requesting a rule change for the metroid prime series [locked]

2010-07-15 08:48:10 pm

#Casual

Quote from arkarian:

yes -- i definitely think a grandfather clause like you suggested makes a lot of sense. it's certainly not fair to just wipe old runs such as dj's 1:38 automatically if a sw run has a better time.
i also agree that if a new sw run is deemed better in play quality by the verifiers, the old run should be taken down. sda is about showcasing the best runs.

tjp: if your argument is that sws bring major changes to the route, then i don't think that argument holds any water at all. there were plenty of tricks discovered in both prime and echoes that brought major changes to their respective routes, and they didn't warrant new categories. one example is space jump first. before sjf was discovered, everyone used a totally different route that took a lot longer. when sjf was discovered, everyone just started using that and made better runs. a new category wasn't created because it wouldn't have made any sense.

Naw, it's okay. I wasn't saying that at all. I know OOB can't be automatically assumed to bring major changes to a route, and examples have proven that. It'd be ignorant to say that.

I was saying that (at least) for Prime 2, the optimized route using secret worlds is noticeably different enough warrant a separate category, but that's a game-by-game basis.

If Mike decides not to do that, then so be it.

[quote="arkarian"]
yes -- i definitely think a grandfather clause like you suggested makes a lot of sense. it's certainly not fair to just wipe old runs such as dj's 1:38 automatically if a sw run has a better time.
i also agree that if a new sw run is deemed better in play quality by the verifiers, the old run should be taken down. sda is about showcasing the best runs.

tjp: if your argument is that sws bring major changes to the route, then i don't think that argument holds any water at all. there were plenty of tricks discovered in both prime and echoes that brought major changes to their respective routes, and they didn't warrant new categories. one example is space jump first. before sjf was discovered, everyone used a totally different route that took a lot longer. when sjf was discovered, everyone just started using that and made better runs. a new category wasn't created because it wouldn't have made any sense.
[/quote]

Naw, it's okay.  I wasn't saying that at all.  I know OOB can't be automatically assumed to bring major changes to a route, and examples have proven that.  It'd be ignorant to say that.

I was saying that (at least) for Prime 2, the optimized route using secret worlds is noticeably different enough warrant a separate category, but that's a game-by-game basis.

If Mike decides not to do that, then so be it.

mikwuyma

2010-07-15 08:52:35 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

What confuses me is why people are acting like MASTER-88 has any influence on site rulings.

About OOB/Major skips/that separate category for some games: Like Serris said, it's a game-by-game case. What works for some games doesn't work for others.

It sounds like Secret Worlds in Metroid Prime don't even save that much time, so it's probably best not to have a separate OOB/major skips category.

I think the idea of grandfathering the the old categories until they're beaten with a better run is the best idea for this change.

Radix: Good post. This site wouldn't be where it is without you. Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. Sad

UraniumAnchor

2010-07-15 08:56:35 pm

Not a walrus

Quote from mikwuyma:

What confuses me is why people are acting like MASTER-88 has any influence on site rulings.

Hey man, he edited the main page of the wiki. People are afraid of his power now.

bartendorsparky

2010-07-15 09:13:22 pm

thanks mike. i hope it's not too big of a problem to change.

UchihaSasuke

2010-07-15 10:18:23 pm

Stand: Devil's Call in your Heart

getting the rules defined on a game-by-game basis was what i thought would be the best for these kind of problems when the argument about SWs started in m2k2 since a lot of games have very different glitches and making 1 or 2 rules to be a catch-all would be practically impossible. it requires more work but we'll have to deal with that.

a game like OoT would need very different rules than a game like mp2 because of how the glitches work on them. as paraxade said, RBA is worlds apart from SWs.
the "major skip rule" is severely flawed because it assumes OoBs automatically skip large parts of the game and at the same time assumes in-bounds glitches don't skip large chunks. SM64's BLJs skip far more stuff than any SW could ever dream of and that's an in-bound glitch.
also, SWs are not "warps" like some people think. if they allowed us to skip the sky temple keys or the artifacts, then it could be compared to entering boss rooms OoB like in OoT and MM but their working is like a clipping glitch instead where you can only skip some puzzle or door blocking your path.
i guess the fact that the prime series very rarely uses trigger points for stuff (none for warps to some places that aren't physically connected) helps the games not fall trap of very abusive stuff like what you see in OoT or MM (the fairy fountain wrong warp is what a real OoB warp would look like and there's nothing like that in any prime game. the closest would be the dark torvus stuff but that is slower than the current route anyway)

