I haven't really been following this thread, but since my run was brought up. 
it seems like the most fair way to handle that would be to tally all the deaths and add them to my final time. the significant issue here is that the in-game timer doesn't track seconds, though, so the whole run would probably have to be manually timed which would be a pain in the ass to make it comparable to other runs of the game due to how the in-game timer works (basically, any time you are not in control of Samus, the timer isn't running, so all cutscenes are factored out). I do know that there is something similar used in Metroid Prime 2 though, where the game gives you a checkpoint after beating Emperor Ing but before Dark Samus, so runners intentionally kill themselves so they can try to optimize the Dark Samus fight without having to redo Emperor Ing every time (with DJGrenola's 1:38 run he opted to label this as a separate segment), and with that precedent I'm planning on doing the same thing with the final bosses in my segmented run of MP3. So if we have a precedent that restarting from checkpoints counts as a separate segment, then for SS runs, obviously they shouldn't be labelled segmented because of an unintentional death, but we also don't want runners trying to make deaths look unintentional so they aren't penalized for it, so manually timing runs with deaths looks like the only way to handle this (and more consistent with the way the rest of the games are timed).
SDA Forum
.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
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.
Your analogy falls flat on it's face when you realise you're comparing a political coalition to a website about computer games. For one, there's no need for a universal language because everyone speaks what they want to without having to answer to a higher power. Not the same as something that has set rules and guidelines that must be followed. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Before you pass me off as someone who 'obviously doesn't know what I'm talking about', I'd like you to take your head out of your arse and actually listen to what people are saying. We've listened to you.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Not really something we can discuss. I will say that whether scripts were intended to be used in any given game or not is irrelevant when considering the site rules, though.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
It can also be solved by banning them entirely. Regulating something which is in a gray area rules wise is obviously an inferior solution to removing said gray area entirely, as far as this is concerned.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Why do 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.
The only games I've seen that use scripts so far are the Quake demos in the Quake section (which is an entirely different section of SDA to the rest of the speedrunning site and thus has different rules), the Half-Life games and Portal. Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't really scream "New runs come out that use scripts all the time". Basing your entire argument for scripts on a handful of runs isn't really a strong foundation.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
Define "Widely accepted". Going by the only scripted runs being of the Half-Life games and Portal (again I may have missed one or two), I'd say it was fairly niche.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
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.
1. We've pointed out their big downside as far as SDA and the rules are concerned. Same as you've done, except we've given solid reasons for our stance rather than "Some people find scripted runs more entertaining".
2. You'll also find that Turbo controllers are banned going by the Rules. Rewiring your keyboard is considered hardware modification. Neither of those really help your argument for scripts.
The other two points aren't really relevant to the rules discussion itself, so I won't comment on them.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
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.
Changing configs is analogous to changing things in the options menu. That is, the options themselves are shipped with the game, all they need is to be changed. Scripts add extra functionality to the game in a similar vein to third-party turbo controllers and such.
As far as the prohibition of scripts is concerned, you have to consider that scripts were used before we had a solid verification process in place, and back then I don't think there was even a ban against them. Also, legalise crime? What? Let's just allow everything that breaks the rules then. That's what your argument is saying.
I'll go offtopic slightly and say that turbo scripts are pretty obvious in their function. I personally have rejected a speedrun that used a Turbo Controller, and while it wasn't obvious at all points that it was being used, there were certain times when it was pretty blatant. Yes, if you're really good you can probably pass it off as you being perfect (hah), but we've got a solid verification team in place to catch you out if you try it.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
While your arguments are vastly superior to the ones put up by 13 year-old kids knowing very little to nothing about scripts who think we need multiple reminders on every page of this thread that SDA isn’t TAS videos, 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.
...and if I were you, I'd be thrilled to pieces that your scripted runs even made it onto SDA. I was tempted to just dismiss your entire post when I read the "13 year-old kids" comment as that's just bad form, but you did have a couple arguments I wanted to comment on. I'll say that their arguments make more sense than yours do though, but that might just be me being biased. Welp.
Oh also, learn to use quote tags, PLEASE. It's hard enough trying to make sense of what you're saying without having to filter out what other people have said from your posts.
Visit my profile to see my runs!
Thank you Spider-Waffle for at least paying attention to what I had to say. I do, in fact, disagree with most of your comments, but I appreciate that you took what I had to say seriously. I say that because, well, yes you have been just a tad dismissive of some other people on here. Anyway, thanks.
Well, actually my main point of my post wasn't that the current SDA stance was a compromise; my main point was that the issue was itself becoming permanently divisive. The reason I said it was a compromise was because there is a compromise between all-scripts and no-scripts currently at SDA. If there wasn't, well, either all of them for every game would be accepted, or there wouldn't be any scripts of any kind for any game. I didn't mean to suggest that 'compromise', in this context, meant 'half-ass' or anything like that. I was just saying it was a middle road solution between the two opposing alternatives. Now, I don't understand you're second-to-last question. I have to feel that permanently divisive issues, in an ideal world, are resolved. Can we pragmatically resolve this one? Well, I'm not saying we can with absolute confidence, but my post was about reaching what I thought would achieve the next best thing. The universal resolution, I thought, would be helpful since it would eliminate the eccentricities of the problem (such as inconsistency between which games are allowed scripts, which scripts are allowed in any situation, which scripts are allowed in specific situations, etc.) by establishing a completely consistent standard.
