Current rule:

A difficulty's name must not solely consist of one or more names. Words that happen to be names are acceptable within difficulty names as long as they relate to the song.

As far as I recall (it's been a long time since this rule was introduced, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong) this rule was introduced to the Ranking Criteria in order to prevent the proliferation of mapsets in which the majority of difficulties were composed exclusively by names, with the consequence that the difficulty progression wasn't clear enough for many of these sets (an example of this would be the following set: https://osu-ppy-sh.cinevost.com/beatmapsets/87547#osu/244802)

However, considering a series of recent discussions directly related to this rule (a couple of which can be followed here and here. The first discussion is particularly interesting since it's about a rule's gray area when it comes to application) I believe that this rule is outdated when considering the current mapping scenario. This is mostly because of three reasons:

1. At this moment, the highest difficulty (or difficulty level for Insanes/Experts) of a mapset is already under no obligation of following a clear naming scheme for the difficulty progression. As such, there is already a big number of mapsets where Insane/Expert difficulties do NOT follow any classic difficulty naming scheme, using unrelated instead;
2. As explained by some of the posts in the discussions I've linked above, some of these difficulty names (e.g. Arles) already have a preconceived notion of mapping style and difficulty in the osu! community, making them effectively descriptive of the difficulty in some cases;
3. In general, the rule is worded in a way which makes its application unclear for a number of edge cases (one of which is present in the first discussion linked above).

Therefore, I propose to allow the usage of difficulty names composed only by names for the highest difficulty (or the highest difficulty level for Insanes/Experts) of a set.
This would be equivalent to the removal of the rule cited above from the Ranking Criteria.

This should be sufficient, since there is already another rule enforcing a clear progressive difficulty naming scheme for difficulties which do not belong to the highest level of a set:

Difficulty names in a beatmap must be clearly progressive and accurately indicating of their respective difficulties, excluding:
- The highest difficulty of each game mode.
- The highest difficulties of each game mode with a similar level of difficulty, applying only to Insane and Extra difficulties (e.g. the Insane difficulties of a ENHIIII set or the Extra difficulties of a ENHIIXXX set).

If we consider difficulty names consisting only of names, these are typically not fully descriptive of their difficulty levels, so the rule above applies for them as well (for example, "Skystar" would not be allowed as a difficulty name for an Hard if there already is an Insane difficulty in the set).

+1

+1

+2

I like the approach - the difficulty level is very implied.

That also allows branding, if that fits this criterion. Take "Nogard" for example, where it does not directly specify a mapper, but those who knows, will know.

I'd like good types of diffnames back yeah

yup, full

+1

Full but this was decided by peppy himself stating that he would not allow this under any circumstance IIRC because he just doesn't like the idea of names being associated with diffnames, and that pretty much overruled any community stance on it

However this was around 10 years ago so I hope he changed his mind lol

source:
community/forums/topics/169960?n=83
community/forums/topics/159456?n=187

Mismagius wrote: 266b5

Full but this was decided by peppy himself stating that he would not allow this under any circumstance IIRC because he just doesn't like the idea of names being associated with diffnames, and that pretty much overruled any community stance on it

However this was around 10 years ago so I hope he changed his mind lol

source:
community/forums/topics/169960?n=83
community/forums/topics/159456?n=187

Thanks for the context and references, I honestly totally forgot this was peppy's decision xD

As you said yourself 10 years have ed since then, and the current rule about progressive difficulty names already kinda goes in contrast with what peppy specified in that post w.r.t. top diffs, which is why I feel the name rule doesn't really fit the current mapping scenario.

Since this is his ruling his opinion on the matter would be appreciated though

yes

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve. This suggestion/sentiment seems to come from nostalgia more than anything, from the time where the community was smaller and dominated by big names like NatsumeRin and Skystar. I don't think this is appropriate for modern osu.

It doesn't really matter though, since the decision is peppy's to make it seems.

-White wrote: 21i6n

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve.

The reasons are listed in the OP, we've already experienced various cases in which the application of this rule is not clear so in general I think it would at the very least need to be reworded.

