Seriously Spider-Waffle, you're arguing that you should be allowed to make speedrunning easier. You can cover it in layers of bullshit all you want but at the end of the day, scripts make it easier. They trivialise things you should be keeping tabs on yourself. That is why people don't like scripts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that and it certainly doesn't take gods-gift-to-half-life to explain it.

If you can't do it yourself, what's the point?

Interested the hell out of me.

^Didn't say it was. That's the 'alternate world' to which I kept referring. 

InsipidMuckyWater: As far as the whole 'assist in what is already possible from human performance' issue goes, Spider-Waffle would argue that the only difference between a runner who uses turbo scripts to jump and a runner who uses the mousewheel to jump is that the latter has a chance of failure every jump and the former does not, but when the latter succeeds on every jump the resulting video looks identical to the runner who uses turbo scripts - hence the turbo scripts acheive a video that could humanly be made with the mousewheel.

In the case of a save-anywhere segmented run, I think this is a compelling argument in favour of allowing turbo scripts, since that is in keeping with the general philosophy of a save-anywhere segmented run - to make the fastest video possible that could, given the luck shown in each individual segment was acheived in a single runthrough, theoretically be created by a human. Segmentation itself is a substitute for luck and retries, which is exactly what a turbo script also is - it seems entirely consistent to me to permit both in the same category. However, it is difficult to see how even turbo scripts can be justified in the context of a single segment run or a run without a save-anywhere feature; there runners should have to deal with bad luck and are not expected to create near-optimal runs like segmented runners are.

Of course, as a counter-argument to this I'll point out there has been an implicit assumption made by Spider-Waffle (and not challenged yet in this thread) that the only use for turbo scripts / spamming commands on a mousewheel is in situations where only one of the inputs will actually do anything (e.g. spamming jump commands before hitting the ground; only the one that goes off on the instant you are touching the ground will have an effect). However, what if the runner is spamming attack to fire a semi-automatic weapon with no rate-of-fire limit (I'm sure such a weapon exists in some shoddily coded game out there) or to e.g. win a saber lock in Jedi Knight II where locks are won by mashing the fire button. In these situations turbo scripts are no longer just allowing what is possible through human performance, for two reasons: firstly, nobody spinning a mousewheel will have perfectly regular input like a turbo script, and secondly, even the longest-fingered human can only spam a mousewheel for so long before needing to take a break.

So actually I've changed stance from my last post; I think that all scripts excluding weapon change scripts should be banned in the standard category. I'm not opposed to the existence of a seperate category allowing all scripts and encouraging basically TAS-like submissions, since scripts are after all a gameplay feature, but I can understand those who wouldn't want that either.



Despite Spider-Waffle's slight raving madness in some of his posts, I agree with everything he says here and think he spells out the argument very clearly and compellingly. I suspect 1-2 seconds long thing is literally true for runs with bunnyhopping; certainly for runs without it, you'd still segment prior to every corner; there's bound to be a frame to save every time you turn. And that is pure silliness; we want near-optimal runs, but they don't need to be THAT near-optimal and constant warping damages the experience for the viewer. This is why a segmentation penalty, even if it only is 0.5 seconds, is badly needed and I don't think those who want it abolished would really want to live with the consequences of that (all segmented runs of save anywhere games looking like shite and having 10% of the action going on offscreen in missing frames).

Finally there was a couple of points I want to reply to:



There is no need. Nobody but you has ever misinterpreted this and I doubt anyone ever will again.



While Enhasa said this once, none of the other admins have ever weighed in on it and since no runs have ever (I believe) changed difficulty midway the rule has never been applied; as such, I wouldn't consider it set in stone. I have my own views on this matter, but I think it best that this debate be postponed until such a time as there is a run in the works it will actually affect.



I don't know what you mean by 'save the autosave' but this sounds like rubbish to me. Where'd you get it from?




The trouble is that if, e.g., there was an any% run and a 100% run on the site, nobody would ever watch both since they'd be basically the same. So as a viewer, I'd want to watch the one that is better. So it helps me, the viewer, if SDA only hosts the better run.

There is already an issue with games like e.g. Metroid Prime (which as a PC gamer I know nothing about) that an uninformed viewer is presented with 15 runs of the game (not including the Frigate Escape, whatever that is), in different categories, and has no idea of the relative quality of the runs, and hence no idea which to watch. This has deterred me from ever watching any Metroid Prime runs (though without having played the whole game, I doubt I'd appreciate them anyway so this is probably a small loss for the runners). Now, I'm not attacking the way the categories work for Metroid Prime - I'm entirely willing to believe they're all sufficiently different to justify existing if someone tells me that is so, though I wouldn't know. But in cases like Conker's Bad Fur Day where two categories are genuinely near-identical, surely it cannot do the viewer any good for SDA to host two runs?

