Speedrunner Roundtable July 10 at 9 PM EDT [locked]

2013-07-07 04:59:41 pm

that Metroidvania guy

Ok looks like there was a lot said while I was away for a bit. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was just dodging part of DW's post. I felt like I was answering all of it, granted not in great detail. I'll elaborate a bit.

First of all, as you acknowledged, every marathon there are examples of people who are new to marathons and are allowed to have runs in, even if they aren't as popular as other runners of the same game. Even being the best at a game isn't always an issue; when I was uncertain that I could make it to last AGDQ, Satoryu was put on for Alucard all bosses in SotN even though his pb is something like 10 minutes behind mine. I also had to check with him to make sure it was ok that I got added back on when that time came. That's an example closer to home for me but there are a lot of examples like this, and there has actually been a lot of runner variety for popular games over the years.

As for deliberately letting some lesser known games in, I don't think leaving games out just because they are unpopular is a huge issue. There's a lot of discretion put into the consideration of any game: God Hand is obscure but was an awesome watch at the AGDQ it was in, and anyone who knew the game was aware that was going to happen ahead of time. A more popular game like Fallout 3 (recent-ish rejection for a marathon coming to mind) is 99% walking through a wasteland with a few scattered glitches, so that will likely never make a cut, regardless of the runner. Let's say for your marathon that I offered Dragon Quest 1. I think I get decent viewership for my streams, so perhaps popularity would be a factor here. It's a game that a good handful of a JRPG stream viewers might've had as a kid, and might even have nostalgia for. But even on the GBC version, which is less than 2 hours, no one wants to watch nonstop grinding. It's just boring. So this would/should be rejected every time.

There is no single significant factor in choosing a marathon game. I agree that there are rules and regulations that need to be added as the marathons grow, and that is already happening (more guidelines, we have a waiver, etc.). For game selection, I don't think that a single set of guidelines is the answer. I fully agree that the process in which one is chosen should be made public, though and that would clear up a lot of confusion. A change that I'm planning to make for the next SGDQ is that I will be discussing the game selection with more people than Uyama has in the past and deliberately make sure they are from different speedrunning backgrounds/communities so that everyone's biases are kept in check. I might even have someone else help choose these people for me, I'm not 100% sure yet. But when it comes time to start focusing on the next SGDQ, I will elaborate on this and make sure the public knows how the games are chosen. A lot of your concerns really do seem to come back to that, and understandably so. Hopefully some concerns are alleviated by the process becoming more public in the future.

Ok looks like there was a lot said while I was away for a bit. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was just dodging part of DW's post. I felt like I was answering all of it, granted not in great detail. I'll elaborate a bit.

First of all, as you acknowledged, every marathon there are examples of people who are new to marathons and are allowed to have runs in, even if they aren't as popular as other runners of the same game. Even being the best at a game isn't always an issue; when I was uncertain that I could make it to last AGDQ, Satoryu was put on for Alucard all bosses in SotN even though his pb is something like 10 minutes behind mine. I also had to check with him to make sure it was ok that I got added back on when that time came. That's an example closer to home for me but there are a lot of examples like this, and there has actually been a lot of runner variety for popular games over the years.

As for deliberately letting some lesser known games in, I don't think leaving games out just because they are unpopular is a huge issue. There's a lot of discretion put into the consideration of any game: God Hand is obscure but was an awesome watch at the AGDQ it was in, and anyone who knew the game was aware that was going to happen ahead of time. A more popular game like Fallout 3 (recent-ish rejection for a marathon coming to mind) is 99% walking through a wasteland with a few scattered glitches, so that will likely never make a cut, regardless of the runner. Let's say for your marathon that I offered Dragon Quest 1. I think I get decent viewership for my streams, so perhaps popularity would be a factor here. It's a game that a good handful of a JRPG stream viewers might've had as a kid, and might even have nostalgia for. But even on the GBC version, which is less than 2 hours, no one wants to watch nonstop grinding. It's just boring. So this would/should be rejected every time.

There is no single significant factor in choosing a marathon game. I agree that there are rules and regulations that need to be added as the marathons grow, and that is already happening (more guidelines, we have a waiver, etc.). For game selection, I don't think that a single set of guidelines is the answer. I fully agree that the process in which one is chosen should be made public, though and that would clear up a lot of confusion. A change that I'm planning to make for the next SGDQ is that I will be discussing the game selection with more people than Uyama has in the past and deliberately make sure they are from different speedrunning backgrounds/communities so that everyone's biases are kept in check. I might even have someone else help choose these people for me, I'm not 100% sure yet. But when it comes time to start focusing on the next SGDQ, I will elaborate on this and make sure the public knows how the games are chosen. A lot of your concerns really do seem to come back to that, and understandably so. Hopefully some concerns are alleviated by the process becoming more public in the future.

UraniumAnchor

2013-07-07 05:02:03 pm

Not a walrus

Quote from mikwuyma:

UraniumAnchor (who probably won't play it again in a marathon, no offense UA)

Considering I played it as filler since nobody else stepped up, I'm not particularly offended, or do I expect it to come up again in the future. Tongue

Poxnor

2013-07-07 05:12:48 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from romscout:

Let's say for your marathon that I offered Dragon Quest 1. I think I get decent viewership for my streams, so perhaps popularity would be a factor here. It's a game that a good handful of a JRPG stream viewers might've had as a kid, and might even have nostalgia for. But even on the GBC version, which is less than 2 hours, no one wants to watch nonstop grinding. It's just boring. So this would/should be rejected every time.

But here's the problem, hit squarely on the head. You're one person saying that a game should never be accepted under any circumstances (we now know any DQ1 runners applying to SGDQ will be instantly rejected). Even from a popular runner, at an RPG marathon, for a sub-two hour game. This is the problem. One person saying, "No, because I don't enjoy watching it."

