Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Anyways, regarding this game, I found it to be on the annoying poorly designed to be anything other than a weird platformer puzzle game.
Regarding the run, I found it on the boring side, but I liked it a lot more than the Air runs.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
TheKDX7 wrote:
If this hack is accepted, I think Kaizo Mario World 1 and 2 should be retried.
If this hack is accepted, it'll be to replace a worse hack. Thankfully we haven't published awful SMW hacks, so there's no room for either of those disasters. If you like KMW, we have the third one published.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
I'm still working on the submission text.
Your English has significantly improved. I'm quite impressed.
I only ended up fixing 3 spelling mistakes, which is quite impressive compared to the amount of text you wrote.
HappyLee wrote:
It's strange that I chose NES Hard Relay Mario when I submitted, but it became FDS afterwards and I couldn't change it back myself. Can anyone help?
Fixed.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I'd give this a 2.
I find it pretty boring.
This would be more interesting if you can find ways to play the game very differently than it was intended, meaning break the puzzles.
Even then though, the hack doesn't look to be too special.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
The alternative would be to finish SMB1 ASAP, then playing the second half as a Triplerun instead of a Quadrun. I feel that that'd violate the spirit of the category.
Not quite, you can play the second quest of SMB1, which currently we do not have any TAS of.
Now the above made more sense when the run was ~10 minutes long. Now that we're below 9 minutes, there isn't enough time to complete SMB1 twice.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
how do we know if something is disproportionate or not?
Isn't it relative and subjective?
That's precisely why I'm asking Bisqwit for his criteria.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Today, sports is a worldwide phenomenon where people make their life's arrangements with sports events in mind; they have to stay up late, sometimes even take vacation, just to observe some particular sports match. They pay huge sums for tickets, and they are more passionate about the results of a big name match (say, Ice Hockey championships) than they are of the politics in their home land. Some even go as far as to ostracize the supporters of a competing team or treating them as traitors or enemies -- this is pretty rare though.
If we were to replace sports here with spouse and children, would the result be the same? Is caring for your family idolatry too?
Since you quoted Deuteronomy, see 6:5. You shall love God with all your heart..., does family not diminish that, as you are using some of your heart for loving them?
Bisqwit wrote:
In religious terms, anything that takes an disproportionally elevated place in a person's life is an idol, a false god.
Okay, so by your own definition, perhaps family is not idolatry, since it's not disproportionate to stay up late for them, sometimes take vacations, pay huge sums on their behalf, and be passionate about the outcome of their lives, more so than politics.
If this premise is correct, how do we know if something is disproportionate or not?
What about people who spend huge sums of time and money on open source software, ensure its constant advancement?
Bisqwit wrote:
This all roots back down to Deuteronomy 5:7-10
Oh? Not Exodus 20? You think Exodus 20 copied Deuteronomy 5?
Bisqwit wrote:
The definition of what counts as an "idol" or "other god" vary, but I subscribe to the view that anything that comes before God (as described by Bible) is an idol.
Perhaps you're putting emphasis in the wrong place. I see your translation, my translation would be:
"Do not deify anything in my presence".
I dislike your translation for two reasons:
1) You're viewing this sentence as applying the term god to things, in a way which may convey that there are multiple gods in existence. My translation instead focuses on the concept of not conveying the aspects one would attribute to God to other things.
2) You're translating the literal "on my face" as priority (something which doesn't seem to fit the context in other places the term is used). I see no such claim here as a matter of priorities, as if it's okay to have deities that are second to God. Rather I translate the literal "on my face" as "within my presence", and as such, since all existence is within the view of the Supreme Being, one is not permitted to deify anything, whether you assign a primary or secondary role to it.
In order to further backup support for my translation, notice that the paragraph goes on to describe what it means to deify something, as you yourself wrote: "You shall not make yourself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: You shall not bow down yourself unto them, nor serve them"
As such, if sports is not being deified (meaning, considered a god, being prayed to, have sacrifices brought to it, etc...), I wouldn't consider it idolatry, regardless of how inappropriate people's priorities are towards it. You have a point about those making statues or sculptures of famous sports players though.
Edit:
To further argue against your translation of: "You shall have none other gods before me".
I'll quote ancient sources dealing with this verse.
The Septuagint (over 2000 year old Greek translation of the Bible, supposedly sanctioned by the high priest) renders:
"οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πλὴν ἐμοῦ."