on a slightly different note, i thought that listing all the previous runs to the current record would be more appropiate to honor all the runners that have put effort in a particular game (similar to how the TAS videos site lists obsoleted times with a link under the current record). this list could be a list of links under the current and former categories and in a smaller font to not clash too much with the newest run. that way people who were restricted by the old rules wouldn't need to worry about their runs going poof one random day and we could even honor people whose runs were obsoleted by the same rules and that no one remembers because there's no hall of fame or anything around here. this idea still has issues like the amount of space pages would take and stuff but i think it would be good with some good planning.

i've supported OoB stuff ever since the first run i watched with that type of glitches back in 2006 (i think it was DJ's 17%) and i'm always in for tricks that drop the completion time, be it a SW, more ghetto jumps, new BSJs, etc. i might suck at actually replicating most of those tricks but i enjoy the runs where they're used and how they're used.
sometimes i get the impression some people who oppose OoB-type tricks are people who dont know and don't want to learn those tricks and i apologize in advance if someone feels i'm throwing a jab at them but the argument is usually that runs using OoB beat the old run solely because of the OoB and not because the runner made new speed tricks and route improvements in several places all over the run on top of the ~10 minutes of OoB use.
if people hate OoB so much, they should blame the game devs for making a glitchy game in the first place and not the runners who exploit what the devs left wide open.

getting the rules defined on a game-by-game basis was what i thought would be the best for these kind of problems when the argument about SWs started in m2k2 since a lot of games have very different glitches and making 1 or 2 rules to be a catch-all would be practically impossible. it requires more work but we'll have to deal with that.

a game like OoT would need very different rules than a game like mp2 because of how the glitches work on them. as paraxade said, RBA is worlds apart from SWs. 
the "major skip rule" is severely flawed because it assumes OoBs automatically skip large parts of the game and at the same time assumes in-bounds glitches don't skip large chunks. SM64's BLJs skip far more stuff than any SW could ever dream of and that's an in-bound glitch. 
also, SWs are not "warps" like some people think. if they allowed us to skip the sky temple keys or the artifacts, then it could be compared to entering boss rooms OoB like in OoT and MM but their working is like a clipping glitch instead where you can only skip some puzzle or door blocking your path. 
i guess the fact that the prime series very rarely uses trigger points for stuff (none for warps to some places that aren't physically connected) helps the games not fall trap of very abusive stuff like what you see in OoT or MM (the fairy fountain wrong warp is what a real OoB warp would look like and there's nothing like that in any prime game. the closest would be the dark torvus stuff but that is slower than the current route anyway)

on a slightly different note, i thought that listing all the previous runs to the current record would be more appropiate to honor all the runners that have put effort in a particular game (similar to how the TAS videos site lists obsoleted times with a link under the current record). this list could be a list of links under the current and former categories and in a smaller font to not clash too much with the newest run. that way people who were restricted by the old rules wouldn't need to worry about their runs going poof one random day and we could even honor people whose runs were obsoleted by the same rules and that no one remembers because there's no hall of fame or anything around here. this idea still has issues like the amount of space pages would take and stuff but i think it would be good with some good planning.

i've supported OoB stuff ever since the first run i watched with that type of glitches back in 2006 (i think it was DJ's 17%) and i'm always in for tricks that drop the completion time, be it a SW, more ghetto jumps, new BSJs, etc. i might suck at actually replicating most of those tricks but i enjoy the runs where they're used and how they're used. 
sometimes i get the impression some people who oppose OoB-type tricks are people who dont know and don't want to learn those tricks and i apologize in advance if someone feels i'm throwing a jab at them but the argument is usually that runs using OoB beat the old run solely because of the OoB and not because the runner made new speed tricks and route improvements in several places all over the run on top of the ~10 minutes of OoB use. 
if people hate OoB so much, they should blame the game devs for making a glitchy game in the first place and not the runners who exploit what the devs left wide open.

Kharay1977

2010-07-16 04:23:05 am

Quote from mikwuyma:

Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. Sad

The solution should be obvious - defer it to consensus.

MASTER-88

Edit history:

MASTER-88: 2010-07-16 05:49:39 am

2010-07-16 05:25:57 am

Master-88

Quote:

What confuses me is why people are acting like MASTER-88 has any influence on site rulings.