Now, I have to admit hypocrisy here. I said, "Absolutely not" to FF3 DS. But, I also had lots of other FF runners agree with me in public. If there were a consensus among RPG/DQ runners that DQ1 is a bad watch, then that's one thing. But for one person to say, "No, you aren't allow to contribute, because I personally don't like watching your game," is the problem here. One person deciding what is/isn't a good watch. For all I know, there's a lot of strategy involved in trying to manipulate various encounters throughout the game that could make for some really cool commentary or donation incentives (I don't know, since I have neither played nor ran the game Wink

).

(And yeah, I replied to just one point you made, because that's the only one I had anything to say about Smiley

)

[quote="romscout"]Let's say for your marathon that I offered Dragon Quest 1. I think I get decent viewership for my streams, so perhaps popularity would be a factor here. It's a game that a good handful of a JRPG stream viewers might've had as a kid, and might even have nostalgia for. But even on the GBC version, which is less than 2 hours, no one wants to watch nonstop grinding. It's just boring. So this would/should be rejected every time.[/quote]
But here's the problem, hit squarely on the head.  You're one person saying that a game should never be accepted under any circumstances (we now know any DQ1 runners applying to SGDQ will be instantly rejected).  Even from a popular runner, at an RPG marathon, for a sub-two hour game.  [i]This is the problem[/i].  One person saying, "No, because I don't enjoy watching it."

Now, I have to admit hypocrisy here.  I said, "Absolutely not" to FF3 DS.  But, I also had lots of other FF runners agree with me in public.  If there were a consensus among RPG/DQ runners that DQ1 is a bad watch, then that's one thing.  But for one person to say, "No, you aren't allow to contribute, because I personally don't like watching your game," is the problem here.  One person deciding what is/isn't a good watch.  For all I know, there's a lot of strategy involved in trying to manipulate various encounters throughout the game that could make for some really cool commentary or donation incentives (I don't know, since I have neither played nor ran the game ;) ).

(And yeah, I replied to just one point you made, because that's the only one I had anything to say about :) )

romscout

Edit history:

romscout: 2013-07-07 05:47:22 pm

romscout: 2013-07-07 05:29:36 pm

romscout: 2013-07-07 05:24:15 pm

2013-07-07 05:23:45 pm

that Metroidvania guy

Ok, well let's just say someone offered DQ1 for SGDQ. Maybe the runner could make it entertaining, maybe they have a style of commentary that just clicks and I didn't know. There will be something like 6-8 other people to talk to and maybe I would have to reverse my decision. There were games for this marathon initially rejected by Uyama that got reversed because everyone else was like "no, idiot". So I suppose it was a bad example, because in either case it wouldnt just be one person making the decision. This is why we have groups, to put our biases aside a bit. I was more trying to just say that you can't just let a game in because it's lesser known and a runner "deserves to be seen" or something like that. There's a lot more factors to consider, regardless of the method for choosing a game.

...also don't be surprised if a DQ game is offered for C4L2 :p (suppose I should clarify so I don't just get a "duh"... I meant from me)

mikwuyma

2013-07-07 05:25:13 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I have taken in community input before (see pilotwings 64), but you also have to be careful in such instances.

Now here's where you have to be careful. In your specific example, asking RPG runners for a conensus would be a good idea because they have a more well-rounded outlook on RPGs in general. However, asking DQ runners might not be a great idea because they're probably biased, maybe not even consciously so. They play the games on a regular basis, and they know all of the strategy that goes into the run, so they'll probably be more biased to say yes it is entertaining.

I think community input is a good idea (and I have done this from time to time), but at the same time, you have to consider who you are talking to, and make decisions based not solely on the input, but who is making the input too.

Another problem is that for lesser-known games, the community is usually one or two people so you can't really get a good consensus there.

Also, since we don't beat around the bush. There are just some games that are not good marathon watches, no matter what. It just can't be helped.

I have taken in community input before (see pilotwings 64), but you also have to be careful in such instances.

Now here's where you have to be careful. In your specific example, asking RPG runners for a conensus would be a good idea because they have a more well-rounded outlook on RPGs in general. However, asking DQ runners might not be a great idea because they're probably biased, maybe not even consciously so. They play the games on a regular basis, and they know all of the strategy that goes into the run, so they'll probably be more biased to say yes it is entertaining.

I think community input is a good idea (and I have done this from time to time), but at the same time, you have to consider who you are talking to, and make decisions based not solely on the input, but who is making the input too.

Another problem is that for lesser-known games, the community is usually one or two people so you can't really get a good consensus there.

Also, since we don't beat around the bush. There are just some games that are not good marathon watches, no matter what. It just can't be helped.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 05:50:32 pm

2013-07-07 05:49:40 pm

Weegee Time

Quote from mikwuyma:

Another problem is that for lesser-known games, the community is usually one or two people so you can't really get a good consensus there.

Maybe in that case, the runner proposing the game could do a private viewing of sorts with a few people. They could show off the game and what kind of commentary they would present at the marathon. That would at least give them a chance to make a case for their selection.

Of course, it doesn't eliminate people tuning out when a game they're not familiar with comes up in the schedule.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 06:02:06 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from mikwuyma:

Also, since we don't beat around the bush. There are just some games that are not good marathon watches, no matter what. It just can't be helped.

Absolutely, of course there are. My issue wasn't with the conclusion; rather, it was with the process.

Quote from Rakuen:

Maybe in that case, the runner proposing the game could do a private viewing of sorts with a few people. They could show off the game and what kind of commentary they would present at the marathon.

That is the single most brilliant thing I've seen proposed. Say something like, "If you wish, when proposing a game, feel free to put together a clip of no longer than 2 minutes, consisting of no more than 3 sections of play (to allow people to see some contiguous play and commentary)." That would really allow people to make their case. Rakuen, I owe you a beer; that's an awesome idea.

Darkwing Duck

2013-07-07 06:06:55 pm

Highly Evolved

The example I have seen is telling a runner that there isn't room on the schedule for your one under an hour game while another person has six and mulitple people have three or more.