I would translate that translation as: "You shall have no gods aside from me."
The Aramaic translation (named after its supposed translator Onkelos, nearly 2000 years ago) renders:
"לָא יִהְוֵי לָךְ אֱלָהּ אָחֳרָן, בָּר מִנִּי."
I would translate that translation as: "There shall not be for you other gods except for me."
Both are using mutual exclusion rather than precedence.
One of the oldest surviving commentaries on this verse is the Mekhilta (nearly 2000 years old), which has this tidbit:
על פני - למה נאמר? שלא ליתן פתחון פה לישראל, לומר: לא נצטווה על עבודה זרה אלא מי שיצא למצרים! לכך נאמר "על פני", לומר: מה אני חי וקיים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים - אף אתה ובנך ובן בנך לא תעבוד עבודה זרה עד סוף כל הדורות
I would translate this comment as: "On my face - why is this point needed? Not to allow the (future) Israelites to claim: The prohibition against foreign worship was only commanded to those who left Egypt! (as the previous verse mentions that He is God who took them out of Egypt) Therefore it says on my face, meaning: Just as I am eternal, so too all future descendents cannot worship foreignly for all eternity."
Whether you agree or disagree with this commentary, it seems pretty clear that it is understanding "on my face" as a matter of being in the presence of God (for all eternity) as opposed to priorities.
Therefore I would further render this comment and its understanding of the verses as follows:
I am the Lord your God who took you out of Egypt from servitude, therefore, do not deify anything in my presence. In my presence - why is this point needed? Not to allow the future Israelites to claim: The prohibition against foreign worship was only commanded to those who left Egypt, as the exhortation is limited to those where who took you out of Egypt applies. Therefore it says in my presence, meaning: Just as I am eternal, so too all future descendents cannot worship foreignly for all eternity, as that worship will always be in my presence.
The interesting takeaway from this commentary is that not only is it translating as I am. Where I took the subject of the exhortation as applying the prohibition to anything, it is understanding the subject here as a matter of time itself, extending the prohibition for all eternity.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Kurabupengin wrote:
How about the other two?
The problem with the other two is that it's very hard to differentiate between them and real posts. I'd rather let 1000 troll posts through than accidentally automatically delete a real user.
I do have some ideas in mind to improve the system to handle more, but until I can be certain there's no side effects, I'm not putting anything in place.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
Kurabupengin wrote:
Like that Mona Vampire thing? Also...funny? Yeah, it is at first but not when is too much.
No, Nach refers to "suicide" spam posts that are automatically deleted before they are even posted in the forum.
To further clarify, there's several classes of annoying posts.
Robot posts.
Paid for posts to advertise some products.
People who come here to bash TASing or TASVideos.
People with other problems who come here to be disruptive.
The system I put in place is designed to only handle the first two categories.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
The staff gets a real time log of every post, as well as "suicide posts", where we see every time someone came here to spam and was automatically dealt with. Gives us a good laugh.
That got me curious: How much spam is posted to tasvideos.org (that we never get to see)?
Well, many would be spammers are cut out from even registering, so it skews attempts. I initially implemented the system after I noticed about 20 different real spam attempts in a short time frame.
I recall seeing a dozen separate spam attempts that committed suicide since I put the system in place. There's probably a bunch that I didn't see (even though I can, I don't constantly watch the log).
Shortly after I put the system in place, I also noticed a significant decrease in attempts over time, so those behind some of these may have gotten frustrated and have given up.
The times it gets really funny is when we see someone make a couple spam accounts in a row, and they all suicide. Would be spammers usually make a second account after the first one is terminated and tries again with the same results. I saw once someone that made three accounts, one after the other, each committing suicide within 5 minutes.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I'd also add that while it's not noticeable, we have an automated anti-spam feature in place that scans each post for objectionable material. It looks for things which are robot posts, or paid for posts, and are dislike posts from our loyal members.
If someone comes here to spam, they may just find that all their posts and account simply vanish, prior to anyone even noticing that they exist.
Regular users do not have to worry, you won't be triggering the spam filter.
The staff gets a real time log of every post, as well as "suicide posts", where we see every time someone came here to spam and was automatically dealt with. Gives us a good laugh.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
Nach wrote:
If you want to limit yourself to "stock controllers" we need to reject any game using the Mouse, Super Scope, or Multitap too.
Except those games say on the box that they support or require those controllers.