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like https://osu-ppy-sh.cinevost.com/beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and https://osu-ppy-sh.cinevost.com/beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but names is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

-kevincela- wrote: p4u5e

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like https://osu-ppy-sh.cinevost.com/beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and https://osu-ppy-sh.cinevost.com/beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but names is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

To be clear, I never said I liked the current rules nor do I think of the naming schemes many people choose are great. The Okoratu one being just a dot is probably unrelated to the song but at least the tomatas one seems to be related to the Christmas theme of the song. I'd personally like stronger guidelines about diff names being related to the song in some way but we all know that won't get anywhere. I'd really like to see guidelines for backgrounds change in a similar vein.

If we want to change the rules to just allow any words/names/titles for top diffs then sure, that would be consistent. Going and updating it to explicitly allow names seems overly focused on bringing back 2014, at least to me. If this is closer to what you want, them perhaps changing the post to be more general would improve the optics given that you self itted that nostalgia was a motivator for this?

(+1)

I cannot propose a satisfying answer to the question "what significant material benefit does this rule bring in 2024", hence I see no point in it existing. It is already not necessary for the highest difficulty level of a set to use a descriptor that describes the difficulty level, and the idea that players at the Insane and Expert level will be confused at lack of difficulty indication when they can clearly see the star rating and the difficulties are ordered by star rating, as opposed to 2013 where everything past a certain difficulty level was 5* and had the same red "I" icon with no gradient for progression (which was the time period when peppy made the post linked by Mismagius), doesn't seem likely to be congruous with reality.

As stated above, this is ultimately a peppy decision, and he doesn't necessarily need a compelling reason as it's his game. However, since I can't think of one, I agree with the post.

-White wrote: 21i6n

If we want to change the rules to just allow any words/names/titles for top diffs then sure, that would be consistent. Going and updating it to explicitly allow names seems overly focused on bringing back 2014, at least to me.

What I'm proposing is exactly that. At the moment there are only 2 rules about the general difficulty naming: the one ername only diffnames and the one about the progressive difficulty naming (unless I'm missing any additional rule, feel free to correct me on that). Doing this would exactly do what you've said in the first sentence, since this is the only "exception" to the rule.

I don't really understand how you got the impression that I'm proposing this change for the nostalgia (and the "self itted" thing is basically a non-factor, I could have very well just omitted the word "just" from the previous post and it would have been all the same since I don't really care about it). I think I've been pretty clear in the reasons of the OP to why I feel this change is beneficial, and never once in the OP I've specified I'm doing this for that reason.

If anything, I would even be open to adding more guidelines or even rules to go on the other side and restrict the range of words/themes that can be used as diffnames as long as there's some consistency, but I don't really think the mapping community is interested in this at this time.

I'm fine with AJTs reasoning fwiw. I didnt recall if there were other rules for diff naming schemes and mised there being more. Its been a while since I've looked at the rc. Though I am well aware my opinion means nothing on the matter lol

-kevincela- wrote: p4u5e

If anything, I would even be open to adding more guidelines or even rules to go on the other side and restrict the range of words/themes that can be used as diffnames as long as there's some consistency, but I don't really think the mapping community is interested in this at this time.

While Id likely this, unfortunately, i think you're correct.

As long as only the highest difficulty (or difficulties) are allowed to be named like this, I suppose it's fine. However, I'm honestly concerned about whether people will actually stop there and not try to circumvent or ignore these guidelines because in recent years there has been a very lenient approach regarding diff names. It's not uncommon to come across mapsets where the difficulty naming is nearly unintelligible, not directly related to the song or not progressive/consistent, for example beatmapsets/2055029 or beatmapsets/2129736. So unless these things are actually enforced, I don't see this working as intended.

+1

👍

i know this might sound completely unbelievable coming from me at this point, but i personally would love if this was put into place. i would explain myself but at this point i'm a little terrified to even try. the simple reason is that altering the rules is different from interpreting the rules and in this case, i was only ever trying to help people do the latter. if that doesn't make sense, i'm sorry, but i don't think i have it in me to elaborate further.

just please let this happen so no one ever has to discuss this topic again 🫠

+20 gigglespillion

senya - xxx [Satellite] (Satellite) lets gooooooooooooooooooo

+1

You have my full !