Well, what you're saying may or may not be true. I'm not arguing that, really. What I am saying, though, is that the current SDA climate seems thoroughly unsettled about the matter, and I think it is worse now than it used to be. That is to say, more people seem to be complaining about scripts than at least when I joined the site three to four years ago. It was just an observation.
I don't understand this comment as it relates to the portion of my post to which it was responding. Basically, what I was saying was that scripts seem to be causing more stress in the SDA community, again by an observation of complaint, and I think the reason for that is because scripts are becoming so excellently used that people are becoming uncomfortable with what they are allowing to be done in the published runs. Not all people, of course, but the ones I am talking about. And if the scripts are causing more dissatisfaction from those members when they are being used more efficiently, that sounds like a problem to me. Usually, it's when something is used inappropriately, corruptly, or inefficiently that they become rejected, but in this case it seems to be the other way around. That's what I mean by that. I hope that makes sense.
Fair enough. I allow that the scripters being more passive about the argument is entirely possible. Truthfully, I don't really believe that, but I doubt I could disprove it. As for the second part, well, I'm sure you could, but I don't think SDA would ever accept that argument into changing its mission. If you produced such an argument, that is, chances are despite any amount of quality it is not going to be enough to provoke SDA into such an arguably radical change, so I don't believe that kind of argument is necessary for our discussion.
I'm actually glad you mentioned this, since I had neglected to do so. You see, the reason I think scripts would be difficult to argue in is not because arguing-in-things is more difficult than arguing-them-out, abstractly. I'm saying that scripts are difficult to argue into the site because they are a larger step, being that they are not part of the standard game, than glitches or death abuse, although before I continue it should be noted that certain glitches and death abuse faced, in my opinion, quite a lot of turmoil while making their way into the mainstay of SDA. I'm not denying that much at all. And, that fact does support my point that arguing scripts into the site, where they weren't allowed initially for example, would be difficult, just as it was difficult for those other two categories. Now, back to the main point here. I know you disagree that scripts are a larger step. The reason I feel this way is because glitches, death abuse, and other things can occur completely by accident while playing game, or that is to say without any intentions by the player. Scripts, on the other hand, must be activated by the player and therefore are more synthetic or are less a natural part of the game. I'm not saying that makes them worse or anything like that... just a bigger step away from the package that is just the game itself. I know you feel that scripts are every bit a part of the game as the rest. However, I think this is the reason that death abuse and warping glitches were eventually accepted by the majority of the community, whereas scripts are now being contested more than I think they have been in the recent past. (I say recent because I'd like to address SDA's infancy, which you commented on, later in this post)
That's exactly where they originated... I just made them up. I was using 50/50 just for the sake of argument and to be fair to both sides of the issue. However, I must disagree that this was a key premise. Anything less landslided than 90/10 or 10/90 would have worked for what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if that was misleading.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that I did not know that. I honestly thought that, with Quake SDA being the way it is, that scripts had to have been allowed since SDA's infancy. And just so you know, I was here long before Radix left, so I'm not completely assuming everything about where SDA came from. However, I certainly could have been mistaken about it's first couple years. If I was incorrect, I'd appreciate it if others could verify this. I am willing to rescind the argument, as I once said.
That was probably the one comment that angered me slightly. I'd appreciate it if you do not start speaking of me like I'm a philosophical charlatan.
I don't believe making that argument was erecting a straw man, because when I said that pro-scripters seem to be making arguments to plead an audience to accept scripts, all I meant by that was that they were opposing people who wanted them removed. So, they have to make cases for the allowance of scripts at this site in order to defeat their opponents. I wasn't trying to say that pro-scripters were 'begging' or anything loaded like that. As well, it is just not my opinion that scripts are widely accepted (if widely accepted means what I tend to think it means... accepted by a clear majority of people at SDA, for instance).
Well, I guess we have a tenuous agreement here, then. I'm not currently getting into the entertainment="good" or entertainment="not what counts" debate, so I have no further comment here.
I have to agree with ShadowWraith on most of your points. I am not a fan of turbo-anythings, nor of wiring a key.
But, those things are incidental. My biggest issue with this comment is: "Yes a human can't assist one's self in this sense, but hardware can. So certain scripts really do allow for what is possible by a human and common/easily modified hardware." The first ten words of this sentence really close the book for people who take the less compromising rule of, "No scripts." Now, I know it does not close the book for you, but my third paragraph's argument is that the pro-script argument is more compromising in its philosophy than "No scripts." The entire sentence I've quoted from your post seems to really reflect that. I'm not saying you have to accept the third major point I made about the compromising nature of pro-scripting arguments. I'm hoping, though, for the sake of non-scripters like myself, that it is persuasive to others, and that's all. And yeah, as Shadow said, comparing scripts with modified hardware is probably not an association I'd want to make around here, either. Either 1) the cleave between your side and my side will grow even further [yes, I know it may be too late for a remedy for this] and/or 2) The more doctrinated rules (such as no hardware modification) will become less associated or reconcilable with your stance, which will hurt your arguments.
