However, I'm afraid the information the ruling is based upon is wrong, and it may have had an adverse impact on the verdict.

And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.

The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible.

It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion.

It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.

And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point.

The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case.

Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.

This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.

In terms of PAL games in general, different platforms, different companies, and different games all exhibit varying levels of quality. Obviously if a PAL game is the original then it can be easily considered the main version of a game. For some platforms, there are also no difference game-wise if something is running in NTSC or PAL mode. However, for platforms designed to be timed and framed into old television sets, there are important differences between the two modes. Once there is a difference between the two, games designed for NTSC which are not modified for PAL generally exhibit some very weird behavior. As one example, I've seen fighting games where the key combos to execute various moves barely work when playing in PAL mode, the timing is altered enough that the game doesn't recognize the key presses the same way. As many PAL ports are like this in some fashion, it's ample reason to reject them, Just play the original which works normally.

The region settings must be correct If you are running an NTSC game ((U) or (J)), you must set your emulator to record in NTSC mode. Likewise, if you are running a PAL game ((E)), you must record your movie in PAL mode. Any other setting will get your movie promptly rejected. Note that such settings are enabled automatically in most emulators, but it's better to check before you start recording. If you are obsoleting a movie that was recorded with the wrong settings, that movie's completion time will be adjusted to account for the fact that PAL games run at 50 Hz and NTSC at 60 Hz. This rule only comes into effect on older console games that have badly programmed region lock-out.

When we look at PAL ports, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original.

If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original (and this could make sense to occur in games that are not meant for old television sets). If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original. The answer to that hinges on do the engine differences necessitate very different ways to play the game, and do those differences register with the audience at large. In most cases, PAL runs should be rejected, but based on the various aforementioned criteria, there are cases where PAL runs will definitely be accepted. <p>Nintendo unlike other companies has always aimed to do a decent job porting NTSC games to PAL. Nintendo is often one of the only companies where you will see the PAL game having various timings corrected to ensure that the game-play closely matches that of the NTSC version. Nintendo is often one of the only companies that adjusts the resolution of the displayed game to match the different resolution PAL televisions are capable of. Nintendo often also does some localization, converting currency, weight, and measurements to be those used locally. The attention to detail by Nintendo in PAL porting started with early NES games, and improved as Nintendo ported more and more and with newer platforms.

For its time in history and in comparison to a bunch of other early NES PAL games, Super Mario Bros. PAL is actually a relatively decent port (although maintains several noticeable differences from the NTSC original in terms of movement and other factors). Since the game is non-original but a decent port (relatively during its debut), it definitely qualifies for consideration as to whether it should be published alongside the original as another game variant. This game happens to also be a game I'm quite familiar with. I played many of its variants on NES (since the 80s!), SNES, and Gameboy Color. I also dabbled in its programming and made various hacks on NES and SNES versions. In my opinion, I find this game qualifies for having many branches made of it. I can also see the SNES variant qualifies for certain branches as an acceptable TAS to show off a run without as many glitches being possible, and the Gameboy Color variant for some of its challenges that earlier versions do not offer. The question of course is, is there value in this PAL variant that we have lacking from all our other variants and branches thereof?

The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.

In order to get a better handle on this, I went to time the actual playable segments between the fastest NTSC and this PAL run (note, there may be rounding errors, and it's possible I was a frame off either way for some calculations):

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 12.2305 | 12.083  | -0.1475
1-2       | 21.583  | 21.15   | -0.433
4-1       | 23.983  | 23.967  | -0.016
4-2       | 17.9495 | 17.567  | -0.3825
8-1       | 40.0825 | 40.233  |  0.1505
8-2       | 24.8655 | 23.383  | -1.4825
8-3       | 22.6985 | 22.767  |  0.0685
8-4       | 32.5275 | 32.601  |  0.0735
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 195.92  | 193.751 | -2.169

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Based on this NTSC is slower by ~2.169 seconds (about 130 frames in NTSC).

