Rules and FAQ revision

System Error

Edit history:

System Error: 2010-09-27 09:40:26 pm

2010-09-27 09:40:07 pm

Generic Text

Quote from Breakdown:

In the Mega Man games the weapons and abilities are forced upon you. In Contra you don't have to collect them. Even though you can get them without missing a beat, you have the choice not to. That's the distinction.

"such a run should be allowed - even if the items picked up are mandatory to obtain."

I just think we'd be locking ourselves out of interesting potential if we take a "you must use everything mandatory" approach, that's all.

Manocheese

2010-09-28 05:39:19 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from System Error:

I just think we'd be locking ourselves out of interesting potential if we take a "you must use everything mandatory" approach, that's all.

If we start allowing runs where people arbitrarily don't use items that save time, we'll end up with tons of contrived "use this, but not this" categories and things like speedwalks.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-28 10:14:12 am

2010-09-28 10:13:54 am

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from System Error:

I just think we'd be locking ourselves out of interesting potential if we take a "you must use everything mandatory" approach, that's all.

If we start allowing runs where people arbitrarily don't use items that save time, we'll end up with tons of contrived "use this, but not this" categories and things like speedwalks.

I agree with this. To be honest, I've always been a little uncomfortable even with low% categories.

VorpalEdge

2010-09-28 10:24:19 am

welcome to the machine

The site's metroid heritage is really apparent in rules like this.

Paraxade

2010-09-28 10:31:47 am

yeah, low% is already a pretty arbitrary category tbh :/

System Error

2010-09-28 10:24:47 pm

Generic Text

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from System Error:

I just think we'd be locking ourselves out of interesting potential if we take a "you must use everything mandatory" approach, that's all.

If we start allowing runs where people arbitrarily don't use items that save time, we'll end up with tons of contrived "use this, but not this" categories and things like speedwalks.

"as long as the goals are concise enough" Tongue

But yeah, it's mostly a matter of judgment. Preferably without becoming too strict and closed minded like certain other sites. >_> Generally speaking though, either ignoring a major literally nigh-mandatory item (the sword in Zelda 1, or lots of Metroid stuff), or ignoring an entire group (subweapons in Mega Man) should be good. Of course, weird or partial stuff, like say, walking only, or just ignoring the Metal Blades, is out of the question.

ZenicReverie

2010-09-29 03:46:28 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

I can't find the part where cutscenes are mandatory to skip. Was that cut for some reason? I ask because there's a game I'm thinking about running that has cutscenes that are only skippable if you've already seen them, and it counts previous playthroughs though save data. Is it allowed, encouraged, or mandatory that I have a previous play through in order to skip the cutscenes? I know it was discussed somewhere on the forums, but I'm not sure where.

Flip

2010-09-29 03:58:44 pm

1-Up!

I can't remember off-hand where it's stated but yeah, if you can skip cutscenes, please do.

ZenicReverie

2010-09-29 04:01:52 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Flip:

I can't remember off-hand where it's stated but yeah, if you can skip cutscenes, please do.

And having that data from a previous playthrough won't cause it to be NG+ if that's the only thing that's changed, right?

Flip

2010-09-29 04:08:50 pm

1-Up!

That's my understanding, as there are no other "perks" available.

Elminster

2010-09-29 04:15:41 pm

Yeah, it won't cause it to be NG+. Paraxade's MP3 run is an example of this.

VorpalEdge

2010-10-05 10:11:39 pm

welcome to the machine

New revision in the first post. Thanks to cyghfer for helping to comprehensively edit the document. We've got lots of minor wording changes and a lot of the things people talked about (making ss/segmented more important categories) were included. There's also a FAQ at the end; I know some people talked about it, and we have a couple questions there, but there's probably more to be included. Those should probably be pointed out now. As for the rest of the document, it's pretty close to done. Major changes should be about finished and I'm looking for the next revision to be final.

Thoughts?

Manocheese

2010-10-06 07:50:12 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Nice work. The changes are good. I only have a few suggestions.

Quote:

To be published, a run must be fast enough, show no evidence of cheating, and have good audio and video quality.

I think we should emphasize that a run must have no cheating, not just "show no evidence" of cheating.

Quote:

multi-player runs are not distinguished by the number of players

This could be a bit clearer, since multi-player runs are distinguished from single-player runs based on the number of players. A possible rewording is "once a run has multiple players, there are no further distinctions based on the number of players".

Quote:

Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems.

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."

Quote:

For runs over three hours, seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time because seconds are insignificant.

