Really good read, I agree with almost everything being said here and the issues pointed out are to the point and exact, but I feel inclined that it is necessary to argue against the suggestions provided for splitting the BNG into 2 groups.
The suggestion provided to create a split between the BNG and the QAT for the reasons stated has already been done exactly the same way before and was considered a failed operation; around 2014-2015, BATs were enforced into a split into 2 groups that they could decide to join in: BAT and QAT. After decided, the BAT then became the BNG like current while the QAT became the QAT suggested in the document.
This operation was considered a failure. While this TO A DEGREE partly solved the issue with regards to having unrankables checked and "spread quality" TO A DEGREE was ensured, this did not exactly ensure the health of the system and of the beatmaps themselves
Many cases in this era showed the common event of QATs attempting to improve and discuss on a beatmap only to be painted as ones who are ultimately "destroying mapping" and "making things worse", and this was exceptionally common at the time due to the nature of Disqualifications. Eventually it was even suggested to do it through a forum bot instead to anonymize and remove scrutiny on one specific person which ended up causing more mistrust between mappers and the ones running the system.
This is what I think is missing from any system we have tried and from this document: The process for disqualification + discussion itself is inadequate and the root cause of the issues presented. Our current treatment of the programs as said in the document is that it is being treated as an inherently negative incentive and a punishment to the mapper(s) and BNs, but there isn’t really an attack (or even a defense) presented as to why it’s treated like this by system reform proposals, and in this document.
I would say that it doesn’t make sense that in order to improve your own beatmap, you have to go through a process of punishment for the ones that nominated your beatmap as well as yourself, as the point is to improve a product which should be encouraged. Inherently, qualified is a place where there are meant to be more eyes on the beatmap and obtain more feedback, but on the other hand, if you are receptive to the feedback OR do something that could be considered as something “left field” for whoever is looking at it, you ultimately become punished at the same time. This ends up creating mixed messages to everyone involved, and also ends up manufacturing a ton of the lose - lose situations often seen in the disqualification process since the beginning of time. Beatmaps that would benefit from fruitful discussion for improvement of not just the beatmap itself but in the system as a whole for some reason uses the same system to punish bad actors. (Off point but for the record this is the same case with vetoes)
A simple suggestion that I would like to provide is just removing the DQ severity ratings and punishments altogether ALONGSIDE raising the value for QA checks that was suggested in the document, BUT What would also be a very beneficial addition is a separate system so that the current system is left for bad actors. This new system would require the treatment of a discussion and improvement process that is at least not punishing anyone involved in the discussion process, as well as possibly an added positive incentive somehow to partake in such discussions for improvement of a beatmap.
What would also be beneficial is that this new system would be one where the discussions of an improvement on a beatmap help with the improvement of the bare quality standard such as the Ranking Criteria that we would use to ensure quality standards for as well. I think this would be well out of the scope of what would be feasible for NATs to be able to change however.
Ultimately, the suggestion provided in the document has shown in the past to be a significant failure in operation, and I think that the true root of the issue that should be tackled here is the treatment of the disqualification + discussion process in general.