Speedrunner Roundtable July 10 at 9 PM EDT [locked]

2013-07-05 10:16:38 am

SEGA Junkie

Quote from Lenophis:

Sometimes the only way to move forward is a grilling session.

A "grilling session" implies something a little more adversarial than what I had in mind, but you're not far wrong. What's needed to move forward is to challenge the status quo. The first roundtable gave everyone the opportunity to do that, and the response was some of the most sweeping changes to SDA operations we've yet seen. Public verification was implemented, the knowledge base overhaul is well under way, and the submission process is being further automated, reducing the processing time of all runs. I won't say that those things would never have happened without that impetus, but they certainly would have taken longer, and have required a similar size mandate.

These are the sort of things the roundtable is designed to facilitate, not individual edge cases.

Lenophis

2013-07-05 10:21:18 am

My recently rejected run? No. You guys may not believe this, but I was ok with a rejection, because I wasn't really that happy with a lot of things about the run. I was unhappy about why it was rejected though. I mentioned to Flip that if you guys did throw it back in, that it could never have an objective verdict, something I was very uncomfortable with. I was close in telling him to outright pull the submission because of it.

I am a lot happier about the verification process now. There's still one or two things that I raise my eyebrow about, but it is significantly better than it used to be.

I guess "grilling session" is a poor choice of words, but it's along the lines of investigative reporting, except people normally don't get 4 days of notice ahead of time. This isn't about individual edge cases. It concerns everyone. I cannot say any more at this time, because I will not allow the guilty to mount any kind of defense.

As an aside, I wonder how many more people are going to gang up on me before Tuesday. :p

My recently rejected run? No. You guys may not believe this, but I was ok with a rejection, because I wasn't really that happy with a lot of things about the run. I was unhappy about why it was rejected though. I mentioned to Flip that if you guys did throw it back in, that it could never have an objective verdict, something I was very uncomfortable with. I was close in telling him to outright pull the submission because of it.

I am a lot happier about the verification process now. There's still one or two things that I raise my eyebrow about, but it is significantly better than it used to be.

I guess "grilling session" is a poor choice of words, but it's along the lines of investigative reporting, except people normally don't get 4 days of notice ahead of time. This isn't about individual edge cases. It concerns everyone. I cannot say any more at this time, because I will not allow the guilty to mount any kind of defense.

As an aside, I wonder how many more people are going to gang up on me before Tuesday. :p

Omnigamer

Edit history:

Omnigamer: 2013-07-05 10:32:43 am

2013-07-05 10:31:03 am

All the things

If you have something that you want to be examined, just state it. Stretching out some issue just so you can hear the shock impact it has is pretty childish. If you have evidence of things that are broken get it started here so it can be a legit topic in the discussion. If you wait until the time of the round table just to bring up something, you risk it getting passed over.

The whole round table is meant as a direction-finding tool. If what you're trying to say is just meant to lay blame on individuals, it is wasting the time of the round table as far as I'm concerned. If you have grievances against the volunteers for the site or the process itself, state it openly and get people thinking about it. "Mount a defense" be damned; if the charge is dire enough and the evidence is reasonable, people will look into it.

presjpolk

2013-07-05 11:13:46 am

HELLO!

I think SDA's leadership has earned a presumption of good faith

Naegleria

(user is banned)

2013-07-05 11:21:07 am

Speedruns are hosted here, anyone who makes a mistake and prevents or prolongs a run from being on the site must be grilled, tried, and of course executed. SDA is only getting bigger, and we need to make bigger rules.

Another note, several games in the planning forum have pages on the strategy wiki, and I think there should be some connection to them. Links in both that refer to the other. Also, execute the people who didn't think of this.