The purpose is only one: to establish that the pro-script stance begs for a compromise between a negative and positive, whereas the "No scripts" side does not. This makes "No scripts" stronger because it must account for less loss in attaining its benefit. Now, before someone says it, I am not considering "Losing scripts on SDA," or "Losing speedrunners who use scripts," or "Losing any and all scripts entirely from SDA" a negative against the benefit of "Rule simplicity." The reason for this is because, first of all, a similar negative could arguably still occur in the "Allow Scripts" scenario, but also because the negative, in this case, is a bystander. When I am using negative in regard to pro-scripting arguments, I mean a negative-against-the-suggested-benefit... for example, in order to allow some scripts, we have to disallow others. To allow scripts for some games, we may or may not have to disallow them in others, or disallow them if they come from the wrong party. On the other hand, the negatives with losing scripts are usually not aimed at the very agenda of the "No Scripts" rule, but are rather aimed at the SDA demographic, the SDA accessibility, or even the SDA popularity, or some other thing which is not conflicting with the rule, itself. If I said, "No scripts," and suddenly a problem came up like, "But every single game already has scripts and we can't get rid of them all and still be able to play the games," that would be a negative. Of course, I made that problem up as it doesn't exist, but it stands as an example for the sake of illustration.
Agreed, which is why I said it was very minor. However, my point isn't that this problem 'exists' therefore it can't be overcome, but rather it 'exists' therefore it at least creates more of hole in the stance (as infinitesimal as it may be) than in the alternative, "No scripts," which has none whatsoever. Does .01% win the battle? No, I don't think so either. I was just pointing out the mere fact that it existed, basically.
Okay, maybe that one frustrated me a bit, too. Yes, I do. Not as much as you, I'm sure, but I know that scripts are a set of input. My point was that they are different from something which is in the game as perhaps a hazard suit power (for instance) which is not a script. For instance, IF Half-Life came with the ability to bunnyhop as a power of the hazard suit, or however Valve chose to explain it in the Half-Life universe, that would be one thing. But the fact that they didn't.. that a script was made for bunnyhop... means that there is a difference between the two.
Well, Shadow already mentioned one problem with this. I don't understand how legalizing and accepting can correct crime if we are accepting that crime as a whole is indeed morally wrong. As for the prohibition: one of the reasons the prohibition didn't work is because having alcohol probably should not be considered morally contemptible. Now, before any history buffs out there jump in, yes, I know that the practical issues of the prohibition were really what destroyed it, but what I'm saying is that the reason the practical issues themselves existed at all was because most people did not concur with the belief that merely having alcohol was morally contemptible, or at least weren't confident that it was contemptible enough that it should be outlawed, which is why so many, many people working together, in secret, or whatever caused ubiquitous practical issues in the enforcement. Now, again, before any pro-scripters jump in to say that what I just said is also the case for scripters, realize that I already understand the parallels. My whole point is that forfeiting to "Allow scripts" because of the practical difficulties of the alternative presents an inherently weak moral argument, because it is asking the audience to accept a negative (having scripts when for the sake of argument we don't want them) for a positive (...none really). Since the positive is all but absent in this scenario, we are in fact dealing with a forfeiture, which is not really an argument as much as an agreement to accept something we don't like as if we can do nothing about it. And while there are practical issues, many in fact, it is not true that we can do nothing about banning scripts (I'm not saying that we should, just saying that we could do at least a few things about it).
When you said that an undetectable turbo script offers enormous benefit, that's fine, but it is not relevant to my proposition. I'm saying undetectable scripts which offer minimal influence are such-and-such, so a turbo script which offers enormous benefit is not on topic.
As for your third point: I know, I was just saying.
As for your fourth point: No, I'm not saying SDA doesn't agree with it officially. I'm saying, again for the sake of argument, that the pro-script argument fails (that they are undetectable) because, IF we decided to ban scripts, it wouldn't matter that we might not be able to detect them, because in that case we would still disagree with it in principle, which is all we need as a trusting site to proclaim, "No scripts." And carrying on this line of thought, to what you said next (that we shouldn't promote dishonesty by trusting people when we might not be able to always enforce the policy of 'No Scripts'), I partly agree with you, but it is not my decision to make this site "one that trusts." However, Mike and whoever else have been saying repeatedly that they try to be one, so the practicality of the issue (in between when there is no scripting at all and when it is so obvious that people demand video authentification) is not a closer.
Well, I appreciate that. I disagree with the last sentence, but I appreciate the good will.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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?
Well, actually my main point of my post wasn't that the current SDA stance was a compromise; my main point was that the issue was itself becoming permanently divisive. The reason I said it was a compromise was because there is a compromise between all-scripts and no-scripts currently at SDA. If there wasn't, well, either all of them for every game would be accepted, or there wouldn't be any scripts of any kind for any game. I didn't mean to suggest that 'compromise', in this context, meant 'half-ass' or anything like that. I was just saying it was a middle road solution between the two opposing alternatives. Now, I don't understand you're second-to-last question. I have to feel that permanently divisive issues, in an ideal world, are resolved. Can we pragmatically resolve this one? Well, I'm not saying we can with absolute confidence, but my post was about reaching what I thought would achieve the next best thing. The universal resolution, I thought, would be helpful since it would eliminate the eccentricities of the problem (such as inconsistency between which games are allowed scripts, which scripts are allowed in any situation, which scripts are allowed in specific situations, etc.) by establishing a completely consistent standard.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
>>> 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.
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.
