Decisions are not made quickly, which is fine because nothing should ever be done in haste.
Regarding the Final Fantasy 1 "console verification" TAS, I understand why it was rejected since it does not fit in any tier in the current system. It is a shame though because of its technical achievement. That got me thinking about Gruefood Delight, where the TAS is now.
In the proposed system, it would have been rejected as well, but what if we added another category that would replace the vault tier? It could be named something along the lines of Demo, and would be the best of the Gruefood Delight. It would be TAses that demonstrate something technical, interesting, important, etc, but don't fit in the main categories. This way they can still be published, but get "vaulted". This kind of "vaulting" makes more sense than how it is done now.
Speaking of naming for the proposed, what if the category now known as Moons was named Superplay, and Vault named Speedrun? This is a play off of the 'S' in TAS being known as either, and each applies to the category.
Regarding the Final Fantasy 1 "console verification" TAS, I understand why it was rejected since it does not fit in any tier in the current system. It is a shame though because of its technical achievement. That got me thinking about Gruefood Delight, where the TAS is now.
In the proposed system, it would have been rejected as well, but what if we added another category that would replace the vault tier? It could be named something along the lines of Demo, and would be the best of the Gruefood Delight. It would be TAses that demonstrate something technical, interesting, important, etc, but don't fit in the main categories. This way they can still be published, but get "vaulted". This kind of "vaulting" makes more sense than how it is done now.
Speaking of naming for the proposed, what if the category now known as Moons was named Superplay, and Vault named Speedrun? This is a play off of the 'S' in TAS being known as either, and each applies to the category.
Speedrunning (tool-assisted) is also superplaying.
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.
Again, it just looks like there wasn't any clear consensus. A starting point was proposed and then discussion just stopped abruptly and nothing really came of it. Unless there was discussion and a verdict reached behind the scenes (and if so, why was it not publicized?), the only thing about that thread that implies failure is that it hasn't been touched in nearly a year.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
I think a four-tier system as proposed would be an idea to consider.
- Speed: Contains the current any% and possible 100% fastest completion for a game. (Caveat: How do we define a "valid" entry for this tier? Are eg. "total control" runs valid for this, or do they need to actually play through the game?)
- Entertainment: Alternative goals that do not fit in the 'speed' tier, and which are deemed by public vote to be worthy of publication. Must still complete the game.
- Star: Smallish hand-picked selection of representative runs that demonstrate TASing in some way. Essentially a "watch these first" list.
- Demo: Runs that do not complete the game (or "complete" it in a manner that does not fit any of the other categories) that are deemed by public vote to be worthy of publication. They ought to be of very high entertainment value, or otherwise demonstrate something unique or extraordinary.
Again, it just looks like there wasn't any clear consensus. A starting point was proposed and then discussion just stopped abruptly and nothing really came of it. Unless there was discussion and a verdict reached behind the scenes (and if so, why was it not publicized?), the only thing about that thread that implies failure is that it hasn't been touched in nearly a year.
The thread as it is shows one thing: there can not ever be clear criteria for the Demo tier. However, if the poll becomes "should it be published?" with consideration for the logic I proposed ITT, it may become possible to vote like this:
- Yes, it should be published as a technically impressive concept demo.
This way, all the unimpressive demos will still be dumped, and the worthy ones will be published.
Borders of technical impressiveness are not clear either though.
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.
Remember we currently also have the star-plus tier ("suitable for beginners"), star-alterative tier ("user rating 8+"), the moon-plus tier ("notable improvement) and the rejected-but-not-really tier ("gruefood delight") :P
I know they technically aren't called "tier", but for practical purposes they are. So that's seven tiers now. Knowing how a site like this works, we'll never get rid of any of these, so I'm not sure if adding more is going to help any.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
I think there's been some good points/ideas presented in this thread so far.
Would there be any way though for people to upload some images, or technical demos, of their ideas also? For example, a while back arandomgametaser provided this example image of an idea I had for showcasing videos on the front page for the Vault tier: http://i.imgur.com/GfmW3pP.png
Maybe seeing some visual examples from everyone would better bring about some changes to the site?
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
The thread as it is shows one thing: there can not ever be clear criteria for the Demo tier. However, if the poll becomes "should it be published?" with consideration for the logic I proposed ITT, it may become possible to vote like this:
- Yes, it should be published as a technically impressive concept demo.
This way, all the unimpressive demos will still be dumped, and the worthy ones will be published.
Borders of technical impressiveness are not clear either though.
The problem would be too many silent voters, and even then, given it's a tool-assisted run of some sort, chances are something as "simple" as playing a minigame would be technically impressive. No idea where to draw the line for that.
Edit: Or dying lol.
Speaking of naming for the proposed, what if the category now known as Moons was named Superplay, and Vault named Speedrun? This is a play off of the 'S' in TAS being known as either, and each applies to the category.
