Demos for verification (particularly HL), run removal request

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-11 06:41:57 pm

2009-06-09 03:20:51 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

So for some reason demos aren't required for HL runs anymore and new runs are being hosted without public demos. Also Nate believes they haven't even been used to verify for some runs.

I'm proposing that demos be required for all PC games in which it takes little effort on the runner (ie. doesn't lag them to shit) and little effort for someone to use a demo to verify authenticity (ie. it works properly) AND ESPECIALLY FOR SS runs.

I think having one authentic working demo for a whole run is the best way to verify it as a SS and that the runner didn't use in-game methods for cheating like slow-down (host_framerate in HL). Otherwise I think a webcam video should be required to prove SS on games with quick save which could be segmented and forged video made easily, showing keystrokes and mouse movement well enough you can tell the runner isn't acting.

Now I particularly most care about this for HL speedruns. So far every HL speedrun has had demo proof (or at least all mine did, and so did groobo's) There is one HL speedrun however which no one ever got to see a demo for and nate has told me through PM that there probably never was one. I am referring to 'Best Hazard course time with scripts: 0:02:54 by Daniel 'rayvex' Babik on 2008-10-24.', the only speedrun to beat one of my speedruns. Now it's very possible the run is totally legit, those hazard course runs are by far my worst speedruns and I only made them because I didn't like someone else's name on the HL page when all the did was make a terrible 3 minute run, but beating it by 11 seconds if fairly impressive. Also Daniel could have segmented his run and never thought anything of it because for some reason it never said my hazard course runs were SS. I think Daniel is an honest person and I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problem here was not created by Daniel but is merely a result of poor management at SDA.

For this particular video Daniel sumbitted, there are three extremely easy ways he COULD have cheated (not saying he did) in the run and made the very video that is hosted on SDA. First would be to use a different mod all together; there is a version if hlsp bunny hosted on the creator's ftp which has easy quake-style jumping for perfect jumps. I could never get Mike to approve this. This I think is most likely because for some reason the hlsp bunny site went down and if Daniel did a Google search to try and find it, this version would be the mostly likely one he’d find. Second he could have played the game with a slower host_framerate, then played the demo back at normal speed to make the video. Again, this is extremely easy to do. Third he could have segmented his run and then put it together into one video. This is very easy to do with HL and you could make the change between segments effectively undetectable in a video.

Needless to say I could host a forged "video" beating that speedrun by tomorrow morning and it'd look even more legit than his.

Now I know there's always ways to cheat and you can't always take every means of verification possible. However I think how easy it is to cheat, and how easy it is to require a means of verification which prevents it, or makes it many times harder, is very relevant to this debate. In the case of HL speedruns, if only a video is required, there's three very easy ways to cheat described above. But fortunately for HL there is also a very easy way to help verify that speedruns did not use these means to cheat. That is demos of course. Demos don't lag the runner, are easy to make and submit, run perfectly and are easy to verify with; hell that's all quake runners even submit, then someone else makes the videos if they want.

So if there's no demo verification for this HL speedrun I would kindly ask that it be removed if the runner can't provide it. I would also request that in the future that all HL speedruns require demos and demos hosted publicly. I really don't think it's fair to have a speedrun obsolete another without being held to the same verification standards as the run it obsoletes.

Since someone said I should point out where the video is apocryphal, I decided to. Here is my case:

Exhibit one, the runner does not start in the area where the map first loads, when the run starts he is already going through the double doors which are closed when you start, yet in his run he going through them as they are open. He most likely just made his video start too late, regardless this lowers the total time of the video and does not follow the standards all the other speedruns before it used.

Exhibit two, at 0:58 the runner enters the first new level load. Notice how the video has a large jump, he teleports immensely. If the video was made with one demo this wouldn’t happen, compare with my single segment runs, or hell even my segmented runs look much better than this. This is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit three, at 1:50 the runner enters the 3rd map, again a large teleport is noticed. This is much more noticeable than even in my segmented runs. Again, this is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit four, at 1:50 when the runners enters the 3rd map, the white text displaying “ACTIVATE WHEELS AND DIALS BY HOLDING DOWN THE USE KEY HOLD USE KEY UNTIL BRIDGE IS IN POSISTION” disappears for an instant then comes back, this is very noticeable. Compare to my hazard course run; the text stays visible through-out the whole level transition.

Exhibit four, at 2:06 the runner enters the 4th map, again a large teleport is noticed. Again, this is an indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit five, at 2:06 the white text displaying “PRESS FLASHLIGHT KEY AGAIN TO TURN FLASHLIGHT OFF” disappears for an instant then comes back again. Compare
this to my hazard course run; the text stays visible the whole time.

Exhibit six, at 2:06 you can hear a large discontinuity and pause in the female vox wav being played. Compare with my hazard course run; the discontinuity is much
smaller and much less noticeable.

Exhibit seven, at 2:16 when the runner enters the 5th map the wav file which says “morphine administered” stops at morphine and then nothing else is heard. Compare with my hazard course run where you hear a small pause after morphine, then hear “ministered”

That's seven indications of discontinuity. How could such a video possibly obsolete a proven SS run?

Also, I find it out right comical that Mike could so adamantly disapprove of a mod yet then do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make sure it isn't used in hosted videos approved by SDA and himself.

Thread title:

So for some reason demos aren't required for HL runs anymore and new runs are being hosted without public demos.  Also Nate believes they haven't even been used to verify for some runs.

I'm proposing that demos be required for all PC games in which it takes little effort on the runner (ie. doesn't lag them to shit) and little effort for someone to use a demo to verify authenticity (ie. it works properly) AND ESPECIALLY FOR SS runs.

I think having one authentic working demo for a whole run is the best way to verify it as a SS and that the runner didn't use in-game methods for cheating like slow-down (host_framerate in HL).  Otherwise I think a webcam video should be required to prove SS on games with quick save which could be segmented and forged video made easily, showing keystrokes and mouse movement well enough you can tell the runner isn't acting.