I am said that at least twice.

1: Its unfair players who are did runs without secret wrolds. Zoid are did his awesome runs done without secret worlds because secret words was banned then. Thats unfair if SW is allowed now and it not was then. Same like DJgrenola 1:38 run. He is did much job with this and secret worlds was banned then.

2: I like watch more runs without secret worlds. I like more see runs with old way. So i vote seperate category and we everybody are happy then. Nobody not lost anything Wink

Quote:

It sounds like Secret Worlds in Metroid Prime don't even save that much time, so it's probably best not to have a separate OOB/major skips category

Its over 10 minutes time save on MP 2 Echoes. That quite much IMO. Why there is seperate category games like Mega man 2 NES with Zip glitch and without? Also why my Iron Sword NES run is seperate category compared Votava run? These seems less glitch than secret worlds in Prime?

Quote:

master-88 can you please explain how glitching items and medallions into your inventory by dropping and collecting bugs in a bottle is even remotely close to jumping out of bounds, navigating down a few rooms and going back in-bounds?

Im not are expert Zelda games. But most glitches seems same category. That my point about secret worlds: Secretworlds going outside into game and then it is huge warp. Thats sounds much medallion skip Zelda.. Wink

Trick like SJF not going outside into screent so this is real Sbreak like all allowed tricks.

BTW:
Why nobody not are talking about infinite speed bug on Prime. Used PAL SS run. Is this huge warp? IMO this seems same as secret worlds.

Quote from Kharay1977:

And you not have to always comment your retared comments if you not know what you want to say.
BTW Do you ever sleep?

[quote]What confuses me is why people are acting like MASTER-88 has any influence on site rulings.[/quote]

I am said that at least twice.

1: Its unfair players who are did runs without secret wrolds. Zoid are did his awesome runs done without secret worlds because secret words was banned then. Thats unfair if SW is allowed now and it not was then. Same like DJgrenola 1:38 run. He is did much job with this and secret worlds was banned then.

2: I like watch more runs without secret worlds. I like more see runs with old way. So i vote seperate category and we everybody are happy then. Nobody not lost anything ;)

[quote]It sounds like Secret Worlds in Metroid Prime don't even save that much time, so it's probably best not to have a separate OOB/major skips category[/quote]

Its over 10 minutes time save on MP 2 Echoes. That quite much IMO. Why there is seperate category games like Mega man 2 NES with Zip glitch and without? Also why my Iron Sword NES run is seperate category compared Votava run? These seems less glitch than secret worlds in Prime?

[quote]master-88 can you please explain how glitching items and medallions into your inventory by dropping and collecting bugs in a bottle is even remotely close to jumping out of bounds, navigating down a few rooms and going back in-bounds?[/quote]

Im not are expert Zelda games. But most glitches seems same category. That my point about secret worlds: Secretworlds going outside into game and then it is huge warp. Thats sounds much medallion skip Zelda.. ;)

Trick like SJF not going outside into screent so this is real Sbreak like all allowed tricks.

BTW:
Why nobody not are  talking about infinite speed bug on Prime. Used PAL SS run. Is this huge warp? IMO this seems same as secret worlds.

[quote="Kharay1977"]
::)
[/quote]

And you not have to always comment your retared comments if you not know what you want to say. 
BTW Do you ever sleep?

Kharay1977

2010-07-16 05:29:04 am

... my eyes.

Breakdown

2010-07-16 05:50:18 am

Haters gonna hate

Quote from Kharay1977:

Quote from mikwuyma:

Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. Sad

The solution should be obvious - defer it to consensus.

The problem with this as sweeping policy for rule changes is the consensus only comes from people who actually visit the forums, and there are literal thousands of people who visit the site every day that don't click the SDA Forum link on the front page. It's something that's easy to lose sight of when you actually get involved in the community, but really the people who just come to the site now and then to watch games they know get the crap beaten out of them are the many, those who come here to make it happen and debate what should and should not be legal or separate categories are the few. As a site, we have to cater to both, and while the community has rallied for changes that are good for the site (as evidenced here, it's looking like SW as a separate category will be game by game now), that doesn't mean every change that gets the backing of most of the site's members is a good one. There really is more to consider than just simply what the runners want.