Speedrunning (tool-assisted) is also superplaying.
Yes, but Tool Assisted Speedrun is what it was referred to first, IIRC. Superplay was used later because of the playarounds. So titles refer to what the primary goal for each category is.
jlun2 wrote:
feos wrote:
The thread as it is shows one thing: there can not ever be clear criteria for the Demo tier. However, if the poll becomes "should it be published?" with consideration for the logic I proposed ITT, it may become possible to vote like this:
- Yes, it should be published as a technically impressive concept demo.
This way, all the unimpressive demos will still be dumped, and the worthy ones will be published.
Borders of technical impressiveness are not clear either though.
The problem would be too many silent voters, and even then, given it's a tool-assisted run of some sort, chances are something as "simple" as playing a minigame would be technically impressive. No idea where to draw the line for that.
Edit: Or dying lol.
When typing my post I thought about how it would be subjective. But I think for this it would be best to handle this the same way as Stars, which uses a Starman to decide. I guess this would be a "Demoman", but I'm sure we can come up with a better name for this (and probably the category too).
int JudgeMovie()
{
if (SubOptimal)
return Reject();
if (any% || 100%)
return Accept(Coins);
else
if (Boring || WildGoal)
if (ImpressiveAchievement)
return Accept(Demo);
else
return Reject();
else
return Accept(Moons);
}
Before voting, a person must figure out what he is looking at, and then vote depending on where it could belong. This way, if people massively vote Yes on "Should it be published" for some shitty mingame, and if it's optimally done, we must consider it agreeing with how impressive it is. For cases where people mostly do agree, there won't be any problems. For borderlines, a judge must think it over (as it is done about tier borderlines now) and make an educated decision about significance.
Demo tier must not become a dumpster for whatever doesn't belong anywhere else, it must be "stars for wild goals". We don't need a person to take care of Demo exclusively because we don't cherry-pick runs to Demo, we either publish to it straight away, or reject.
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.
1. Wait is the site doing that now or just you?
2. And then instead of "Dump to Vault" it would be "Dump to Demo" (made worse if the audience happens to be easily impressed) lol
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
Neither category would be a dumping ground, though. There'd be a category for any%/100% (which is most submitted runs) and a category for anything deemed interesting or entertaining enough to publish. Demo/New Moon/Whatever tier would need to be judged differently and a bit more harshly (entertainment is subjective, maybe multiple judges need to reach a verdict together?), though even without more strict judging I doubt it'd end up full of arbitrary low-content runs since the chatter in the submission threads is usually a pretty good indicator on its own.
I'd still just like an official admin statement regarding this. At the very least, it'd be lovely to know whether or not the proposals in the thread and poll are being implemented, considered or even rejected entirely. I could attempt to summarize everything if need be, though I'd need time to look through the thread and try to remove my obvious bias before doing that.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
AFAIK none of the admin crew (except me if I belong) has read this thread. The change we're proposing now is rather huge though, and needs quite some thought put into it by a lot more people than right now.
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.
Why don't we suppose a new tier like "demo" "hack" or "cheat" tier. This tier allow the any dirty roms, allow any funny cheat, you can show apart of game, and play from dirty savestate or SRAM. And can accept some game's replay file. You can break any rules.
When published, we can use "cheat tas" and "demo tas" at title. And this tier can't be ranked.
Why don't we suppose a new tier like "demo" "hack" or "cheat" tier. This tier allow the any dirty roms, allow any funny cheat, you can show apart of game, and play from dirty savestate or SRAM. And can accept some game's replay file. You can break any rules.
When published, we can use "cheat tas" and "demo tas" at title. And this tier can't be ranked.
This is exactly why we'd need a Demo tier, the only thing to make sure about if how impressive the result is, to not drown in all kinds of crappy condition runs. Impressiveness cutoff, likewise there is an entertainment cutoff for anything other than any%/100%.
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.
What about a bit increase the distance between Vault and Moon and make separate submissions?:
Vault Tier submissions:Vote: Should this movie be published? (Vote after watching!)
and
Moon Tier submissions:Vote: Did you find this movie entertaining? (Vote after watching!)
Being not enough entertaining, movie submitted to this category will be rejected even if it is good enough for vault.
After rejecting, autor will be able to choose - to submit it to Vault for new voting, or not. (Or somehow to improve/re-do it and later re-submit new better movie for Moon once again.)
---
It also will solve problem with imperfect voting system. Two rabbits in one shot.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
I'm not sure if I see that working or not. Under the current system, it's rare to see someone that isn't MESHUGGAH or Aqfaq say "Welp, here's one for the Vault". I assume, based on my own thoughts and some thoughts from other people in this thread and elsewhere on the forums, that there would be a lot of misplacement if tier was decided by the submitter: Some people hate the stigma of Vault and don't want to work hard on a movie only to have it end up there, some people have no confidence and think Vault existing is the only way they'll ever have runs published, and conversely some people are overconfident and would submit all their low-quality dreck as Moon material.