+1

👍

The word from peppy is he'll leave this rule up to our discretion on what to do with it 👀

+1

i think this is an overreaction, and disagree that this is the logical next step for difficulty naming when you can basically name difficulties whatever you want already. i think a top difficulty spread of just names sounds genuinely awful. restrict it even more and maybe but if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s names it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game. the vetoes are clearly in grey areas that need to be more well defined, i do not believe that removing the rule entirely is the way we solve this

Edit: the two cases are also completely different. Arles is not the same case as “Phob’s “ being acceptable for a song named NO TITLE. Please disconnect these topics.

I'm not old enough to know where the rule originated from or how it affected the game long term but I think nowadays difficulty of each... difficulty is so disassociated with the diffames that allowing this would not make any substantial difference for a player experience

and it looks way cooler so I really want to see this pushed

I like the idea of at least vaguely knowing a difficulty based on difficulty name. This just sounds like "map crazily and toss a signature on it for notoriety" reasoning without a clear benefit.

I know Expert is probably worthwhile. I can only guess at xXosuEZG0DXx's diff :p

I'm sorry if this is not the right thread for this, but can we also consider relaxing this rule for the same reason?

A beatmap host cannot indicate possession in a difficulty's name. (e.g. Beatmap Host's Insane). Conflicts caused by beatmapping multiple songs with the same metadata and collaborative difficulties are the only exceptions.

It seems kinda dumb to deem [Arles] rankable as a guest top diff, but unrankable as a hosted top diff.

And also, with modern trends of creative diffnames, I see no reason to retain this specific "cannot contain the mapper name" exception to naming diffs what you want. Would be nice to re-allow diff names that use the mapper name for wordplay (e.g. [Sotarks no Jutsu]) or to fit with the naming scheme of a set (like [mapset.Insane(Exile-);] and [Let's show them Monstrata's powerful stance.], both of which might be deemed unrankable today)

Ascendance wrote: 521c6g

i think this is an overreaction, and disagree that this is the logical next step for difficulty naming when you can basically name difficulties whatever you want already.

Your post reads to me pretty similarly to -White's post, and I think I've already answered to the question on why this isn't really an overreaction but rather a way to make the RC more consistent w.r.t. difficulty naming.

Ascendance wrote: 521c6g

i think a top difficulty spread of just names sounds genuinely awful. restrict it even more and maybe but if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s names it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game.

Why don't they make sense in the current mapping era, where as of now the difficulty naming rule has been relaxed to the point where you can literally use arbitrary words for not only top diffs, but Insanes and Experts in general (assuming they are the highest difficulty level)? As I said above, why are names where we draw the line? It's such a strange and specific exception in the RC of today that it really seems more inconsistent more than anything. I may understand the argument of not liking names difficulty names in general, but then shouldn't this apply for whoever decides to name their top diff literally ".", "a", "moe", or whatever floats their boat? It doesn't make logical sense to me whatsoever.

As I said, I am open in going in the opposite direction and add more rules to restrict the diffname's topic, word length and/or other aspects as long as they are consistent and well defined. But as mentioned, I don't think the mapping community is interested in going in this direction as of now.

Ascendance wrote: 521c6g

Edit: the two cases are also completely different. Arles is not the same case as “Phob’s “ being acceptable for a song named NO TITLE. Please disconnect these topics.

I've edited the post to better reflect the gray area argument for the Phob case, hope that distinguishes them enough.

Ascendance wrote: 521c6g

i think a top difficulty spread of just names sounds genuinely awful.

Ascendance wrote: 521c6g

if i saw an enhiixxx spread and the x diffs are all just people’s names it just doesn’t make sense in the current era of the game.

it's hard to do anything with this without any given reasoning

You can see who mapped the diff by checking either set host or the "mapped by X" bit for GDs/Collabs, I see no need for anyone to make their diff name their own name. I can't help but feel that in most cases, name diff names would just look tacky.

If it's a thing about branding/identifiability, just use some sort of unique naming akin to Nogard or Arles. I'm sure for most mappers, there's something appropriate they could consistently use across their top diff / insane+ diffs that'd help them stand out, if they cared about it.