I think something like "seconds are less significant in lengthy runs than in shorter ones" would be better than the blanket statement "seconds are insignificant".

Quote:

If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds are less significant past the three-hour mark.

The more concrete explanation of "the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked" might be better. Dropping seconds was already justified earlier in the rules, so there's no need to do it again here. Also, for this paragraph, I think the third sentence (about less-than-one-second improvements) would make more sense if it's immediately after the first. My version of the paragraph would be "For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second. Improvements smaller than a second are only acceptable if a game has a visible timer that measures fractions of a second. If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked."

Quote:

Mods may be accepted as runs of a separate game at staff discretion.

I thought Mike decided against this? I can't check now, but I thought I'd point it out.

Nice work. The changes are good. I only have a few suggestions.

[quote]To be published, a run must be fast enough, [b]show no evidence of cheating[/b], and have good audio and video quality.[/quote]

I think we should emphasize that a run must [i]have[/i] no cheating, not just "show no evidence" of cheating.

[quote]multi-player runs are not distinguished by the number of players[/quote]

This could be a bit clearer, since multi-player runs [i]are[/i] distinguished from single-player runs based on the number of players. A possible rewording is "once a run has multiple players, there are no further distinctions based on the number of players".

[quote]Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but [b]many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems[/b].[/quote]

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."

[quote]For runs over three hours, seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time because [b]seconds are insignificant[/b].[/quote]

I think something like "seconds are less significant in lengthy runs than in shorter ones" would be better than the blanket statement "seconds are insignificant".

[quote]If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds are less significant past the three-hour mark.[/quote]

The more concrete explanation of "the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked" might be better. Dropping seconds was already justified earlier in the rules, so there's no need to do it again here. Also, for this paragraph, I think the third sentence (about less-than-one-second improvements) would make more sense if it's immediately after the first. My version of the paragraph would be "For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second. Improvements smaller than a second are only acceptable if a game has a visible timer that measures fractions of a second. If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked."

[quote]Mods may be accepted as runs of a separate game at staff discretion.[/quote]

I thought Mike decided against this? I can't check now, but I thought I'd point it out.

ZenicReverie

2010-10-06 09:10:36 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Manocheese:

Nice work. The changes are good. I only have a few suggestions.

Quote:

To be published, a run must be fast enough, show no evidence of cheating, and have good audio and video quality.

I think we should emphasize that a run must have no cheating, not just "show no evidence" of cheating.

I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

multi-player runs are not distinguished by the number of players

This could be a bit clearer, since multi-player runs are distinguished from single-player runs based on the number of players. A possible rewording is "once a run has multiple players, there are no further distinctions based on the number of players".

I think it'd be enough to say "multi-player runs are not further distinguished by the number of players." Either way though.

I do want to point out that single-player doesn't always obsolete multi-player if the multi-player mode actually makes the game harder instead of easier.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems.

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."

You can remove 'should'. While we're at it 'would rather' can be changed to 'prefer to'.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

For runs over three hours, seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time because seconds are insignificant.

I think something like "seconds are less significant in lengthy runs than in shorter ones" would be better than the blanket statement "seconds are insignificant".

I don't know. I think the "For runs over three hours" part in the beginning already indicates that, but it could be rewritten as "For runs over three hours seconds become less significant, so seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time."

Were seconds already rounded down? I thought they were rounded up, or at least rounded to the nearest minute.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds are less significant past the three-hour mark.

The more concrete explanation of "the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked" might be better. Dropping seconds was already justified earlier in the rules, so there's no need to do it again here. Also, for this paragraph, I think the third sentence (about less-than-one-second improvements) would make more sense if it's immediately after the first. My version of the paragraph would be "For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second. Improvements smaller than a second are only acceptable if a game has a visible timer that measures fractions of a second. If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked."

I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

[quote="Manocheese"]Nice work. The changes are good. I only have a few suggestions.

[quote]To be published, a run must be fast enough, [b]show no evidence of cheating[/b], and have good audio and video quality.[/quote]

I think we should emphasize that a run must [i]have[/i] no cheating, not just "show no evidence" of cheating.
[/quote]
I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]multi-player runs are not distinguished by the number of players[/quote]

This could be a bit clearer, since multi-player runs [i]are[/i] distinguished from single-player runs based on the number of players. A possible rewording is "once a run has multiple players, there are no further distinctions based on the number of players".
[/quote]
I think it'd be enough to say "multi-player runs are not [b]further[/b] distinguished by the number of players." Either way though.