That probably came off as a little curt, but it's early and I'm in a hurry, so meh. Tongue

[quote="Kharay1977"]
[quote="mikwuyma"]Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. :([/quote]The solution should be obvious - defer it to consensus.
[/quote]

The problem with this as sweeping policy for rule changes is the consensus only comes from people who actually visit the forums, and there are literal thousands of people who visit the site every day that don't click the SDA Forum link on the front page.  It's something that's easy to lose sight of when you actually get involved in the community, but really the people who just come to the site now and then to watch games they know get the crap beaten out of them are the many, those who come here to make it happen and debate what should and should not be legal or separate categories are the few.  As a site, we have to cater to both, and while the community has rallied for changes that are good for the site (as evidenced here, it's looking like SW as a separate category will be game by game now), that doesn't mean every change that gets the backing of most of the site's members is a good one.  There really is more to consider than just simply what the runners want.

That probably came off as a little curt, but it's early and I'm in a hurry, so meh. :P

Kharay1977

2010-07-16 05:58:51 am

Quote from Breakdown:

The problem with this as sweeping policy for rule changes is the consensus only comes from people who actually visit the forums<snip>That probably came off as a little curt, but it's early and I'm in a hurry, so meh. Tongue

Very valid points, obviously. I never did imply though that deferring it to consensus would work without some preliminary work though. It's not something that could be achieved overnight. Then again, and I hope others are with me on this, SDA is in it for the long haul.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-07-16 06:57:35 am

2010-07-16 06:49:00 am

I'll add to the growing pile of pairs of cents:

Quote from mikwuyma:

About OOB/Major skips/that separate category for some games: Like Serris said, it's a game-by-game case. What works for some games doesn't work for others.

I agree.

Quote:

I think the idea of grandfathering the the old categories until they're beaten with a better run is the best idea for this change.

I agree, both for this and any other past or future rule changes.

Quote from mikwuyma:

Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. Sad

Quote from Kharay1977:

The solution should be obvious - defer it to consensus.

Quote from Breakdown:

The problem with this as sweeping policy for rule changes is the consensus only comes from people who actually visit the forums, and there are literal thousands of people who visit the site every day that don't click the SDA Forum link on the front page. It's something that's easy to lose sight of when you actually get involved in the community, but really the people who just come to the site now and then to watch games they know get the crap beaten out of them are the many, those who come here to make it happen and debate what should and should not be legal or separate categories are the few. As a site, we have to cater to both, and while the community has rallied for changes that are good for the site (as evidenced here, it's looking like SW as a separate category will be game by game now), that doesn't mean every change that gets the backing of most of the site's members is a good one. There really is more to consider than just simply what the runners want.

Breakdown: while I accept in principle that rules should take the casual viewers into account, I think it's fair to put much, much more weight on the opinions of people with a lot of experience of SDA, for several reasons:
* They are more familiar with the site so they can better ensure that anything they propose is consistent with the letter and spirit of current SDA rules.
* They have a better appreciation of a lot of the practical issues involved in deciding rules and of the need for rules to be objective and easy to understand. e.g. lots of casual viewers would like to see 'glitchless' runs, but anyone with some experience of speedrunning or SDA knows that just isn't possible here for lots of reasons.
* They can understand the perspective of the casual viewer and take it into account while forming their views, but the converse isn't true
* Most rules issues that arise are fairly minor technicalities anyway, and the casual viewer wouldn't care about (and in some cases wouldn't understand) them

As such I think establishing rules by consensus of experienced folk at SDA, whenever such a consensus exists, is fine and wouldn't expect it, in reality, to result in any problems or in rules that give the runners what they want but don't take into account the casual viewers (I think there are very few rules disputes where the majority of SDA old hands want something significantly different to what casual viewers want, anyway). However:

Kharay: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually is a consensus. Raise any rules question and there'll almost always be a disagreement, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Since this isn't a democracy and nobody has the authority to make a final decision except Mike, there isn't really any way to resolve such disagreements besides summoning Mike to lay down a final decision (unless the issue has been raised in the past or one side has some compelling 'case law' from a ruling on a similar situation to convince the other that they're right).

Mike: I'm sorry you find the rules semantics so tedious. I always feel guilty whenever I come to you with a rules issue (which I've done quite a lot recently :/) because the format of such conversations is always:

1) I write an enormous spiel about the rules issue in question and every relevant bit of information I can think of
2) You deliver a decision in one line
3) I get the impression that you're bored / mildly irritated at having to deal with such trivialities

I'm not really sure how else these issues can be handled, though? I'd like to bring less of the petty stuff to you but I don't know how else to deal with it.