Now I particularly most care about this for HL speedruns.  So far every HL speedrun has had demo proof (or at least all mine did, and so did groobo's)  There is one HL speedrun however which no one ever got to see a demo for and nate has told me through PM that there probably never was one.  I am referring to 'Best Hazard course time with scripts: 0:02:54 by Daniel 'rayvex' Babik on 2008-10-24.', the only speedrun to beat one of my speedruns.  Now it's very possible the run is totally legit, those hazard course runs are by far my worst speedruns and I only made them because I didn't like someone else's name on the HL page when all the did was make a terrible 3 minute run, but beating it by 11 seconds if fairly impressive.  Also Daniel could have segmented his run and never thought anything of it because for some reason it never said my hazard course runs were SS.  I think Daniel is an honest person and I give him the benefit of the doubt.  The problem here was not created by Daniel but is merely a result of poor management at SDA.

For this particular video Daniel sumbitted, there are three extremely easy ways he COULD have cheated (not saying he did) in the run and made the very video that is hosted on SDA.  First would be to use a different mod all together; there is a version if hlsp bunny hosted on the creator's ftp which has easy quake-style jumping for perfect jumps.  I could never get Mike to approve this.  This I think is most likely because for some reason the hlsp bunny site went down and if Daniel did a Google search to try and find it, this version would be the mostly likely one he’d find.  Second he could have played the game with a slower host_framerate, then played the demo back at normal speed to make the video.  Again, this is extremely easy to do.  Third he could have segmented his run and then put it together into one video.  This is very easy to do with HL and you could make the change between segments effectively undetectable in a video.

Needless to say I could host a forged "video" beating that speedrun by tomorrow morning and it'd look even more legit than his.

Now I know there's always ways to cheat and you can't always take every means of verification possible.  However I think how easy it is to cheat, and how easy it is to require a means of verification which prevents it, or makes it many times harder, is very relevant to this debate.  In the case of HL speedruns, if only a video is required, there's three very easy ways to cheat described above.  But fortunately for HL there is also a very easy way to help verify that speedruns did not use these means to cheat.  That is demos of course.  Demos don't lag the runner, are easy to make and submit, run perfectly and are easy to verify with; hell that's all quake runners even submit, then someone else makes the videos if they want.

So if there's no demo verification for this HL speedrun I would kindly ask that it be removed if the runner can't provide it.  I would also request that in the future that all HL speedruns require demos and demos hosted publicly.  I really don't think it's fair to have a speedrun obsolete another without being held to the same verification standards as the run it obsoletes.

Since someone said I should point out where the video is apocryphal, I decided to.  Here is my case:

Exhibit one, the runner does not start in the area where the map first loads, when the run starts he is already going through the double doors which are closed when you start, yet in his run he going through them as they are open.  He most likely just made his video start too late, regardless this lowers the total time of the video and does not follow the standards all the other speedruns before it used.

Exhibit two, at 0:58 the runner enters the first new level load.  Notice how the video has a large jump, he teleports immensely.  If the video was made with one demo this wouldn’t happen, compare with my single segment runs, or hell even my segmented runs look much better than this.  This is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit three, at 1:50 the runner enters the 3rd map, again a large teleport is noticed.  This is much more noticeable than even in my segmented runs.  Again, this is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit four, at 1:50 when the runners enters the 3rd map, the white text displaying “ACTIVATE WHEELS AND DIALS BY HOLDING DOWN THE USE KEY HOLD USE KEY UNTIL BRIDGE IS IN POSISTION” disappears for an instant then comes back, this is very noticeable.  Compare to my hazard course run; the text stays visible through-out the whole level transition.

Exhibit four, at 2:06 the runner enters the 4th map, again a large teleport is noticed.  Again, this is an indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit five, at 2:06 the white text displaying “PRESS FLASHLIGHT KEY AGAIN TO TURN FLASHLIGHT OFF” disappears for an instant then comes back again.  Compare 
this to my hazard course run; the text stays visible the whole time.

Exhibit six, at 2:06 you can hear a large discontinuity and pause in the female vox wav being played.  Compare with my hazard course run; the discontinuity is much 
smaller and much less noticeable.

Exhibit seven, at 2:16 when the runner enters the 5th map the wav file which says “morphine administered” stops at morphine and then nothing else is heard.  Compare with my hazard course run where you hear a small pause after morphine, then hear “ministered”

That's seven indications of discontinuity.  How could such a video possibly obsolete a proven SS run?

Also, I find it out right comical that Mike could so adamantly disapprove of a mod yet then do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make sure it isn't used in hosted videos approved by SDA and himself.

Lag.Com

2009-06-09 03:47:58 am

sda loyalist

I agree with every sentiment in this post.

Scepheo

2009-06-09 05:37:55 am

Agreed. I'm not sure how a lower frame rate would be detected when the demo is played back (first thought is that HL demo's are like emulator movies, each frame is given it's own set of input, so playback will always be the same, regardless of FPS), but at least video-editing would show up (obviously).

dex

2009-06-09 07:09:52 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from Scepheo:

Agreed. I'm not sure how a lower frame rate would be detected when the demo is played back (first thought is that HL demo's are like emulator movies, each frame is given it's own set of input, so playback will always be the same, regardless of FPS), but at least video-editing would show up (obviously).

Actually, it's the opposite. host_framerate and other changed prohibited variables can be detected by looking for certain signs, which is done most efficiently by a program. However, I am not aware of such a program for HL (though it wouldn't be that hard to code it). HL demos are transparent enough for it to be possible to string demos at area transitions to make it seem like the demo is single segment. Demos are no measure of authenticity - even a relatively bad coder would be capable of forging them in most games, HL included. On the /quake/ section we employ several additional programs and mods to make sure demos are not cheated, and pretty much 4 of our staff members are well versed in demo coding. The programs were basically a joint effort by several people over quite a period of time. And I still would say a reasonably experienced coder could sneak by if they tried (And indeed, we had a slight problem with certain runner's demos lately).

I do agree that demos should be provided, but for different reasons (since they are negligibly better than videos for verification) - they are simply a comfortable video storing medium for people who possess the game in question, and it makes sense to submit them alongside the vids (after all, you get the quality you want in a very slim package). Because they aren't a real asset in verification, I don't think they are required, however. And it certainly makes no conceivable sense to remove a run accepted 6 months ago, which submitted everything required by the rules at the time (there is no mention of the necessity of submitting demos when possible in the rules). Law doesn't work backwards.

