Post by Archanfel

Posted: 10/21/2014 2:21 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Polls give stupid statistics, posts give smart statistics (and can be helpful). About subjectivity: let's reduce the annoyance and not massively rely on subjectivity, as the whole thing that relies on that becomes only partially legit. The best option is to leave subjectivity to the user. Say, if I don't want to see some option, let me hide it. If there are some movies that are implied to look really bad, a personal cutoff by rating is the way to go. Because as I said, one wants to control things that are subjective on his own.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/21/2014 8:20 PM

Quote

Scepheo

Player (142)

Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686

Samsara wrote:

The main problem is the consistent issue with borderline cases.. The issue with borderline cases is consistent enough of a problem that site staff are actually addressing it and coming up with ways to take care of it.

I stand by my point. Your pre-edit post mentioned a lack of empathy, and though reworded, I'd still like to rebuke that by pointing out that I've submitted one such borderline case. Read the thread. Read my response to the decision that it'll be rejected (pre-vault times). See, no need to be annoyed about it. It's perfectly possible to just accept that your run isn't considered entertaining (enough) by a majority and move on. Let's talk about motives a bit. We should be making TASes for ourselves, because we enjoy doing so, and maybe a little bit for the people who really want to see the run. That's the authors motive. This has nothing to do with TASVideos. TASVideos' motive, however, is to provide a collection of TASes that are deemed interesting. In order to best present these TASes to it's intended audience (which, again, is not the authors of said TASes), it divides them into "interesting because entertaining" and "interesting because fast". This has nothing to do with the authors. This thread is about discussing the policy as maintained on TASVideos, not about how to handle the ego's of authors. From that standpoint, the only argument that I've seen in this thread, against the current vault situation, is that, when looking for a fastest run of a game, it might not be in the default list of games.*

feos wrote:

Polls give stupid statistics, posts give smart statistics (and can be helpful).

... You are kidding, right? In a thread that suggests only to post when voting a specific option? With such an overwhelming majority?

Posted: 10/21/2014 9:01 PM
(Edited: 10/21/2014 9:40 PM)

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Alright, Scepheo, what are you going to offer to all of those who actually want the specific change now? "You make no sense, live with the current system"? "There are too few of you, go get some more supporters"? It is always that way that whoever doesn't care enough to post just throws in a vote and forgets. And the ones who post rise real points. Because they care enough to do it. I don't see much (any) productivity in your suggestions (if there are any).

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/21/2014 9:29 PM

Quote

Samsara

She/They

Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2121)

Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California

Scepheo wrote:

I stand by my point. Your pre-edit post mentioned a lack of empathy, and though reworded, I'd still like to rebuke that by pointing out that I've submitted one such borderline case. Read the thread. Read my response to the decision that it'll be rejected (pre-vault times). See, no need to be annoyed about it. It's perfectly possible to just accept that your run isn't considered entertaining (enough) by a majority and move on.

...Your point is "suck it up and move on". I really don't know why you're focusing on this so much. Maybe I should edit that "lack of empathy" statement back in. Imagine if a judge just rejected a submission saying "Wow, this is shit. Make a run that's actually good next time." How do you think that would go over? Badly, right? That's pretty much how people treat Vault right now: A repository of runs that are uninteresting and shit. Seriously, look through Vaulted submission threads and count how many people connect uninteresting/boring to the Vault, or make negatively-charged statements like "send this piece of shit game to the Vault". Your experience in that situation doesn't completely apply for a couple reasons: One, it was generally well-received in the thread but ultimately rejected for being too much like the realtime speedrun. Two, it was pre-Vault, and thus there were no posts to the effect of "Wow, this is really boring, publish to Vault". At least you tried to sympathize, but it does come off as snobbish when your run was treated a lot better.

Let's talk about motives a bit. We should be making TASes for ourselves, because we enjoy doing so, and maybe a little bit for the people who really want to see the run. That's the authors motive. This has nothing to do with TASVideos.

You've got it backwards. The author's motive should ultimately be to make a run that everyone will enjoy. The part about making it for themselves should only apply to game choice and because they enjoy doing it. If you're going to just make runs for yourself, why even bother submitting them to the site? Surely you'd be fine with just having it there in your Movies folder if that's your mindset going into it. If I was just making runs for myself, I wouldn't give a damn about trying to be entertaining or adding in little extra things that people would like and I certainly wouldn't attempt to submit them to a site where a lot of people will end up watching what I created. I don't think anyone wants to be told that the thing they put a lot of effort into is ultimately boring and going to end up ignored.