I'll add to the growing pile of pairs of cents:

[quote="mikwuyma"]About OOB/Major skips/that separate category for some games: Like Serris said, it's a game-by-game case. What works for some games doesn't work for others.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]I think the idea of grandfathering the the old categories until they're beaten with a better run is the best idea for this change.[/quote]

I agree, both for this and any other past or future rule changes.

[quote="mikwuyma"]Also, I get really tired of going over rules semantics myself. :([/quote]
[quote="Kharay1977"]The solution should be obvious - defer it to consensus.[/quote]
[quote="Breakdown"]The problem with this as sweeping policy for rule changes is the consensus only comes from people who actually visit the forums, and there are literal thousands of people who visit the site every day that don't click the SDA Forum link on the front page.  It's something that's easy to lose sight of when you actually get involved in the community, but really the people who just come to the site now and then to watch games they know get the crap beaten out of them are the many, those who come here to make it happen and debate what should and should not be legal or separate categories are the few.  As a site, we have to cater to both, and while the community has rallied for changes that are good for the site (as evidenced here, it's looking like SW as a separate category will be game by game now), that doesn't mean every change that gets the backing of most of the site's members is a good one.  There really is more to consider than just simply what the runners want.[/quote]

[b]Breakdown[/b]: while I accept in principle that rules should take the casual viewers into account, I think it's fair to put much, much more weight on the opinions of people with a lot of experience of SDA, for several reasons:
* They are more familiar with the site so they can better ensure that anything they propose is consistent with the letter and spirit of current SDA rules.
* They have a better appreciation of a lot of the practical issues involved in deciding rules and of the need for rules to be objective and easy to understand. e.g. lots of casual viewers would like to see 'glitchless' runs, but anyone with some experience of speedrunning or SDA knows that just isn't possible here for lots of reasons.
* They can understand the perspective of the casual viewer and take it into account while forming their views, but the converse isn't true
* [i]Most[/i] rules issues that arise are fairly minor technicalities anyway, and the casual viewer wouldn't care about (and in some cases wouldn't understand) them

As such I think establishing rules by consensus of experienced folk at SDA, whenever such a consensus exists, is fine and wouldn't expect it, in reality, to result in any problems or in rules that give the runners what they want but don't take into account the casual viewers (I think there are very few rules disputes where the majority of SDA old hands want something significantly different to what casual viewers want, anyway). However:

[b]Kharay[/b]: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually [i]is[/i] a consensus. Raise any rules question and there'll almost always be a disagreement, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Since this isn't a democracy and nobody has the authority to make a final decision except Mike, there isn't really any way to resolve such disagreements besides summoning Mike to lay down a final decision (unless the issue has been raised in the past or one side has some compelling 'case law' from a ruling on a similar situation to convince the other that they're right).

[b]Mike[/b]: I'm sorry you find the rules semantics so tedious. I always feel guilty whenever I come to you with a rules issue (which I've done quite a lot recently :/) because the format of such conversations is always:

[i]1) I write an enormous spiel about the rules issue in question and every relevant bit of information I can think of
2) You deliver a decision in one line
3) I get the impression that you're bored / mildly irritated at having to deal with such trivialities[/i]

I'm not really sure how else these issues can be handled, though? I'd like to bring less of the petty stuff to you but I don't know how else to deal with it.

Kharay1977

2010-07-16 07:05:43 am

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Kharay: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually is a consensus. Raise any rules question and there'll almost always be a disagreement, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Since this isn't a democracy and nobody has the authority to make a final decision except Mike, there isn't really any way to resolve such disagreements besides summoning Mike to lay down a final decision (unless the issue has been raised in the past or one side has some compelling 'case law' from a ruling on a similar situation to convince the other that they're right).

First and foremost (in my suggestion of arriving at rule changes with consensus) would be to define what consensus means to SDA.

Secondly, if consensus cannot be reached... then the obvious result is... no change. Why force the matter with authority when general consensus cannot even be reached? It would simply give rise to even more debate, further inflaming the issue.

Thirdly, consensus does not equal unanimity. You can never reach a unanimous agreement in cases such as this one. In fact, I believe humans are incapable of agreeing on something unanimously. But that's besides the point.