I do want to point out that single-player doesn't always obsolete multi-player if the multi-player mode actually makes the game harder instead of easier.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but [b]many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems[/b].[/quote]

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."
[/quote]

You can remove 'should'. While we're at it 'would rather' can be changed to 'prefer to'.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]For runs over three hours, seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time because [b]seconds are insignificant[/b].[/quote]

I think something like "seconds are less significant in lengthy runs than in shorter ones" would be better than the blanket statement "seconds are insignificant".
[/quote]
I don't know. I think the "For runs over three hours" part in the beginning already indicates that, but it could be rewritten as "For runs over three hours seconds become less significant, so seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time."

Were seconds already rounded down? I thought they were rounded up, or at least rounded to the nearest minute.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds are less significant past the three-hour mark.[/quote]

The more concrete explanation of "the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked" might be better. Dropping seconds was already justified earlier in the rules, so there's no need to do it again here. Also, for this paragraph, I think the third sentence (about less-than-one-second improvements) would make more sense if it's immediately after the first. My version of the paragraph would be "For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second. Improvements smaller than a second are only acceptable if a game has a visible timer that measures fractions of a second. If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute because seconds are not tracked."
[/quote]
I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

Manocheese

2010-10-06 09:47:43 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote:

I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.

The statement that a run has no cheating and the statement that it has no signs of cheating aren't equal at all. Which one of the two this part of the rules should use is the issue. I understand that we don't want to sound like SDA is 100% certain that runs are not cheated, but I think it's common sense that we can never be totally sure.

Quote:

You can remove 'should'.

Removing "should" directs that sentence at the reader, whereas the rest of the document describes runners in third person (i.e. "players should..." instead of "you should..." like the old rules).

Quote:

I think the "For runs over three hours" part in the beginning already indicates that, but it could be rewritten as "For runs over three hours seconds become less significant, so seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time."

I agree with this.

Quote:

I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

I recommended switching the sentence order because the third sentence is very closely related to the first. The first is about not accepting sub-one-second improvements in manually timed games, and the third is about accepting them in games with timers. Having the sentence about three-hour+ runs in between disrupts the logical flow of the paragraph.

[quote]I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.[/quote]

The statement that a run has no cheating and the statement that it has no signs of cheating aren't equal at all. Which one of the two this part of the rules should use is the issue. I understand that we don't want to sound like SDA is 100% certain that runs are not cheated, but I think it's common sense that we can never be totally sure.

[quote]You can remove 'should'.[/quote]

Removing "should" directs that sentence at the reader, whereas the rest of the document describes runners in third person (i.e. "players should..." instead of "you should..." like the old rules).

[quote]I think the "For runs over three hours" part in the beginning already indicates that, but it could be rewritten as "For runs over three hours seconds become less significant, so seconds are rounded down to the nearest minute in the final time."[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote]I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.[/quote]

I recommended switching the sentence order because the third sentence is very closely related to the first. The first is about not accepting sub-one-second improvements in manually timed games, and the third is about accepting them in games with timers. Having the sentence about three-hour+ runs in between disrupts the logical flow of the paragraph.

ZenicReverie

Edit history:

ZenicReverie: 2010-10-06 10:28:07 am

2010-10-06 10:27:08 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.

The statement that a run has no cheating and the statement that it has no signs of cheating aren't equal at all. Which one of the two this part of the rules should use is the issue. I understand that we don't want to sound like SDA is 100% certain that runs are not cheated, but I think it's common sense that we can never be totally sure.

I understand the difference between the words. Changing it doesn't change the fact that if cheating can't be detected there's no way for us to enforce "has no cheating," which is why I always thought the tag line "Verfied: No cheating" was used instead of the more absolute "Contains no cheating."

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

You can remove 'should'.

Removing "should" directs that sentence at the reader, whereas the rest of the document describes runners in third person (i.e. "players should..." instead of "you should..." like the old rules).

'should' there seems very odd to me when I'm reading the sentence. Aren't the players the one reading this document? Should 'players' be used instead of 'runners'? Here's a rewrite to avoid the issue: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems." I'm curious though, how are we gauging viewer preference?

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

I recommended switching the sentence order because the third sentence is very closely related to the first. The first is about not accepting sub-one-second improvements in manually timed games, and the third is about accepting them in games with timers. Having the sentence about three-hour+ runs in between disrupts the logical flow of the paragraph.

If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.