TASVideos' motive, however, is to provide a collection of TASes that are deemed interesting. In order to best present these TASes to it's intended audience (which, again, is not the authors of said TASes), it divides them into "interesting because entertaining" and "interesting because fast". This has nothing to do with the authors.

Yes, but the current system is being treated as "Interesting because entertaining" and "Avoid these pieces of shit". The new system would be exactly the way you described, down to a T.

This thread is about discussing the policy as maintained on TASVideos, not about how to handle the ego's of authors. From that standpoint, the only argument that I've seen in this thread, against the current vault situation, is that, when looking for a fastest run of a game, it might not be in the default list of games.

And, due to how the Vault is treated, people won't WANT to take the steps to include Vault runs in the default list of games. If people just idly look through runs to find new, interesting things to watch, then of course they're not going to include Vault. The mere fact that Vault runs don't show up by default is telling enough to those people that the runs aren't worth showcasing. If you're looking for a specific game, then you can do that no matter how the tiering system is.

feos wrote:
Polls give stupid statistics, posts give smart statistics (and can be helpful).
... You are kidding, right? In a thread that suggests only to post when voting a specific option? With such an overwhelming majority?

Yes, the overwhelming majority of 15 "keep it the same" to 19 "change it in some way", on a site where people vote "Yes" on runs over insignificant things like who created the run or that it's an improvement. Keep in mind that the poll was reset due in part to people mis-reading my intentions (which was my fault) and that, really, only a small handful of people who support the current Vault have actually defended their decision. I can't speak for the other Yes voters in this thread, but the way I see it, they don't actually care about the topic enough to back up their vote and would be fine with a change. I respect that you're standing by your topic and attempting to provide arguments for it, but really it just doesn't make any sense to me. If the proposed changes are implemented, can't you just accept what happens and move on? If you can't, doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite?

TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost

warmCabin wrote:

You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.

Posted: 10/21/2014 9:46 PM

Quote

Scepheo

Player (142)

Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686

Quick nitpickery responses due to momentary lack of brain activity:

Samsara wrote:

Yes, the overwhelming majority of 15 "keep it the same" to 19 "change it in some way"

As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to changing the name or the appearance. It's the way the system is implemented and the way runs are categorized that I'm talking about. Taking the poll with that, that gives 16 (no change) + 9 (keep but change appearance) = 25 people against change, versus 3 (remove) + 7 (something else) = 10 pro change. That's over 70% of people who think the system is okay.

Samsara wrote:

If the proposed changes are implemented, can't you just accept what happens and move on? If you can't, doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite?

If changes are implemented, I will. In the mean time, I'd like to argue against making those changes. Note that I'm not saying the vault is perfect. A bit of appearance changing, giving it some more time (this is a very slow community when it comes to content) to get filled and become the majority tier, and adjusting the front page to better show case all runs: fine. Let's do that. I simply believe the problem lies in a different place than where you think. As such, I am opposed to changes that, I believe, will not solve the problem they're made for. And those changes will alter a system of judging and peer review that I believe works fine. (repeated use of "I believe" to emphasize subjectivity of text) Well, that turned out to be longer than I expected.

Posted: 10/22/2014 2:14 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Scepheo wrote:

In the mean time, I'd like to argue against making those changes.

Care to respond to my previous message?

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/24/2014 1:48 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

feos wrote:

Alright, what do we have for now.

Forgot that the old poll question will start working again! If any%/100%, yes vote to "should it be published" means "yes, I like its optimization level" (all the rest just won't matter). If side goal, yes vote means "I like how entertaining it is (and optimized)". For borderline cases (subset of side goal runs), yes still means "I like it enough". Sounds a bit weird, but lets people vote about various things, and still have it fit, since we won't be judging subjectivity (in most cases). So again, why do we need that change? Because it minimizes subjectivity.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/24/2014 2:55 PM

Quote

Scepheo

Player (142)

Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686

feos, I don't see any productivity in what you're suggesting either. From my perspective, you're asking (telling) people to put in a lot of effort into changing the system, without any good arguments as to why. The only reason you give for anything you say is "because it minimizes subjectivity", but you completely fail to explain why that is a good thing. Why do we need less subjectivity? To answer your question directly: I'm not offering anything. But that's the point: nobody is. Everybody is asking. All I'm asking is some patience. The TASing community is a slow moving community, pretty much by definition. Give the vault some more time. When the vault was just implemented, people just kept on submitting runs as before and nothing much changed. Slowly but surely, it's becoming a common sight to have submissions that are aimed at the vault: people who've made a TAS because they love a game, and because TASVideos now has a place for that game. The "stigma" of the vault is already disappearing, why not see it out?