Because I'm pro-choice for runners, I advocate a system where someone could do either an any% or a 100% run for CBFD and the verifiers would decide if an any% run was sufficiently better than the 100% run already on the site to obsolete it, allowing runners to run in either category without creating unfairness or disadvantaging viewers by making them choose between two near-identical runs without enough information. But failing that, I'd rather keep the status quo (100% runs only) than go with your proposal of allowing both categories.

Now I'm going to permanantly retire from this thread (save to reply to any direct replies to my posts, if necessary) because if not I'm just going to keep repeating myself over and over until I drive everyone else here insane.

I know I promised not to post again in this thread, but I just saw the reference to 'turbo joysticks' in Spider-Waffle's post. Do such things really exist for PC? If so, it seems consistent to allow (internal OR external) turbo scripts, since I think we'd allow turbo joysticks as legitimate hardware to use for speedrunning?

Serris, I did reply to this, albeit after your first post and not your third.



BTW, yes, runs where saving and quitting is necessary to complete the game (or get 100% in a 100% run) allow it in a SS run. I don't like this and don't think those runs should be accepted, but I guess they do me no harm so nevermind.

I'm not sure, but I do think a vital part of what they're about is, as I said, not being able to reload to retry tricks.

Also, your third post just confirmed that my interpretation of your first post was correct, meaning my apply above was entirely relevant.

It may help everyone to change the focus of this thread to discussing the motivator behind all the various individual issues. If SDA had a clearly defined mission statement, explicitly stating what type of runs they are here to host, rules for achieving that goal would flow much more naturally.

Is SDA's goal to host the fastest, most optimized runs of games? Is it to showcase the fastest runs by human players using only their own skills and ability? Something else? If you can point to what the site is trying to do, it becomes much simpler to determine which rules will make it happen. Defining this purpose is what's going on here, except it's being done with a bottom-up approach where we'll figure out what we're trying to accomplish after we've made rules for it. I'm sure everyone's aware that this has been in the background, but maybe rebooting the topic would be helpful, as the thread has become a bit more argumentative than constructive, in my opinion.

The point of SS runs is beating the whole game in one session for the sake of "greater challenge and a more impressive display of skill" - I assume. Being able to save & quit wouldn't change anything about that.



I'm not partaking in the scripts discussion, and even if I did, what are you trying to say? This isn't about allowing everything that's part of the game. In-game "cheats" are part of the game, too - I'm not saying those should be banned, either, but they should very much be a separate category (which is already the case). This is about the save system, which exists in many shapes and forms and cannot be dealt with on a universal level - hence what I said about case-by-case decisions earlier. Save systems are already used in many ways in many different runs and categories because they are an essential part of the game, not a special feature. You're already "officially" allowed to save without quitting in SS runs to enable features, tricks or glitches that wouldn't work otherwise.



How would you know?



Temporary checkpoint saves that are gone after resetting / resuming the game once vs permanent saves.

theoretically? since when is sda about what can theoretically be done? like i've said twice before, sda is not tasvideos. tases show what can theoretically be done by a theoretical near-perfect human.
runs, including segmented runs, are impressive because the runner actually did those tricks. using scripts with the justification that "well anyone could be able to do this if they practiced enough" is missing the point. the point is that these runners do practice enough and can do the tricks. scripts allow a mediocre runner to do incredibly difficult maneuvers that sit at the pinnacle of human ability, stuff that normally only the top runners can achieve.

i guess i value hard work. runs done without scripts demonstrate that whereas runs with scripts don't.

i think nate should have the final call on what the mission statement should be imo

however his unique genius would probably stop him from defining something like that, even though he easily could 

I know. I was saying that you weren't the first to misinterpret the rule, contrary to what ExplodingCabbage said, which was apparently made up on the spot.