[quote="Manocheese"][quote]I don't see a difference. I understand the difference you're trying to address, but if cheating can't be detected, then it can't be shown. How can it ever be determined to be present if it can't be shown? Either way, these two statements seem to be equal.[/quote]

The statement that a run has no cheating and the statement that it has no signs of cheating aren't equal at all. Which one of the two this part of the rules should use is the issue. I understand that we don't want to sound like SDA is 100% certain that runs are not cheated, but I think it's common sense that we can never be totally sure.
[/quote]
I understand the difference between the words. Changing it doesn't change the fact that if cheating can't be detected there's no way for us to enforce "has no cheating," which is why I always thought the tag line "Verfied: No cheating" was used instead of the more absolute "Contains no cheating."

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]You can remove 'should'.[/quote]

Removing "should" directs that sentence at the reader, whereas the rest of the document describes runners in third person (i.e. "players should..." instead of "you should..." like the old rules).
[/quote]
'should' there seems very odd to me when I'm reading the sentence. Aren't the players the one reading this document? Should 'players' be used instead of 'runners'? Here's a rewrite to avoid the issue: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems." I'm curious though, how are we gauging viewer preference?

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]I agree, this is better; although switching the sentences doesn't seem to make much difference to me.[/quote]

I recommended switching the sentence order because the third sentence is very closely related to the first. The first is about not accepting sub-one-second improvements in manually timed games, and the third is about accepting them in games with timers. Having the sentence about three-hour+ runs in between disrupts the logical flow of the paragraph.[/quote]

If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.

kwinse

2010-10-06 10:44:33 am

Just my two cents, saying that runs only have to have no visible cheating could and would encourage people to use less-than-visible cheats. By saying strictly that cheating is not allowed, you don't even give them that interpretation.

That stuff can fall through the cracks is no reason to encourage it to, even through negligence.

arkarian

2010-10-06 11:06:32 am

gamelogs.org

way better to say no cheating than no signs of cheating imo. it's a matter of assertion which seems necessary in the rules.

ZenicReverie

2010-10-06 11:06:50 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from kwinse:

Just my two cents, saying that runs only have to have no visible cheating could and would encourage people to use less-than-visible cheats. By saying strictly that cheating is not allowed, you don't even give them that interpretation.

That stuff can fall through the cracks is no reason to encourage it to, even through negligence.

Like I said, I don't really see the difference, so I'll defer to someone with a stronger opinion on the matter. I only want to point out that to me "has no cheating" implies that we guarantee all runs have no cheating while "shows no evidence of cheating" implies that as far as we can tell, this looks like authentic playing. The former gets mud in our face if a video does in fact have cheating but we haven't noticed it, and the latter says we've analyzed the video and couldn't detect anything.

On a side note, what kind of cheating would not be noticeable but still affect the game? Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?

[quote="kwinse"]Just my two cents, saying that runs only have to have no visible cheating could and would encourage people to use less-than-visible cheats. By saying strictly that cheating is not allowed, you don't even give them that interpretation.

That stuff can fall through the cracks is no reason to encourage it to, even through negligence.[/quote]
Like I said, I don't really see the difference, so I'll defer to someone with a stronger opinion on the matter. I only want to point out that to me "has no cheating" implies that we guarantee all runs have no cheating while "shows no evidence of cheating" implies that as far as we can tell, this looks like authentic playing. The former gets mud in our face if a video does in fact have cheating but we haven't noticed it, and the latter says we've analyzed the video and couldn't detect anything.

On a side note, what kind of cheating would not be noticeable but still affect the game? Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?

Manocheese

Edit history:

Manocheese: 2010-10-06 11:44:52 am

2010-10-06 11:31:38 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote:

'should' there seems very odd to me when I'm reading the sentence. Aren't the players the one reading this document? Should 'players' be used instead of 'runners'? Here's a rewrite to avoid the issue: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems."

Yes, players are the ones reading the page, but the page is written in the third person:

Quote from Current rules:

You are not allowed to modify your system...

Quote from Revised rules:

Players may not modify their systems...

We don't know what "viewer preference" is, which is why the current revision only talks about "many viewers".

Quote:

If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.

I don't think SDA would accept sub-one-second improvements on runs that are several hours long, even if the game tracked tenths of a second. I still think my proposal is the best option here.

Quote:

I only want to point out that to me "has no cheating" implies that we guarantee all runs have no cheating while "shows no evidence of cheating" implies that as far as we can tell, this looks like authentic playing. The former gets mud in our face if a video does in fact have cheating but we haven't noticed it

Not really. I don't think there was much backlash when SDA took down the Resident Evil run where the guy used a turbo controller, or the run that was posted in the Radix days where the runner (intentionally?) omitted a segment.