In general, I think the strategywiki is one the most underused sections of the site, plenty of potential. The last roundtable said the same thing. We need to advertise the shit out of it, and persuade people to compile and post their knowledge on runs. It's really annoying when you work on routing a game only to find out others have routed it already. The site's functions can be reduced to hosting speedruns and marathons, and planning speedruns and marathons. There is a lot of focus on the hosting stuff SDA does, and rightly so, since its all grand and everything; but very little focus seems to be given to the strategywiki. Increase focus where it needs increasing, and of course, we should assassinate those who are responsible for not focusing on advertising the strategywiki.

One aspect of the knowledgebase/strategywiki that can certainly be improved is presentation. Shit doesn't look hot, and we definitely want that shit to look hot. Kill the heathens.

Speedruns are hosted here, anyone who makes a mistake and prevents or prolongs a run from being on the site must be grilled, tried, and of course executed.  SDA is only getting bigger, and we need to make bigger rules.

Another note, several games in the planning forum have pages on the strategy wiki, and I think there should be some connection to them.  Links in both that refer to the other.  Also, execute the people who didn't think of this.

In general, I think the strategywiki is one the most underused sections of the site, plenty of potential.  The last roundtable said the same thing.  We need to advertise the shit out of it, and persuade people to compile and post their knowledge on runs.  It's really annoying when you work on routing a game only to find out others have routed it already.  The site's functions can be reduced to hosting speedruns and marathons, and planning speedruns and marathons.  There is a lot of focus on the hosting stuff SDA does, and rightly so, since its all grand and everything; but very little focus seems to be given to the strategywiki.  Increase focus where it needs increasing, and of course, we should assassinate those who are responsible for not focusing on advertising the strategywiki.

One aspect of the knowledgebase/strategywiki that can certainly be improved is presentation.  Shit doesn't look hot, and we definitely want that shit to look hot.  Kill the heathens.

presjpolk

2013-07-05 11:26:49 am

HELLO!

Well, here's the thing about the strategy Wiki. It's great, but for games that already have repositories of information out there, it's duplicative. If I'm already maintaining sites housing information about games, and have for a long time, then the appearance of the new KB push just doubles my workload, if I put everything on there, too.

I think expecting everyone else to just drop everything and move everything to the KB is unrealistic.

Lenophis

2013-07-05 12:17:54 pm

0-10

Quote from Omnigamer:

If you have something that you want to be examined, just state it.

There's no guarantee that bringing it up now, or on Tuesday for that matter, will bring about the change that is necessary. I say that, because there's nothing I, or anyone else can do, to hold people to their word. In this case, there's no balance.

Quote:

If you wait until the time of the round table just to bring up something, you risk it getting passed over.

I have considered that possibility.

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2013-07-05 12:28:57 pm

2013-07-05 12:27:10 pm

Not a walrus

Either bring it up now, or stop making posts about it and bring it up Wednesday. I don't care which just as long as you stop acting like it's some grand secret.

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 12:55:30 pm

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 12:53:46 pm

2013-07-05 12:31:47 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Lenophis:

I cannot say any more at this time, because I will not allow the guilty to mount any kind of defense.

Because that approach will ensure a productive, useful conversation. If you're going to accuse people of something, letting them defend themselves is only civil. It's practically the cornerstone of our entire society.

Quote from Lenophis:

As an aside, I wonder how many more people are going to gang up on me before Tuesday. :p

At the rate you're going, a lot. Say what the issue is already, so it can actually be discussed instead of thrown at someone like a weapon.

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 01:14:07 pm

2013-07-05 12:33:39 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from presjpolk:

I think SDA's leadership has earned a presumption of good faith, except that puwexil guy who apparently threw snow all over MetaSigma for no good reason at C4L 2013.

(Quote from presjpolk slightly altered for historical accuracy) Wink

Yes, I feel bad for my earlier post. Re-reading it with fresh eyes, it came off much harsher than I intended. All I meant to suggest was for the staff to try to watch for questions in the chat a little more closely this time. Often, they were directly relevant to the issue being discussed, and were quite important.