Finally, I believe it's also an issue of trust. There are ways to cheat in every game; SDA just assumes the runner is innocent (this is in contrast to TG, which assumes everyone is guilty). Most single segments in PC games could be easily forged - PC games where even the slimmest verification luxury (the demos) is unavailable. Not to mention most PC games could be modded/hacked in a way invisible even to the verifiers. I like to think that if someone is pathetic enough to cheat on a gaming site which focuses on fun and videos more than competition, it reflects on them, not on SDA.

[quote="Scepheo"]
Agreed. I'm not sure how a lower frame rate would be detected when the demo is played back (first thought is that HL demo's are like emulator movies, each frame is given it's own set of input, so playback will always be the same, regardless of FPS), but at least video-editing would show up (obviously).
[/quote]
Actually, it's the opposite. host_framerate and other changed prohibited variables can be detected by looking for certain signs, which is done most efficiently by a program. However, I am not aware of such a program for HL (though it wouldn't be that hard to code it). HL demos are transparent enough for it to be possible to string demos at area transitions to make it seem like the demo is single segment. Demos are no measure of authenticity - even a relatively bad coder would be capable of forging them in most games, HL included. On the /quake/ section we employ several additional programs and mods to make sure demos are not cheated, and pretty much 4 of our staff members are well versed in demo coding. The programs were basically a joint effort by several people over quite a period of time. And I still would say a reasonably experienced coder could sneak by if they tried (And indeed, we had a slight problem with certain runner's demos lately).

I do agree that demos should be provided, but for different reasons (since they are negligibly better than videos for verification) - they are simply a comfortable video storing medium for people who possess the game in question, and it makes sense to submit them alongside the vids (after all, you get the quality you want in a very slim package). Because they aren't a real asset in verification, I don't think they are required, however. And it certainly makes no conceivable sense to remove a run accepted 6 months ago, which submitted everything required by the rules at the time (there is no mention of the necessity of submitting demos when possible in the rules). Law doesn't work backwards.

Finally, I believe it's also an issue of trust. There are ways to cheat in every game; SDA just assumes the runner is innocent (this is in contrast to TG, which assumes everyone is guilty). Most single segments in PC games could be easily forged - PC games where even the slimmest verification luxury (the demos) is unavailable. Not to mention most PC games could be modded/hacked in a way invisible even to the verifiers. I like to think that if someone is pathetic enough to cheat on a gaming site which focuses on fun and videos more than competition, it reflects on them, not on SDA.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-09 09:53:39 am

Agree with Spider-Waffle that we may as well require demos in games where they can be provided easily just to make faking a run that bit harder.

Also agree with dex that you can't apply such rules retroactively, and that since SDA is about the videos and not the records it doesn't really make sense for us to be paranoid about cheating in the way that self-proclaimed authorities on records like TG have to be.

Poesta

2009-06-09 12:48:49 pm

Yarr

There used to be demos of the old Quake 2 runs, they're a lot smaller than the videos and you can watch the run in much higher quality. The only downside for some games is being unable to pause. I also agree that demos should be published.

djcj

2009-06-09 02:02:19 pm

Quote:

and I only made them because I didn't like someone else's name on the HL page

LOL

Why don't you write a PM to rayvex and ask him if he has a demo of that run?

LLCoolDave

2009-06-09 02:55:54 pm

I am completely on dex side here. Demos are a nice tool but not much more legitimate than videos are. If Half Life demos are as easy to edit as quake ones are then manipulating them really isn't much harder than forging a video, if you have any clue what you are doing. In fact, many quake demos are actually manipulated, how do you think the seperately recorded demos actually fit so well in quake projects? It's because the stats are edited to match up between levels! Also, a lot of recammed demos have had (usually not visible and thus not saved to the demo) objects added in during postediting. Requiring Demos to be submitted doesn't resolve the cheating issue, quite contrary I think it might provide more of a feeling of security than it actually adds. I quite honestly don't think it would be too hard to get a somehow manipulated run onto SDA as things are right now, and I am not all too concerned by this.

Also, adding a clause like this would be horrible for games that have broken demo recording, and I am sure there are quite a few out there that have. Need a lot of extra clauses in that case and things get ugly.

I am completely on dex side here. Demos are a nice tool but not much more legitimate than videos are. If Half Life demos are as easy to edit as quake ones are then manipulating them really isn't much harder than forging a video, if you have any clue what you are doing. In fact, many quake demos are actually manipulated, how do you think the seperately recorded demos actually fit so well in quake projects? It's because the stats are edited to match up between levels! Also, a lot of recammed demos have had (usually not visible and thus not saved to the demo) objects added in during postediting. Requiring Demos to be submitted doesn't resolve the cheating issue, quite contrary I think it might provide more of a feeling of security than it actually adds. I quite honestly don't think it would be too hard to get a somehow manipulated run onto SDA as things are right now, and I am not all too concerned by this.

Also, adding a clause like this would be horrible for games that have broken demo recording, and I am sure there are quite a few out there that have. Need a lot of extra clauses in that case and things get ugly.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-09 03:54:53 pm

2009-06-09 03:48:53 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to. Until you do it yourself in HL and prove it's possible and show that the work is easy I don't think your claims hold much weight.

Also demos are not only to prove SS, the hardest of three ways to cheat, but also the two much easier ways to cheat, using a different mod (most likely), and using host_framerate. There are demo utilities for HL like timedemo which can verify host_framerate.

And why do you think demos weren't required when this run was submitted? Demos were required when I submitted my runs, and my demos used to hosted publicly, why would that have changed?

Again, I think it's most likely the runner used the easy jump version of HLSP bunny which Mike does not allow.

If the runner can't provide a legit demo yet you don't remove the run, you leave with me choice to submit a "video" of my own, it would take little effort, I could easily get people to verify it even as I made the situation public and that I forged the video. This could also inspire me to write to guinness explaining why SDA's videos aren't verified records. Now I've always been a big supporter of SDA and helped them out a lot, but if this doesn't get resolved you have crossed the line. And yes I'm letting Nolan know about this, I don't think he would be very pleased with what you have done with his site.

Since when is two people verifying a "video" enough verification for something that could be so easily forged?

Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to.  Until you do it yourself in HL and prove it's possible and show that the work is easy I don't think your claims hold much weight.

