoayu wrote: 5h5s3i

For collaboration difficulties, the s attributed should be clear from context and mentioned on the description of the beatmap

What exactly does "should be clear from context" mean here? Isn't this already covered by the existing guideline "Avoid incomprehensible name combinations to indicate possession of a collaborative difficulty. If it's unclear whose names are combined, simplification is recommended."?
Also, mentioning the s in the description should be optional since attributing multiple mappers is possible now.

Okoayu wrote: 5h5s3i

The host should not include difficulties such as Host's Insane, unless necessary for technical reasons or theming of the beatmap.

The word "necessary" feels unfitting here since there are other options in cases of metadata conflicts (like adding "." at the end or using a different naming scheme), and thematic reasons are always optional too. I'd reword it like this:

Difficulties created by the beatmap host should not indicate possession in their name (such as Host's Insane), unless it is done for technical reasons or as a common naming theme related to the song. This does not apply to collaborative difficulties.

Okoayu wrote: 5h5s3i

Descriptive difficulty names should have a relation to the song.

This one is fine I guess, but maybe it would be good to specify what descriptive refers to or at least add an example. Also, this guideline is rarely enforced so I hope it's taken more seriously going forward. Another thing to consider is that people often use such diff names but only on one or a few diffs and not all of them. Therefore I'd change it accordingly:

Descriptive difficulty names (such as Mapper's Tragic Love Extra) should be related to the song or difficulty and used as a common pattern across all difficulties.

OK, will incorporate that in the PR

Okay, took the into and documented what changed in the PR: https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/12961