Cheers Smiley

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2013-07-05 01:03:38 pm

2013-07-05 01:03:20 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Poxnor:

Quote from presjpolk:

I think SDA's leadership has earned a presumption of good faith

Yes, I feel bad for my earlier post. Re-reading it with fresh eyes, it came off much harsher than I intended. All I meant to suggest was for the staff to try to watch for questions in the chat a little more closely this time. Often, they were directly relevant to the issue being discussed, and were quite important.

Cheers Smiley

I'll be running tech, which means I'll probably have plenty of downtime to monitor chat (we might even put the chat on stream? not sure, no promises) and help out. I'll make a good faith effort at least to make sure the crew sees stuff.

Lenophis

2013-07-05 01:16:54 pm

0-10

Quote from UraniumAnchor:

Either bring it up now, or stop making posts about it and bring it up Wednesday. I don't care which just as long as you stop acting like it's some grand secret.

It's irrelevant now. Either the date changed (unlikely?) or I read it wrong. I work Wednesday night, so I can't make it. I seriously thought it said July 9 at first. So go ahead and censor all my posts or whatever it is you want to do. :p

Sorry to drag everyone down like this. I should just go back to lurking.

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 01:29:25 pm

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 01:29:24 pm

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 01:28:41 pm

Poxnor: 2013-07-05 01:19:27 pm

2013-07-05 01:18:02 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Or just say what it is that's bothering you! Even if you're not there, we can discuss the issue -- but only if you tell us what it is!

Seriously, we're not all your enemy. But, we can only address things if you actually tell us what the problem is. I'm not guaranteeing that we will, but you not saying anything sure guarantees that we won't!

(Post edited to remove unnecessary and unproductive swearing -- sorry.)

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2013-07-05 01:20:53 pm

2013-07-05 01:20:42 pm

Not a walrus

Quote from Lenophis:

I should just go back to lurking.

What you should do is tell us what the problem that you want us to address is.

PJ

2013-07-05 01:27:48 pm

Is PJ

:|

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2013-07-05 01:48:10 pm

mikwuyma: 2013-07-05 01:34:34 pm

2013-07-05 01:34:09 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Well it turns out taking 4th of July off led to some very heated discussion.

I'll answer more stuff later but I'll answer the two big things that seem to be asked right now.

Questions that weren't answered during the roundtable:

1. That was the first roundtable, we were still figuring things out.

2. It's likely that whatever question that was "evaded", was more likely missed because we were busy answering other questions.

3. Since one of the big things was verification and submission, well we didn't really have a good solution then, but now with UA's database, we have a much better system that is only improving. If you want more details then we can get some ready for next week.

4. What puwexil said, If you ask the questions now, then we're more likely to answer them

Lenophis:

I don't know what's going on, or what you think we're going to do, but we're not going to try and silence you (don't you think we would have done that years ago if we actually wanted to!). If you really want us to answer your concerns and/or make a difference, then you have to ask in the first place. Your attitude isn't helping, and even if you can't watch during the roundtable, you can still watch the archive to see how your question was answered.

I'm not saying we're going to be perfect. We're still learning how to handle the roundtable, but at the same time, being secretive isn't going to help.

Well it turns out taking 4th of July off led to some very heated discussion.

I'll answer more stuff later but I'll answer the two big things that seem to be asked right now.

Questions that weren't answered during the roundtable:

1. That was the first roundtable, we were still figuring things out.

2. It's likely that whatever question that was "evaded", was more likely missed because we were busy answering other questions.

3. Since one of the big things was verification and submission, well we didn't really have a good solution then, but now with UA's database, we have a much better system that is only improving. If you want more details then we can get some ready for next week.

4. What puwexil said, If you ask the questions now, then we're more likely to answer them

Lenophis:

I don't know what's going on, or what you think we're going to do, but we're not going to try and silence you (don't you think we would have done that years ago if we actually wanted to!). If you really want us to answer your concerns and/or make a difference, then you have to ask in the first place. Your attitude isn't helping, and even if you can't watch during the roundtable, you can still watch the archive to see how your question was answered.