Quote:

Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?

It's there:

Quote:

Codes that are only cosmetic, like suitless Samus in Metroid, are allowed.

[quote]'should' there seems very odd to me when I'm reading the sentence. Aren't the players the one reading this document? Should 'players' be used instead of 'runners'? Here's a rewrite to avoid the issue: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems."[/quote]

Yes, players are the ones reading the page, but the page is written in the third person:

[quote="Current rules"][b]You[/b] are not allowed to modify your system...[/quote]

[quote="Revised rules"][b]Players[/b] may not modify their systems...[/quote]

We don't know what "viewer preference" is, which is why the current revision only talks about "many viewers".

[quote]If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.[/quote]

I don't think SDA would accept sub-one-second improvements on runs that are several hours long, even if the game tracked tenths of a second. I still think my proposal is the best option here.

[quote]I only want to point out that to me "has no cheating" implies that we guarantee all runs have no cheating while "shows no evidence of cheating" implies that as far as we can tell, this looks like authentic playing. The former gets mud in our face if a video does in fact have cheating but we haven't noticed it[/quote]

Not really. I don't think there was much backlash when SDA took down the Resident Evil run where the guy used a turbo controller, or the run that was posted in the Radix days where the runner (intentionally?) [url=http://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/wasnt_their_244_runs_last_night.html]omitted a segment[/url].

[quote]Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?[/quote]

It's there:

[quote]Codes that are only cosmetic, like suitless Samus in Metroid, are allowed.[/quote]

ZenicReverie

Edit history:

ZenicReverie: 2010-10-06 11:54:34 am

2010-10-06 11:54:14 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from Current rules:

You are not allowed to modify your system...

Quote from Revised rules:

Players may not modify their systems...

Saying 'Players may not modify their systems' isn't only talking to the players though. I mean if you want to take that literally, then players can't, but maybe someone else could?

Quote from Manocheese:

We don't know what "viewer preference" is, which is why the current revision only talks about "many viewers".

Well, how can we say 'many' without knowing what viewer preference is? Are we saying 'many' and ignoring the majority? My revision says that preference leans towards, which assumes a majority preference. Who's preference is it really? Is it staff preference, or the majority of viewers that have voiced this?

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.

I don't think SDA would accept sub-one-second improvements on runs that are several hours long, even if the game tracked tenths of a second. I still think my proposal is the best option here.

I'm pretty sure SDA would. Although, I've yet to see a game that takes several hours track more than seconds visibly. The main reason to have a minimum is to allow for a % of error in manual timing. Although I suppose requiring significant improvements is another. Something the staff would need to weigh in on.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?

It's there:

Quote:

Codes that are only cosmetic, like suitless Samus in Metroid, are allowed.

Yeah, I should actually read it and comment instead of commenting on people's comments. Wink

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote="Current rules"][b]You[/b] are not allowed to modify your system...[/quote]

[quote="Revised rules"][b]Players[/b] may not modify their systems...[/quote]
[/quote]
Saying 'Players may not modify their systems' isn't only talking to the players though. I mean if you want to take that literally, then players can't, but maybe someone else could?

[quote="Manocheese"]
We don't know what "viewer preference" is, which is why the current revision only talks about "many viewers".
[/quote]
Well, how can we say 'many' without knowing what viewer preference is? Are we saying 'many' and ignoring the majority? My revision says that preference leans towards, which assumes a majority preference. Who's preference is it really? Is it staff preference, or the majority of viewers that have voiced this?

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]If we keep the sentence order, then the third paragraph can be rewritten to apply to both of the previous sentences: "There is no minimum improvement for games that have a visible timer." Would that make more sense? I'm thinking there may be cases where that doesn't fit, but I can't think of any examples.[/quote]

I don't think SDA would accept sub-one-second improvements on runs that are several hours long, even if the game tracked tenths of a second. I still think my proposal is the best option here.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure SDA would. Although, I've yet to see a game that takes several hours track more than seconds visibly. The main reason to have a minimum is to allow for a % of error in manual timing. Although I suppose requiring significant improvements is another. Something the staff would need to weigh in on.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote]Also, unless it has changed, I believe cheat codes that have only a cosmetic change are acceptable. Should that be mentioned in the rules?[/quote]

It's there:

[quote]Codes that are only cosmetic, like suitless Samus in Metroid, are allowed.[/quote][/quote]
Yeah, I should actually read it and comment instead of commenting on people's comments. ;)

Zeupar

2010-10-06 06:19:35 pm

Sonical!