At the beginning of this previous game suggestion list for SGDQ, I know a lot of people wanting to play games were denied any opportunity while Josh and Cyghfer, at the time, had I believe 11 games for several hours. Becomes hard for people not to believe it's a popularity contest at that point, and remember, the reason given was that there was no room on the schedule. There was no comment about the game suggested.

Quote:

Both events are about runners giving back to the community. It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon. Also, mind you that a lot of people come just to hang out with their friends they normally don't have a chance to hang out with.

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park? And I applaud you, Mike, for actually doing this for this marathon. It would have been extremely disingenuous for you to say that yet never do it. I think anybody who uses that excuse should try it and see what he/she thinks before commentating on it. And even then, what sounds more appealing, working particulars and not playing a game for a game playing marathon, or working particulars and playing a game for a game playing marathon. In any case, you're downgrading the former. And other attendees at the marathon there for different reasons are irrelevant to the argument. Bringing up that other people attend the marathons to hang out, not play a game suggests that you wish those people wanting to play a game but are not allowed to should be like those not caring to play a game. Otherwise, why bring it up? This is the only quote that actually gets me truly upset, as the other things are, generally speaking, discussion points. Mitigated, since it's actually being done by an organizer this year, but it's still a raw point that it's seemingly okay to relegate someone who wants to participate in the point of the marathon to tech support.

"I think a restriction system like that would make people withhold games from AGDQ only to propose them at SGDQ. If anything, lesser-known games might get crowded out at SGDQ because people are withholding games from AGDQ so they can have more than one game at SGDQ."

Why do you think that? I can't think of a scenario where this is accurate. The whole idea is to get people who can't go to AGDQ an advantage over those that do, because isn't that kind of the point of SGDQ anyway? And if that's really the case, tighten the restriction to 1 game or 30 minutes, whichever is greater. There's no incentive to withhold games at that point.

And we're not talking about obviously bad marathon watches. I obviously feel that line is much more inclusive than you guys do. And even then, there's a focus where the difference in the two marathons would lie. AGDQ is about the "donatable" if you will, and SGDQ is about the watchability. Have to be in those two categories for inclusion for its particular marathon.

I guess my desire of priorities is different in the long run. I would prioritize getting a runner his first game that isn't a great watch over a runner getting his fifteenth game a good watch (this is SGDQ).

The example I have seen is telling a runner that there isn't room on the schedule for your one under an hour game while another person has six and mulitple people have three or more.

At the beginning of this previous game suggestion list for SGDQ, I know a lot of people wanting to play games were denied any opportunity while Josh and Cyghfer, at the time, had I believe 11 games for several hours.  Becomes hard for people not to believe it's a popularity contest at that point, and remember, the reason given was that there was no room on the schedule.  There was no comment about the game suggested.

[quote]Both events are about runners giving back to the community. It's not like the only way to give back to the community is to play a game for the marathon. Tasks such as donation reading, commentary, manning the tech station, are just as big of a contribution, if not bigger than playing a game at the marathon. Also, mind you that a lot of people come just to hang out with their friends they normally don't have a chance to hang out with.[/quote]

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?  And I applaud you, Mike, for actually doing this for this marathon.  It would have been extremely disingenuous for you to say that yet never do it.  I think anybody who uses that excuse should try it and see what he/she thinks before commentating on it.  And even then, what sounds more appealing, working particulars and not playing a game for a game playing marathon, or working particulars and playing a game for a game playing marathon.  In any case, you're downgrading the former.  And other attendees at the marathon there for different reasons are irrelevant to the argument.  Bringing up that other people attend the marathons to hang out, not play a game suggests that you wish those people wanting to play a game but are not allowed to should be like those not caring to play a game.  Otherwise, why bring it up?  This is the only quote that actually gets me truly upset, as the other things are, generally speaking, discussion points.  Mitigated, since it's actually being done by an organizer this year, but it's still a raw point that it's seemingly okay to relegate someone who wants to participate in the point of the marathon to tech support.

"I think a restriction system like that would make people withhold games from AGDQ only to propose them at SGDQ. If anything, lesser-known games might get crowded out at SGDQ because people are withholding games from AGDQ so they can have more than one game at SGDQ."

Why do you think that?  I can't think of a scenario where this is accurate.  The whole idea is to get people who can't go to AGDQ an advantage over those that do, because isn't that kind of the point of SGDQ anyway?  And if that's really the case, tighten the restriction to 1 game or 30 minutes, whichever is greater.  There's no incentive to withhold games at that point.

And we're not talking about obviously bad marathon watches.  I obviously feel that line is much more inclusive than you guys do.  And even then, there's a focus where the difference in the two marathons would lie.  AGDQ is about the "donatable" if you will, and SGDQ is about the watchability.  Have to be in those two categories for inclusion for its particular marathon.

I guess my desire of priorities is different in the long run.  I would prioritize getting a runner his first game that isn't a great watch over a runner getting his fifteenth game a good watch (this is SGDQ).

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2013-07-07 06:38:35 pm

2013-07-07 06:37:36 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

A. I started going to the marathons with zero (read: 0) speedruns under my belt. I was accepted as part of the community anyway, and I loved it.
B. It's "downright insulting" talking as if playing games at the marathon is the only worthwhile goal for anyone going to the marathon. You're going there to help raise money for a CHARITY. Not for your own goddamn ego-fest.
C. When you equate non-runners to "wiping sweat off the hardwood", you're creating a disgusting class system where some people (runners) are more important to the event than others (tech/support/literally anyone else).

All I hear when I read your post is: "I want to go to the marathon to show off", not "I want to go to the marathon to help raise money for charity". If that's really what you're thinking, you need to take about 500 steps back, and re-think your motivations. And if you can't do that, at least keep your insults (intentional or not) to yourself. If everyone at the event acted like you talked in this post, the entire event would be soured to me.

SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?