I'm not saying we're going to be perfect. We're still learning how to handle the roundtable, but at the same time, being secretive isn't going to help.

Cool Matty

2013-07-05 01:40:03 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Lenophis and I spent over an hour talking and I think I have a pretty good idea of what he wanted to address. He asked me write this post for him. I'll try to summarize.

First off, Lenophis has some issues with how previous decisions were made (on the marathons), but underlying all of that is some genuine concerns that should be answered.

A. What is the general philosophy of how games are cut at the marathon?
B. Extension of A, will there be more risks taken with games, and how do you determine which games to take risks on?
C. Is there an appropriate way to offer previously cut game for future marathons? What's the best way to suggest such games (proof of viewership/donations, something like that?? )?
D. Can Mike address the possibility of favoritism (games being chosen because of the runner/how much Mike likes the game) in the selection process? If there is concerns of favoritism, what's the best way to handle that? I'm avoiding accusations here.
E. General discussion topic: is there a better way to choose games than a dictatorship ( Tongue

)? Voting is probably a bad idea, but perhaps there's other options?

Lenophis and I spent over an hour talking and I think I have a pretty good idea of what he wanted to address. He asked me write this post for him. I'll try to summarize.

First off, Lenophis has some issues with how previous decisions were made (on the marathons), but underlying all of that is some genuine concerns that should be answered.

A. What is the general philosophy of how games are cut at the marathon? 
B. Extension of A, will there be more risks taken with games, and how do you determine which games to take risks on?
C. Is there an appropriate way to offer previously cut game for future marathons? What's the best way to suggest such games (proof of viewership/donations, something like that?? )?
D. Can Mike address the possibility of favoritism (games being chosen because of the runner/how much Mike likes the game) in the selection process? If there is concerns of favoritism, what's the best way to handle that? I'm avoiding accusations here.
E. General discussion topic: is there a better way to choose games than a dictatorship ( :P )? Voting is probably a bad idea, but perhaps there's other options?

mikwuyma

2013-07-05 02:00:12 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Well you see, those are good questions, and now that they're out there, they're good discussion material for both the forums and the roundtable discussion. Thank you Cool Matty and Lenophis.

A. I can probably expound on this when I have more than a couple of minutes to think about this, but basically there's issues such as how entertaining the game is, whether it's popular (this does not just mean sales), whether people in the community like the game, and if it's been in past marathons, how it has done in past marathons.

B. What do you mean by more risks? We thought Starcraft 2 was risky. Sure, it's a super popular game, but for the competitive aspect, not the single-player, and it's also very long. Also, there have been more obscure games like Gimmick! (outside of the speedrunning community this game is barely known) and RKS. That's not to mention AwfulGDQ, which is a marathon mainstay IMO.

There's also the issue if the game is longer, then the more risk-averse I am choosing it because if you have a 30 minute game that's not too hot, then that's not too bad, but if you have a 3 hour game that's a stinker, then it becomes a real slog.

What do you want me to take more risks in? Obscure games? Longer games? Risk is not very specific in this context.

C. Suggest it again? It's not like I try to shun people from the community because I rejected a game they proposed (if that were true I might have to shun myself). I'm not perfect when it comes to what I pick for marathons and games that I thought wouldn't do well that did. I didn't think MegaMari would get as many donations as it did during AGDQ 2013. I did re-add Pilotwings 64 after I cut it because there were a lot of concerns in the community.

D. If the marathon was really really all my tastes then it would be a bizarro mish-mash of arcade games like beat 'em ups and run'n guns, and the The Demon Rush.

That being said, if there were concerns of favoritism, talk to me about it? I think I do a pretty good job of having a variety of games in a marathon.

E: That's a tough one. Public vote means everything is turned into a community popularity contest, and less popular runners would be squished out every time. I honestly can't think of another system or a workaround. I know there's the system the srg marathons use (people just put games on a blank schedule and other people in the community hash it out), but that doesn't work at the -GDQ scale because there are too many people.