However, there is a flaw with this logic. These runs aim for overall fastest real time, and thereby performs some actions which are slightly slower in the playable segments in order to abuse how the non-playable part is played as well as avoid 3 or 6 castle fireworks animations. However, the NTSC run goes significantly out of its way in 8-2 to abuse this trade off, by ~2.379 seconds in my calculation. If the run would discount non-playable segments to achieve the fastest possible any-variant time, we'd instead be looking at:

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
8-2       | 22.4865 | 23.383  |  0.8965
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 193.541 | 193.751 |  0.21

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) In this case, the NTSC version is faster by 0.21 seconds (about a dozen frames)! NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included in 1-1, because unlike other levels, going through that here is a decision that can be avoided. In that case the 1-1 times become:

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 18.1655 | 18.433  |  0.2675
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 199.476 | 200.101 |  0.634

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Gaining the NTSC run an additional 0.415 seconds (about 25 frames). All in all, PAL being necessarily faster in terms of game-play is doubtful.

The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC.

Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this? I decided to ask other judges for their opinions for the different possibilities, raised a few counterpoints with them, then assessed how they changed their opinion. I will not list their names because I should be the sole person receiving any fallout for the judgment on this run. What follows is how I characterize the opinions they conveyed to me.

Before I mentioned (counter)points:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
A     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
B     | Absurd   | Yes         | Maybe
C     | Yes      | No Way!     | Maybe
D     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
------------------------------------------

After:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
B     | Absurd   | No Way!     | Yes!
C     | Maybe    | No Way!     | Yes
D     | Absurd   | Maybe       | Yes
E     | Absurd   | No          | Yes!
------------------------------------------

((EDIT: Tables reformatted to show properly)) (One judge was unique in each group)

When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant. However, those are not good reasons to accept something, we have rules. Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting. After assessing everything yesterday for one last time, I was conflicted on what to do. After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other. In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things. Rejecting.

Furthermore, the concept of "original version" and "non-original version" is not on TASVideos.org in any form until you mentioned it here.

You must be having a really hard time. "Original" appears 4 times on this TASVideos.org page: http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html which happens to be the Judging handbook. I'm sure next you'll be arguing that the judging guidelines don't actually refer to how to judge these games.

SMB PAL is an acceptable version (and if it's not, that's on you, the judge, to show why, against all of the reasons presented in the thread)

You mean the reasons presented in the thread against it on the first pages, which quoted the Movie Rules regarding NTSC vs PAL? Many in the thread didn't consider it acceptable at all till MrWint's analysis. Also I presented my own analysis in my judging comments. Based on your comment here, it appears you're not even aware of what I wrote.

given it is on the original console (NES) it is effectively an "original version".

This fails common sense. It's not the original version and you know it.

The onus is on you to show that there are actual differences besides the framerate which makes PAL NES a different console entirely

Why should I attempt to prove a ridiculous claim that I never made that bears little relevance?

A direct comparison is very easy - you compare from start of input to end of input, with each set of inputs at its proper framerate, and then time them. And in this comparison, PAL is ahead, because it finishes its inputs first in realtime. The framerate changes are not hard to deal with, there is zero reason this should have even been brought up.

I bring them up because the rules do:

• Keep in mind that time gained solely through basic ROM differences will be discounted for the purpose of comparison. This includes:
  • differences in title screen, cutscenes, and menus (unless menus are the game's main control interface).

Being that these are our rules, it is rather obvious how some of them apply to this case. (Although as I mentioned both in judgment and again in my decision tree, some of it is not clear cut.)

Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.

Where in the TASVideos.org rules does it state that when comparing versions from different regions you need to factor in framerate changes?

How about you tell me where the rules state that this should NOT be factored in? Since it's up in the air, I find any direct comparison to be flawed.

"Conclusion: I don't have the slightest idea." Then why are you even rendering a judgement if you don't know?

Why are you getting hung up on a point which didn't in the end have any bearing on the outcome? Your whole argument here would only be valid if I accepted it as a new branch, then you could argue that it was supposed to obsolete it.

