Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Pokota wrote:
Would movies in the Gruefood Delight be re-evaluated if and when the changes are implemented?
Unrejections always happen when the rules significantly change.
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.
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(154)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 357
Location: Holland, MI
I think this majorly improves some pain points around pretentiousness of the tiers and over-focus on entertainment/audience feedback in the initial response to new submissions for established speedrun categories. It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication. I could run through all the examples for Pokemon but one that wouldn't fit in the current description is unintended warps vs ace, eg Legend of Zelda "defeat Ganon" vs "SRM" game end glitch. The way the big examples are described right now leaves out that big chunk of glitched but no ACE type movies which I imagine are intended to still be an allowable category, but I would really like some way also to appreciate movies when there are vastly different glitches from a technical perspective that all satisfy the same branch rules like ACE or no ACE/unintended warps.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
Pokota wrote:
Would movies in the Gruefood Delight be re-evaluated if and when the changes are implemented?
Unrejections always happen when the rules significantly change.
I can handle this, for the record. Honestly, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't already been planning on it and wasn't already preparing for it. It'd be a long process but I'm crazy, motivated, and unemployed enough to take care of it.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
The logical continuation of this thought is that Moons could be every movie that gets (legitimately) nominated for an award in any category.
Thus, Stars and Moons would both have a clear, indisputable meaning, and it would be based on the whole community's evaluation of those movies.
Since we have the full archive of the Awards, these could also be partially or wholly applied retroactively, if desired.
Given how easy it is to nominate a TAS (literally takes only 1 suggestion) I don't think making moons "is nominated" is a good idea.
I looked at what the consequences of my Moons suggestion would be. I went through the whole Awards nominations archive and filtered out the obsoleted movies.
Currently there are 1350 Moons (and 117 Stars) out of 2338 active publications.
Using Awards nominations only, there would be approximately 800 Moons (and 117 Stars—yes I subtracted 117 from the total nominations number).
So, if there is a valid criticism of the suggestion, it is that it would make Moons more exclusive—not that it would be too easy to get into Moons.
But, this suggestion is in line with what Samsara stated in the original post:
Samsara wrote:
[1] Currently, Moons is treated as the "default" tier, a relic of the site's past
...
[1] Expanding Vault in this proposed way would effectively bring it up to the "default" tier of the site.
...
[1] Given that this would be the biggest tier
...
[2] Moons would just be a tag in the same vein as Console Verified or Commentary, denoting that the run is "non-standard" and was voted on by the audience to be a part of the site.
...
[2] Moons would be treated the same way as before, favoring audience reaction heavily
The suggestion to incorporate Moons into the Awards via nominations would fulfill both [1] making the former Vault the default, biggest 'tier' and [2] granting the audience the power to elevate certain well-received 'default' movies up to Moons.
Doesn't making Moons a category for "the good movies" only continue the problem of Vault being perceived as a bad classification, which is part of what the proposed changes are trying to deal with?
[2] Moons would just be a tag in the same vein as Console Verified or Commentary, denoting that the run is "non-standard" and was voted on by the audience to be a part of the site.
Arc wrote:
The logical continuation of this thought is that Moons could be every movie that gets (legitimately) nominated for an award in any category.
Arc wrote:
Using Awards nominations only
...
The suggestion to incorporate Moons into the Awards via nominations would fulfill both [1] making the former Vault the default, biggest 'tier' and [2] granting the audience the power to elevate certain well-received 'default' movies up to Moons.
Basing it solely on whether it was nominated or not, doesn't seem like much of a vote to me. Looking back at this past year's award nominations, people didn't even have to justify their nominations. Simply listing out movies in a post was enough.
Additionally, I don't like this idea because newly published movies would have to wait potentially a whole year, to have a chance of being recognized for Moons.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
TiKevin83 wrote:
I think this majorly improves some pain points around pretentiousness of the tiers and over-focus on entertainment/audience feedback in the initial response to new submissions for established speedrun categories. It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication. I could run through all the examples for Pokemon but one that wouldn't fit in the current description is unintended warps vs ace, eg Legend of Zelda "defeat Ganon" vs "SRM" game end glitch. The way the big examples are described right now leaves out that big chunk of glitched but no ACE type movies which I imagine are intended to still be an allowable category, but I would really like some way also to appreciate movies when there are vastly different glitches from a technical perspective that all satisfy the same branch rules like ACE or no ACE/unintended warps.