Edit: Note my usage of "you" isn't necessarily you DW, but anyone you're referring to.

[quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park? 
[/quote]

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

A. I started going to the marathons with zero (read: 0) speedruns under my belt. I was accepted as part of the community anyway, and I loved it.
B. It's "downright insulting" talking as if playing games at the marathon is the only worthwhile goal for anyone going to the marathon.  You're going there to help raise money for a CHARITY. Not for your own goddamn ego-fest. 
C. When you equate non-runners to "wiping sweat off the hardwood", you're creating a disgusting class system where some people (runners) are more important to the event than others (tech/support/literally anyone else).

All I hear when I read your post is: "I want to go to the marathon to show off", not "I want to go to the marathon to help raise money for charity". If that's really what you're thinking, you need to take about 500 steps back, and re-think your motivations. And if you can't do that, at least keep your insults (intentional or not) to yourself. If everyone at the event acted like you talked in this post, the entire event would be soured to me.

SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?

Edit: Note my usage of "you" isn't necessarily you DW, but anyone you're referring to.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 07:03:09 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Cool Matty:

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

Just to add a dissenting voice: I felt that part of DW's post was spot-on, even if harshly worded.

If there really were two runners with eleven combined games, but other runners were being told that there was "no room" on the schedule to add their short games (but they could come to run logistics if they wanted): that's a serious issue, no matter how harshly DW's metaphore was worded.

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 07:16:48 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Poxnor:

Just to add a dissenting voice: I felt that part of DW's post was spot-on, even if harshly worded.

I just want to emphasize that this doesn't excuse his post. That was more than harshly worded, it was insulting.

Quote:

If there really were two runners with eleven combined games, but other runners were being told that there was "no room" on the schedule to add their short games (but they could come to run logistics if they wanted): that's a serious issue, no matter how harshly DW's metaphore was worded.

I don't see that happening at this marathon, looking at the schedule. Some runners do have a couple more than others, but there MUST be a line drawn somewhere for quality vs. distribution of time. Besides, if you are so pressing on this point, you end up with "we can't afford a 3 hour run in our marathon ever because that means 3 other runners won't get their new spots".

If this happened at a previous marathon, does it matter? It's not happening now. We've been evolving and learning all this time.

[quote="Poxnor"]
Just to add a dissenting voice: I felt that part of DW's post was spot-on, even if harshly worded.
[/quote]

I just want to emphasize that [b]this doesn't excuse his post[/b]. That was more than harshly worded, it was insulting.

[quote]
If there really were two runners with eleven combined games, but other runners were being told that there was "no room" on the schedule to add their short games (but they could come to run logistics if they wanted): that's a serious issue, no matter how harshly DW's metaphore was worded.[/quote]

I don't see that happening at this marathon, looking at the schedule. Some runners do have a couple more than others, but there MUST be a line drawn somewhere for quality vs. distribution of time. Besides, if you are so pressing on this point, you end up with "we can't afford a 3 hour run in our marathon ever because that means 3 other runners won't get their new spots".

If this happened at a previous marathon, does it matter? It's not happening now. We've been evolving and learning all this time.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 07:22:03 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Cool Matty:

SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?

Bleh, I was about to start streaming, but something about this paragraph just made me come back to the thread. I think this question bears asking:

What is the goal of the marathons? Is there just one goal?

Mike himself said that if the only goal of the marathons were to raise money, the marathons would basically be Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy games (conversation at SGDQ 2012, if I recall correctly). So clearly that's not the only goal. There's a community here -- heck, without the community, these marathons wouldn't exist.

So, to what extent is the goal to involve as many members of the community as possible (which, I might add, will draw in more unique viewers to the marathons)?

And, on the topic of "showing off": I find it very difficult to justify using my limited vacation time to fly across the continent and do tech support, as opposed to sitting on some tropical beach drinking rum and staring at my wife in a bikini. I'm much happier to spend the time and money if I get to play, even just a short ten-minute game (and then of course, help out with tech, cleaning, etc. while I'm there the rest of the time -- a point DW was trying to make, even if it came out a little rough around the edges).

[quote="Cool Matty"]SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?[/quote]
Bleh, I was about to start streaming, but something about this paragraph just made me come back to the thread.  I think this question bears asking:

What [i][b]is[/b][/i] the goal of the marathons?  Is there just one goal?

Mike himself said that if the [i]only[/i] goal of the marathons were to raise money, the marathons would basically be Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy games (conversation at SGDQ 2012, if I recall correctly).  So clearly that's not the only goal.  There's a community here -- heck, without the community, these marathons [i]wouldn't exist[/i].

So, to what extent is the goal to involve as many members of the community as possible (which, I might add, will draw in more unique viewers to the marathons)?

And, on the topic of "showing off": I find it very difficult to justify using my limited vacation time to fly across the continent and do tech support, as opposed to sitting on some tropical beach drinking rum and staring at my wife in a bikini.  I'm much happier to spend the time and money if I get to play, even just a short ten-minute game (and then of course, help out with tech, cleaning, etc. while I'm there the rest of the time -- a point DW was trying to make, even if it came out a little rough around the edges).

Poxnor

2013-07-07 07:24:27 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Cool Matty:

I just want to emphasize that this doesn't excuse his post. That was more than harshly worded, it was insulting.

Then, as a friend of DW's, please accept a combined apology on our behalf. I know him -- great guy -- and I know his intent wasn't to insult. It was to make a point that he felt passionate about. (Now I am putting words in his mouth, but screw it.) Nothing good happens when we're insulting or feeling insulted. Cheers, Cool Matty? Smiley

Darkwing Duck

Edit history:

Darkwing Duck: 2013-07-07 07:55:39 pm

2013-07-07 07:51:08 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?

Quote from Cool Matty:

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

Well good. Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process. You'll understand me better.