Quote from Paraxade:

This seems like a solid replacement. Though it seems to me like it might still be beneficial to have a separate FAQ page (or the intro page you mentioned) covering information concerning watching runs instead of doing them and other information about the site, since the FAQ page has a lot of things that aren't covered in this revision.

I agree with that.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from Current rules:

You are not allowed to modify your system...

Quote from Revised rules:

Players may not modify their systems...

Saying 'Players may not modify their systems' isn't only talking to the players though. I mean if you want to take that literally, then players can't, but maybe someone else could?

"Players may not use systems modified in any way".

Manocheese

2010-10-06 07:02:35 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Saying 'Players may not modify their systems' isn't only talking to the players though. I mean if you want to take that literally, then players can't, but maybe someone else could?

Quote from Zeupar:

"Players may not use systems modified in any way".

I never said that the section about system modification should be changed in any way. It was an example to illustrate the difference between second person and third person. This discussion has strayed so far that we should all remind ourselves what it was about:

Quote:

Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems.

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."

IIRC, that note was added to the rules in the first place mainly because of deflickering issues with official emulators. So, (again, IIRC) it never really reflected a majority "viewer preference". But there are certainly "many" viewers who do prefer runs on the original hardware, so I think that should stay in the rules (albeit in the slightly modified form I proposed in my first post).

[quote="ZenicReverie"]Saying 'Players may not modify their systems' isn't only talking to the players though. I mean if you want to take that literally, then players can't, but maybe someone else could?[/quote]

[quote="Zeupar"]"Players may not use systems modified in any way".[/quote]

I never said that the section about system modification should be changed in any way. It was an example to illustrate the difference between second person and third person. This discussion has strayed so far that we should all remind ourselves what it was about:

[quote][quote]Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but [b]many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems[/b].[/quote]

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."[/quote]

IIRC, that note was added to the rules in the first place mainly because of deflickering issues with official emulators. So, (again, IIRC) it never really reflected a majority "viewer preference". But there are certainly "many" viewers who do prefer runs on the original hardware, so I think that should stay in the rules (albeit in the slightly modified form I proposed in my first post).

ZenicReverie

2010-10-06 07:25:28 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Zeupar:

"Players may not use systems modified in any way".

Not true, I believe it's allowed to modify consoles to unlock regional games. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote:

Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems.

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."

IIRC, that note was added to the rules in the first place mainly because of deflickering issues with official emulators. So, (again, IIRC) it never really reflected a majority "viewer preference". But there are certainly "many" viewers who do prefer runs on the original hardware, so I think that should stay in the rules (albeit in the slightly modified form I proposed in my first post).

I think it's wordy in the revision adding "should be aware that." I don't see a benefit in adding that. I made a suggested revision: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems." Is there something wrong with that?

If we're sticking with the previous sentence, then I think 'their' is a little ambiguous and could refer to players, viewers, or runs (the one we want).

[quote="Zeupar"]
"Players may not use systems modified in any way".
[/quote]
Not true, I believe it's allowed to modify consoles to unlock regional games. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[quote="Manocheese"]
[quote][quote]Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but [b]many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems[/b].[/quote]

Since the bolded part is more of a side note than anything, it might be good to preface it with something like "should be aware that." I.e. "Players may produce runs on any of these systems, but should be aware that many viewers would rather watch runs on their original systems."[/quote]

IIRC, that note was added to the rules in the first place mainly because of deflickering issues with official emulators. So, (again, IIRC) it never really reflected a majority "viewer preference". But there are certainly "many" viewers who do prefer runs on the original hardware, so I think that should stay in the rules (albeit in the slightly modified form I proposed in my first post).[/quote]

I think it's wordy in the revision adding "should be aware that." I don't see a benefit in adding that. I made a suggested revision: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems." Is there something wrong with that?

If we're sticking with the previous sentence, then I think 'their' is a little ambiguous and could refer to players, viewers, or runs (the one we want).

Manocheese

2010-10-06 07:39:38 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I think it's wordy in the revision adding "should be aware that." I don't see a benefit in adding that. I made a suggested revision: "Runs on any of these systems are acceptable, but viewer preference leans towards the original systems." Is there something wrong with that?

As I've explained twice, we do not know what "viewer preference" is.