In regards to obsoletion, I believe the decision against doing so was reached extremely hastily without considering the rules of TASVideos.org as they stand now. The decision posted covers a fair bit of what is described as "extraneous content not related to the decision made" and this "extraneous content" is furthermore inaccurate and also does not conform to site rules. The decision against a new branch (assuming we are not considering obsoletion) is likely the soundest part of the judgement given yet even this has its flaws due to various factors, including partially the hasty decisions made prior.

You're welcome to make your own opinions and characterize others and their actions as you see fit. We're going to have to disagree.

If we can't change the rules and the minds of the judges, we need to convince the audience that they weren't quite right. If we can't convince the audience, we are either wrong ourselves, or haven't came up with compelling arguments.

Or we also can try to tweak everything: the rules, the judges' opinions, the audience's opinions, making one huge compromise. I know it works, we've done that before with little to no complaints on the result.

But the thing is, the verdict should have considered all these factors to begin with.

It's clear to everybody that this run has enough entertainment merits. See how the rule doesn't require both. And again, the technical aspect of that game that allows this one glitch there is the main part that makes it so entertaining to everyone. It is very minor. Yet it in reality turns out as an incredibly powerful and exceptional thing, I explained why. Not only because the game is fully known and suddenly the run is different. But mostly because it is still shorter in real time. That's the part that generates all the madness here, and it is as clear as the entertainment value of this run.

Therefore I think that the judge guidelines, as the OoT example shows, provide opportunity to at least soften the "lunacy" of obsoleting a "perfectly valid original".

I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.

There are more things that are not recognized that would favor PAL. The suspicious time gain of NTSC in 8-3 is caused by the fact that doing the flag pole glitch costs (playable) time, and NTSC doesn't do one in 8-3, so these would be another couple frames gained by PAL in this calculation. My main point though is that the PAL version is faster than the NTSC version, not only on technicalities, even when only considering the actual gameplay. The individual level times show that PAL is consistently a tiny bit faster. And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.

This doesn't invalidate the reasoning in the ruling, according to the helpful decision tree the same path still applies. So why is this relevant at all then? The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible. When you can show that PAL is only faster based on a technicality, it is easier to discount it as a port that doesn't reach the glory of the true original. It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion. However, if that isn't actually true, you're not left with much to justify the decision.

I can understand why people are upset about this decision. The way it looks like to me is that you have a submission on a different version of the game than the currently published one. It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.

And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point. The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case. Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.

None of the other judges had seen any numbers I came up with prior to me posting the judgement. The numbers didn't have anything to do with how they were convinced either. Nor were numbers even relevant to any point any judge thought of except for one of them. This was also already mentioned in this thread.

Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.

Instead of attacking me claiming not much thought went into the decision (which I spent over a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges), or my opinion of PAL which I laid out in the judge notes which is contrary to your conclusion regarding my opinion, why not consider that you yourself may be a bit biased because of the game or the effort you put into it.

adelikat provided an argument for why it does, see some of my earlier posts. Also, whether it's better or not isn't really grounds whether it should obsolete another. I think Super Mario All-Stars is better, should it obsolete everything?

And if we abstract from the time-saver tricks and just take gameplay alone that's faster, that's where we need to clarify our rules. The reason to pick a PAL ROM version over NTSC should be superiority only IMO. Even if the two versions are similar in their quality, switching to PAL whenever it's faster feels like it reduces the challenge that has been traditional there and gives cheap time advantages. A similar thing happened to startup RAM state: we don't want to give this cheap method to everyone until we have a solid reason to. The solid reason being certain console possibility.

Similarly, we should only switch to PAL if it's justified, makes sense, and in my earlier post I suggested these to check superiority: better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes. Some of these, or just one, but hugely superior. The decision to switch over should be a consensus between the viewers and the judges (and the author I guess?). Superiority here hasn't been proven, the PAL version is just shorter by its nature, and not the biggest part of the crowd wants obsoletion, and the judges disagree with it, so there is no consensus here.

I can only go on what you wrote though, and my comments reflect the impression it had on me (and possibly other people). When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.