I'll admit, it wouldn't be easy. And it would take a while, but, I think it's worth at least some consideration.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"][b]Kharay[/b]: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually [i]is[/i] a consensus. Raise any rules question and there'll almost always be a disagreement, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Since this isn't a democracy and nobody has the authority to make a final decision except Mike, there isn't really any way to resolve such disagreements besides summoning Mike to lay down a final decision (unless the issue has been raised in the past or one side has some compelling 'case law' from a ruling on a similar situation to convince the other that they're right).[/quote]First and foremost (in my suggestion of arriving at rule changes with consensus) would be to [i]define[/i] what consensus means to SDA.

Secondly, if consensus cannot be reached... then the obvious result is... no change. Why force the matter with authority when general consensus cannot even be reached? It would simply give rise to even more debate, further inflaming the issue.

Thirdly, consensus does not equal unanimity. You can never reach a unanimous agreement in cases such as this one. In fact, I believe humans are incapable of agreeing on something unanimously. But that's besides the point.

I'll admit, it wouldn't be easy. And it would take a while, but, I think it's worth at least some consideration.

ridd3r.

2010-07-16 08:27:47 am

we have lift off

What about HL2DQ? That obsoleted a run that didn't use scripts; this sort of thing is nothing new really.

I agree with keeping up old runs under a grandfather clause until they are beaten but I disagree with making them uncontendable and thus keeping them up forever. Yes the rules have changed and that is unfortunate for people who contributed when SDA was very young but OoB rules have been in place a while now and rules are always going to take a while to establish.

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Kharay: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually is a consensus.

This is true to an extent but:

Quote from Kharay1977:

Secondly, if consensus cannot be reached... then the obvious result is... no change. Why force the matter with authority when general consensus cannot even be reached? It would simply give rise to even more debate, further inflaming the issue.

This is already done, last summer there was a debate regarding the save penalty, no consensus was reached and nothing changed. I think Mike is simply referring to having to wade through 10 pages of argument before decidding what the consensus is!

Also EC, I wouldn't worry about getting one line answers. If it's a simple as that then why not, at least he's answering your questions. It make take some extra time but it would actually save Mike a ton of work if the rules were actually updated... Surely it is about time this was done since it has been talked about for well over a year. I don't see why a forum member could not do this either and then an admin could simply check it.

Finally, Kharay1977 I really wouldn't bother responding to Master-88 at all. All that happens is he writes yet more incomprehensible English and the word retarded is there.

What about HL2DQ? That obsoleted a run that didn't use scripts; this sort of thing is nothing new really.

I agree with keeping up old runs under a grandfather clause until they are beaten but I disagree with making them uncontendable and thus keeping them up forever. Yes the rules have changed and that is unfortunate for people who contributed when SDA was very young but OoB rules have been in place a while now and rules are always going to take a while to establish.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"][b]Kharay[/b]: The problem with deciding things by consensus, as I see it, is that there almost never actually [i]is[/i] a consensus. [/quote]

This is true to an extent but:

[quote="Kharay1977"]
Secondly, if consensus cannot be reached... then the obvious result is... no change. Why force the matter with authority when general consensus cannot even be reached? It would simply give rise to even more debate, further inflaming the issue. [/quote]

This is already done, last summer there was a debate regarding the save penalty, no consensus was reached and nothing changed. I think Mike is simply referring to having to wade through 10 pages of argument before decidding what the consensus is!

Also EC, I wouldn't worry about getting one line answers. If it's a simple as that then why not, at least he's answering your questions. It make take some extra time but it would actually save Mike a ton of work if the rules were actually updated... Surely it is about time this was done since it has been talked about for well over a year. I don't see why a forum member could not do this either and then an admin could simply check it.

Finally, Kharay1977 I really wouldn't bother responding to Master-88 at all. All that happens is he writes yet more incomprehensible English and the word retarded is there.

ExplodingCabbage

2010-07-16 10:22:20 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

Also EC, I wouldn't worry about getting one line answers. If it's a simple as that then why not, at least he's answering your questions. It make take some extra time but it would actually save Mike a ton of work if the rules were actually updated... Surely it is about time this was done since it has been talked about for well over a year. I don't see why a forum member could not do this either and then an admin could simply check it.