Well, what you're saying may or may not be true. I'm not arguing that, really. What I am saying, though, is that the current SDA climate seems thoroughly unsettled about the matter, and I think it is worse now than it used to be. That is to say, more people seem to be complaining about scripts than at least when I joined the site three to four years ago. It was just an observation.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
I don't understand this comment as it relates to the portion of my post to which it was responding. Basically, what I was saying was that scripts seem to be causing more stress in the SDA community, again by an observation of complaint, and I think the reason for that is because scripts are becoming so excellently used that people are becoming uncomfortable with what they are allowing to be done in the published runs. Not all people, of course, but the ones I am talking about. And if the scripts are causing more dissatisfaction from those members when they are being used more efficiently, that sounds like a problem to me. Usually, it's when something is used inappropriately, corruptly, or inefficiently that they become rejected, but in this case it seems to be the other way around. That's what I mean by that. I hope that makes sense.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
Fair enough. I allow that the scripters being more passive about the argument is entirely possible. Truthfully, I don't really believe that, but I doubt I could disprove it. As for the second part, well, I'm sure you could, but I don't think SDA would ever accept that argument into changing its mission. If you produced such an argument, that is, chances are despite any amount of quality it is not going to be enough to provoke SDA into such an arguably radical change, so I don't believe that kind of argument is necessary for our discussion.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
I'm actually glad you mentioned this, since I had neglected to do so. You see, the reason I think scripts would be difficult to argue in is not because arguing-in-things is more difficult than arguing-them-out, abstractly. I'm saying that scripts are difficult to argue into the site because they are a larger step, being that they are not part of the standard game, than glitches or death abuse, although before I continue it should be noted that certain glitches and death abuse faced, in my opinion, quite a lot of turmoil while making their way into the mainstay of SDA. I'm not denying that much at all. And, that fact does support my point that arguing scripts into the site, where they weren't allowed initially for example, would be difficult, just as it was difficult for those other two categories. Now, back to the main point here. I know you disagree that scripts are a larger step. The reason I feel this way is because glitches, death abuse, and other things can occur completely by accident while playing game, or that is to say without any intentions by the player. Scripts, on the other hand, must be activated by the player and therefore are more synthetic or are less a natural part of the game. I'm not saying that makes them worse or anything like that... just a bigger step away from the package that is just the game itself. I know you feel that scripts are every bit a part of the game as the rest. However, I think this is the reason that death abuse and warping glitches were eventually accepted by the majority of the community, whereas scripts are now being contested more than I think they have been in the recent past. (I say recent because I'd like to address SDA's infancy, which you commented on, later in this post)
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
That's exactly where they originated... I just made them up. I was using 50/50 just for the sake of argument and to be fair to both sides of the issue. However, I must disagree that this was a key premise. Anything less landslided than 90/10 or 10/90 would have worked for what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if that was misleading.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
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.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that I did not know that. I honestly thought that, with Quake SDA being the way it is, that scripts had to have been allowed since SDA's infancy. And just so you know, I was here long before Radix left, so I'm not completely assuming everything about where SDA came from. However, I certainly could have been mistaken about it's first couple years. If I was incorrect, I'd appreciate it if others could verify this. I am willing to rescind the argument, as I once said.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
That was probably the one comment that angered me slightly. I'd appreciate it if you do not start speaking of me like I'm a philosophical charlatan.
I don't believe making that argument was erecting a straw man, because when I said that pro-scripters seem to be making arguments to plead an audience to accept scripts, all I meant by that was that they were opposing people who wanted them removed. So, they have to make cases for the allowance of scripts at this site in order to defeat their opponents. I wasn't trying to say that pro-scripters were 'begging' or anything loaded like that. As well, it is just not my opinion that scripts are widely accepted (if widely accepted means what I tend to think it means... accepted by a clear majority of people at SDA, for instance).
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
Well, I guess we have a tenuous agreement here, then. I'm not currently getting into the entertainment="good" or entertainment="not what counts" debate, so I have no further comment here.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
I have to agree with ShadowWraith on most of your points. I am not a fan of turbo-anythings, nor of wiring a key.
But, those things are incidental. My biggest issue with this comment is: "Yes a human can't assist one's self in this sense, but hardware can. So certain scripts really do allow for what is possible by a human and common/easily modified hardware." The first ten words of this sentence really close the book for people who take the less compromising rule of, "No scripts." Now, I know it does not close the book for you, but my third paragraph's argument is that the pro-script argument is more compromising in its philosophy than "No scripts." The entire sentence I've quoted from your post seems to really reflect that. I'm not saying you have to accept the third major point I made about the compromising nature of pro-scripting arguments. I'm hoping, though, for the sake of non-scripters like myself, that it is persuasive to others, and that's all. And yeah, as Shadow said, comparing scripts with modified hardware is probably not an association I'd want to make around here, either. Either 1) the cleave between your side and my side will grow even further [yes, I know it may be too late for a remedy for this] and/or 2) The more doctrinated rules (such as no hardware modification) will become less associated or reconcilable with your stance, which will hurt your arguments.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
The purpose is only one: to establish that the pro-script stance begs for a compromise between a negative and positive, whereas the "No scripts" side does not. This makes "No scripts" stronger because it must account for less loss in attaining its benefit. Now, before someone says it, I am not considering "Losing scripts on SDA," or "Losing speedrunners who use scripts," or "Losing any and all scripts entirely from SDA" a negative against the benefit of "Rule simplicity." The reason for this is because, first of all, a similar negative could arguably still occur in the "Allow Scripts" scenario, but also because the negative, in this case, is a bystander. When I am using negative in regard to pro-scripting arguments, I mean a negative-against-the-suggested-benefit... for example, in order to allow some scripts, we have to disallow others. To allow scripts for some games, we may or may not have to disallow them in others, or disallow them if they come from the wrong party. On the other hand, the negatives with losing scripts are usually not aimed at the very agenda of the "No Scripts" rule, but are rather aimed at the SDA demographic, the SDA accessibility, or even the SDA popularity, or some other thing which is not conflicting with the rule, itself. If I said, "No scripts," and suddenly a problem came up like, "But every single game already has scripts and we can't get rid of them all and still be able to play the games," that would be a negative. Of course, I made that problem up as it doesn't exist, but it stands as an example for the sake of illustration.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
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.