Quote from Cool Matty:

A. I started going to the marathons with zero (read: 0) speedruns under my belt. I was accepted as part of the community anyway, and I loved it.
B. It's "downright insulting" talking as if playing games at the marathon is the only worthwhile goal for anyone going to the marathon. You're going there to help raise money for a CHARITY. Not for your own goddamn ego-fest.
C. When you equate non-runners to "wiping sweat off the hardwood", you're creating a disgusting class system where some people (runners) are more important to the event than others (tech/support/literally anyone else).

A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion. You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns. Did you ask to run a game? As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific). I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.

B. I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should. I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.

C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ. Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing. (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.) Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners. Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees. But you can still have it.

Quote from Cool Matty:

All I hear when I read your post is: "I want to go to the marathon to show off", not "I want to go to the marathon to help raise money for charity". If that's really what you're thinking, you need to take about 500 steps back, and re-think your motivations. And if you can't do that, at least keep your insults (intentional or not) to yourself. If everyone at the event acted like you talked in this post, the entire event would be soured to me.

SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?

Edit: Note my usage of "you" isn't necessarily you DW, but anyone you're referring to.

Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living? I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.

If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?

If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.

Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon? No help in tech. No help with stream problems. Hell, let's change that. Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker. Is that still ok for you? Has that happened? If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.

And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play. I've been lucky in that regard. However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this. What I can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there. This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons. Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.

EDIT: And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon. I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park? 
[/quote]

[quote="Cool Matty"]Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.[/quote][/quote]

Well good.  Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process.  You'll understand me better.

[quote="Cool Matty"]A. I started going to the marathons with zero (read: 0) speedruns under my belt. I was accepted as part of the community anyway, and I loved it.
B. It's "downright insulting" talking as if playing games at the marathon is the only worthwhile goal for anyone going to the marathon.  You're going there to help raise money for a CHARITY. Not for your own goddamn ego-fest. 
C. When you equate non-runners to "wiping sweat off the hardwood", you're creating a disgusting class system where some people (runners) are more important to the event than others (tech/support/literally anyone else). [/quote]

A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion.  You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns.  Did you ask to run a game?  As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific).  I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.

B.  I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should.  I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.

C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ.  Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing.  (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.)  Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners.  Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees.  But you can still have it.

[quote="Cool Matty"]All I hear when I read your post is: "I want to go to the marathon to show off", not "I want to go to the marathon to help raise money for charity". If that's really what you're thinking, you need to take about 500 steps back, and re-think your motivations. And if you can't do that, at least keep your insults (intentional or not) to yourself. If everyone at the event acted like you talked in this post, the entire event would be soured to me.

SGDQ is, and I doubt this will ever change: primarily about the money for charity. The same with AGDQ. Just because one is more relaxed and care-free, does not change the end goal. If you want to have a marathon where the main goal is showing off less desirable runs or runners, there will be NO ONE stopping you. But let's not fuzz the goal, okay?

Edit: Note my usage of "you" isn't necessarily you DW, but anyone you're referring to.[/quote]

Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living?  I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.

If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?

If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.

Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon?  No help in tech.  No help with stream problems.  Hell, let's change that.  Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker.  Is that still ok for you?  Has that happened?  If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.

And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play.  I've been lucky in that regard.  However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this.  What [i]I[/i] can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there.  This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons.  Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.

EDIT:  And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon.  I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.

Flip

2013-07-07 08:06:00 pm

1-Up!

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?

Quote from Cool Matty:

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

Well good. Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process. You'll understand me better.

I'm shocked that this is your response to somebody telling you that you've offended them. Cool Matty is not responsible for the policies that you're complaining about. Way to miss the opportunity for a civil apology and instead opt for a petty line.

I offered 2 games for SGDQ. Both would have brought something valuable to the table IMO. One got rejected and the other cut later. I'm still coming and I'm OK. Smiley

Also unlike some of you, I haven't had the luxury of attending multiple marathons. This is only the 2nd that has been possible for me to attend AND I played a game at AGDQ2011. So yes, I'm a speed runner who wants to contribute and I'll be on the sidelines this time. Not the end of the world.

[quote="Darkwing Duck"][quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park? 
[/quote]

[quote="Cool Matty"]Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.[/quote][/quote]

Well good.  Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process.  You'll understand me better.
[/quote]
I'm shocked that this is your response to somebody telling you that you've offended them. Cool Matty is not responsible for the policies that you're complaining about. Way to miss the opportunity for a civil apology and instead opt for a petty line.

I offered 2 games for SGDQ. Both would have brought something valuable to the table IMO. One got rejected and the other cut later. I'm still coming and I'm OK. :) Also unlike some of you, I haven't had the luxury of attending multiple marathons. This is only the 2nd that has been possible for me to attend AND I played a game at AGDQ2011. So yes, I'm a speed runner who wants to contribute and I'll be on the sidelines this time. Not the end of the world.

Darkwing Duck

Edit history:

Darkwing Duck: 2013-07-07 08:26:05 pm

2013-07-07 08:25:23 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from Flip:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important. It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations. If I can't play in the game, why go to the park?

Quote from Cool Matty:

Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.

Well good. Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process. You'll understand me better.

I'm shocked that this is your response to somebody telling you that you've offended them. Cool Matty is not responsible for the policies that you're complaining about. Way to miss the opportunity for a civil apology and instead opt for a petty line.

I offered 2 games for SGDQ. Both would have brought something valuable to the table IMO. One got rejected and the other cut later. I'm still coming and I'm OK. Smiley

Also unlike some of you, I haven't had the luxury of attending multiple marathons. This is only the 2nd that has been possible for me to attend AND I played a game at AGDQ2011. So yes, I'm a speed runner who wants to contribute and I'll be on the sidelines this time. Not the end of the world.

Petty? It's the truth. My hope is that he can see part of my perspective since he is now experiencing similar offense. He actually qualified his responses so that I could respond to him. We can actually come a better understanding now and have discourse rather than be told that we should feel good just to be at the marathon and typing in numbers or doing housework for charity because others feel way. I'm not speaking for personal experience since I haven't experienced the situation, but many have, and feel that way, and hand waving it with anecdotal experience doesn't help.