I'd be happy to try and do the rules rewrite, if people are cool with that.

mikwuyma

2010-07-16 10:59:32 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

ExplodingCabbage: Actually, I don't mind when you contact me. I know it's necessary in order to get rulings for individual games. It's stuff like people debating for 4-5 pages without trying to get a ruling that bothers me. Or people who obsess more about timers and load times when it comes to timing than actual running or gameplay.

ridd3r.: I tried doing that with the rules on the wiki last year. I think Kabuto was the only one who edited them. Also, I don't know if you were responding to what I said, but I already said that grandfathering the categories until a better run came along was the best idea.

Kharay1977 and MASTER-88: shut up.

Heidrage

2010-07-16 11:04:43 am

Willing to teach you the impossible

This is from the Poke Yellow thread from the current record holder.

Quote from DTaeKim:

I can tell you my run doesn't use glitches, mainly because I didn't know of their existence when I made the run.

Go for it.

I feel it should be along with this thread because of what it shows and it also goes along with that Radix posted as well. And on another note, this has happened for many many other games as well, where the current holder says "Go for it" one way or another.

All in all, we are a community that is striving to be the best, no matter who does it for the individual game/event.

I am really not here to say who is right or wrong, just please keep this in mind while you are posting your arguments.

ridd3r.

2010-07-16 11:37:03 am

we have lift off

Quote from mikwuyma:

ridd3r.: I tried doing that with the rules on the wiki last year. I think Kabuto was the only one who edited them.

OK well I never heard about it, was it advertised in a topic at all? Something like that should maybe get it's own stickied topic so more people see it and contribute.

Quote:

Also, I don't know if you were responding to what I said, but I already said that grandfathering the categories until a better run came along was the best idea.

No I was referring to this:

Quote from tjp7154:

For runs that were published before major decisions (certain previously-banned glitches, OOB, etc.; like, say -- Zoid's run) to still remain on the site. Also, there would be no more competition allowed for that "grandfathered" run, because of a new rule change.

tjp7154

2010-07-16 11:55:06 am

#Casual

Yeah R1dd3r, my suggestion might appease the runners/viewers who don't want to see a run disappear just yet, even after a run using the previously-disallowed rule (like DJGrenola's case) obsoletes it.

ridd3r.

2010-07-16 12:36:27 pm

we have lift off

Quote from tjp7154:

Yeah R1dd3r, my suggestion might appease the runners/viewers who don't want to see a run disappear just yet, even after a run using the previously-disallowed rule (like DJGrenola's case) obsoletes it.

Then when would the old runs be taken down, if ever? Grenola's latest run has been up for 2 and half years already. It just doesn't make much sense to me to keep a run up permanently just because the rules have changed. Of course keep it up until a new run arrives but beyond that surely it gets obsoleted like any other run.

Pootrain

2010-07-16 01:30:59 pm

train kept rollin

pehaps just a link to their archive page once they have been obseleted.

tjp7154

2010-07-16 02:39:41 pm

#Casual

Quote from Pootrain:

pehaps just a link to their archive page once they have been obsoleted.

That, or after a certain amount of days, remove it -- sort of like what Mike does with rejected runs.

BioSpark

2010-07-16 02:44:06 pm

or, you could just ask the runner of the old run if they're ok with their run being taken down. i still think the verifiers should decide if the gameplay is good enough to obsolete it anyway.

Emperor91

2010-07-16 03:17:58 pm

Speedrunner and highscore player

Why those should be in same category, there is still quite huge time difference at least in MP2. I think it just make more sense if SW and normal runs are in separate category Wink

UchihaSasuke

2010-07-16 06:40:52 pm

Stand: Devil's Call in your Heart

the problem is that such division will cause people to dismiss the new run because a lot of attention is given to one specific and controversial glitch over the others and people will ge the illusion that the run is worse than the other one and beats it only because of that glitch.

it looks like someone will end up with the short end of the stick no matter what is decided from the looks of things...

bartendorsparky

2010-07-16 07:12:55 pm

even though i'm aware that this is completely unnecessary, i have a question for the people who think zoid's run shouldn't be beaten by a secret world run under any conditions. if i beat it first without secret worlds, then beat that run with a new secret world run (so i'm outdating myself), would you still be against it? if not, i have a test run that i did for timing purposes from 2006 that is up to the ridley battle and on track for 1:02. i'd be more than willing to upload those videos along with the final bosses from my current run (which will be exactly the same except i'll have one less energy tank this time), to 'unofficially' claim the record before beating it.