Also demos are not only to prove SS, the hardest of three ways to cheat, but also the two much easier ways to cheat, using a different mod (most likely), and using host_framerate.  There are demo utilities for HL like timedemo which can verify host_framerate.

And why do you think demos weren't required when this run was submitted?  Demos were required when I submitted my runs, and my demos used to hosted publicly, why would that have changed?

Again, I think it's most likely the runner used the easy jump version of HLSP bunny which Mike does not allow.

If the runner can't provide a legit demo yet you don't remove the run, you leave with me choice to submit a "video" of my own, it would take little effort, I could easily get people to verify it even as I made the situation public and that I forged the video.  This could also inspire me to write to guinness explaining why SDA's videos aren't verified records.   Now I've always been a big supporter of SDA and helped them out a lot, but if this doesn't get resolved you have crossed the line.  And yes I'm letting Nolan know about this, I don't think he would be very pleased with what you have done with his site.

Since when is two people verifying a "video" enough verification for something that could be so easily forged?

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-09 04:54:47 pm

2009-06-09 04:45:19 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

I don't see it as blackmail, I see it as my duty to do what's right, making a forged video which I publicly say is forged yet get it verified would be to prove a point. Nolan is my friend and he has done a lot for me and SDA and I (and we) owe it to him to let him know if his site is getting defiled. Guinness also should know if they are being mislead as to the authenticity of the records they publish.

This is a matter of doing what's right.

The longer this takes to get resolved the worse it will be for SDA, I say this because I want to help SDA, not hurt them.

If you need hundreds of people to reply to this agreeing with me, you've got it.

Scepheo

2009-06-09 04:49:15 pm

Spider-Waffle: I do feel you're going a little to far. Whilst I do agree with you that, for a game like HL, they should require the runners to submit their demos, I do not agree that the current run should be taken down due to a lack of one.

Whilst it may be true that SDA staff required you to send in a demo, they didn't require this of the current runner. It's not his fault they didn't ask, it's not his fault he didn't send it in, and it's not his fault if he doesn't have a demo file of it (anymore). So yes, I feel it should be policy for any future submissions, but the current runner should not be punished for a "fault" SDA staff made.

Basically, you're going by the rule of "guilty unless proven otherwise", which never makes for a good policy. If you can prove that his current run isn't legit, go ahead, I'm sure it'll be taken down. But unless anyone can prove so, the run should stay.

You're free to contact the current runner about it, and find out whether he still has the demo. If so, it should be (according to you) easy enough to verify the legitimacy of his run. If he doesn't have it any more, to bad, but that's not his fault.

Spider-Waffle: I do feel you're going a little to far. Whilst I do agree with you that, for a game like HL, they should require the runners to submit their demos, I do [i]not[/i] agree that the current run should be taken down due to a lack of one.

Whilst it may be true that SDA staff required you to send in a demo, they didn't require this of the current runner. It's not his fault they didn't ask, it's not his fault he didn't send it in, and it's not his fault if he doesn't have a demo file of it (anymore). So yes, I feel it should be policy for any future submissions, but the current runner should not be punished for a "fault" SDA staff made.

Basically, you're going by the rule of "guilty unless proven otherwise", which never makes for a good policy. If you can prove that his current run isn't legit, go ahead, I'm sure it'll be taken down. But unless anyone can prove so, the run should stay.

You're free to contact the current runner about it, and find out whether he still has the demo. If so, it should be (according to you) easy enough to verify the legitimacy of his run. If he doesn't have it any more, to bad, but that's not his fault.

honorableJay

2009-06-09 04:58:15 pm

The Dork Knight himself.

I think before this thread gets ugly we should give the site admins a chance to reply and voice their own concerns.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-09 05:03:36 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Would this all go away by removing the grandfathering of script use for HL? That's another option to consider since it's a scripted run that appears to be in contention.

Quote from honorableJay:

I think before this thread gets ugly we should give the site admins a chance to reply and voice their own concerns.

I agree.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-09 05:27:15 pm

Spider-Waffle, this is an utter farce.

1) No matter what SDA does, cheating will always be possible.

2) Yes, more could be done to make cheating harder, and more probably should be done in the case of games like Half Life where it would put little extra burden on runners.

However,
3) SDA's primary defence against cheating is not the verification process, but trust in the runners. Just planning a run requires a considerable amount of effort, even a cheated run is going to require at least a substantial investment of time and effort by the runner. Those sad enough to cheat a speedrun for epeen are unlikely to even put in this level of effort. Verification is there more to judge the quality of runs than to detect cheating. Since the hazard course run was an improvement on the one already on the site, there was little work for the verifiers and two was ample.

Furthermore,
4) Calling for someone's run to be taken down when they did not break any rules that existed at the time of submission is grossly disrespectful and unfair. Many wanted scripts banned after your segmented HL run was submitted, and this (like calling for demos to be submitted alongside runs) was a reasonable position to take. How would you have felt if the admins had declared scripts banned and retroactively taken your run off the site?

Also,
5) Threatening to break what has previously been a perfectly good system which the community of SDA are happy with just because you want the rules to be tightened is just plain dickish. There isn't a problem until people actually start to cheat. You're proposing to create a problem, not to illustrate one.

I'm not going to comment on the stuff about Radix since he was before my time here and I don't know what his values were. As for Guinness however, while I stand to be corrected I don't think the admins really care about them from what old threads I've been able to turn up - they haven't been actively collaborating with Guinness like TG anyway, it's all been Guinness going straight to runners. So write away, you're only screwing over fellow runners, not SDA.

Spider-Waffle, this is an utter farce.

1) No matter what SDA does, cheating will always be possible.

2) Yes, more could be done to make cheating harder, and more probably should be done in the case of games like Half Life where it would put little extra burden on runners.

However,
3) SDA's primary defence against cheating is not the verification process, but trust in the runners. Just planning a run requires a considerable amount of effort, even a cheated run is going to require at least a substantial investment of time and effort by the runner. Those sad enough to cheat a speedrun for epeen are unlikely to even put in this level of effort. Verification is there more to judge the quality of runs than to detect cheating. Since the hazard course run was an improvement on the one already on the site, there was little work for the verifiers and two was ample.