You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.

Regarding the original vs. non-original discussion, I admit I didn't read all posts in the thread in detail. I did however read all your responses (except the small-print you clearly don't want me to read), and you pointed to the Judging Guidelines, and gave an example of how acceleration changes difficulty in some sections. The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty. Of course a certain progression was clearly intended, but not everything that's different is automatically "non-original". If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL. My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.

This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.

It's a speedrun of a different game. As in, the games are not identical. The difference in speed is not because one run is more optimized than the other, but because one is using a different game, with functional differences, than the other. Personally I find it a bit silly to argue "this TAS is faster than that other TAS, therefore it should obsolete the latter", when the TASes aren't even running the same game binary. Because they are not bit-by-bit the same game, if both deserve publication, they should be published side-by-side.

Sorry Nach, my intention was not to attack you personally, I may not have spent as much time as I should have formulating my points, so it ended up a rougher than I intended.

When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.

You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.

The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL.

My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.

I didn't disagree with the verdict, I disagreed with the way it was presented, which is what I think the main reason for the small outrage has been. I'm sure you thought about this thoroughly, but the judge's notes didn't reflect all of that properly.

Before we even get into this, let's get things straight. You, Nach, an administrator for the site, are seriously attacking people for disagreeing with you, and yet expect to still be considered a fair judge? There is absolutely no need for that (especially considering I, despite my disagreements, was very civil and objective in debating the judgement and not anything related to you as a person. Thanks for showing the same respect back jerk) and honestly, if you hadn't been so damn determined to insult me, I wouldn't be coming after this judgement as much as I am. This post probably would not have been created. But you insist on being right, and you leave me no choice.

Despite region differences, the NES is the NES, and while regions may be differentiated in the rules of TASVideos.org, nowhere does it mention that consoles are as well.

"When we look at PAL <em>ports</em>, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original." You once again insist on calling it a port despite still being for the NES.

Aside from once again calling PAL a port (I'll stop pointing this out from now on, but this error is basically all throughout the judgement)

and the differences in the engine, made with that goal in mind, are extremely difficult to notice

However the kicker here is actually in the first sentence. "If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original [...]" (emphasis added). Nintendo, as a game company, has always aimed to offer the exact same quality across all regions of the game it releases. I would argue they succeed, and your sentiments (based on the second paragraph here) seem to mirror mine. In regards to "engine/quality" the / is indicative of "or", thus the sentence reads "engine or quality" and while the engine may not be the same, the quality is (by your own sentiments), thus qualifying this run to obsolete NTSC based on the judgement text given

The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.

We'll get to the actual comparisons next, but the initial statement is factually wrong. If you look at the submission times, the PAL TAS is, in fact, faster than the NTSC TAS. ... Next, we have the comments about what non-playable parts are included, and included in this list is "Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle" which is after the end of input and thus isn't included in TASVideos.org timing at all.

I would expect an administrator of the site, including one that has stated he is "quite familiar with" to realize when the timing of the TAS would end for a game. And yet this error was made. While errors like this one may not be deemed relevant by the judge to the decision ultimately rendered, they certainly show that the judgement is made by someone whose expertise is questionable at times (including this one, especially as this is not the only error in this judgement text), and for said judge to be an administrator of the site certainly does not paint things in a better light for Nach.

As also discussed here, the alterations made for the game's transition to PAL framerates included modifying the frame rule. NTSC's frame rule is 21 frames and the game runs at 60 frames per second (roughly), or 0.35 second chunks (technically slightly less, but for some slight simplicity here we'll round to two decimal places), and the most you would wait is 20 frames (0.33 seconds) (assuming if you meet the frame rule exactly you move on "instantly"). PAL's frame rule is 18 frames and the game runs at 50 frames per second, or 0.36 second chunks, and the most you would wait is 17 frames (0.34 seconds). Therefore, to correct the final few sentences, PAL actually gets slightly more time per frame rule to sneak into the frame rule (0.36 seconds vs 0.35 seconds), while NTSC is actually faster to the next frame rule if you go barely over (0.33 seconds vs 0.34 seconds), and not the other way around, as is stated in the judgement text. Even if my presumption that you move on instantly if you meet the frame rule exactly is wrong, the second corrected statemet still holds true (0.35 seconds vs 0.36 seconds). Yet another error by Nach.

