Beatmap Nomination "Veto" Changes
The following concerns were raised about the current veto system:
- Vetoing places undue burden on the person who comes afterwards to "disprove" or dismiss the veto, when it takes only minutes to place
- Thus, the effort required to dismiss a veto is many times higher than the amount of effort required to place it.
The following change was proposed to address the issue:
Any BN who nominates a given set may not make, reassert or dismiss veto on that same set.
Vetoes may now be dismissed with only brief feedback that covers the issues raised in the initial post, instead of requiring lengthy and detailed retorts to do so.
However, the original poster of the veto may reassert the veto by similarly refuting the dismissal post within 48 hours of its original dismissal.
If at any point during this process a reassertion or dismissal is not responded to within 48 hours, it is considered valid and applied. A BN may at any time withdraw their veto, reassertion or dismissal.
This may happen up to 2 times per set before a randomly selected QAT is asked to intervene and mediate in either party's favor. Once a veto is mediated, it may not be raised again as a valid subject for veto unless serious, substantial reasoning is provided.
Mediation should be considered a RARE outcome from this system and not the end goal. Beatmap Nominators should aspire to reconcile and discuss the issues contained within vetoes in the context of improving the mapset, not to score points on one another.
If a veto is upheld due to QAT intervention, the presiding QAT may hold the veto until he or she decides that the issue has been appropriately addressed. The BN who originally made the veto may at any time, rescind their veto if they believe the issues have been addressed.
Every time QAT intervention occurs on a set due to veto, the limit for reassertion/dismissal is reset to the value above.
BN1 thinks there are serious issues with map M. BN1 writes a veto post covering the issues (including solutions on how to fix them) and officially declares a veto.
BN2 comes along and believes that the issues raised in BN1's veto post have been addressed, aren't valid, or otherwise no longer of concern. BN2 cites a brief reasoning as to why this is the case in their dismissal post.
BN1 now has 48 hours to respond to the dismissal post and reassert the veto if they believe an issue is still at hand.
18 hours pass and BN1 checks on the map again when they've got free time.
BN1 has decided that the dismissal post does not cover their original issues and reasserts their veto, citing a brief explanation as to why the issues outlined in the dismissal post are not satisfactory.
BN2 now has 48 hours to respond to the reassertion of the veto.
6 hours pass and BN2 checks and sees that the veto has been reasserted by BN1.
BN2 still does not think the issue has been resolved, and so, enacts the final dismissal of the reasserted veto, citing appropriately why in his post.
This flips the threshold required for QAT mediation, and a member of the QAT is randomly chosen to mediate the case and rule in either party's favour.
QAT reviews the case, and decides to rule in BN2's favor. The veto is now appropriately dismissed and may proceed to ranking.
QAT reviews the case and decides to rule in BN1's favor. The veto is now upheld and the mapper must consider the feedback given by BN1 if they wish for their map to proceed to ranking.
This system relies on the timely response of all participants. If a BN does not respond within the allocated time for their dismissal/reassertion, they may not be able to have their concerns addressed
The random assignment of QAT means that the QAT in question is essentially required to come up to speed on potentially highly complicated and nuanced particulars of a given mapset in order to make a proper judgement.