Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

[AlexDest]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Since I don't have a file in the game and my limit is 2 files, would my files still get auto-rejected if I send 2 files and a resubmission?

[ichliebekase]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Since I don't have a file in the game and my limit is 2 files, would my files still get auto-rejected if I send 2 files and a resubmission?

I'd say no because I'm in the same situation and they didn't say that I would get auto-rejected.

[jimerax]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

There's no limitation for resubmissions, independent of new submissions.

And resubmissions mean rejected files from the "last" batch and submitted to this batch.

[TC_Cyrenics]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

I sent in Xecus and botaru2.

PS: RAN really is bad it's not just wc speaking XD

[bmah]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Hey guys, I know I'm a bit of a noob in this thread, but I've sent stuff in a couple times now and I have a couple questions.

What's the cutoff for acceptance? With the new 4 judge system does 15/20 make it in? In the last batch, my file Mysterious Desert got +, +, +?, and ?. I don't see it in the queue on the OP. The OP also says under the "+" rating, "If 2/3 judges give this rating, the file will be played by Tass." (Might wanna change this lol).

So now about resubmits... I resubmitted a file, Corneria, but I can't find any info on it anywhere. Did I submit it incorrectly? Do resubmits have to be exactly one batch afterward or can you wait?

Cutoff for acceptance apparently varies according to the amount of files sent, the number of people sending files, and the quality of the files. So far, the system is being treated like a grading curve - if the file ratings are "too high", the cutoff will be more strict; similarly, I'd predict the converse would be true. The former situation is what happened last time, which caused a huge fuss...people were really aghast at how many points it took to get a file accepted.

About resubmits, we're right now defining them as files sent in from the previous batch. If you sent a file you've submitted a long time ago, then it'll be counted as a regular submission. I actually think it's fair to give a two-batch waiting period as the maximum time to hold resubmits, but I need to hear what jx would say about that.


@RAN: it's called an opinion people; I don't care if that's an overused statement - for all that matters it's true

[who_cares973]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Framers in RAN are so horrible though

[Arch0wl]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

The debate about RAN shouldn't be happening. There isn't anything objectively wrong with RAN:

- the rhythms are "correct" (in the sense that they conform clearly to what the author had intended)

- the syncing is correct

- there is no _____ arrow syndrome

And that's about all you can say that isn't preference. You cannot prove it isn't preference by getting a bunch of people to agree with you -- that is how kids in 3rd grade win arguments over who has cooties. You also can't prove it isn't by saying the person who likes a file has bad taste or whatever, because for them to have bad taste you'd first have to prove the file was bad.

All of us have self-standards. If I wanted to, I could develop simfile theories and find a lot of ways to say that my preference is something greater than preference and that simfiles I don't like are "bad", objectively, and not just "files I don't like." I've done it before, and it worked. But it's bull****. They're just ****ing different.

[who_cares973]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

uh im not telling everyone to come in this thread and agree with so i look right. cynerics happens to share the same opinion that i do. i would never sink so low as to do that.

i really don't feel like getting into why i dislike RAN on ffr. the file itself is fine it's just meant for SM not ffr

[Arch0wl]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

It's fine, I misinterpreted. Sorry about that.

[kommisar]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

ran was very fun according to the judges who played it, so its not like we don't have a ~democracy~

[TC_Halogen]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Sent in:
The Crow's Newspaper / dBu (10)
Strikebeam / Waterflame (8)

[customstuff]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Glad to see people are using the Waterflame permission I got
I stepped half of -Radioactive- so I might finish that for either this batch or next batch. Most likely next batch because I'm lazy

[qqwref]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Some ideas for judge system reform... The general stuff:
- Get rid of [<] completely, it has no use in a purely points-based system. If one song is clearly better than another, the points will show that. If the songs end up tied pointswise (and are both good enough to get in), we can have the judges vote on which one gets ingame, or else have the two stepauthors combine their efforts and put the file in as a collab.
- If a song has multiple difficulties, have whoever's in charge of the email fix it (for instance by asking the stepauthor which one they want to have judged) before the judges get hold of the batch.
- If you want fewer files in the queue, don't accept fewer files, but instead have batches spread further apart. The files that were going to be submitted anyway will slowly grow over time, but the files that stepartists make specifically for the batch (to have higher chance of getting a song ingame) won't.

More specific stuff on judging:
- Have judges give TWO point ratings for each song. Same 5-point system, but there should be the straight up rating (how good this chart is NOW) and the edited rating (how good this chart could be if this stepauthor listened to the judges and made minor changes). Many charts would get a + for the edited rating, and that's fine - it just means that any problems you see are easily fixed. EDIT: Keep in mind, these ratings shouldn't be too far apart, unless the judge thinks that a few small changes would make the file WAY better.
- Alright, so, the EDITED rating should determine acceptance. Since we only want good files ingame, we should require at least 5/5/4/0 or even 5/5/5/0 for four judges. The 0 means the lowest judge is ignored (possible subjectivemania issues).
- Now, if those top 3 judges (top 4 if there is no clearly lowest judge) gave the same straight up and edited ratings to this chart, it means it's perfect and can be put straight into the queue. Everything else can be easily improved (to the point of being a clear good chart), and thus should be dumped into the conditional queue.
- For files in the conditional queue, the stepauthor can submit revisions, and when they do the judges for that file should (eventually) look at them and see if the minor errors have all been fixed. When the judges for that file agree that they can't see any more minor errors (not counting those that the stepauthor disagrees with), then the file is good enough for public release and can be put in the queue.

[condoct]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

Sent in Wadatumi/島白 (Shima Jiro)

[Patashu]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread

seconding getting rid of < especially since aperson wants to move towards fully integrated multiple-charts-per-song in the engine, and anyone with some brains should too