Agreed, which is why I said it was very minor. However, my point isn't that this problem 'exists' therefore it can't be overcome, but rather it 'exists' therefore it at least creates more of hole in the stance (as infinitesimal as it may be) than in the alternative, "No scripts," which has none whatsoever. Does .01% win the battle? No, I don't think so either. I was just pointing out the mere fact that it existed, basically.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
Okay, maybe that one frustrated me a bit, too. Yes, I do. Not as much as you, I'm sure, but I know that scripts are a set of input. My point was that they are different from something which is in the game as perhaps a hazard suit power (for instance) which is not a script. For instance, IF Half-Life came with the ability to bunnyhop as a power of the hazard suit, or however Valve chose to explain it in the Half-Life universe, that would be one thing. But the fact that they didn't.. that a script was made for bunnyhop... means that there is a difference between the two.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
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.
“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.
Well, Shadow already mentioned one problem with this. I don't understand how legalizing and accepting can correct crime if we are accepting that crime as a whole is indeed morally wrong. As for the prohibition: one of the reasons the prohibition didn't work is because having alcohol probably should not be considered morally contemptible. Now, before any history buffs out there jump in, yes, I know that the practical issues of the prohibition were really what destroyed it, but what I'm saying is that the reason the practical issues themselves existed at all was because most people did not concur with the belief that merely having alcohol was morally contemptible, or at least weren't confident that it was contemptible enough that it should be outlawed, which is why so many, many people working together, in secret, or whatever caused ubiquitous practical issues in the enforcement. Now, again, before any pro-scripters jump in to say that what I just said is also the case for scripters, realize that I already understand the parallels. My whole point is that forfeiting to "Allow scripts" because of the practical difficulties of the alternative presents an inherently weak moral argument, because it is asking the audience to accept a negative (having scripts when for the sake of argument we don't want them) for a positive (...none really). Since the positive is all but absent in this scenario, we are in fact dealing with a forfeiture, which is not really an argument as much as an agreement to accept something we don't like as if we can do nothing about it. And while there are practical issues, many in fact, it is not true that we can do nothing about banning scripts (I'm not saying that we should, just saying that we could do at least a few things about it).
When you said that an undetectable turbo script offers enormous benefit, that's fine, but it is not relevant to my proposition. I'm saying undetectable scripts which offer minimal influence are such-and-such, so a turbo script which offers enormous benefit is not on topic.
As for your third point: I know, I was just saying.
As for your fourth point: No, I'm not saying SDA doesn't agree with it officially. I'm saying, again for the sake of argument, that the pro-script argument fails (that they are undetectable) because, IF we decided to ban scripts, it wouldn't matter that we might not be able to detect them, because in that case we would still disagree with it in principle, which is all we need as a trusting site to proclaim, "No scripts." And carrying on this line of thought, to what you said next (that we shouldn't promote dishonesty by trusting people when we might not be able to always enforce the policy of 'No Scripts'), I partly agree with you, but it is not my decision to make this site "one that trusts." However, Mike and whoever else have been saying repeatedly that they try to be one, so the practicality of the issue (in between when there is no scripting at all and when it is so obvious that people demand video authentification) is not a closer.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
While your arguments are vastly superior to the ones put up by 13 year-old kids knowing very little to nothing about scripts who think we need multiple reminders on every page of this thread that SDA isn’t TAS videos, 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.
Well, I appreciate that. I disagree with the last sentence, but I appreciate the good will.
Invisible avatar
Spider-Waffle: I politely told you to stop insulting people. I politely told you that your argument of experience is detrimental to your opinion at best and insulting and senseless at worst. I likened it to the horrible argument "I'm older than you". And yet, you still use the experience argument, and you up the ante by adding the very "I'm older than you" argument in the same sentence. That's just horrible, horrible form, and you insult the intelligence of the people you argue with by writing such things. And that's not all the insulting you've done.
So, seeing as politeness doesn't work, I have to pull out the mod stick and threaten to hit you with it. Yes, this is an actual mod warning: do not insult people, and use better arguments. Seriously.
So, seeing as politeness doesn't work, I have to pull out the mod stick and threaten to hit you with it. Yes, this is an actual mod warning: do not insult people, and use better arguments. Seriously.
I'm not going to offer any further opinions or aguments of my own here, just make some observations and suggest the scripting debate needs to be broadened slightly.
The idea of hardware modification and scripting via macro controllers has been brought up here. Spider-Waffle has posed the argument that scripts (or at least some scripts) should be allowed because hardware can offer the same capabilities. Others have made posts that seem to indicate they believe hardware modification and the use of turbo controllers are banned under SDA rules at present; actually, I believe this is a significant gray area, since the PC has no official controller and so the rule that says
is basically meaningless in the context of PC games.