Posted: 10/24/2014 4:10 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Scepheo wrote:

To answer your question directly: I'm not offering anything. But that's the point: nobody is. Everybody is asking. All I'm asking is some patience. The TASing community is a slow moving community, pretty much by definition. Give the vault some more time.

And then what? How will you personally detect that the "actual time" for changes has come? And how much our actions will change? feos looks at how his "unobsoletions" took a year to be fully understood, and then still happened exactly as they were requested

Scepheo wrote:

feos, I don't see any productivity in what you're suggesting either. From my perspective, you're asking (telling) people to put in a lot of effort into changing the system, without any good arguments as to why. The only reason you give for anything you say is "because it minimizes subjectivity", but you completely fail to explain why that is a good thing. Why do we need less subjectivity?

Oh please. I'm sick of your ignorance.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/24/2014 7:55 PM

Quote

r57shell

Player (96)

Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia

Forgive me, but I'll repeat again what I'm thinking about any%/100% tier and side goals tier. I don't know why people don't understand what I was talking before, there may be many reasons: 1) They "DIDN'T READ!!" haha. I mean, they don't like so long posts... 2) They simply don't accept other points of view 3) They ignore my words because I was laughing on this idea. type your option here But still, let's compare system "NO TIERS": 1) All movies in one list 2) There can be many tags: uses death to save time, pacifist, puzzle, platformer and so on. 3) Judge decision STILL depends on what category run belongs. (any%/100% or side goals). There is still active following rule: if run is not aimed for fastest speed, then it will be rejected without enough of support (entertainment) 4) Is tier affects judge's decisions? No there is no tiers. 5) Is tier selection affected by judge's decisions? No there is no tiers. 6) There is no tier appearance, because there is no tiers. Captian obvious helps a lot. with system "any%/100% tier and side goals tier": 1) All movies in two tiers (lists) 2) same as in "NO TIERS" 3) same as in "NO TIERS" 4) Is tier affects judge's decisions? No, because of (3) 5) Is tier selection affected by judge's decisions? No, because only fool can't understand is it aim for fastest completion (any%/100% tier) or is it something else (side goal tier) 6) There is tiers icons, along with publications. So, if you really accept that (2), (3), (4), (5) is same in this two given systems, then we have to deal with (1), and (6) only. 1) One list vs Separate two lists. Let's find out, where they separated? I know only two possibilities: a) in our minds, b) in search response. Take a look at (a) variant. I think, you don't need tier to separate in mind speedruns vs non-speedruns. Do we need tier for that? I think NO. If you need tier to compensate your foolness: go away :D Now, take a look at (b) variant. Do we need tier for searching speedrun TAS-es? It would help to find, or cut off search results. But there are tags already! They made exactly for that purpose: searching. and cut off unsuitable results. Deal with (6) 6) "No icons" vs "Icons". Icon purpose is: additional information. It's mark, it's showing some information. If "No icon" then no additional information. If there is icon, then it gives us some information. In this case, icon will give us information "that it is speedrun" or "that is side goal".It might be useful yes. Only fool can't distinguish speedruns among "side goal runs". But imagine, I want such icons: (speedrun/side goal). And I'm crazy about that! Then why not add tag "speedrun", and add tag "side goal" and make icons for them? Or... may be I really so excited, and I want icon for "pacifist" run? And for puzzles? And for "arbitrary code execution"! Make icons! I want them! It will be AWESOME feature! Conclusion: "NO TIERS" vs "any%/100% tier and side goals tier" 1) One game list vs Two game lists. 