Edit:

And apologies in advance if you feel insulted by this post.

[quote="Flip"][quote="Darkwing Duck"][quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Saying that is telling someone you can't play basketball with us, but you can operate the scoreboard or pump up the balls, or wipe the sweat off the hardwood because that's important.  It's downright insulting to suggest that a charity event where the entire premise is to play games fast for charity and yet you can't do that because that other person needs his sixth game, or that person needs his second two hour game is okay because you can read donations.  If I can't play in the game, why go to the park? 
[/quote]

[quote="Cool Matty"]Frankly, this part of your post personally offended me.[/quote][/quote]

Well good.  Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process.  You'll understand me better.
[/quote]
I'm shocked that this is your response to somebody telling you that you've offended them. Cool Matty is not responsible for the policies that you're complaining about. Way to miss the opportunity for a civil apology and instead opt for a petty line.

I offered 2 games for SGDQ. Both would have brought something valuable to the table IMO. One got rejected and the other cut later. I'm still coming and I'm OK. :) Also unlike some of you, I haven't had the luxury of attending multiple marathons. This is only the 2nd that has been possible for me to attend AND I played a game at AGDQ2011. So yes, I'm a speed runner who wants to contribute and I'll be on the sidelines this time. Not the end of the world.[/quote]
Petty?  It's the truth.  My hope is that he can see part of my perspective since he is now experiencing similar offense.  He actually qualified his responses so that I could respond to him.  We can actually come a better understanding now and have discourse rather than be told that we should feel good just to be at the marathon and typing in numbers or doing housework for charity because others feel way.  I'm not speaking for personal experience since I haven't experienced the situation, but many have, and feel that way, and hand waving it with anecdotal experience doesn't help.

Edit:

And apologies in advance if you feel insulted by this post.

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 08:29:32 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Well good. Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process. You'll understand me better.

Is this some stupid "ends justify the means" crap? Knock it off.

Quote:

A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion. You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns. Did you ask to run a game? As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific). I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.

Yes, there is a difference. The difference is that one is going there for the right reasons, and one is going there for the wrong reasons.

Quote:

B. I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should. I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same!

Quote:

C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ. Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing. (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.) Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners. Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees. But you can still have it.

There's no "to be fair" about it. Whether there would be a marathon or not is irrelevant. Everyone is equally valued at a marathon. This is the most important factor of this argument. If you forget/ignore everything else discussed, this needs to be understood. What you are saying, whether you intend to or not, is runners are more valuable.

Here's what I think, to be clear. I think that just because we need runners at the marathon to host one doesn't make them more valuable than anyone else. I even include people who are there for little more than motivational support. You're trying to make a distinction here that does NOT need to be made.

Do you know why we're all equal? It's because we're all there for the same reason. We're all there to help an event earn donations for a charity that we believe in. Because we're there trying to better the world through our interests, regardless of whether we're all good at it or not.

Quote:

Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living? I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.

For the first marathon? No, not really. I assisted UA a bit and did some of the donation station work, but I never did anything close to that for a living (unless clicking a mouse suddenly counts). It wasn't until AGDQ2013 that I even took an active role at the marathon.

Most of my work happens outside of the actual marathons. This past year I was in charge of doing audio work, but I don't do audio work as a profession or even close. I had to do a lot of reading and experimenting to learn how to effectively do that job. I don't even consider it fun, really. But it's a job that's important and I was in a position to help.

Quote:

If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?

I would hope anyone would say yes to this. It doesn't have to be fun work to be "good" work. The two are not related. I take pleasure in helping, full stop.

Quote:

If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.

I find it amusing that this question reveals you made an assumption about what my first answer would be, and you were wrong Wink

Quote:

Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon? No help in tech. No help with stream problems. Hell, let's change that. Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker. Is that still ok for you? Has that happened? If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.

Considering that's basically what I did at AGDQ2012 and I came home very happy, yes I'm okay?

Quote:

And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play. I've been lucky in that regard. However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this. What I can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there. This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons. Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.

I'm fully aware what the target of your analogy was. But that's a thin veil behind what I see as a hell of a lot of ugly bias.

Quote:

EDIT: And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon. I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.

Here's a good question:

Why?

Why does SGDQ have to be such a big dramatic change from AGDQ? Call me crazy, but it's almost like there's this hidden AGDQ vs. SGDQ thing going on that makes no sense to me. It's like the real problem is you all are concerned AGDQ is "the man" and SGDQ is going to turn into "the man" and DUDE, DOWN WITH THE MAN. SGDQ is going to be a more open and fun atmosphere because that's just how it is from the people who attend and run it. But it's a charity marathon! It's a charity marathon. If you're there to just hang out and have fun, and whoops we made a few bucks for a charity too, that's not the same thing. It loses its value. SGDQ is already getting way too big to be just another CGDQ in a basement having fun and playing games.

There is a middle ground, and there will always be attempts to spread the love for runs. I can't imagine ANYONE on staff doing anything otherwise. But there's also never going to be agreement on where that middle ground is. Someone is always going to feel burned. If folks can't step back and realize that "hey, this sucks, but it's still an event I care about", then that's really sad.

[quote="Darkwing Duck"]

Well good.  Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process.  You'll understand me better.[/quote]

Is this some stupid "ends justify the means" crap? Knock it off.

[quote]
A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion.  You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns.  Did you ask to run a game?  As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific).  I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.[/quote]

Yes, there is a difference. The difference is that one is going there for the right reasons, and one is going there for the wrong reasons.

[quote]
B.  I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should.  I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.[/quote]

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same!

[quote]
C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ.  Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing.  (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.)  Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners.  Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees.  But you can still have it.[/quote]

There's no "to be fair" about it. Whether there would be a marathon or not is irrelevant. Everyone is equally valued at a marathon. [b]This is the most important factor of this argument[/b]. If you forget/ignore everything else discussed, this needs to be understood. What you are saying, whether you intend to or not, is runners are more valuable.

