Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Nach wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
I was senior judge at the time, and senior judge had the final call on movie rules.
Senior judge has final call on interpreting the movie rules. Admin(s) are supposed to be involved when it comes to rule changes.
I find this and most of your posts in this thread to demonstrate terrible leadership.
I trust senior judges to make these kinds of rule changes. They are the ones dealing with submissions every day and are paying the most attention, and dealing with our audience and contributors. Our senior judges are in a better position to make decisions than either you or I.
You admit you haven't been paying attention. A good leader in that position gives their staff the benefit of the doubt. However, you've come in with the assumption that things were done wrong because a decision you don't agree with happened.
There is no record of me approving this decision because I didn't feel there needed to be. But if you need it on the record, I support this decision to allow GB in GBC, as well we GBC in GBA. So are we good now? I want the next step to be for feos, our current senior judge, to finish leading a discussion such as http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=500675#500675 and make the change himself.
It's hard to get everything all in 1 post, so I'll just say that I'm concerned for the morale of Alyosha, TiKevin83 based on behavior in this thread. They are some of the leading experts in emulation, hardware behavior, and console verification for GB/GBC, and I want to see them continuing to make their awesome contributions that have greatly helped our community.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
What about
feos wrote:
So as of right now, I don't think we need any extra rules that ban VC TASing in any form. All we might want to do is saying that if TASing the VC bundle results in similar gameplay as without it, we prefer without it, for the sake of originality. If TASing the VC bundle showcases gameplay as different from original as we require for Moons branches, be that features or glitches, we publish that separately. Same for differences that count as separate game modes (vaultable).
If some other company ever develops a comparable virtualization+enhancement layer from scratch, alloys it together with their previous game, and releases it as a uniform bundle for a certain console, similar to all other releases for that console, we can extrapolate this approach over and include that system in the VC rule.
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I support all of this. We deal with the current VC TASing as you described. Other possibilities are still theoretical and we can cross the bridge when we get to it.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
For reference, all submissions and publications of GB movies that had their system labeled as GBC have now been set back to GB. This fixes the issue where GB-in-GBC movies couldn't be found in the GB movie listing as they were supposed to be.
For now, new submissions of GB-in-GBC games in BizHawk need to have their system IDs manually updated by senior staff, until BizHawk updates allow a good way to discern GB games and GBC games in the .bk2 header.
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.
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
We already allow any different revision of the same game, especially when one revision has specific bugs that allow to beat the game faster. We also already allow different hardware revisions, for example the different PSX BIOS versions, for which in some aspects may feature even deeper differences than GB vs GBC. You insist that GB games haven't been designed for the GBC platform, but that also applies for any other platform game that was developed before introducing hardware revisions. Is there any reason why we should treat the Game Boy differently?
This is actually a good point, which I accept. I have also mentioned a similar case made recently that such later console changes should also be disallowed. In such a scenario only BIOS versions made prior to the game should be allowed.
However seeing as we've long had the PSX BIOS version rules in place that only the region has to match, and it's an easy to go along with rule, I don't suggest we change it, or disallow later versions of the same console in the same region. However as we are rethinking this, versions earlier to the game should probably be the preferred version, especially if you want to claim accuracy. But we can accept it either way.
feos wrote:
Subjectivity. If I'm familiar with situations that are covered by our movie rules, and I stop considering some of them valid and acceptable, then the rule itself is not legitimate anymore?
I think you're looking at this backwards. You come across a scenario which aren't covered by our movie rules, or the movie rules weren't exactly intended for. In which case you need some updated rules. We shouldn't just be going blindly with an old rule when it was made with incomplete knowledge. When we get new knowledge, we can adapt as appropriate.
feos wrote:
So in any encode of GB Zelda, you will see the same flickering when watching on your computer, regardless of the mode.
That actually depends on what kind of screen you have and if you have any sort of video filtering going on. My friend also informed me of several other games that have similar issues, and the worst one of them all is ZAS. That game is practically seizure-inducing if played on anything other than an original DMG, poor quality ghosting screen, or using some sort of frame blending.
feos wrote:
How many people you want to come in and say "I'm fine with all those subtle differences" to finally understand that information you bring up is not being missed?
I don't believe that's the case, because they weren't aware of it prior to me mentioning it, and they made believe it didn't exist after I mentioned it. I cannot see into people's minds, but it seems to me people are saying they're fine because they don't want to acknowledge that there might be issues, and they are not fully aware of the problems, and instead chose to attack me.
adelikat wrote:
I find this and most of your posts in this thread to demonstrate terrible leadership.
Having a conversation is terrible leadership? I'd rather have a conversation than just doing something. You'd rather have no conversation at all?
adelikat wrote:
I trust senior judges to make these kinds of rule changes. They are the ones dealing with submissions every day and are paying the most attention, and dealing with our audience and contributors. Our senior judges are in a better position to make decisions than either you or I.
We've already decided in the past that administrators should be involved in rule changes. If you want to change your mind, fine.
adelikat wrote:
You admit you haven't been paying attention. A good leader in that position gives their staff the benefit of the doubt. However, you've come in with the assumption that things were done wrong because a decision you don't agree with happened.
I admit I haven't noticed this particular issue. I'm sure there's things that happened that you also haven't noticed. I came in with an assumption because over the past ~3 years, every time there was a rule that needed changing, the judges asked my opinion. I'm surprised there was a case that for some reason they didn't. If they never asked me my opinion, then I wouldn't be surprised, but this case for some reason did not follow other recent rule changes.
Mothrayas wrote:
For reference, all submissions and publications of GB movies that had their system labeled as GBC have now been set back to GB. This fixes the issue where GB-in-GBC movies couldn't be found in the GB movie listing as they were supposed to be.
Thank you, that was my main issue.
feos wrote:
Do these look good?
Yes.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