Frankly I think the overwhelming majority of mappers are plenty happy with just using whatever progression naming and then sticking on some corny one-liner or lyric translation for the top diff :p

-White wrote: 21i6n

As a zoomer I'm not sure what purpose this would serve. This suggestion/sentiment seems to come from nostalgia more than anything, from the time where the community was smaller and dominated by big names like NatsumeRin and Skystar. I don't think this is appropriate for modern osu.

It doesn't really matter though, since the decision is peppy's to make it seems.

i don't think it pushes for nostalgia more than abolishing existing difficulty rules that serve no real purpose other than "i don't like it"

Not to be a contrarian, however I do believe there are reasons beyond "I don't like it" worth considering. Guess this point is already considered moot for the simple reason difficulty names can be whatever* on top difficulties. But I don't really see a point in a difficulty name being a name for the sole purpose of being able to be a name.

I personally believe it'd be better to move the rule to a guideline, requiring some justification as to why the name should be present in the first place, or why in the context of the song or set it makes sense for it to be used.

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with, as the current argument to make these possible is that even more nonsensical stuff like, and I quote ".", "a", or "moe", is allowed to begin with. But that's a whole separate discussion altogether.

But all in all I don't have a big stake to either remove the rule completely or making it a guideline to require even if it's just a basic reason to use them. Difficulty names are somewhat the last thing for us to consider when ranking a beatmap, and I argue that under ideal circumstances SR values and the progression of a spread's naming schema already do a good job of providing the player with an ever so vaguely intuitive way of what difficulty to expect.

I Randome's idea to make it a guideline, I think this would enable it to be uses when justified without every diff devolving into the mappers name.

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

I do believe there are reasons beyond "I don't like it" worth considering.

35+ posts without someone giving one says a lot to me 🤔

-White wrote: 21i6n

I Randome's idea to make it a guideline, I think this would enable it to be uses when justified without every diff devolving into the mappers name.

When exactly are uses meant to be justified? Cases where the diffname happens to be the mapper's name but is thematically relevant ("Fiery Rage", Satellite etc.) are already explicitly allowed. Which usage cases would moving this to a guideline further allow, and for what reasons (keep in mind it was concluded that the Phob case technically follows current RC)? I'm a bit confused on what potential examples are being referred to.

I also doubt that most diffs would become only the mapper's name, given that most mappers use normal diffnames currently despite extremely liberal diffnaming rules. However, if they did, I think a satisfying explanation regarding the issue with this is needed.

AJT wrote: v112y

35+ posts without someone giving one says a lot to me

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

The above would be one of them. I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a name. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

My view may be more conservative on the matter as I do believe that this further takes value from having a difficulty name to begin with. The guideline would still serve a purpose as it would make sure some basic reasoning is needed. While yes this doesn't mean everyone will start using it, I really cannot fathom the possibility of that becoming the case. I genuinely do not think there's a benefit of that being the case other than "it looks cool".

AJT wrote: v112y

When exactly are uses meant to be justified? Cases where the diffname happens to be the mapper's name but is thematically relevant ("Fiery Rage", Satellite etc.) are already explicitly allowed. Which usage cases would moving this to a guideline further allow, and for what reasons (keep in mind it was concluded that the Phob case technically follows current RC)? I'm a bit confused on what potential examples are being referred to.

On a whim I'd probably say sets that try to recreate the aesthetic/impression of maps from the era where names as diff names was more common, or where the music track somehow justifies it (perhaps a track from Your Name?). And of course, what is already allowed, thematically appropriate usage of mapper names.

Are there any other actual use cases for names as diff names?

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a name. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

I don't think there really needs to be a significant benefit (what's the benefit towards allowing 72 character essay diffnames?), it's just about being consistent and giving mappers the choice. On the other hand, there does need to be a benefit or logical purpose towards the enforcement of something as a rule (in my opinion). If the diffnaming rules in other aspects were as strict as they were in [insert year] and hadn't been relaxed, then this rule would be more in line with the others. On that note:

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

This doesn't solve the dilemma of why this specific method of non-descriptive difficulty names deserves special treatment over the other methods. I actually don't have an issue with your general viewpoint at all and think that many current (and surely future) diffnames are dumb, but I don't really think it matters what I think of them and to have a logically consistent ruleset would be a good thing to me.