2) No icons vs Two icons. get "NO TIERS" system, add tags "any%/100%" and "side goals", and make icons for them. You'll get SAME result, as if you make two DIFFERENT tiers. What's a point to make them Tiers?! I don't get it Now, compare "NO TIERS" vs "stars, moons, valut" system. If you not retarded... then (2), (3), (4) are same! So we have to compare only (1), (5), (6) 1) One game list vs Three game lists. Question that I was asking for this case was: "where they separated?". Do you remember what my answers was? Haha! a) they separated in our minds. Is that true? May be so. Is tiers helps to make this separation? I don't know b) in search response. Here is not same situation as in "any%/100% and side goals" tiers. Vault is kinda recycle bin, but without cleaning option :D. And vault movies are hidden. (you have to go on other page, to look on all TAS including vault ones). So, for me, it's actually two lists: vissible by default, hidden. This is why I don't like vault tier as it is right now, because it's not equal to other tiers: it's hidden by default, and it has bad tone of name. Positive change would be: name it at least with neutral name, and DON'T HIDE IT as some shit. What if vault would be visible, and with at least neutral name? All games would be in three lists: stars, moons, vault(but with different name, and visible), then again... Where they are separated? In minds? You don't need tier to make decision yourself. In search list: yes, separated. 5) Is tier selection affected by judge's decisions? In "NO TIERS" there is no tiers, so nothing affected. In "stars, moons, vault" system, choice of tier is given to judge. He will select appropriate tier according to community feedback and support. Decisions of judges are subjective because there is no strict rules about making decisions. Hello borderline cases :). Also, "stars, moons, vault" tiers purpose is reflection of community feedback and support. I would call it raiting. So, in other words, it reflecting rating of TAS run. In "NO TIERS" system this information is ommited, same situation in "any%/100% and side goals" tiers system. But yes, you can always check raiting in "rating" section and in discussion topic. 6) "No icons" vs "Icons". As in previous comparison of systems "NO TIERS" vs "any%/100% and side goals" Icons may be achieved with adding tags, and bindings icons for them. Conclusion: Idea to change "stars, moons, vault" into "any%/100% and side goals" looks for me like removing feedback and support reflection with simple reason: borderline cases. And that's why I laugh so much about it, because you want to solve problem with simple deletion of part of system that has issue. It's like cut off hand instead of its treatment. And, I'll repeat agian, "NO TIERS" is same as "any%/100% and side goals" by its fuctions provided to people. (except icons, they can be added with tags) LOL they are so excited by cutting off hand (removing rating reflection because of borderline cases) A little about poll... Do you know so called supermajority or a qualified majority? It's what got more than or equal to 50% of all votes. What's a purpose of term? Lets say, you got "YES" result in poll with maximum percentange, and it's lower than 50%. You may think: maximum votes got YES option, so "YES" won. But as I said, if it's lower than 50% then all other votes in summary will give you more than 50%. And with selection of YES, you discard all other votes, and their count is actually more than count of those who choose YES option. That's why "supermajority" term exist. In other words... If "yes" win with <50% then it's not win, it's defeat, because all other options are "no" with different flavors. And, in the end... My vote in this poll is: "Keep the Vault tier but change its appearance (name/icon/etc)" What exactly? Remove vault icon, and name. Let vault movie looks like normal one without "moons" or "stars". I hope, it's my last post in this thread. Thanks for reading to those who read it all Hmm, actually, it would be nice if someone who agree with me, don't keep silent, and said that, because many people just don't wanna repeat what other people said, so they don't post anything. That's why I would like to see if anyone agree with me. If noone, that's sad for me :C

Posted: 10/24/2014 8:58 PM

Quote

KusogeMan

Active player (434)

Joined: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1690
Location: Brasil

whether we have or not tiers is irrelevant,as long as all the games can be found on the same console list. having a tag to warn about the run not being very interesting isn't wrong,but making it harder to find it in the site that's pretty much the ultimate repository for TASing is objectively bad,there's just no reason for it.(i have misclicked and got confused with the double lists for snes and other consoles many times)

TAS i'm interested: megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched fighting games with speed goals in general

Posted: 10/24/2014 9:37 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

r57shell wrote:

Also, "stars, moons, vault" tiers purpose is reflection of community feedback and support. I would call it raiting. So, in other words, it reflecting rating of TAS run. In "NO TIERS" system this information is ommited, same situation in "any%/100% and side goals" tiers system. But yes, you can always check raiting in "rating" section and in discussion topic. Idea to change "stars, moons, vault" into "any%/100% and side goals" looks for me like removing feedback and support reflection with simple reason: borderline cases.