Asking the admins for clarification on the rules as they stand now is probably not worthwhile; however a debate on what hardware should be allowed on PC probably is. It may be a good idea to create as much equivalence between the abilities of permitted hardware and the abilities of permitted scripts as possible.
Also, many posters have brought up HL1 and Portal in the same breath when referring to scripts. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the former used in-game scripts, while the latter used Auto HotKey (basically an external scripting program). I am unsure whether all the posters have considered whether their stance applies equally to scripts that are a game feature and scripts created in external programs (or hardware), and this may also be a worthwhile topic to discuss.
Finally, an observation that may be relevant to the debate about allowing unlimited scripting (whether it be as a seperate category or not). Scepheo has suggested in the PC forum that it would be relatively easy to modify the source code of Half Life to add in frame advance and slowdown features, in order to create a full TAS in the same sense that runs done with frame advance on emulators are TASes. Presumably, once this had been done and the optimal input for every frame was known, it would be relatively easy to construct a script that would enter the same input on every frame as was entered in the TAS. As such allowing scripting would, at least for Half Life and assuming Scepheo is correct, grant runners all the power of allowing TASing.
The idea of hardware modification and scripting via macro controllers has been brought up here. Spider-Waffle has posed the argument that scripts (or at least some scripts) should be allowed because hardware can offer the same capabilities. Others have made posts that seem to indicate they believe hardware modification and the use of turbo controllers are banned under SDA rules at present; actually, I believe this is a significant gray area, since the PC has no official controller and so the rule that says
Quote:
# Third-party controllers: You must only use features that are available on any controllers that were officially bundled with the system. Thus, turbo-fire is not allowed except for systems such as the TurboGrafx-16 that come with official turbo-fire controllers.
is basically meaningless in the context of PC games.
Asking the admins for clarification on the rules as they stand now is probably not worthwhile; however a debate on what hardware should be allowed on PC probably is. It may be a good idea to create as much equivalence between the abilities of permitted hardware and the abilities of permitted scripts as possible.
Also, many posters have brought up HL1 and Portal in the same breath when referring to scripts. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the former used in-game scripts, while the latter used Auto HotKey (basically an external scripting program). I am unsure whether all the posters have considered whether their stance applies equally to scripts that are a game feature and scripts created in external programs (or hardware), and this may also be a worthwhile topic to discuss.
Finally, an observation that may be relevant to the debate about allowing unlimited scripting (whether it be as a seperate category or not). Scepheo has suggested in the PC forum that it would be relatively easy to modify the source code of Half Life to add in frame advance and slowdown features, in order to create a full TAS in the same sense that runs done with frame advance on emulators are TASes. Presumably, once this had been done and the optimal input for every frame was known, it would be relatively easy to construct a script that would enter the same input on every frame as was entered in the TAS. As such allowing scripting would, at least for Half Life and assuming Scepheo is correct, grant runners all the power of allowing TASing.
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Also, many posters have brought up HL1 and Portal in the same breath when referring to scripts. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the former used in-game scripts, while the latter used Auto HotKey (basically an external scripting program). I am unsure whether all the posters have considered whether their stance applies equally to scripts that are a game feature and scripts created in external programs (or hardware), and this may also be a worthwhile topic to discuss.
Maybe I'm interjecting in a discussion where I don't belong, but that statement has lead me to add my own two cents.
I think that the above point makes a whole lot of sense: if scripting / key macros is a part of the game itself (not a user mod, not an Action Reply activated debug feature, etc..), I think that it is reasonable to include using said _in-game_ features to your advantage in a speedrun (possibly as a separate category from a run which refrains from such a feature/features).
For example: consider a hypothetical game, whose design itself included some kind of scripting/macros. Where its design and gameplay encouraged the use of said (in-game) tools, perhaps even to the point where playing the game without such help would be completely unreasonable. Certainly scripts should be allowed in such a case; they are a part of the game (or call me out on that if you disagree).
On the other hand, external programs can do anything. Its possibly (though obviously not trivial) to make an external program that modifies the memory/state of your computer, in order to make speedrun performance easier/more impressive (there's even a part of the win32 api that is designed to do this, e.g. for making debuggers). Certainly such a program would _not_ be allowed; such a change to system state (i.e. modifying memory directly) is not even allowed in a TAS, even if it were something like writing to an address that holds the current controller state (i.e. the final output video would be the same).
My understanding of programs like Auto HotKey (though I haven't actually looked at the code, so I could be completely wrong) is that they feed keyboard events to the program (or OS or whatever). Such an action is analogous to changing the state of the program using the external tools above that change memory: the fact that it is still 'possible' for a reasonably skilled player to do the same with real input is irrelevant.
I'll liken it as such: in one of the recent pokemon TASes, the player does the equivalent of hacking the system, i.e. taking advantage of programming errors to do buffer overrun, modifying otherwise off limits memory with specific values, etc. However, by the rules on the tasvideos site, the runner, must do so using controller input. They could, using most emulators, modify the game's memory to achieve the same final state, in a way that would produce the same final result (or perhaps, give an even more impressive result), but it would not be allowed.
Since such (external) programs sidestep the game program itself in modifying its own state, I believe they should be disallowed, and I believe that this should be the primary criteria for deciding it a given scripting/macro feature should be allowed in a given run.
Does this make sense, or am I completely out to lunch?
I know I'm not exactly a regular to the site, but this issue on scripts has been bothering me.