I'm not saying the system right now is perfect, but someone has to make the decisions.

Well you see, those are good questions, and now that they're out there, they're good discussion material for both the forums and the roundtable discussion. Thank you Cool Matty and Lenophis.

A. I can probably expound on this when I have more than a couple of minutes to think about this, but basically there's issues such as how entertaining the game is, whether it's popular (this does not just mean sales), whether people in the community like the game, and if it's been in past marathons, how it has done in past marathons.

B. What do you mean by more risks? We thought Starcraft 2 was risky. Sure, it's a super popular game, but for the competitive aspect, not the single-player, and it's also very long. Also, there have been more obscure games like Gimmick! (outside of the speedrunning community this game is barely known) and RKS. That's not to mention AwfulGDQ, which is a marathon mainstay IMO.

There's also the issue if the game is longer, then the more risk-averse I am choosing it because if you have a 30 minute game that's not too hot, then that's not too bad, but if you have a 3 hour game that's a stinker, then it becomes a real slog.

What do you want me to take more risks in? Obscure games? Longer games? Risk is not very specific in this context.

C. Suggest it again? It's not like I try to shun people from the community because I rejected a game they proposed (if that were true I might have to shun myself). I'm not perfect when it comes to what I pick for marathons and games that I thought wouldn't do well that did. I didn't think MegaMari would get as many donations as it did during AGDQ 2013. I did re-add Pilotwings 64 after I cut it because there were a lot of concerns in the community.

D. If the marathon was really really all my tastes then it would be a bizarro mish-mash of arcade games like beat 'em ups and run'n guns, and the The Demon Rush.

That being said, if there were concerns of favoritism, talk to me about it? I think I do a pretty good job of having a variety of games in a marathon.

E: That's a tough one. Public vote means everything is turned into a community popularity contest, and less popular runners would be squished out every time. I honestly can't think of another system or a workaround. I know there's the system the srg marathons use (people just put games on a blank schedule and other people in the community hash it out), but that doesn't work at the -GDQ scale because there are too many people.

I'm not saying the system right now is perfect, but someone has to make the decisions.

presjpolk

2013-07-05 02:16:06 pm

HELLO!

That goes to a question I've actually had, and I may as well float it here.

For marathons, I wanted to ask what the thoughts were about of having a second stream, specifically to allow more games with long running times (mostly RPGs but not exclusively so) could be run without clogging up the schedule for everything else?

For smaller marathons it'd never work, because it would just split the viewer base too much. But for bigger marathons, a second stream would allow more RPGs, and put games like that on a more even footing with NES platformers, in terms of those communities getting to have more games shown off in the marathons.

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2013-07-05 02:22:10 pm

2013-07-05 02:20:18 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I think if we had a second stream, it should be used for something like speedrunner interviews and what happens behind the scenes (the understream covered that pretty well at agdq). Having a second game would really split focus, especially if the game had donation incentives.

I think a better solution for that are marathons like C4L, which have a theme focus that has games that wouldn't be in your typical GDQ. If there's a game that's unexpected success there, maybe it can be in a GDQ.

Omnigamer

Edit history:

Omnigamer: 2013-07-05 02:21:48 pm

2013-07-05 02:20:54 pm

All the things

Regarding Presjpolk's idea, I think the main limitations there are a split of personnel and infrastructure. Running a second stream of actual content requires not only the hardware and tech resources for it, but its own space away from the other stream. If they're trying to share the same bandwidth, it may also create problems for a lot of locations. Something creative would have to be worked out with donation comments on the backend if comments between the two are to be split up.

I like the idea of double the content for the same amount of time, but just the main marathons are difficult enough to organize as it is.

EDIT: Agreed @ Uyama

KingDime

2013-07-05 02:25:03 pm

I might as well add to point D of Cool Matty. I won't mention names but basically after talking about my intent to eventually make it to a marathon some day for super meat boy 106% on my stream (I run other games but the example used was 106%) I was essentially told by a number of runners to not bother because of "Mikes old boys club" or in other words favoritism of runners.