Under a new system with more defined rules between each tier it might work a lot better, but at the same time more defined rules would reduce the usefulness of separate voting questions since the distinction wouldn't be based solely on entertainment anymore.
The best solutions to the voting problems are all way too strict or complicated to ever be implemented, and even if they are implemented that still leaves the issue of some people just being bad at voting in general.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Vault Tier submissions:Vote: Should this movie be published? (Vote after watching!)
and
Moon Tier submissions:Vote: Did you find this movie entertaining? (Vote after watching!)
Ostensibly, if the proposed tier rehaul is implemented, the division between the tiers will become a lot clearer and more unambiguous, which in turn ought to mean that submitters should be submitting for a specific tier, iow. they should tell which tier they are submitting for. (Perhaps there should be an option in the submission page for this.)
For instance, if you have made a run that completes a game from beginning to end but you know that your run does not beat the current Vault run, but you think it's entertaining enough for Moons, then you are submitting to Moons and should state so. Therefore the voting question will still be "should this be published?" The "it's entertaining" part is kind of implied in the fact that the submission is for Moons.
In some cases a judge might change the tier of the submission at their discretion (eg. because the submitter specified the wrong one, or because the run actually could belong to a different tier).
Just some ideas for your rumination.
In light of the Vault/Moon Tier misplaced Movie thread, I think it's time to open up this discussion again. Some people have voiced their opinions again over in that thread, to make it easy, the proposed change is altering the definitions of the Vault and Moon tiers slightly.
What is currently the Vault tier (which I propose be changed to Records) will be all runs with the goals of any% and 100%.
What is currently Moon tier (which I can't think of a proposed name for) will be any runs that choose different goals for the purposes of entertainment. That's playarounds, alternate goals for completion, and glitch avoidance runs.
I have read through this thread again, and the discussion never reached a satisfying conclusion, and from all the naysayers I haven't seen any good reasons to not implement these changes.
Some reasons against I have seen:
* If it ain't broke don't fix it: except it is, demonstrably. The thread I just linked shows that.
* But what about making a good first impression: We have multiple systems already in place to ensure we put our best foot forward, like the featured movies and newcomers corner. Those systems will not go away with the new tiers.
There actually is some kind of a consensus in this thread, between those who support this proposed system, I even posted pseudocode of how would judgment work, and how well the old submisison question would fit. It just never was really considered by anyone capable of applying these changes.
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.
What is currently the Vault tier (which I propose be changed to Records) will be all runs with the goals of any% and 100%.
What is currently Moon tier (which I can't think of a proposed name for) will be any runs that choose different goals for the purposes of entertainment. That's playarounds, alternate goals for completion, and glitch avoidance runs.
So if I understand you correctly, by our current system entertaining runs go in Moons, 100%/any% runs go in Vault, and runs that are both go in Moons; whereas by your system it's the same, except that runs that are both go in the (renamed) Vault. Is that right?
How do you propose to deal with the other "tier-like" categorizations we either already have, or which were proposed in this thread, i.e. Suitable For Beginners, Gruefood Delight, and Demo? For that matter, where do you propose Star runs go that are 100% runs?
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
There actually is some kind of a consensus in this thread, between those who support this proposed system, I even posted pseudocode of how would judgment work, and how well the old submisison question would fit. It just never was really considered by anyone capable of applying these changes.
I believe it was considered, but unable to be handled at the moment. It would require a lot of time and effort and site restructuring and it's still likely that people aren't going to be receptive to the change.
I still support it 100%, but I understand any and all hesitation over actually putting it in place.
EDIT: Why did I even say I supported this idea, what the hell, me
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
I believe it was considered, but unable to be handled at the moment. It would require a lot of time and effort and site restructuring and it's still likely that people aren't going to be receptive to the change.
The only thing that'd require site code is changing how hiding works, and some names/icons. Moving can be done by users.
BTW, I disagree that there must be runs that are in both tiers. It indeed requires code changes and doesn't seem to make any changes we can't live without.
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.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
There actually is some kind of a consensus in this thread, between those who support this proposed system, I even posted pseudocode of how would judgment work, and how well the old submisison question would fit. It just never was really considered by anyone capable of applying these changes.
Before I were to consider anything, I would need to see some details of what your proposal contains, in one post. This whole thread is basically a whole jumble of ideas being passed around, and I can't make any sense of what of it is (still) relevant to your current proposal and what isn't, so please describe it succintly for me again so I know what we are actually talking about.
I also would like to know what this "consensus" consists of, because I've only seen a pretty small handful of people have any sort of agreement at best in this thread. In fact, the poll results seem to imply there is actually a different kind of consensus going on.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