I do not see how it is omitted or removed. People still vote and rate. Probably you mean that not dividing the runs (into 3 groups) by entertainment value is bad. Maybe it is. But if done, it should not be a hardcoded cutoff. As I kept saying, I maybe want to see only all runs above 5. Or only those above 7. I can't, I'm forced to use a special link, because it was "decided" to divide them right there (only).

r57shell wrote:

My vote in this poll is: "Keep the Vault tier but change its appearance (name/icon/etc)" What exactly? Remove vault icon, and name. Let vault movie looks like normal one without "moons" or "stars".

Sounds sane.

r57shell wrote:

And that's why I laugh so much about it, because you want to solve problem with simple deletion of part of system that has issue. It's like cut off hand instead of its treatment.

I'll remind my personal reason to participate in this discussion: I don't want to feel "uneasy" or "excusing" for accepting to "wrong" tiers. Seeing all the flame, turska certainly felt so, even if he was 100% right with the decision. That's the point! There is no "wrong" decision in undefined area. "Right" is only the decision that the time has proven to be correct. It's a lottery, you can never be sure. I'm incapable of guessing (and then pretending I'm doing it all right). This is why I do think we need a change. Because right now, no one can define the behavior. Want to pretend we are alright (until we are on that area)? Good. I don't. It's like "Sorry, if you press that button, my program can burn your computer (and your dog). I couldn't figure out how to set it all up, so I just left it in and added a caution." I mean, yeah, most of the free coders do that, but we are not just free coders. We are goddamn perfectionists. We are overcoming expectations here, with just some mind work. This is yet another puzzle.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/24/2014 10:12 PM

Quote

r57shell

Player (96)

Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia

feos wrote:

r57shell wrote:
And that's why I laugh so much about it, because you want to solve problem with simple deletion of part of system that has issue. It's like cut off hand instead of its treatment.
I'll remind my personal reason to participate in this discussion: I don't want to feel "uneasy" or "excusing" for accepting to "wrong" tiers.

Captain obvious comming! :D It's topic about "Vault Tier", and main question is: "Should we keep the Vault as it is?" You're talking about borderline cases. It's offtopic :D. So I can simple ignore you. lol But I'll reply. And forgive me again. I'm repeating again.... Instead of cutting off hand, I offer you treatment: remove borderlines at all. Choose some X, and Y values, and automatically set icons in following way: nothing < X <= moons < Y <= stars according to raiting. If in rules stated: moons if rating >= X, then noone can dispute that rating is < X. Rating of TAS is some Z, it can be >= X or < X nothing else. You can't argue. Your main argument will be: there would be always flames about right selection of X, and Y. Everyone can flood about it. But honestly, who cares about exact values of X and Y? It can be selected approximately. Why? Because X is absolute, and Y is absolute. If your TAS in < X list: all in this category with rating < X. You can say that you best among them and what's a point? But what if you telling us that you must be in >= X list? You simply wrong, because ALL of those TAS with rating >= X is actually has rating >= X but your TAS is not >= so you can't stay among them. Same with borderline from moons to stars. TAS with < Y it's obviously lower by rating of any rating from >= Y list (stars). I actually don't even care about not perfect rating votes system, it's still can be measured. Let say X = 0.7 (moons border) and Y=0.9 (stars border). Then moons will show that raiting >= 0.7, and stars will show that rating >=0.9. And anyone who tells you that his movie is moons, and TAS rating is < 0.7, he is definitely wrong, because all TAS in moons has rating >= 7. Also, if you so hate this kind of X, Y, you can make icon "TOP" and with number from right side. Again, noone can say that it's higher in top, than it's showed. Also, you have to choose again from what position to show this icon. For example: show TOP icon for TOP 100 only. And again, there will be people who start flaming about it. I hope again, that this is my last post in this topic.

Posted: 10/25/2014 6:52 AM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

r57shell wrote:

feos wrote:
r57shell wrote:
And that's why I laugh so much about it, because you want to solve problem with simple deletion of part of system that has issue. It's like cut off hand instead of its treatment.
I'll remind my personal reason to participate in this discussion: I don't want to feel "uneasy" or "excusing" for accepting to "wrong" tiers.
Captain obvious comming! :D It's topic about "Vault Tier", and main question is: "Should we keep the Vault as it is?" You're talking about borderline cases. It's offtopic :D. So I can simple ignore you. lol

Are you sure that having problems with the current Vault system is offtopic for a Vault system thread? Are you sure that answering "Do something else" and posting it (and its reasons, that some people think I fail to give) in the thread is offtopic? Alright, ignore me right away. Geez.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/25/2014 12:34 PM

Quote

Samsara

She/They

Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2121)

Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California

r57shell wrote:

I hope again, that this is my last post in this topic.