>>>The reason this problem has become a meta-issue, if I'm not mistaken, is because the issue has now earned a permanently divisive status in the community, as far as anyone can tell.  And, the only way to deal with those kind of problems is to come to a universal resolution (I say universal because the current SDA stance on scripting is sort of a compromise resolution).  Of COURSE the difficulty lies in determining which universal resolution, universally allowing them or universally prohibiting them, satisfies the goal of SDA more properly.  This is the issue most people here have been debating for some time.<<<

I believe you ARE mistaken, and quite a big mistake if I must say so, in fact this seems to be the crux of all your arguments.  I think they all fail at this first assumption.  How is the current SDA stance of allowing scripted and non-scripted categories a compromised solution?  You really need to make a good argument for this first to have a foundation for your other arguments.  The way I see it, it is a PERFECT solution, and in no way a compromise.  Why is the issue having a permanently divisive status in the community a problem?  And if it is why is the only way to deal with it to come to a universal resolution? 
As president of Malta I could use an analogous argument that the EU had a permanently divisive status as to which language should be the official language of the EU, and the only way to resolve such a problem was to come to a universal resolution.  And then I would proceed with my arguments as to why Maltese should be the official language of the EU.
These unexplained assumptions seem to be the core reasoning that you even try to argue that scripts should be abolished.  You have to make a convincing argument for these statements first before you can go any further.

>>> A script's popularity at SDA seems to be inversely proportional to the amount it accomplishes on the player's behalf.<<<
I wouldn’t agree, I’ve had tons runners interested in my jumping or 180 scripts, but none in my weapon change scripts.  Maybe your statement is true for people who know nothing about scripts, but for people who play games in which they were intended to be used are used by the majority of players this is far from the truth.

>>> Their purpose is to assist a person in the realization of a goal (btw, 'style' is a goal, just in case that's brought up) 3) When judging between two scripts, the most successful script is going to be that which assists the player more efficiently or expansively than the other.  Likewise, a calculator is also a tool, and it is more successful than another if it accomplishes more for the user or at the expense of less input from the user (as a calculator would be an even better tool if you didn't need to tell it to compute, for instance, and it just answered any question that popped into your mind automatically). So, if one script is for jumping, it will be considered inferior to the one which accomplishes all necessary movement for the player character in the game (and this imaginary script has been suggested several times throughout this thread... I mention it not because I perceive it to be a REAL threat, but to illustrate a point).  Therefore, 4) the more successful a script is at being-a-script, the more criticism will result.  Therefore a second time, 5) the more efficiently scripts are used or programmed, the more divisive they will become at SDA. 

Proposition 5) states, basically, that it is the very nature of scripts themselves which is frustrating SDA's community, and the more that nature is revealed the more dissatisfaction will occur.  This is, in all senses of the word, an inherent problem with scripts.<<<
Fortunately, this inherent problem can easily be solved by regulating scripts, not the community its self hasn’t ALWAYS done an adequate job of this anyway.

>>> 2. Criticism from community:

The agitators in the community are the pro-scripters, therefore their stance should be discouraged. 

I believe this is true because 1) only a few times in this thread and in select other places in the SDA forums has universally accepting scripts been suggested seriously as a method of improving the site.  Most of the time, the argument is not made until someone who feels the need to attack scripts makes an argument.  It seems to be only a counter-attack, even if on occasion it is pre-emptive.  2) In a world where SDA began as a place which never allowed scripts, I don't think the issue of allowing scripts would have come to a head like it has for banning them in the real world.  Let's say the community is 50/50 on the issue right now.  I don't think it would have been 50/50 in the alternate world, because it is a much more difficult argument to make for inviting scripts when there are none than to remove them when we already have them (have them in a limited fashion, I might add).  3) The general progression of the debate, assuming it sits comfortably at 50/50 in the community, has been of gained ground for the banners and lost ground for the advocates, coming from something originally maybe 90/10 pro scripts.  Again, in the alternate world, I would find it hard to believe that scripts could gain ground from 90/10 pro banning to 50/50 unless SDA announced an official change in stance which included scripts in their vision of speed running. Finally, 4) scripts seem to be on the site at all mostly because they slipped through.  That is to say, the administrators let them be either because they had already done so much work that it was too late to go back and change official policy, because scripts weren't as seriously contemplated at the beginning as they are now, or because the Quake guys were truly doing something different from what we are all now collectively doing with this site.  In the alternate world, if scripts had never been allowed onto the site, then that to me suggests that the matter had been seriously considered, since they had to eventually come to the conclusion that 'they should all be banned for [whatever] reason.'  My point is that scripts do not seem to be part of the vision of SDA anywhere past its infancy.  [Note: I am willing to rescind this latter position if one of the veterans can persuade me otherwise]  <<<
1. I think this is mainly because the pro-scripters are sensible enough and nice enough not to try to unnecessarily impose their dogma onto people who side differently.  I wish the same could be said about the non-scripters.  If you really want me to could I make a good argument as why games which were designed to be played with scripts shouldn’t have non-scripted categories.  I’m nice enough to let you have your own category I don’t agree with because it does little to no harm to me.
2. Even if scripts weren’t allowed it wouldn’t be hard to make an agreement as to why they should be.  Look at death warping or “mysterious teleportation”, these weren’t allowed but were successfully argued into SDA.  Mainly because these are a regular part of playing the games.  Scripts are the same way.  The games were designed to be played with scripts, from the first day of their release players were writing and using scripts in regular game play.  This is how the games were supposed to be played and are played by the majority of none-noob players.  Take TFC for example, I guarantee you that at least 95% if not 100% of the high level players use multiple scripts at least 20 times a minute during their regular game play.  To not allow something this highly used and accepted by the community that plays the game because people who know little nothing about it and never play the game have a contradictory dogma is simple outrageous.  It would be very easy to argue scripts in if they weren’t all ready.
3. I’m very curious as to where you got your stats from.  These numbers seem to be manifested simply through your own arbitration and judgment.  I really don’t think there is any proof for this key premise to your argument.  Again it’d be easy for pro-scripters to go from 10-90 to 50-50 as demonstrated in 2.  I think you see less pro-scripters arguing because scripts are already widely accepted and they have no reason or desire to impose their dogma onto a community they know little to nothing about.  Unfortunately for SDA and the speedrunning community, anti-scripters are a little different.
4. This isn’t true in any sense.  Scripts were let in after Nolan, the creator and owner of the site, gathered the opinion of the community and researched what other speedrunning communities and sites did with scripts.  After serious contemplation, he made intelligent, just decision as to the policy of scripts with the betterment and best interests of his site in mind.