Some make no mention on the box, but still support various controllers. Official channels even confirmed at times that it was designed to support certain controllers, even if there's no mention of it on the box.
But this is besides the point, TASing is about ignoring the rules on the box and in the instruction booklet. So what if the game doesn't say it supports the mouse, and someone makes an awesome run with the mouse, should we reject it?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If you want to limit yourself to "stock controllers" we need to reject any game using the Mouse, Super Scope, or Multitap too.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
There's a difference between what's unofficial but still possible, and what's unofficial and doesn't even exist on a controller.
Unofficial is a broad term. Nintendo licensed over a dozen controllers for the SNES, and even recommended some of them to gamers who want an edge. Several of these non out of the box yet official controllers can make this movie work.
Edit:
Be terrified by the sheer amount of controllers for the SNES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_accessories#Joypads.2FJoysticks
Many of these are official licensed.
Edit 2:
This controller can input just about anything:
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tangent, you have some good points here.
This is along the lines of what Warp was saying a few weeks back.
I'm thinking I'll be introducing some voting reform when I get a chance, stay tuned.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Cyber_Kun wrote:
I feel like not putting these into the Vault is getting silly.
I agree with you. Please vote no on runs like this, so we know to put them into the vault.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
And this is related how exactly?
You have experts and regular viewers agreeing (in the end) about how such cases should be handled. It also appears to match your own suggestion there. If people didn't agree with it, it wouldn't work.
I'm failing to see the connection between the two. One is about initial states, the other is about relying on incorrect logic.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
That wasn't a personal insult, that was an incredulous statement. I'm sorry for using slang which may not be universally recognized.
That slang was inappropriately used, I didn't use any.
I don't think either of us are understanding what the other is saying here, so I'm just going to drop this.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
I don't need opinions regarding emulation accuracy. I do very much need community opinions in general.
Who suggested you community opinions about emulator accuracy? I said that whatever issues can occur to the run, may be important to discuss publicly. You addressed "a lot of code that needs to be parsed", and then suddenly implied that it equals emulation accuracy, and the argument happened.
I'm talking about emulation accuracy. I thought that was clear, I don't know how else my statements could be understood, but that's not relavent.
Since this conversation is going nowhere, and neither of us is understanding what the other has to say, I'm going to refrain from saying anything further.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You started personal insults again. You claim things that aren't facts (I don't smoke, I'm not drunk),
That wasn't a personal insult, that was a statement of incredulity . I'm sorry for using slang which may not be universally recognized.
feos wrote:
hence if you are saying you deal with facts that don't even need community's opinions, you're officially a liar.
I'm calling you out for using technique #6:
I don't need opinions regarding emulation accuracy. I do very much need community opinions in general.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Casual users? Opinions? WTH are you smoking?
You know, there are regular people here that aren't experts in tech stuff. They have opinions. Are you drunk?
I would think you are.
We don't need opinions in place of facts, and non experts are not going to know if emulators are implemented correctly.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
The issues are that I have a limited amount of time and limited preexisting knowledge, and there's a lot of code that needs to be parsed, and manuals to go through to see if behavior is valid.
You have a lot of specialists here, that can provide qualified help on that matter, you don't have to handle it alone
That's a good point. I may enlist some help.
feos wrote:
and there are enough users that can have a casual opinion on those issues too.
Casual users? Opinions? WTH are you smoking?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Nach is busy in his laboratory determining the validity of this movie.
Is it possible to know what are the issues, hampering the investigation for so long?
The issues are that I have a limited amount of time and limited preexisting knowledge, and there's a lot of code that needs to be parsed, and manuals to go through to see if behavior is valid.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Nach is busy in his laboratory determining the validity of this movie.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Myself, jlun2, scahfy and Nach agree with the ending point's validity.
I don't agree with the ending point validity.
I described earlier that if the discussion agrees with the validity, how the run should be handled.
scahfy:
Looking at the entertainment ratings this has gotten, some of them were clearly moon quality ratings. An improvement which can significantly shorten the run length would also imply less to get bored by, which can only help your ratings.
If you can throw in some close to the edge near misses which demonstrate you precisely predict oncoming attacks, a better run may even be worthy of moon tier proper.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
adelikat wrote:
Under goal choice in the Vault rules: "Must be clearly definable as having completed the game."
The "clearly" I guess is the issue. It's pretty clear to feos.
If it's clear, see what I said above.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