Here's what I think, to be clear. I think that just because we need runners at the marathon to host one doesn't make them more valuable than anyone else. I even include people who are there for little more than motivational support. You're trying to make a distinction here that does NOT need to be made.

Do you know why we're all equal? It's because we're all there for the same reason. We're all there to help an event earn donations for a charity that we believe in. Because we're there trying to better the world through our interests, regardless of whether we're all good at it or not.

[quote]
Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living?  I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.[/quote]

For the first marathon? No, not really. I assisted UA a bit and did some of the donation station work, but I never did anything close to that for a living (unless clicking a mouse suddenly counts). It wasn't until AGDQ2013 that I even took an active role at the marathon.

Most of my work happens outside of the actual marathons. This past year I was in charge of doing audio work, but I don't do audio work as a profession or even close. I had to do a lot of reading and experimenting to learn how to effectively do that job. I don't even consider it fun, really. But it's a job that's important and I was in a position to help.

[quote]
If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?
[/quote]

I would hope anyone would say yes to this. It doesn't have to be fun work to be "good" work. The two are not related. I take pleasure in helping, full stop.

[quote]
If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.
[/quote]

I find it amusing that this question reveals you made an assumption about what my first answer would be, and you were wrong ;)

[quote]
Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon?  No help in tech.  No help with stream problems.  Hell, let's change that.  Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker.  Is that still ok for you?  Has that happened?  If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.  [/quote]

Considering that's basically what I did at AGDQ2012 and I came home very happy, yes I'm okay?

[quote]
And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play.  I've been lucky in that regard.  However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this.  What [i]I[/i] can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there.  This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons.  Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.[/quote]

I'm fully aware what the target of your analogy was. But that's a thin veil behind what I see as a hell of a lot of ugly bias.

[quote]
EDIT:  And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon.  I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.  [/quote]

Here's a good question:

Why?

Why does SGDQ have to be such a big dramatic change from AGDQ? Call me crazy, but it's almost like there's this hidden AGDQ vs. SGDQ thing going on that makes no sense to me. It's like the real problem is you all are concerned AGDQ is "the man" and SGDQ is going to turn into "the man" and DUDE, DOWN WITH THE MAN. SGDQ is going to be a more open and fun atmosphere because that's just how it is from the people who attend and run it. But it's a charity marathon! It's a [b]charity marathon[/b]. If you're there to just hang out and have fun, and whoops we made a few bucks for a charity too, that's not the same thing. It loses its value. SGDQ is already getting way too big to be just another CGDQ in a basement having fun and playing games.

There is a middle ground, and there will always be attempts to spread the love for runs. I can't imagine ANYONE on staff doing anything otherwise. But there's also never going to be agreement on where that middle ground is. Someone is always going to feel burned. If folks can't step back and realize that "hey, this sucks, but it's still an event I care about", then that's really sad.

Rakuen

2013-07-07 08:38:44 pm

Weegee Time

There is a difference between "I want to play a game at a marathon to show off" and "I want to play a game at a marathon to contribute." It's the latter case that is causing the problem because it's the way people want to contribute. You don't always get what you want, but I think the ultimate question here is: is there a way more people can get what they want?

I would also like to point out that there is probably no one in this thread who is qualified to say what another person should or shouldn't feel. It's infinitely more productive to explore why the feelings exist than to say "you're wrong." That goes for both sides.

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 08:45:04 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Rakuen:

There is a difference between "I want to play a game at a marathon to show off" and "I want to play a game at a marathon to contribute." It's the latter case that is causing the problem because it's the way people want to contribute.

Quote:

You don't always get what you want, but I think the ultimate question here is: is there a way more people can get what they want?

Not to be an ass, but I think this was established a long time ago, and the answer isn't yes or no. Because the answer is a matter of opinion (the organizers obviously believe it's "no", the others believe it's "yes"), and the battle is over a grey area that does not have a single great answer. Some people value the event as a charity more than having fun, while others are vice versa. It's not even a black and white, it's a range of values and God help anyone who thinks that's going to be conclusively answered.

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 08:56:21 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 08:54:06 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 08:53:34 pm

2013-07-07 08:53:24 pm

Weegee Time

Do we believe the answer is no because all possible avenues have been exhausted, or do we believe it's no because

Quote from Cool Matty:

God help anyone who thinks that's going to be conclusively answered

Also, there's really no need to link a Youtube video when I said in that very post that you can't always get what you want. It only comes off as taking a potshot at someone who's trying to find some sort of sane middle ground for discussion in this rapidly escalating debate. Smiley

Of course, I could have come off as taking potshots myself... :/

romscout

2013-07-07 08:59:53 pm

that Metroidvania guy

There seems to be a lot of anger being generated here, and that's really unfortunate. I'm only going to attempt to answer the most civil thing I've seen so far that is really at the core of all this anyway. Poxnor's question:

What is the goal of the marathons?

I would say that primarily it is about raising money for the charity. However, as you pointed out, that's obviously not all there is to it. The community is what drives these marathons, and we want new people being introduced to the community all the time. It happens with every marathon. There are a variety of ways that people who attend these things show that it is worthwhile to be in this community, and the number of people who make an impact or impression on newcomers increases every time.

So in addition to simply drawing people in to donate (which is one reason why there will always be popular games in a schedule), we want to do the best we can to make a positive impression on everyone and keep them around. Ultimately, the only reason we would want anyone to stop watching is because they just pass out from fatigue or they simply can't be there. As far as scheduling goes, this means that the people putting it together want to have the rest of the games that aren't the obvious Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, etc. showcase the community as best as they can as well as raise money when possible.

There are a variety of games that will draw interest to a different group of people, and there should definitely be attention drawn to almost every game suggested because it will appeal to someone. However, there is sometimes a concern about mitigating the loss of people who came in for other games because they get bored (which is why you'll never see a run that's like 15+ hours or something crazy like that), and other times it just doesn't fit well with the mesh.