Furthermore,
4) Calling for someone's run to be taken down when they did not break any rules that existed at the time of submission is grossly disrespectful and unfair. Many wanted scripts banned after your segmented HL run was submitted, and this (like calling for demos to be submitted alongside runs) was a reasonable position to take. How would you have felt if the admins had declared scripts banned and retroactively taken your run off the site?

Also,
5) Threatening to break what has previously been a perfectly good system which the community of SDA are happy with just because you want the rules to be tightened is just plain dickish. There isn't a problem until people actually start to cheat. You're proposing to create a problem, not to illustrate one.

I'm not going to comment on the stuff about Radix since he was before my time here and I don't know what his values were. As for Guinness however, while I stand to be corrected I don't think the admins really care about them from what old threads I've been able to turn up - they haven't been actively collaborating with Guinness like TG anyway, it's all been Guinness going straight to runners. So write away, you're only screwing over fellow runners, not SDA.

VorpalEdge

2009-06-09 05:59:24 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

Again, I think it's most likely the runner used the easy jump version of HLSP bunny which Mike does not allow.

"my run got beat and I'm going to whine and do my best to make it seem like I'm not whining"

Quote:

Since when is two people verifying a "video" enough verification for something that could be so easily forged?

Yeah, because a demo is sooo much better. Oh wait, it isn't.

seriously, what the fuck, spider-waffle

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-09 06:11:07 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote from Scepheo:

>>> If you can prove that his current run isn't legit, go ahead, I'm sure it'll be taken down. But unless anyone can prove so, the run should stay.<<<

Exhibit one, the runner does not start in the area where the map first loads, when the run starts he is already going through the double doors which are closed when you start, yet in his run he going through them as they are open. He most likely just made his video start too late, regardless this lowers the total time of the video and does not follow the standards all the other speedruns before it used.

Exhibit two, at 0:58 the runner enters the first new level load. Notice how the video has a large jump, he teleports immensely. If the video was made with one demo this wouldn’t happen, compare with my single segment runs, or hell even my segmented runs look much better than this. This is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit three, at 1:50 the runner enters the 3rd map, again a large teleport is noticed. This is much more noticeable than even in my segmented runs. Again, this is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit four, at 1:50 when the runners enters the 3rd map, the white text displaying “ACTIVATE WHEELS AND DIALS BY HOLDING DOWN THE USE KEY HOLD USE KEY UNTIL BRIDGE IS IN POSISTION” disappears for an instant then comes back, this is very noticeable. Compare to my hazard course run; the text stays visible through-out the whole level transition.

Exhibit four, at 2:06 the runner enters the 4th map, again a large teleport is noticed. Again, this is an indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit five, at 2:06 the white text displaying “PRESS FLASHLIGHT KEY AGAIN TO TURN FLASHLIGHT OFF” disappears for an instant then comes back again. Compare
this to my hazard course run; the text stays visible the whole time.

Exhibit six, at 2:06 you can hear a large discontinuity and pause in the female vox wav being played. Compare with my hazard course run; the discontinuity is much
smaller and much less noticeable.

Exhibit seven, at 2:16 when the runner enters the 5th map the wav file which says “morphine administered” stops at morphine and then nothing else is heard. Compare with my hazard course run where you hear a small pause after morphine, then hear “ministered”

That's seven indications of discontinuity.

[quote="Scepheo"]
>>> If you can prove that his current run isn't legit, go ahead, I'm sure it'll be taken down. But unless anyone can prove so, the run should stay.<<<[/quote]

Exhibit one, the runner does not start in the area where the map first loads, when the run starts he is already going through the double doors which are closed when you start, yet in his run he going through them as they are open.  He most likely just made his video start too late, regardless this lowers the total time of the video and does not follow the standards all the other speedruns before it used.

Exhibit two, at 0:58 the runner enters the first new level load.  Notice how the video has a large jump, he teleports immensely.  If the video was made with one demo this wouldn’t happen, compare with my single segment runs, or hell even my segmented runs look much better than this.  This is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit three, at 1:50 the runner enters the 3rd map, again a large teleport is noticed.  This is much more noticeable than even in my segmented runs.  Again, this is a strong indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit four, at 1:50 when the runners enters the 3rd map, the white text displaying “ACTIVATE WHEELS AND DIALS BY HOLDING DOWN THE USE KEY HOLD USE KEY UNTIL BRIDGE IS IN POSISTION” disappears for an instant then comes back, this is very noticeable.  Compare to my hazard course run; the text stays visible through-out the whole level transition.

Exhibit four, at 2:06 the runner enters the 4th map, again a large teleport is noticed.  Again, this is an indication of discontinuity.

Exhibit five, at 2:06 the white text displaying “PRESS FLASHLIGHT KEY AGAIN TO TURN FLASHLIGHT OFF” disappears for an instant then comes back again.  Compare
this to my hazard course run; the text stays visible the whole time.

Exhibit six, at 2:06 you can hear a large discontinuity and pause in the female vox wav being played.  Compare with my hazard course run; the discontinuity is much
smaller and much less noticeable.

Exhibit seven, at 2:16 when the runner enters the 5th map the wav file which says “morphine administered” stops at morphine and then nothing else is heard.  Compare with my hazard course run where you hear a small pause after morphine, then hear “ministered”

That's seven indications of discontinuity.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-09 06:33:26 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Spider-Waffle, this is an utter farce.

>>>
3) SDA's primary defence against cheating is not the verification process, but trust in the runners. Just planning a run requires a considerable amount of effort, even a cheated run is going to require at least a substantial investment of time and effort by the runner. Those sad enough to cheat a speedrun for epeen are unlikely to even put in this level of effort. Verification is there more to judge the quality of runs than to detect cheating. Since the hazard course run was an improvement on the one already on the site, there was little work for the verifiers and two was ample.

Furthermore,
4) Calling for someone's run to be taken down when they did not break any rules that existed at the time of submission is grossly disrespectful and unfair. Many wanted scripts banned after your segmented HL run was submitted, and this (like calling for demos to be submitted alongside runs) was a reasonable position to take. How would you have felt if the admins had declared scripts banned and retroactively taken your run off the site? <<<

Making the video in question hosted on SDA in a forged manner would be much easier than making it in a legit manner. If I was well practiced at HL, I could make such a video in 3 hours, 3 HOURS, and half of that would be normal video creation that's required for legit video making as well. Think about that...