Shii wrote: 24616

On a whim I'd probably say sets that try to recreate the aesthetic/impression of maps from the era where names as diff names was more common, or where the music track somehow justifies it (perhaps a track from Your Name?). And of course, what is already allowed, thematically appropriate usage of mapper names.

Are there any other actual use cases for names as diff names?

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

AJT wrote: v112y

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

I genuinely think there's no benefit in letting every single top difficulty be able to become a name. In most cases it is not descriptive of either the beatmap, the song, its difficulty, or anything in relation to it.

I don't think there really needs to be a significant benefit (what's the benefit towards allowing 72 character essay diffnames?), it's just about being consistent and giving mappers the choice. On the other hand, there does need to be a benefit or logical purpose towards the enforcement of something as a rule (in my opinion). If the diffnaming rules in other aspects were as strict as they were in [insert year] and hadn't been relaxed, then this rule would be more in line with the others. On that note:

RandomeLoL wrote: 2p466u

If anything, a takeaway from this thread is whether the current approach of non-descriptive difficulty names is a good one to begin with

This doesn't solve the dilemma of why this specific method of non-descriptive difficulty names deserves special treatment over the other methods. I actually don't have an issue with your general viewpoint at all and think that many current (and surely future) diffnames are dumb, but I don't really think it matters what I think of them and to have a logically consistent ruleset would be a good thing to me.

As I've said in my previous post, I believe this is a larger issue than just whether or not to keep this rule. Several people seem to agree that some diff names which are currently acceptable make no sense (and even break RC guidelines sometimes). So I don't think removing this rule alone is really an improvement because it doesn't address the problem of the current "anything goes" approach. Instead, I think making clearer rules/guidelines and actually enforcing them would be a better solution. If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

AJT wrote: v112y

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

I'm asking e case because I need to understand *why* this change apparently has to be made.

As is, I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule.

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes name diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of names, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

Why maps are allowed to name diffs unrelated to the song or source etc, but it full stops at mapper names. I think the freedom to name something what ever you want as long as its not something horrible should be part of a mappers choice to express them self and their map. I kinda also see it as a signature like a artist would give to their piece. But thats just my mindset about it.

some people think name difficulty names are cool. some people think they have aura. lets let people indulge in things they find cool, because why not it's just a video game

Serizawa Haruki wrote: 3u3j1f

If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

I don't think it's necessarily about letting people "use whatever they want". There are better reasons for lots of the other rules and guidelines, some of them even stating or clearly implying the reason within the text. I don't think there is a need to remove rules whose purpose and purported benefit are clear.

"Actually enforcing" guidelines is an issue that extends far beyond difficulty naming and will always be an issue in all likelihood. I think it's more productive to focus on one thing at a time (this conversation is already dragging out, imagine if we were discussing 5 rules at once), but:

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)

This stands out to me as a guideline that is frequently ignored. I don't think this guideline is necessary either but that can be discussed later if someone wants to (don't want to derail this thread and don't really care enough about this to start another one).

Shii wrote: 24616

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes name diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of names, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

Could you explain how this applies more to the diffname "Shii" than "Shii's Extra"? Both of them contain superfluous information, your reasoning leads me to believe that everyone should drop ownership indication altogether. Furthermore I would like to know why something being redundant means it shouldn't be allowed. I would argue that, as apollo and Kojio said, the personal reasons to a mapper behind using a diffname, insofar as its usage poses no problem to any aspect of the game, are sufficient.

I'll reply more if new concerns arise but I think I've probably voiced everything from my side so would like to prevent going around in circles and get some new perspectives.

Shii wrote: 24616

AJT wrote: v112y

I think our talking points are asymmetrical in that you guys are saying there should be a good reason for using such a diffname. My entire point is that the reason these diffnames were outlawed was in part due to a need to clearly indicate difficulty progression due to primitive SR and icon systems. Since these concerns are fixed, the only reasons left are variants of "it looks bad", which leads me to my opinion that the rule is unnecessary. I'm not particularly concerned with how justified any individual use case is.