There are going to be some players who have more than one game that is appealing to a lot of people; it's not a coincidence that funkdoc and cyghfer left a big impression on a lot of people. I wouldn't say they were already super popular when they did their runs. They became more popular because of their runs. AdamAK got like... what, 10 viewers sometimes before AGDQ? It wasn't just a fluke that the majority of the speedrunning community knows who he is now. Most people who tune into the marathon will still mostly have only heard of Sig and Cosmo. One of the goals of a marathon is to show that there's more. The whole community is amazing and people get to experience that when watching.

As marathons get bigger, and there's all these considerations to make, both in the best interest of the community and the charity, it's literally impossible to have 100% inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong Poxnor, but is your vision similar to this? I'm sure it is, but we might not always have the same opinion on how to make it happen properly. That's part of the growth process; in making the process of putting together a marathon more open/public, we can have more feedback so that the decisions being made for any given marathon are being done in the best interest of the community as a whole. I think taking that step alone will go a long way in quelling some of these concerns, and there will probably need to be further steps taken even once we get there.

I'm mostly speaking from my perspective on this, and not necessarily for everyone organizing a marathon as a whole, but this seems to be at the core of all this back-and-forth bickering and I hope it sheds a little bit of light on the subject.

There seems to be a lot of anger being generated here, and that's really unfortunate. I'm only going to attempt to answer the most civil thing I've seen so far that is really at the core of all this anyway. Poxnor's question:

What is the goal of the marathons?

I would say that primarily it is about raising money for the charity. However, as you pointed out, that's obviously not all there is to it. The community is what drives these marathons, and we want new people being introduced to the community all the time. It happens with every marathon. There are a variety of ways that people who attend these things show that it is worthwhile to be in this community, and the number of people who make an impact or impression on newcomers increases every time.

So in addition to simply drawing people in to donate (which is one reason why there will always be popular games in a schedule), we want to do the best we can to make a positive impression on everyone and keep them around. Ultimately, the only reason we would want anyone to stop watching is because they just pass out from fatigue or they simply can't be there. As far as scheduling goes, this means that the people putting it together want to have the rest of the games that aren't the obvious Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, etc. showcase the community as best as they can as well as raise money when possible.

There are a variety of games that will draw interest to a different group of people, and there should definitely be attention drawn to almost every game suggested because it will appeal to [i]someone[/i]. However, there is sometimes a concern about mitigating the loss of people who came in for other games because they get bored (which is why you'll never see a run that's like 15+ hours or something crazy like that), and other times it just doesn't fit well with the mesh.

There are going to be some players who have more than one game that is appealing to a lot of people; it's not a coincidence that funkdoc and cyghfer left a big impression on a lot of people. I wouldn't say they were already super popular when they did their runs. They became more popular because of their runs. AdamAK got like... what, 10 viewers sometimes before AGDQ? It wasn't just a fluke that the majority of the speedrunning community knows who he is now. Most people who tune into the marathon will still mostly have only heard of Sig and Cosmo. One of the goals of a marathon is to show that there's more. The whole community is amazing and people get to experience that when watching.

As marathons get bigger, and there's all these considerations to make, both in the best interest of the community and the charity, it's literally impossible to have 100% inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong Poxnor, but is your vision similar to this? I'm sure it is, but we might not always have the same opinion on how to make it happen properly. That's part of the growth process; in making the process of putting together a marathon more open/public, we can have more feedback so that the decisions being made for any given marathon are being done in the best interest of the community as a whole. I think taking that step alone will go a long way in quelling some of these concerns, and there will probably need to be further steps taken even once we get there.

I'm mostly speaking from my perspective on this, and not necessarily for everyone organizing a marathon as a whole, but this seems to be at the core of all this back-and-forth bickering and I hope it sheds a little bit of light on the subject.

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 09:09:55 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Rakuen:

Do we believe the answer is no because all possible avenues have been exhausted, or do we believe it's no because

It's because there's no way you can convince everyone to agree to something where some people won't get what they want.

Quote:

Also, there's really no need to link a Youtube video when I said in that very post that you can't always get what you want. It only comes off as taking a potshot at someone who's trying to find some sort of sane middle ground for discussion in this rapidly escalating debate. Smiley

It wasn't necessarily towards you, just in general. And it's funny. To me at least.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 09:09:58 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from romscout:

it's literally impossible to have 100% inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong Poxnor, but is your vision similar to this?

Absolutely, 100% inclusion is impossible as you grow (it was much easier to have near-100% inclusion in terms of gameplay at something the size of C4L 2013). But, I think that if one of the goals of the *GDQs is community inclusion, then there should be an attempt at large-scale inclusion, at least over the scale of multiple marathons (you weren't included at the previous marathon, but we'll try to find a spot for you at the next; you've been in the last two, so maybe it's someone else's turn). I think the real question embedded among all the heated exchange here is: to what extent is this a goal (and it's not an all or nothing goal -- it's a very real question Smiley

To what extent is this a goal?)

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 09:12:10 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Poxnor:

I think the real question embedded among all the heated exchange here is: to what extent is this a goal (and it's not an all or nothing goal -- it's a very real question Smiley

To what extent is this a goal?)

Is there any way to meaningfully quantify that? I really don't think there is. It's not like they can give a percentage or something.

romscout

2013-07-07 09:13:14 pm

that Metroidvania guy

I'm sorry, I suppose I should have switched the order of those sentences, cuz uh... that quote looks dumb out of context. The vision was more like, everything said before that. As for the extent of the goal (interest of the charity and interest of the community), that's something that's going to be handled as we continue. Every time a marathon happens, community concerns come up and are addressed. I think it'd be dumb to say that there have no been improvements made between every single marathon because it's pretty obvious that they have, and a chunk of that is driven by community feedback.