I personally see scripts as falling into 1 of 3 categories:
a. Complete automation of an extraordinarily difficult action, i.e. the 180 turn in HL that's been referred to several times. This should be considered cheating, in my honest opinion.
b. Complete automation of an extraordinarily mind-numbing, stupid, menial task. An example would be bunny-hopping. Obviously, killing scripts wouldn't kill bunny-hopping, but it would sure as hell kill some middle fingers from spamming the mouse-wheel up and down with wonky key-bindings. This is something that I believe isn't an issue as its results are both entertaining and less stressful on the runner.
c. Rebinding several functions to the same key, such as a key that would perform a jump function as well as a sprint function to preserve speed in the air (obviously a theoretical case). This would be completely fine as it doesn't alter gameplay in any way shape or form.
It's very apparent that some are angered at how half-life runners use scripts for b, and I understand the ideology that scripting = cheating. However, it's definitely (to half-life runners, at least) not an issue of total automation to perform the insanely complex maneuvers that would otherwise be impossible, it's an issue of not scrolling your mousewheel for several hours of speed-running.
I personally see scripts as falling into 1 of 3 categories:
a. Complete automation of an extraordinarily difficult action, i.e. the 180 turn in HL that's been referred to several times. This should be considered cheating, in my honest opinion.
b. Complete automation of an extraordinarily mind-numbing, stupid, menial task. An example would be bunny-hopping. Obviously, killing scripts wouldn't kill bunny-hopping, but it would sure as hell kill some middle fingers from spamming the mouse-wheel up and down with wonky key-bindings. This is something that I believe isn't an issue as its results are both entertaining and less stressful on the runner.
c. Rebinding several functions to the same key, such as a key that would perform a jump function as well as a sprint function to preserve speed in the air (obviously a theoretical case). This would be completely fine as it doesn't alter gameplay in any way shape or form.
It's very apparent that some are angered at how half-life runners use scripts for b, and I understand the ideology that scripting = cheating. However, it's definitely (to half-life runners, at least) not an issue of total automation to perform the insanely complex maneuvers that would otherwise be impossible, it's an issue of not scrolling your mousewheel for several hours of speed-running.
Quote from Z1mb0bw4y:
it's an issue of not scrolling your mousewheel for several hours of speed-running.
And yet console runners hold down d-pads and mash buttons for hours to create speedruns. Since when does runner convenience mean anything? Cheat codes can be used to make runs easier, and everyone has access to them. You don't even have the problem of someone not being able to write a better cheat code since it's the same for everyone. Should these be allowed also?
Why does anyone watch runs here at SDA? Is it to see the fastest way to beat a game? There's a site that does it better already. Why would we want to be a half-assed TASvideos? People come here to watch a person kick ass at a video game. I mean, would you truly be impressed by a guy on a motorcycle winning the Tour de France? He's not cheating, just making it a little easier, as constantly pressing on a pedal can get quite repetitive.
Just to counter Spider-Waffle's main argument: You're, basically, saying that scripts only take away the problem of modifying hardware or using turbo-controllers (or any other form of non-official controllers).
Lets, for the sake of argument, presume that SDA had decided that "one keyboard, with numpad, and one mouse with mousewheel" was the official controller for PC.
That would mean that doing stuff like hooking up twenty mouses just for their mousewheels and/or using turbo controllers would cause your run to be rejected.
Now back to your point; scripts emulate non-official controllers. Therefor we could, without making a false argument, say that a script is a non-official controller. From where we can make the next step and say: Scripts = non-official controllers = illegal. And anyone knowing basic maths knows that that means the following is correct:
Scripts = illegal.
Now don't start shouting I'm a 13-year old who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not. Don't say I'm not open minded enough and just biased against scripts, TASes and sorts. In fact, I love TASes. I've made them. I love scripts and macro's. I've made them and used them. I just don't think SDA is the place for them.
Lets, for the sake of argument, presume that SDA had decided that "one keyboard, with numpad, and one mouse with mousewheel" was the official controller for PC.
That would mean that doing stuff like hooking up twenty mouses just for their mousewheels and/or using turbo controllers would cause your run to be rejected.
Now back to your point; scripts emulate non-official controllers. Therefor we could, without making a false argument, say that a script is a non-official controller. From where we can make the next step and say: Scripts = non-official controllers = illegal. And anyone knowing basic maths knows that that means the following is correct:
Scripts = illegal.
Now don't start shouting I'm a 13-year old who doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not. Don't say I'm not open minded enough and just biased against scripts, TASes and sorts. In fact, I love TASes. I've made them. I love scripts and macro's. I've made them and used them. I just don't think SDA is the place for them.
Staying neutral but attempting to steer the debate onto fresher pastures, two points that haven't been touched on in much detail are:
* Scripts are (at least for HL1, and some other games) a legitimate in-game feature, and presumably if the developers saw fit to put them into the game they expected that they would be, well, used. Isn't outright disallowing scripts in games which support them then an arbitrary and fairly game-specific restriction, which is precisely the kind of thing that many here say they are opposed to?
* Scripted speedruns currently have no home on the internet (unsurprisingly, since few exist) and so have to swim in the wilds of youtube. It might be a good thing if they had somewhere they could be given some legitimacy and brought to the attention of those who would be interested in them. Of the speedrunning sites that exist at present, SDA is arguably a more appropriate home than TASvideos. Is this something that should affect our decision?