Since when is verification mostly to judge quality of runs? You can see that one time is faster than another without verifiers easily enough. If improvement is all runs need to beat each other this site has gone to hell and is totally defiled.

If SDA decided to retro-actively take my runs down because they didn't want scripts on their site anymore I wouldn't care. It's someone else's site, they can do what they want with it. Never when I submitted my run did SDA sign an agreement that they would keep it up so long as it followed the rules at the time when it was submitted. If SDA expressly makes this guarantee to the runners then you could say it is unfair.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
Spider-Waffle, this is an utter farce.

>>>
3) SDA's primary defence against cheating is not the verification process, but trust in the runners. Just planning a run requires a considerable amount of effort, even a cheated run is going to require at least a substantial investment of time and effort by the runner. Those sad enough to cheat a speedrun for epeen are unlikely to even put in this level of effort. Verification is there more to judge the quality of runs than to detect cheating. Since the hazard course run was an improvement on the one already on the site, there was little work for the verifiers and two was ample.

Furthermore,
4) Calling for someone's run to be taken down when they did not break any rules that existed at the time of submission is grossly disrespectful and unfair. Many wanted scripts banned after your segmented HL run was submitted, and this (like calling for demos to be submitted alongside runs) was a reasonable position to take. How would you have felt if the admins had declared scripts banned and retroactively taken your run off the site? <<<
[/quote]

Making the video in question hosted on SDA in a forged manner would be much easier than making it in a legit manner.  If I was well practiced at HL, I could make such a video in 3 hours, [b]3 HOURS[/b], and half of that would be normal video creation that's required for legit video making as well.  Think about that...

Since when is verification mostly to judge quality of runs?  You can see that one time is faster than another without verifiers easily enough.  If improvement is all runs need to beat each other this site has gone to hell and is totally defiled.

If SDA decided to retro-actively take my runs down because they didn't want scripts on their site anymore I wouldn't care.  It's someone else's site, they can do what they want with it.  Never when I submitted my run did SDA sign an agreement that they would keep it up so long as it followed the rules at the time when it was submitted.  If SDA expressly makes this guarantee to the runners then you could say it is unfair.

Scepheo

2009-06-09 06:34:48 pm

Discontinuity equals segmenting, not cheating. I can see no claims the run is SS so to me, this says nothing. Now I'm gonna shut up and wait for an admin to say something.

mikwuyma

2009-06-09 06:39:54 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

First, read ExplodingCabbage's latest post, he makes very good points and I agree with what he said. I was actually going to write some similar stuff, but he saved me some time. Smiley

Yes, even what he said about Guinness is true (I think they contacted me once, I can't remember).

Like Scepheo I'd rather go by, innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. I'd rather have a little faith in the runners not to cheat, than create a culture of paranoia where it's assumed you're cheating from the start. One of the great things about SDA is how we cooperate and give each other strategies to create better runs. I'm not saying we shouldn't verify runs, I'm saying that if you assume people are cheating, then you also destroy our culture of cooperation.

The reason why I made groobo use a webcam while playing Portal is because something occured in his run that shouldn't have occured in a single-segment run (gun changing color in an elevator). Instead of taking down all of his runs and branding him a cheater (which would have been a debacle to say the least), I told him to record himself playing the game to prove that he was playing the game single-segment. I'm not sure why we didn't post the proof video with the run, but I would have to ask Nate or Enhasa about that.

If rayvex did anything cheat-worthy, instead of calling for rayvex's run to be removed and branding him a cheater, we should contact him and see if he still has the demos. Which is something I don't think anyone has tried yet.

Quote:

Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to. Until you do it yourself in HL and prove it's possible and show that the work is easy I don't think your claims hold much weight

Also demos are not only to prove SS, the hardest of three ways to cheat, but also the two much easier ways to cheat, using a different mod (most likely), and using host_framerate. There are demo utilities for HL like timedemo which can verify host_framerate.

If Radix required demos for games with demo recording, he never told me. I do think including the demos with the run is a good idea, but for the reason that Poesta and Dex stated: you get a super-high quality video for low file size.

Also, I doubt Half-Life demos are some super unhackable form of proof. What makes Half-Life demos so special. Saying "HL runners are not good coders" doesn't cut it in my eyes. How do demos not only prove SS when you haven't even stated a specific reason as to why they prevent cheating?

Quote:

Nolan is my friend and he has done a lot for me and SDA and I (and we) owe it to him to let him know if his site is getting defiled.

Here are some single-segment runs without demo or webcam proof. And all of these were done while Radix was running the site.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Doom2.html#SSNM
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout2.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html#SS

Does this mean Radix defiled his own site? I would like to think not.

I think what you need to realize that in the end, yes, we can one-up our methods of proof (requiring demos, video camera while playing), but cheaters can also one-up their methods of cheating (hacking demos, using a crappy video camera, imitating movements).

By forcing people to go through more hoops (buying a webcam/video camera and recording themselves), we'll get less runs. If you ban someone because there's the possibility that he or she might be cheating, then people will be afraid to submit.

People already complain about SDA's submission process (video quality, waiting for verification, the old rule about names), and adding more steps will only make people less likely to submit runs. Yes, we want to prevent cheating, but there's a certain point at where it's not worth preventing one possible cheater at the cost of 10-20 people who don't want to submit. Yes, economics majors I am aware this is marginal blah blah.

Quote:

Since when is two people verifying a "video" enough verification for something that could be so easily forged?

Thanks, by saying this you're basically saying that SDA and its verifiers are too stupid to detect any possible signs of cheating or bad gameplay.

P.S. Don't contact Radix, he no longer works for the site and I doubt he would want to be bothered about this. At best he would ignore you, at worst he would get really angry at you. I'm saying this for your sake, not mine.

First, read ExplodingCabbage's latest post, he makes very good points and I agree with what he said. I was actually going to write some similar stuff, but he saved me some time. :) Yes, even what he said about Guinness is true (I think they contacted me once, I can't remember).