Why do you not you not think scripts have been a part of the vision of SDA past it’s infancy?  It’s kind strange you use infancy here as scripts weren’t even introduced to SDA until after it had been established for about 2 years.  New runs come out that use scripts all the time, runners in the community have been sharing and cherishing scripts all this time.  To say that SDA is losing support of scripts is completely arbitrary and I would say fallacious as well.
>>> 3. Criticism of pro-script arguments as compromising:

The arguments which propose the allowance of scripts are all packaged with sacrifices or compromises.

I'm not going to get into too many specific arguments for the acceptance of scripts (there seem to be only a few core arguments, and I disagree with most of them for many reasons which have probably all already been mentioned, but what I'm saying now is about the character of all the pro-script arguments).  I'm saying that the script arguments have a general tone which pleads for the audience to accept them 'despite' some problem or inconsistence they might cause for SDA policies or standards.  1) "They can add a lot to the performance (optimization)" As many have countered, though, we are not seeing an improved performance but in fact two performances joined by the player activating the scripts (that between human and programmed performances).  Is that reason in itself to ban them?  I cannot say.  However, there is something we must overlook with this argument even if we are to accept it (that we can necessarily call script use, in every conceivable situation, simple human control)  2) "It's not that they allow for the impossible, they just assist in what is already possible from human performance" In some cases perhaps, but is assisting one's self in the possibilities of human performance, itself possible?  That is to say, is 'making it easier on yourself' possible without scripts?  No, otherwise scripts literally would not exist, and if they did you wouldn't need or want them.  So... technically... they don't allow for what is possible from human performance, since a human cannot 'assist one's self' and do actions on their own behalf, on their own behalf. [Confusing, I know] Does that mean scripts are bad?  Not necessarily.  But, again, we have to control a negative in order to reap the benefits of something else.  3) "Certain scripts of course would not be allowed"  Suggests that scripts can be abused.  Sure, we could avoid abusing them, but that doesn't change the fact that we must resolve a negative to find the positive.  4)  "Scripts are fine if everyone has access to them (or SDA supplies them)."  First of all, this suggests that it's possible for someone to own a game and not already have access to the scripts.  Would it be hard to make sure they did have access, eventually?  Probably not at all.  But this is still a compromise, even if a very minor one.  And secondly, before scripts can be supplied we need to decide still whether all scripts will be provided or only some [already mentioned this], and for which games.  Besides the practical issue of this, it also raises several other questions, such as whether we consider scripts as truly simple human control [already mentioned as well] or whether we should tolerate any scripts, even if they are universally distributed.  This argument presents several compromises, as you may see.  5) "The developer intended for their use"  Yes, but not as anything non-script, such as hazard suit powers.  The scripts were still designated as scripts, so the compromise comes in the difference between actual in-game abilities and external ones, or however you'd distinguish between them.  [And even then their intentions may not ultimately be relevant if it results in an unsatisfactory compromise for this website]  And finally, 6) "Scripts can be difficult to distinguish from other in-game commands, or they can be impossible to detect"  This one may really not be much of a compromise situation as much as a forfeiture.  First of all, the very nature of this argument is to surrender to our incapacity to detect scripts, even if they are arguably wrong.  That's like saying we can't detect all crime, so we should ignore it. Secondly, if a script is impossible to detect due to a minimum influence on the run, then chances are it's one that in the current SDA climate would barely be controversial anyway.  But on top of that, if its influence is minimal, that's all the more reason to prohibit it since its benefits will hardly if at all outweigh its compromises.  Thirdly, if a script is impossible to detect but greatly influences the run, then we may be helpless to fight this (though, I suppose we could demand a 5-10 minute video demonstration from the player to at least help verify authenticity if the verifiers are suspicious enough), but that doesn't mean we approve of it.  And fourthly, SDA claims to be a trusting website, so we still have the option to say 'No scripts!" and hope for the best.<<<