Also, I'd like to propose a new topic for discussion, which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet:
8.) Freeware Runs
Issue: At present, no runs of freeware games are allowed on SDA. This has proven to be at least a controversial if not an outright unpopular rule, but the extreme alternative (allowing runs of any game) would open the gates to runs of incomplete, short, bad games.
Goal: Decide what criteria (if any) a game should have to meet for runs of it to be allowed on the site, and if these are subjective who (or what process) should decide whether a game meets these criteria.
My two cents on the above issue: the plan already proposed by Enhasa of a benevelont dictatorship of the admins declaring what games are allowed seems like the best solution.
* Scripts are (at least for HL1, and some other games) a legitimate in-game feature, and presumably if the developers saw fit to put them into the game they expected that they would be, well, used. Isn't outright disallowing scripts in games which support them then an arbitrary and fairly game-specific restriction, which is precisely the kind of thing that many here say they are opposed to?
* Scripted speedruns currently have no home on the internet (unsurprisingly, since few exist) and so have to swim in the wilds of youtube. It might be a good thing if they had somewhere they could be given some legitimacy and brought to the attention of those who would be interested in them. Of the speedrunning sites that exist at present, SDA is arguably a more appropriate home than TASvideos. Is this something that should affect our decision?
Also, I'd like to propose a new topic for discussion, which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet:
8.) Freeware Runs
Issue: At present, no runs of freeware games are allowed on SDA. This has proven to be at least a controversial if not an outright unpopular rule, but the extreme alternative (allowing runs of any game) would open the gates to runs of incomplete, short, bad games.
Goal: Decide what criteria (if any) a game should have to meet for runs of it to be allowed on the site, and if these are subjective who (or what process) should decide whether a game meets these criteria.
My two cents on the above issue: the plan already proposed by Enhasa of a benevelont dictatorship of the admins declaring what games are allowed seems like the best solution.
gamelogs.org
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
* Scripts are (at least for HL1, and some other games) a legitimate in-game feature, and presumably if the developers saw fit to put them into the game they expected that they would be, well, used. Isn't outright disallowing scripts in games which support them then an arbitrary and fairly game-specific restriction, which is precisely the kind of thing that many here say they are opposed to?
i'm not very familiar with how scripting is implemented, so could you clarify for me here? hl1 (and many other games) support scripts, yes, but scripts don't come on the disc for you to enable and use entirely in-game, right? if that's the case, then you could say many console games "support" cheat codes (and those are usually on the disc!), but of course cheat codes aren't allowed— that's cheating. how exactly are scripts any different?
Quote from Arkarian:
i'm not very familiar with how scripting is implemented, so could you clarify for me here? hl1 (and many other games) support scripts, yes, but scripts don't come on the disc for you to enable and use entirely in-game, right? if that's the case, then you could say many console games "support" cheat codes (and those are usually on the disc!), but of course cheat codes aren't allowed— that's cheating. how exactly are scripts any different?
At least in Halflife and Quake you can code scripts right in-game. Depending on game you have to use a command line parameter or change a setting to enable the console at first (because it could confuse newbies toggling it unintentionally), but then in-game you press the key below the ESC key and then can start writing scripts. Script files are there just for convenience so you don't have to enter all scripts again everytime you start the game.
Quote from Arkarian:
how exactly are scripts any different?
Because they're not cheat codes. It's generally pretty unambiguous what a cheat code is. I could equally ask you how scripts are any different to just changing the controls from the controls menu. Also, scripts are routinely used in online play and not considered cheating; how far this matters, I'm unsure.
Kabuto_'s description of how scripting in-game works is accurate. In fact for HL I think you can actually enable the console from the controls menu and don't have to change any command line parameters, so you can't even use some kind of 'modifying game files' stance, not that it would be particularly relevant anyway.
Of course, I have no problem with putting unlimited scripts in a different category or even banning them altogether (though I'd prefer the former), but I think trying to establish an equivalence between scripting and cheat codes is silly, and also that the resistance to arbitrary and game-specific rules is a bit silly too; sometimes the spirit of the general rules can be best replicated for a specific game by imposing some game-specific rules on it. For example, it was a good idea to allow the modding of an in-game timer into RA2 in order that runs could be compared fairly and not affected by game speed variation. I wonder whether those opposed to game specific rules and exemptions (particularly LLCoolDave posted on this several times, I think) are as opposed to this as they are to the HLSP Bunny mod, and if so why.
gamelogs.org
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
I could equally ask you how scripts are any different to just changing the controls from the controls menu.
bunny hopping perfectly every time = changing controls in a menu?
no matter how much i mess with the controls in hl2, i will never be able to bunny hop perfectly. they still seem similar to cheat codes to me.
Waiting hurts my soul...
Quote from Arkarian:
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
I could equally ask you how scripts are any different to just changing the controls from the controls menu.
bunny hopping perfectly every time = changing controls in a menu?
no matter how much i mess with the controls in hl2, i will never be able to bunny hop perfectly. they still seem similar to cheat codes to me.
Honestly, I think they're more like modding than using cheat codes. Yeah, definitely similar to lite modding.
It kind of strikes me as odd that my posts are mostly not even being addressed. At this point, I wouldn't be able to say anything I haven't already said, so if there's something fundamentally wrong with my ideas, please tell me so I can rethink them. Please note that there are several levels of "allowing save&quits in SS runs" - allowing clearly specified save&quits which are part of the route is a long way from letting runners use the save system for anything. One of the questions is: Would it make sense to allow one and not the other, and is there a reason to not allow both?