I absolutely agree. Talking about borderline cases isn't off-topic, by the way, especially when the borderline is between the Vault and Moons. And I'm going to stop right there before I start another sentence in this thread with "The proposed new system".

TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost

warmCabin wrote:

You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.

Posted: 10/28/2014 12:14 AM

Quote

goldenband

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States

I read the first few pages and have only skimmed the last few, but: - I like Coins = best time and Moons = most entertaining, with Stars being used for featured runs that offer both. "Vault" is pejorative, if only mildly. - Much as I like to be entertained ("Oh no, OWN GOAL?!"), entertainment is not necessarily a high priority for me on this site. I'm much more interested in seeing human ingenuity in action. In other words, the site means more to me as a repository of world records and optimal strategies (some of which I can implement myself in normal gameplay!) than as a source of entertainment. A golf game TAS with 18 aces? Yes, please. - The notion that this site caters mainly to people who want to make TASes themselves is incorrect, I think. I have no plans to do one, and TAS runs get plenty of attention/linkage on gaming forums, in part because of the strategies they offer. More people are paying attention than you might think. - For that reason: it's valuable to have non-optimal runs that achieve their goals through behavior that resembles normal gameplay, rather than hitting the RESET button at just the right time or (much as I enjoyed that SMW total control video) sending tons of bogus controller inputs down a multitap. So no-glitch runs, etc. will and should always have value (i.e. be included), even if they're boring. - - The biggest determinant of interest in a given TAS may often be whether a person has played a game, not the quality of the run. I normally won't watch an RPG TAS if I haven't played the game myself, because of not knowing what's going on + spoilers. Obviously that inevitably favors the Final Fantasy games and so on. But I'd still like to think the site's core purpose has more to do with exploring terra incognita -- finding the limits of games famous and obscure -- than flattering casual gamers' existing tastes. - I've thought for years that speed and accuracy should mean automatic inclusion, no matter what anyone thinks of the game itself or the entertainment level for casual viewers (most runs are at least interesting if you know the game well). I don't know when the "entertainment above all else" policy changed, but I'm glad it did.

Posted: 10/28/2014 3:27 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Hmmm, no one thought about expanding the speed records tier with more goals. But I bet the problem with adding "more actual gameplay" there is that it's impossible to define it well. There will always be people that want "a bit more" gameplay included, and that want "a bit less".

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/28/2014 4:54 PM

Quote

r57shell

Player (96)

Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia

I told already, that interest != entertainment, so I agree with goldenband.

feos wrote:

There will always be people that want "a bit more" gameplay included, and that want "a bit less".

There always will be: spamers, idiots, morons, dissatisfied, disagreeing, critics. And what? Don't do anything because of that people? This sentence normaly is used in opposite way. There always will be: spamers, idiots, morons, dissatisfied, disagreeing, critics. So listen them, but do what you think is right. Ignoring them (except spamers) - is bad choice.

Posted: 10/28/2014 6:18 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

r57shell wrote:

There always will be: spamers, idiots, morons, dissatisfied, disagreeing, critics. And what? Don't do anything because of that people? This sentence normaly is used in opposite way. There always will be: spamers, idiots, morons, dissatisfied, disagreeing, critics. So listen them, but do what you think is right. Ignoring them (except spamers) - is bad choice.

Like analogy much? Alright. Please show me how many people here want "a bit less" spam, or "a bit more". Show me where are discussions about the allowed spam measure. Or about the site policies regarding idiots or morons, that are unclear or disagreed about. If you can't, your analogy is stupid and makes no sense.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 10/29/2014 12:03 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

I'm still of the opinion that there should be a valid "uses intended route" Moon category, for those who want to see highly-glitched games being actually played through in a "normal" way. To avoid situations where somebody makes such a run and spends a lot of effort on it just to have it rejected because their own view of what consists the "intended route" differs from other people's, there could be a system to make sure that nobody wastes so much effort: If a runner wants to make a run of a game using that category, first he should post a proposal for the rules that he will be using to achieve said goal, and listen to people's opinions and constructive criticism. If a consensus is achieved for a good set of rules for that particular game, there will be some kind of assurance that the run will not be rejected because of disagreements in the definition of "intended route", and thus he can proceed to make the run, and thus the only remaining question is whether it will be entertaining enough to deserve publication (which ought to be assessed with WIPs).