To be blunt, I feel this would just be heading in a different direction of elitism, from heavy bias towards entertainment to heavy bias towards the technical side. I fear it'd imply there's an extremely high barrier to entry to start TASing, where anything less than fully understanding your chosen system's assembly code isn't enough to get into the hobby. Think of it this way: What does the general TASvideos audience have to gain from several distinct Pokemon ACE runs being published alongside each other? Is it worth directly showcasing every ACE attack vector on the site when most people don't have the technical knowledge to appreciate the differences between each one? Do these movies NEED to be published in order to have merit or be appreciated by the right people? Personally, I don't think so. They just need to be shown off within their respective communities, communities that understand them and can build off of them further, communities that would highly appreciate the research being done. In that regard, I think every single created TAS has merit, even suboptimal ones or ones of games that have been done hundreds of times before.
I do feel there's another discussion to be had about expanding the site in some other way to give more attention to these kinds of TASes without publication, some sort of ascended Userfiles system maybe, but I don't think working that out is a major priority right now. I'd like to get through this, and then I'd like to hash out some changes to the Movie Rules in general, and then maybe we can all discuss direct site improvements from there.
Arc wrote:
The suggestion to incorporate Moons into the Awards via nominations would fulfill both [1] making the former Vault the default, biggest 'tier' and [2] granting the audience the power to elevate certain well-received 'default' movies up to Moons.
You're completely missing the point. Basically, what you're asking is for all of this change to happen just so we can go straight back to the old ways. There is no "elevation up to Moons" in this new system, because Moons wouldn't be a tier anymore. It would simply be a flag to indicate a non-standard category that the audience enjoyed. Giving a Moon to every single award nomination would pollute the well in such a way that nobody would be able to understand what a Moon is supposed to be under this new system.
The point of the proposal is to make it so that Moons isn't explicitly just an indicator of "this movie is entertaining". The point of Moons in the new system is to showcase the level of unique thinking needed to create a non-standard category with wide audience appeal. It should never be applied to standard categories because of that, because it would just go right back to being a "higher tier" again, and it wouldn't even be accurate since there are plenty of standard categories with movie ratings of over 9.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(154)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 357
Location: Holland, MI
Exactly what I was thinking, thanks Samsara. It's not a priority at all and would play too much into elitism to just make those movies publishable, but it would long term be nice to have a way for communities to flag important userfiles or some system like that.
Also to be frank, this feels more singling out "ACE" here, when there are plenty of non-ACE gegs possible (ACE just being the most common), and glossing over that reverse engineering/similarly technical feats could be needed when TASing, even ones which do not use glitches at all. There's also plenty of non-ACE glitches which could need even higher levels of technicality to be used effectively. Also implying you even need to understand the technical differences to appreciate the TASes (which is not always the case).
Regardless however, the creation of a "demo" tier could solve TiKevin's dilemma (reminder, the TAS you linked as an example would literally be "another Pokemon ACE TAS", and is particularly technical considering that's literally both GB and SNES assembly). Of course, it would need entertainment, so that somewhat solves the issues of "you need to understand technical differences to appreciate it."
I've read (can't remember the post or Discord discussion) about some people wondering how to restyle the site for this. Here is my idea, how does it look?
I'm all for having it show the console verification flag. While I am biased, I do feel that console verification is an important thing to recognize. If anything, including the commentary flag is probably the most important one to show. Even though not many publications have commentary, I feel it adds a lot for the casual viewer, so they can better understand what's happening while they watch.
I'm not sure Fastest Completion is necessary, at least not right away. Perhaps as more categories are published, this will become a more notable flag. Of the 106 non-obsoleted movies published this year, 67% of them have this flag.
Styling-wise, displaying all these extra flags might make the list feel a little cluttered though.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
TiKevin83 wrote:
I think this majorly improves some pain points around pretentiousness of the tiers and over-focus on entertainment/audience feedback in the initial response to new submissions for established speedrun categories. It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication. I could run through all the examples for Pokemon but one that wouldn't fit in the current description is unintended warps vs ace, eg Legend of Zelda "defeat Ganon" vs "SRM" game end glitch. The way the big examples are described right now leaves out that big chunk of glitched but no ACE type movies which I imagine are intended to still be an allowable category, but I would really like some way also to appreciate movies when there are vastly different glitches from a technical perspective that all satisfy the same branch rules like ACE or no ACE/unintended warps.
Turn Moons into a flag. Assign it to all external goals/player imposed restrictions/concepts that don't explicitly and officially exist in the game. Require them to meet acceptability reasons based on entertainment. As long as a side goal branch meets them, accept. Obsolete a different branch if needed.
If we're not sure whether we want it or not, reject.
If it contradicts some guidelines but we agree that we need it to be an exception because it's so impressive, accept. Probably that's when the Demo flag should come in.
It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication.
It doesn't "fail" at it because brainstorming means people with ideas on how to fix something gracefully, should share those ideas even if they sound stupid or opportunistic. If you have some neat solution in mind on how we can accept what is worth accepting ("makes sense", which will probably be our main phrase with this new system), while also resisting against things that are not worth accepting ("doesn't make sense"), please post it!