Like Scepheo I'd rather go by, innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. I'd rather have a little faith in the runners not to cheat, than create a culture of paranoia where it's assumed you're cheating from the start. One of the great things about SDA is how we cooperate and give each other strategies to create better runs. I'm not saying we shouldn't verify runs, I'm saying that if you assume people are cheating, then you also destroy our culture of cooperation.

The reason why I made groobo use a webcam while playing Portal is because something occured in his run that shouldn't have occured in a single-segment run (gun changing color in an elevator). Instead of taking down all of his runs and branding him a cheater (which would have been a debacle to say the least), I told him to record himself playing the game to prove that he was playing the game single-segment. I'm not sure why we didn't post the proof video with the run, but I would have to ask Nate or Enhasa about that.

If rayvex did anything cheat-worthy, instead of calling for rayvex's run to be removed and branding him a cheater, we should contact him and see if he still has the demos. Which is something I don't think anyone has tried yet.

[quote]Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to.  Until you do it yourself in HL and prove it's possible and show that the work is easy I don't think your claims hold much weight

Also demos are not only to prove SS, the hardest of three ways to cheat, but also the two much easier ways to cheat, using a different mod (most likely), and using host_framerate.  There are demo utilities for HL like timedemo which can verify host_framerate.[/quote]

If Radix required demos for games with demo recording, he never told me. I do think including the demos with the run is a good idea, but for the reason that Poesta and Dex stated: you get a super-high quality video for low file size.

Also, I doubt Half-Life demos are some super unhackable form of proof. What makes Half-Life demos so special. Saying "HL runners are not good coders" doesn't cut it in my eyes. How do demos not only prove SS when you haven't even stated a specific reason as to why they prevent cheating?

[quote]Nolan is my friend and he has done a lot for me and SDA and I (and we) owe it to him to let him know if his site is getting defiled.[/quote]

Here are some single-segment runs without demo or webcam proof. And all of these were done while Radix was running the site.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Doom2.html#SSNM
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout2.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html#SS

Does this mean Radix defiled his own site? I would like to think not.

I think what you need to realize that in the end, yes, we can one-up our methods of proof (requiring demos, video camera while playing), but cheaters can also one-up their methods of cheating (hacking demos, using a crappy video camera, imitating movements).

By forcing people to go through more hoops (buying a webcam/video camera and recording themselves), we'll get less runs. If you ban someone because there's the possibility that he or she might be cheating, then people will be afraid to submit.

People already complain about SDA's submission process (video quality, waiting for verification, the old rule about names), and adding more steps will only make people less likely to submit runs. Yes, we want to prevent cheating, but there's a certain point at where it's not worth preventing one possible cheater at the cost of 10-20 people who don't want to submit. Yes, economics majors I am aware this is marginal blah blah.

[quote]Since when is two people verifying a "video" enough verification for something that could be so easily forged?[/quote]

Thanks, by saying this you're basically saying that SDA and its verifiers are too stupid to detect any possible signs of cheating or bad gameplay.

P.S. Don't contact Radix, he no longer works for the site and I doubt he would want to be bothered about this. At best he would ignore you, at worst he would get really angry at you. I'm saying this for your sake, not mine.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-09 08:16:54 pm

2009-06-09 06:42:28 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Yes, if it's segmented, then it can't obsolete my single segment run.

I'm not saying the runner intentionally cheated. I'm saying he probably used a version of HLSP bunny which Mike adamantly disapproved of (funny he disproves of it so adamantly yet then does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make sure hosted runs don't use it), which is mostly SDA's fault for not keeping the HLSP bunny site up which was one of the only places on the internet which held an approved version. And the SS vs segmented issue is again not his fault, but SDA's for not making it clear my runs were SS and letting a run get submitted without ANY details of it's segmentation. Since when did SDA become so amateurish?

I think the runner is an honest person and I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problem here was not created by Daniel but is merely a result of poor management at SDA.

In SDA's current state, what's to stop me from getting my segmented HL run video verified by two people and accepted as the new SS world record?

Yes, if it's segmented, then it can't obsolete my single segment run.

I'm not saying the runner intentionally cheated.  I'm saying he probably used a version of HLSP bunny which Mike adamantly disapproved of (funny he disproves of it so adamantly yet then does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make sure hosted runs don't use it), which is mostly SDA's fault for not keeping the HLSP bunny site up which was one of the only places on the internet which held an approved version.  And the SS vs segmented issue is again not his fault, but SDA's for not making it clear my runs were SS and letting a run get submitted without ANY details of it's segmentation.  Since when did SDA become so amateurish?

I think the runner is an honest person and I give him the benefit of the doubt.  The problem here was not created by Daniel but is merely a result of poor management at SDA.

In SDA's current state, what's to stop me from getting my segmented HL run video verified by two people and accepted as the new SS world record?

VorpalEdge

2009-06-09 08:33:02 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

In SDA's current state, what's to stop me from getting my segmented HL run video verified by two people and accepted as the new SS world record?

Given that you're telling us beforehand, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say 'you'. And what's with this talk of world records, anyways? Since when was SDA a wannabe Twin Galaxies?

ZenicReverie

2009-06-09 09:47:50 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Isn't the HLSP bunnyhop mod still hosted on the HL game page or is the zip file something different? You can ask the runner where he got his mod from.

ShadowWraith

2009-06-09 09:57:38 pm

.

So Spider-Waffle. Buddy. I've been reading through this thread and all it has done is brought one question to the front of my mind, then tried to hammer it out the front of my cranium using a bulldozer. So here goes.

What the fuck?

I've never seen so much conspiratory bollocks on SDA. Ever. Not even when that guy was caught trying to pass off an emulator run of the Lost Levels as legit and got caught. Not even when Hotarubi submitted his SM run.

First off, why make a public thread? Why not contact Mike privately instead of bringing your little witchhunt into the open where people, like myself, can ridicule you for it?

If ANY of your points have even a shred of validity, I would honestly be surprised. To me, it sounds like either:-

1.) You're living under the no-halflife-runs-update rock and have only just noticed that someone has beaten your run.

or

2.) You tried to improve upon his run, failed, and are now trying to get his taken down so you can get yours put back up.

Both of these are quite possibly wrong, and maybe you aren't talking utter bollocks with your accusations, but what cemented this idea in my mind was this line here.

Quote:

Spider-Waffle said:
Yes, if it's segmented, then it can't obsolete my single segment run.

