Visit my profile to see my runs!
Granted, I acknowledge that it would be, at the very least, ideal to summon the best players, other than the runner, to verify, but, as you suggested in your response, this is often unlikely.
First of all, for obscure titles, the most one can ever hope for would be the stereotypical "other half" of the thread dialogue... Most of my own runs, for instance, had only one possible verifier [at least, only one that in any way exhibited genuine knowledge of the title]. I know you alluded to this, but the situation might be more desperate than you might realize.
Also, I don't believe your paradigm for trimming the number of runs is necessarily prudent. First of all, by what criteria, other than some arbitrary insistence on a lower acceptance rate, would we reject runs that we are currently accepting? If there is none, then your proposition is nothing more than a quota, since we would be superfluously restricting the number of incoming runs based purely off of undefined esoteria [I JUST copyrighted that word... yeah, JUST NOW; [i]right there[/i] you just saw me copyright it 8) ]. Sure, we could limit the number of runs, but, again, you still haven't really defined "stricter," in any sort of manner pertaining to technique. Also, we were to do this, we would surely be losing some valubale runs in the process if, say, ten miraculous runs were to arrive at the same time, and we were forced to crop them. True, we can probably presume which runs were more leniently evaluated than others, in general, but were we to overrule the original verifiers' judgments, we would necessitate some other set of qualities/expectations/criteria/rules to establish the boundaries of the precedent. We simply don't have those; Radix could conjure some if he so chose, but I just don't feel that your argument is convincing/strategic enough for this. At least, not yet...
And yes, many of us would probably rather see a subar run get posted than not... but we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a way to benefit from this. Firstly, subpar runs are excellent for illustrating routes and tricks that might be indescribable through text. They set a good example, in other words. Secondly, ontologically speaking, there will always be subpar runs, because the word subpar exists as a correlate to above par. And since above par runs will always exist... well, you get the picture. Thirdly, truly subpar runs are the quickest to be replaced by superior runs, anyway. If a run is detestable, and it lasts for a very long time, then I can only assume that the runner should be commended for at least having the balls to submit a run at all, as, if it's so mediocre, many others could have already beaten it, but for whatever reason haven't. In which case, the verifiers are either quite scarce or too lazy to do what might initially seem so easy.
I'm really sorry if I sound like I'm harping on your opinion. I think you have some great ideas, and you're a gifted debater. However, I just disagree with you on this, for the time being. [Note: Certainly, your ideas would be more accessible in an SDA community much larger than the one we have; maybe some day we will have enough gamers frequenting the site to harvest a healthy number of verifiers for most any run...]
First of all, for obscure titles, the most one can ever hope for would be the stereotypical "other half" of the thread dialogue... Most of my own runs, for instance, had only one possible verifier [at least, only one that in any way exhibited genuine knowledge of the title]. I know you alluded to this, but the situation might be more desperate than you might realize.
Also, I don't believe your paradigm for trimming the number of runs is necessarily prudent. First of all, by what criteria, other than some arbitrary insistence on a lower acceptance rate, would we reject runs that we are currently accepting? If there is none, then your proposition is nothing more than a quota, since we would be superfluously restricting the number of incoming runs based purely off of undefined esoteria [I JUST copyrighted that word... yeah, JUST NOW; [i]right there[/i] you just saw me copyright it 8) ]. Sure, we could limit the number of runs, but, again, you still haven't really defined "stricter," in any sort of manner pertaining to technique. Also, we were to do this, we would surely be losing some valubale runs in the process if, say, ten miraculous runs were to arrive at the same time, and we were forced to crop them. True, we can probably presume which runs were more leniently evaluated than others, in general, but were we to overrule the original verifiers' judgments, we would necessitate some other set of qualities/expectations/criteria/rules to establish the boundaries of the precedent. We simply don't have those; Radix could conjure some if he so chose, but I just don't feel that your argument is convincing/strategic enough for this. At least, not yet...
And yes, many of us would probably rather see a subar run get posted than not... but we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a way to benefit from this. Firstly, subpar runs are excellent for illustrating routes and tricks that might be indescribable through text. They set a good example, in other words. Secondly, ontologically speaking, there will always be subpar runs, because the word subpar exists as a correlate to above par. And since above par runs will always exist... well, you get the picture. Thirdly, truly subpar runs are the quickest to be replaced by superior runs, anyway. If a run is detestable, and it lasts for a very long time, then I can only assume that the runner should be commended for at least having the balls to submit a run at all, as, if it's so mediocre, many others could have already beaten it, but for whatever reason haven't. In which case, the verifiers are either quite scarce or too lazy to do what might initially seem so easy.
I'm really sorry if I sound like I'm harping on your opinion. I think you have some great ideas, and you're a gifted debater. However, I just disagree with you on this, for the time being. [Note: Certainly, your ideas would be more accessible in an SDA community much larger than the one we have; maybe some day we will have enough gamers frequenting the site to harvest a healthy number of verifiers for most any run...]