I don’t think anyone is making arguments which attempt to plead an audience to accept scripts, when scripts are already widely accepted.  Nice try at a straw man though.
1. You don’t seem to counter this argument but merely say it’s weak.  I agree, it isn’t the best.  I think to make it better you need to bring in the entertainment aspect of the argument and the fact that speedrunning and its popularity are highly based off entertainment value.  This agreement doesn’t claim there’s nothing wrong with scripts but merely points out their big plus side to speedrunning.
2. “is 'making it easier on yourself' possible without scripts?”  Yes, yes it is.  Take for example a turbo joystick, this makes things much easier on you and it isn’t a script.  Take for example wiring a key on your keyboard to give two inputs.  These accomplish the same things scripts do, people prefer scripts instead because they’re much easier and logical to use and there’s no good reason not to.  Yes a human can’t assist oneself in this sense, but hardware can.  So certain scripts really do allow for what is possible by a human and common/easily modified hardware (I don’t know why I need to repeat this so many times, I must be doing a terrible job at explaining it), and I feel any scripts external to the game should fit this bill, as they do.
3. Yes you have a resolve a negative to get a positive, unless you argue that this is not worth the positive this premise serves no purpose.
4. You say the argument presents several compromises.  You list one saying when you first install the game it doesn’t come with the scripts already.  The other ones you must have hidden somewhere as they’re not jumping out at me.

To address the one that’s spelled out clearly allow me to make an analogous argument.  Suppose I wanted to argue that using non-default configs should be banned.  I could point out just as you did that it’s possible for someone to own the game and not have non-default configs, thus by allowing non-default configs you have made a minor compromise.  And I actually have seen someone post on SDA who had this firm belief.  It’s clear some compromises are worth it.  The .01% of people it compromises probably couldn’t make a good enough speedrun to compete anyway.  It’s really a non-issue.
5. “hazard suit powers” “the difference between actual in-game abilities and external ones” Do you even know what you’re talking about?  Scripts are a set of input, they can offer nothing external to the game.
6. “First of all, the very nature of this argument is to surrender to our incapacity to detect scripts, even if they are arguably wrong.”  Remember the prohibition didn’t work, this is the exact same thing.  “That's like saying we can't detect all crime, so we should ignore it.”  Not ignore but legalize and accept.  “But on top of that, if its influence is minimal, that's all the more reason to prohibit it since its benefits will hardly if at all outweigh its compromises.”  I can assure you, an undetectable turbo script offers enormous benefits.  “Thirdly, if a script is impossible to detect but greatly influences the run, then we may be helpless to fight this (though, I suppose we could demand a 5-10 minute video demonstration from the player to at least help verify authenticity if the verifiers are suspicious enough)”  SDA already has this policy and fortunately script users are honest enough to submit to the scripting category.  Should someone submit a similar run to the non-scripted category then we would need to use this policy.  “but that doesn't mean we approve of it.”  Your dogma might not, but SDA does.
“And fourthly, SDA claims to be a trusting website, so we still have the option to say 'No scripts!" and hope for the best.”  I think the vast majority of us know that wouldn’t go over too well.  Before I came along and forced radix to make a decision on scripts runners had already submitted runs using scripts without any mention.  It’s simply bad policy to make rules you can’t or won’t enforce.  This strictly rewards dishonesty.

While your arguments are vastly superior to the ones put up by most, whom typically just state their conclusion, maybe citing one attribute of scripts, or use flat out fallacious premises, they still seem to have very fatal flaws.  If I were you I would just be thrilled to pieces I even get a non-scripted category.