Thought it was relevant to the question so I decided to bring it up.

Poxnor

2013-07-05 02:29:44 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Regarding choosing games for marathons, that's one thing that I'm going to change for C4L 2014. I'm an FF guy, which allowed me to be a dictator for which games were in and which were out (FF3 DS!) of C4L 2013, which was strictly FF. But, expanding to be a general RPG marathon next year, I'm going to have to take a different approach. My approach is going to be based on the approach used in most academic computing science conferences, and it will eliminate the nasty spectre of favouritism.

Basically, I'll be the "Program Chair" -- I'll make the final decision (because someone has to have the final decision). But, working with me will be several "Track Reviewers" (probably three tracks: FF, Other Eastern RPGs, and Western RPGs); each track will have three or so volunteers who will send comments to me about the proposed games and the runners themselves (sorry, but that does matter -- are you reliable, have a history in the community, etc.). Comments will be divided into two fields: public and private (i.e., for my eyes only). I'll make my decisions of what to include or not include based on the reviewers' comments, and the public comments will be visible for all to see (though anonymized -- I'll probably rewrite all the public comments in my own voice, so as not to leak reviewers' identities).

This solves two problems at once: my lack of knowledge about non-FF games, and any accusations that games for C4L were chosen basically at my whim (which, basically, they were for C4L 2013).

It's not a perfect setup, but there's a good reason so many academic CS conferences use a setup similar (though often slightly more complex) to this.

Regarding choosing games for marathons, that's one thing that I'm going to change for C4L 2014.  I'm an FF guy, which allowed me to be a dictator for which games were in and which were out (FF3 DS!) of C4L 2013, which was strictly FF.  But, expanding to be a general RPG marathon next year, I'm going to have to take a different approach.  My approach is going to be based on the approach used in most academic computing science conferences, and it will eliminate the nasty spectre of favouritism.

Basically, I'll be the "Program Chair" -- I'll make the final decision (because someone has to have the final decision).  But, working with me will be several "Track Reviewers" (probably three tracks: FF, Other Eastern RPGs, and Western RPGs); each track will have three or so volunteers who will send comments to me about the proposed games and the runners themselves (sorry, but that does matter -- are you reliable, have a history in the community, etc.).  Comments will be divided into two fields: public and private (i.e., for my eyes only).  I'll make my decisions of what to include or not include based on the reviewers' comments, and the public comments will be visible for all to see (though anonymized -- I'll probably rewrite all the public comments in my own voice, so as not to leak reviewers' identities).

This solves two problems at once: my lack of knowledge about non-FF games, and any accusations that games for C4L were chosen basically at my whim (which, basically, they were for C4L 2013).

It's not a perfect setup, but there's a good reason so many academic CS conferences use a setup similar (though often slightly more complex) to this.

mikwuyma

2013-07-05 02:35:49 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

KingDime: I think the worst thing you could do is not suggest a game you could run when it comes to the games topic. If you don't suggest a game, then you're just perpetuating the "Old Boy's Club" stereotype because then I didn't accept you because you're not part of the club.

There are plenty of runners who have not played games in previous marathons who get to play each marathon. Here's a few going to SGDQ: Studio, Duke Bilgewater, hagspam, and iongravirei.

Poxnor: I'd be interested to see how that works. Do I get a spot as a D specialist? Wink

Poxnor

2013-07-05 02:42:33 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from mikwuyma:

Poxnor: I'd be interested to see how that works. Do I get a spot as a D specialist? Wink

The whole point is that the comments are going to be anonymous (that is, really anonymous, not SDA submission-review anonymous).

Of course, if there's a comment about a game that reads "THE DEMON RUSH IS THE BEST GAME EVER AND THAT UYAMA GUY WHO PLAYS IT IS A STUD AND NEEDS TO PLAY IT SHIRTLESS! ACCEPT!!!", people may have a guess as to who wrote it (Uyama or MetaSigma) Wink