OH LORDY LORDY MY SINGLE-SEGMENT RUN HAS BEEN OBSOLETED BY ONE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SINGLE-SEGMENT HERE LET ME EXPLAIN MY EXASPERATION FOR THIS MOST UNPLEASANT TURN OF EVENTS BY THROWING MY INTERNET TOYS OUT OF THE PRAM AND ACCUSING THE GUY OF CHEATING. PUBLICLY. BECAUSE THAT IS THE INTELLIGENT THING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION.

So. Spider-Waffle. Buddy.

What the fuck?

So Spider-Waffle. Buddy. I've been reading through this thread and all it has done is brought one question to the front of my mind, then tried to hammer it out the front of my cranium using a bulldozer. So here goes.

What the fuck?

I've never seen so much conspiratory bollocks on SDA. Ever. Not even when that guy was caught trying to pass off an emulator run of the Lost Levels as legit and got caught. Not even when Hotarubi submitted his SM run.

First off, why make a public thread? Why not contact Mike privately instead of bringing your little witchhunt into the open where people, like myself, can ridicule you for it?

If ANY of your points have even a shred of validity, I would honestly be surprised. To me, it sounds like either:-

1.) You're living under the no-halflife-runs-update rock and have only just noticed that someone has beaten your run.

or

2.) You tried to improve upon his run, failed, and are now trying to get his taken down so you can get yours put back up.

Both of these are quite possibly wrong, and maybe you aren't talking utter bollocks with your accusations, but what cemented this idea in my mind was this line here.

[quote]Spider-Waffle said:
Yes, if it's segmented, then it can't obsolete my single segment run.[/quote]

OH LORDY LORDY MY SINGLE-SEGMENT RUN HAS BEEN OBSOLETED BY ONE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SINGLE-SEGMENT HERE LET ME EXPLAIN MY EXASPERATION FOR THIS MOST UNPLEASANT TURN OF EVENTS BY THROWING MY INTERNET TOYS OUT OF THE PRAM AND ACCUSING THE GUY OF CHEATING. PUBLICLY. BECAUSE THAT IS THE INTELLIGENT THING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION.

So. Spider-Waffle. Buddy.

What the fuck?

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2009-06-10 12:51:13 am

2009-06-10 12:20:56 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

I think if spider waffle has solid evidence against the run, his claims should be considered and looked into. Regardless, if it's unknown whether it's SS or segmented it's kinda unfair to spider waffle for his run to be taken down.

I would think there would be some way to find out if it's segmented or not? If you can maybe talk to the runner?

If spider waffles' run was SS and it's unknown whether the current run up is segmented or not, I say that spider waffles' run should be reposted. Though... Was it submitted as a SS?

EDIT: After an examination of both runs. I have to agree with spider waffle. I spotted several spots where the view switched completely. Looks like segmentation to me. Thus, I think spider waffles' run should be reposted and the other one labeled segmented. 0:58 of that run is what convinces me the most of segmentation.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-10 01:26:27 am

2009-06-10 12:44:15 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

>>>Here are some single-segment runs without demo or webcam proof. And all of these were done while Radix was running the site.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Doom2.html#SSNM
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout2.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html#SS

Does this mean Radix defiled his own site? I would like to think not.<<<

I'm willing to wager those runs have video evidence which isn't so apocryphal. Also that they were verified by more than two people who had no proven qualifications. And MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, they didn't obsolete a SS run which was required demo proof and had it.

>>>If rayvex did anything cheat-worthy, instead of calling for rayvex's run to be removed and branding him a cheater, we should contact him and see if he still has the demos. Which is something I don't think anyone has tried yet.<<<

This is exactly what I've been saying, and I've already asked him and am waiting to hear back.

>>>Also, I doubt Half-Life demos are some super unhackable form of proof. What makes Half-Life demos so special. Saying "HL runners are not good coders" doesn't cut it in my eyes. How do demos not only prove SS when you haven't even stated a specific reason as to why they prevent cheating?<<<

Sure they're not fool-proof, if people like dex have ways to make them more fool proof I'm for that too, it sounds like they have a pretty good system going for quake and I'd like if HL was on par with this as well. I know it'd be much easier to segment quake demos together between different levels as this a very discrete break in the game. Now take for example hex editing with a 30 frame per second emulator, For many games and situations runners with CS/CE degrees can't even get the demos to work without desyncs, with 60 fps it's even harder. Now HL is much less discrete than 60 fps, so I'd imagine it'd be extremely hard. Never less it takes so little effort to use as additional proof and makes cheating significantly harder for 99% of people, and still much harder for the 1% that are good coders.

>>>Here are some single-segment runs without demo or webcam proof. And all of these were done while Radix was running the site.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Doom2.html#SSNM
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Fallout2.html
http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html#SS

Does this mean Radix defiled his own site? I would like to think not.<<<

I'm willing to wager those runs have video evidence which isn't so apocryphal.  Also that they were verified by more than two people who had no proven qualifications.  And MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, [b]they didn't obsolete a SS run which was required demo proof and had it.[/b]

>>>If rayvex did anything cheat-worthy, instead of calling for rayvex's run to be removed and branding him a cheater, we should contact him and see if he still has the demos. Which is something I don't think anyone has tried yet.<<<

This is exactly what I've been saying, and I've already asked him and am waiting to hear back.

>>>Also, I doubt Half-Life demos are some super unhackable form of proof. What makes Half-Life demos so special. Saying "HL runners are not good coders" doesn't cut it in my eyes. How do demos not only prove SS when you haven't even stated a specific reason as to why they prevent cheating?<<<

Sure they're not fool-proof, if people like dex have ways to make them more fool proof I'm for that too, it sounds like they have a pretty good system going for quake and I'd like if HL was on par with this as well.  I know it'd be much easier to segment quake demos together between different levels as this a very discrete break in the game.  Now take for example hex editing with a 30 frame per second emulator, For many games and situations runners with CS/CE degrees can't even get the demos to work without desyncs, with 60 fps it's even harder.  Now HL is much less discrete than 60 fps, so I'd imagine it'd be extremely hard.  Never less it takes so little effort to use as additional proof and makes cheating significantly harder for 99% of people, and still much harder for the 1% that are good coders.