Let us compare this table vs the one by MrWint (albeit comparing MrWint's PAL TAS vs the NTSC TAS, but given that his TAS matches the submission by HappyLee in real time identically, the fact that the two are different and that his is potentially "faster" should end up being irrelevant).

As I initially mentioned in my post on Page 9 of 12 (responded to by Nach on Page 10 of 12), the first paragraph here ignores the fact that PAL also contains gameplay/nongameplay tradeoffs to avoid the firework animations as well. Once again, another error, this time extremely significant and relevant, which was dismissed by Nach as "The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC." - which only further questions why all these comparisons are part of the judgement text if they don't matter (as I stated near the beginning here)?

Not only do proper numbers make things closer, it actually keeps things favoring PAL, unlike in the incorrect information where NTSC pulls ahead here.

And once again, these numbers can easily be accurately obtained as posted by MrWint yet Nach did not ask in this thread how to do so. Nor was it asked how to in the SMB thread on the forums, either (at least not since April, which is much before this TAS was submitted, and likely not at any point in 2017). So once again, a lack of effort in parts that Nach believed were not relevant.

Let me requote that first statement. "Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this?" This statement being made about information that was not relevant to the judgement that was made. If that alone does not scream contradiction, I have no clue how to show you any clearer.

What are the counterpoints presented? This is never stated. If we assume that it was the above information

not only do we now get to show that Nach is wrong, but that Nach has actively lied in regards to the judgement text made - you cannot claim something is not relevant if it is the counterpoints you yourself use in discussion with other judges to formulate a ruling on the judgement!

If we assume that the above information was not the counterarguments presented, then we have the issue of secrecy.

When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant.

The first statement made here is also not language I would expect of an unbiased judge. Declaring a major, valid, consideration "lunacy" is utterly absurd.

A proper comparison would be to include the differences caused by the gameplay in the cutscenes. You claim that the cutscenes differ in time, however, ignore the fact that this is due to differences in each game's gameplay time (which, as addressed above, even your comparisons on this are questionable at utter best) and the fact that SMB features a frame rule which causes such non-gameplay cutscenes to only progress at specific frame points. In short, since the gameplay time affects the cutscene time inversely (longer gameplay can cause shorter cutscenes) it is unfair to discount cutscene length when comparing versions as they are affected directly by the gameplay itself, and therefore should be included when comparing the gameplay.

Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.

If you answered the first answer, then here's your treat. The rules might not exist in a vacuum, but your pedantic insistance on treating them in an authoritarian manner here goes against you, because the rules explicitly state that comparisons between NTSC-U and NTSC-J are subject to the comparisons of text and such, and that because none of the rule includes PAL, explicitly stating NTSC-U and NTSC-J it does not apply to PAL. If you answered the latter, let me actually address your point. Title screen may be a very small difference if any exists at all. I haven't calculated, because it's possibly a hundreth of a second or so if it exists at all. Language change is zero. And cutscenes were addressed above. So all of the rules you want to apply are either changes of zero, very nearly zero, or inapplicable due to the interaction between gameplay and non-gameplay times- and even if you do include the gameplay only, it is stillquestionable at best if NTSC is ahead of PAL.

I'm not the judge here. It's not my job to know the rules, it's yours (and given some of what's been said above, that knowledge you have is certainly not entirely correct). Show me where it says they need to be factored in.

I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.

No, comparing regions and versions for OOT and comparing regions for SMB is not apples to limousines. It's a very relevant one.

Firstly, it's nice to see numbers from someone who is able to create proper data.

And yet you attack others all the time (no, I won't bother to quote every single one starting from your first response to me, you can look it up yourself) but cry foul when you get attacked.