I'm asking e case because I need to understand *why* this change apparently has to be made.

As is, I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule.

Difficulty ownership is very visible on the website and should be very visible on Lazer in the near future, and that this makes name diff names completely unnecessary (redundant) outside of very specific contexts.

Hence there is no need to allow people to use diffnames comprising solely of names, with the exception of a few limited cases which I think would be better handled with an edit rather than removal.

I'm going to quote myself here:

-kevincela- wrote: p4u5e

Besides, let me turn the question around: what would the purpose of keeping the status quo be? Why are difficulty names like beatmapsets/2254715#osu/4796242 and beatmapsets/2290581#osu/4897326 ok and not something like [Rin]? To me it's not just a matter of nostalgia, but rather of consistency. Why are arbitrary words ok for top diffs but names is where we draw the line? I would rather simplify and be consistent than maintaining edge cases which, by many, are considered of little use for the mapping ecosystem.

-kevincela- wrote: p4u5e

Why don't they make sense in the current mapping era, where as of now the difficulty naming rule has been relaxed to the point where you can literally use arbitrary words for not only top diffs, but Insanes and Experts in general (assuming they are the highest difficulty level)? As I said above, why are names where we draw the line? It's such a strange and specific exception in the RC of today that it really seems more inconsistent more than anything. I may understand the argument of not liking names difficulty names in general, but then shouldn't this apply for whoever decides to name their top diff literally ".", "a", "moe", or whatever floats their boat? It doesn't make logical sense to me whatsoever.

As I said, I am open in going in the opposite direction and add more rules to restrict the diffname's topic, word length and/or other aspects as long as they are consistent and well defined. But as mentioned, I don't think the mapping community is interested in going in this direction as of now.

Other than that I would also like to say that:

1. Difficulty ownership =/= difficulty name, there are things you can do in the difficulty name that you can't with only difficulty ownership (as an example, the top diff of this set was named "Saten-nyan" which is one such case and is currently outlawed by this rule). There's also the matter of the owner changing name but still wanting that difficulty to be recognized on another name instead (which, if you think about it, is exactly the case for Arles). In general putting them on the same place doesn't seem to be a valid explanation to actually enforcing the rule as-is imo.
2. Some of the cases you've described as "artistic usage of name diffnames" are already not applicable under the current rule (you can look at the 2nd discussion linked in the op w.r.t. the Arles difficulty name). Sure, the rule can be modified to for these cases, but then what if other edge cases appear? Do we really want to keep changing a rule which already doesn't have much reason to exist in the current landscape (as outlined by me, AJT and others above) just for the sake of keeping it, under the reasoning that "I don't see reason in using it" (while the RC already allows the mapper to basically do whatever they want with diffnames on top diffs with only this specific exception)?
3. "there is no need to allow x" -> "we must disallow x" seems a bit of a strange logical connection to me, a rule should disallow something if there is a reason for which the must be explicitly disallowed to do something (which is different than saying "discouraged", since that's what the guidelines are for), which is not what is being claimed here. This rule was specifically created for a reason which was valid 10 years ago (and answered the question "why mustn't the do this?"), but as outlined by AJT isn't nowadays, which makes the point of it still being a rule moot (this should be an answer to the "I don't find 'the original reason for the rule is gone' a compelling reason to remove the rule" point).

FWIW, I'm ok with moving the rule as a guideline at the very least to discourage having lazy cases where the literally repeats just their names (Skystar is an example) for no reason. I think stuff like Nogard, Arles, Rin instead are ok, since they denote a specific kind of mapping and difficulty which make them already descriptive of the kind of difficulty (and again, this adds another reason to why the current rule does not make much sense at this moment).

Serizawa Haruki wrote: 3u3j1f

If you really want to let people use whatever they want as difficulty names, why not get rid of all the related rules/guidelines and not just this one?

Regarding rules specifically this is already (almost) the case, the only rules present on this matter are the two rules in the OP and the one Purplegaze brought up above (which I agree needs some discussion, but I think it's something that should be considered separately since it's only tangentially connected to this specific matter)

Agree with the original post unconditionally. Disallowing name diff names seems arbitrary by modern standards.