Posted: 10/29/2014 11:36 AM

Quote

r57shell

Player (96)

Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia

feos wrote:

Like analogy much? Alright. Please show me how many people here want "a bit less" spam, or "a bit more".

Genius! You suggest me to prove what I wasn't saying. Let me explain your way. It looks like this: We can't do A because we can't define it well. So if we add "more actual gameplay" -> There will always be people that want "a bit more" gameplay included, and that want "a bit less". In other words. If we make A -> There will always be people who disagree. It's redicilous, because it's true for any A. In other words, you don't need A in this sentence. So it's true anyways: "There will always be people who disagree". So, if there always disagreeing people, if you use it like test of applicability, then you can't do anything, because "There will always be people who disagree".

Posted: 11/1/2014 7:37 PM

Quote

Samsara

She/They

Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2121)

Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California

Um, an 80% success rate is actually pretty bad, especially for a site that's supposed to strive for perfection.

TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost

warmCabin wrote:

You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.

Posted: 11/1/2014 9:28 PM

Quote

feos

Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)

Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU

Samsara wrote:

Um, an 80% success rate is actually pretty bad, especially for a site that's supposed to strive for perfection.

We not only love perfection in runs here, but also perfection in how they are organized. This is why there are threads about something that looks "silly" and "autistic" to a layperson, where those "silly" points are argued about to death by those "autistic" nerds. But my personal opinion is that every issue has a solution, and it may be of different quality, hence you can always improve it, until you can't anymore. This is what perfection means: it's subjectively perfect if one can't improve it. Ignoring the problem (even a tiny one) is in no way solving it. 1 frame is also an improvement.

r57shell wrote:

Let me explain your way. It looks like this: We can't do A because we can't define it well. So if we add "more actual gameplay" -> There will always be people that want "a bit more" gameplay included, and that want "a bit less". In other words. If we make A -> There will always be people who disagree. It's redicilous, because it's true for any A. In other words, you don't need A in this sentence. So it's true anyways: "There will always be people who disagree". So, if there always disagreeing people, if you use it like test of applicability, then you can't do anything, because "There will always be people who disagree".

Guidelines and organizing in the kind of art TASing is don't work as robotic as that. Who wants to come up with some solution here needs to know as much as possible about the problem, then think it over as hard as he can, and then bring it on public, to look for last fixes. This is what the system we're suggesting is based on. Abstract sophisms don't help. I'm basing my words on these, for example: Input time vs avi time "glitched" label vs. "no x glitch" label Both of these problems got the audience exactly halve in opinions, and the crowds supporting each of them was quite huge. Both were solved. I don't remember anyone disagreeing with the solutions and bringing up any new serious problems. Even if there are some that are still not satisfied, there's so few of them (or they care so little) that they produce no stress. Why is that? Because the solutions were good. There is also Site policy regarding Alternative RAM stats on Power-up that was part of this submission's discussion. Ridiculously long convo, but the problem was also solved! So these are the cases when the final decisions generate little to no stress. Because they match the criteria I provided in the beginning. And there are cases that aren't still solved, and there are ones that can not be solved with certain decisions at all. Adding another category to Vault (exactly what I was addressing in my response to goldenband) can not happen without stress. Because "fastest possible" is somewhat clear. "Contains more of something" is not. Deal with it.

Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.

Posted: 11/2/2014 10:09 AM

Quote

r57shell

Player (96)

Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia

feos wrote:

Guidelines and organizing in the kind of art TASing is don't work as robotic as that. Who wants to come up with some solution here needs to know as much as possible about the problem, then think it over as hard as he can, and then bring it on public, to look for last fixes. This is what the system we're suggesting is based on. Abstract sophisms don't help.

Ok, you call my words robotic, and sophisms... Why? Because of your examples? It does not prove that there is no disagreeing people with your solutions. Also, I don't have any addition to my words about clear definition, so I don't care that you don't accept what I say. I think I'm right, and can't do anything with it while I don't see why I'm not right :).