While I'm still not convinced this wasn't part of what you used with your counterarguments (and nothing you can say will ever change that, you have lost my trust as far as that goes)

In short, the game does not need to be bit-by-bit identical for obsoletion on TASVideos.org. Precedent and site rules both prove this.

In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things.

Guys, how about we simply enjoy how good this submission was and discuss/argue about the PAL vs. NTSC ruling in a different thread (look here!) ? =D Especially if you're not HappyLee! The judging has been done, there isn't not much you can do. Especially when HappyLee accepts the judging of his own submission. It's really up to him to contest the judging if he doesn't like it. From what I understand, it got rejected principally for one reason:

In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things.

Which is what you should try to change if you want to give this submission a second chance. =)

I don't understand how people come to this "obvious" conclusion.

Nobody paid attention in the discussion, because nobody posted any hard numbers, just kept on going on and on about faster real time, which is never how we compare changes across versions.

Although from the conversation we had, he is strongly attempting to argue based on a ratio between different engine numbers being relatively proportional to each other, with those same numbers being present in level design by area. That proportion according to him does not align correctly in the PAL version (I did not even attempt to verify any of this data myself).

It's hard to claim PAL is original when it came out about 3 years after the NTSC version. Nintendo wasn't even sure they were going to do Europe at all at first, and wanted to see if things caught on in the US prior. Additionally, if you're correct that the PAL changes are intentional (bug fixes aside), why don't those changes appear in SMB2j?

Nobody paid attention in the discussion, because nobody posted any hard numbers, just kept on going on and on about faster real time, which is never how we compare changes across versions.

I don't think it's fair of you to expect this to just naturally come up in the discussion. I had no idea it was relevant, and nobody even questioned the timing in that direction. If this is a relevant part of how the run will be judged, I think it's also partly on you as the judge to bring this up before the final verdict hits people with this unexpectedly.

Speaking of trusting my numbers, the table I posted is a straight export of a spreadsheet with only formatting adjustments. The times are rounded to the nearest millisecond. The frequencies used are 60.0988138974405 for NTSC and 50.0069789081886 for PAL. Can you point to one of the inconsistencies you saw?

I know it's a stretch, and I'm not claiming that this is exactly what actually happened. It could have happened for any single part of the game though, or for other games, my point is that the current guideline of always preferring the original is presumptious.

Regarding SMB2j, that's a trick question, it's because SMB2j came out in 1986, the PAL version only in 1987. Maybe they realized their mistakes only after SMB2j's release ;)

Overall, while this submission didn't go as I expected in more than one way, I'm happy with the result. Thanks Nach for putting up with me, and again sorry for overstepping in my initial reaction

(although from reading from your last correspondence in this thread you also seem to enjoy this kind of thing a little).

It seems myself and MrWint measured time slightly differently

but there is no disagreement that the time saved in 8-2 is 112 frames.

<klmz> doing the new flagpole glitch in 8-2 wastes at least 120 frames but makes it up later

Speaking of trusting my numbers, the table I posted is a straight export of a spreadsheet with only formatting adjustments. The times are rounded to the nearest millisecond. The frequencies used are 60.0988138974405 for NTSC and 50.0069789081886 for PAL. Can you point to one of the inconsistencies you saw?

Sure, for first part of 1-1 NTSC, you have FPS as 60.10125755348685285, for the next part it's 60.09745533297238766, meanwhile 8-2 is 60.09963040334243934. So either I'm not doing my math right, my calculator is broken, or there's some fishy rounding or other issues with the numbers you posted.

K I actually read the post since reading is a very easy skill. I think he makes a lot of good points, and more importantly I think it provides enough evidence for the run to be rejudged. So, calling for that.

I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).

I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).

The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?

I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).

The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?

Hi Habreno, For me, what made it unreadable was sheer volume. I stop by TASVideos in the morning before work, or for briefly before I go to bed. Lack of time kept me from being able to read what you wrote. I don't discourage long posts, but a quick TLDR section at the bottom of the post really helps people like me who are short on time.