Samsara wrote:
I do feel there's another discussion to be had about expanding the site in some other way to give more attention to these kinds of TASes without publication, some sort of ascended Userfiles system maybe
Agreed.
InputEvelution wrote:
Doesn't making Moons a category for "the good movies" only continue the problem of Vault being perceived as a bad classification, which is part of what the proposed changes are trying to deal with?
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.
You're completely missing the point. Basically, what you're asking is for all of this change to happen just so we can go straight back to the old ways
My position is to accept the part of the proposal about expanding what can go in the Vault and making it the default publication level, but I don't think that you need to completely destroy the concept of Moons as movies that stand out as entertaining. Making a beautiful, entertaining movie is a good thing and should be encouraged. Yes, I have made a suggestion that is slightly different than what is proposed. The initial post asks if there should be any changes, or if anyone has any suggestions. You are free to politely disagree with the suggestion.
Samsara wrote:
Giving a Moon to every single award nomination would pollute the well in such a way that nobody would be able to understand what a Moon is supposed to be under this new system.
A Moon would be every movie nominated for an award. It's right there in the sentence. If you don't like the idea, that's fine. But Moon would have a completely clear and objective meaning. (It is more clear than "player imposed restrictions/concepts that don't explicitly and officially exist in the game that meet acceptability reasons based on entertainment.") People keep incorrectly saying that it would make it too easy to become a Moon, even though I showed that it would reduce the current number of Moons by 550. The percentile breakdown if the suggestion were used would be 61% default pub level, 34% Moons, 5% Stars. (Whereas currently, 58% of movies are Moons.)
I realize you may not like the idea. But, as I often do when I interact with staff, I am simply giving you an alternative perspective to consider.
A Moon would be every movie nominated for an award. [...] But Moon would have a completely clear and objective meaning.
What meaning would it have exactly? Just that a single person decided to say "I nominate <movie>"? because that's all it takes to nominate movies for awards.
There are two problems with the nomination approach. Firstly, anyone can nominate any TAS regardless of its entertainment value, so there's not actually any assurance here that you're going to end up with a set of TASes that are consistently of a certain entertainment quality - probably more along the lines of "TASes that frequently belong to popular franchises". Secondly, Stars already exists as a category for the "beautiful, entertaining" movies, so it's not like there's not going to be any encouragement to try and make something super entertaining and interesting to watch.
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(154)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 357
Location: Holland, MI
feos wrote:
It doesn't "fail" at it because brainstorming means people with ideas on how to fix something gracefully, should share those ideas even if they sound stupid or opportunistic. If you have some neat solution in mind on how we can accept what is worth accepting ("makes sense", which will probably be our main phrase with this new system), while also resisting against things that are not worth accepting ("doesn't make sense"), please post it!
Yes apologies I will move that to a separate topic when I have a solution in mind and "fail" was inappropriate for the context.
About what to assign to moons, I like the idea of things that don't fit the standard categories (in other words renaming it to a Demo tier). That wouldn't align very well with nominations at each yearly awards, but perhaps the track to demo tier would be submission has non-standard category->someone nominates it at the time of submission->someone seconds the nomination->judge decides based on a vote around entertainment. Though thinking that through, I'm not sure if that's more or less elitist than having demo tier be purely up to the judge's discretion. I'd definitely want demo tier to be a thing but it seems complex to avoid movies in that tier becoming elitist.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
Arc wrote:
Samsara wrote:
You're completely missing the point. Basically, what you're asking is for all of this change to happen just so we can go straight back to the old ways
My position is to accept the part of the proposal about expanding what can go in the Vault and making it the default publication level, but I don't think that you need to completely destroy the concept of Moons as movies that stand out as entertaining.
I don't think it's destroying the concept of Moons at all, though. It would be pointing out non-standard movies that are objectively considered entertaining and unique enough to be worth showcasing. I could argue this proposal is making it more special, in fact, by limiting what's allowed in there in the first place.
Making a beautiful, entertaining movie is a good thing and should be encouraged.
I agree with this. Memory and I spoke about this earlier in the thread, where we reasoned that creativity wouldn't be stifled anymore by this new proposal, as we wouldn't be explicitly barring speed/entertainment tradeoffs in "Vault" anymore. People would be free to try to create entertainment out of anything they submit, regardless of how entertaining the base game is.
Yes, I have made a suggestion that is slightly different than what is proposed. The initial post asks if there should be any changes, or if anyone has any suggestions. You are free to politely disagree with the suggestion.
Which is what I did, because I still feel your suggestion is missing the point of the proposal. You're free to make suggestions, but as you said, I am free to openly disagree with them and provide counterpoints as to why they directly conflict with the proposal. I don't know if you're feeling attacked or what, it's not my intention to be harsh with disagreeing or anything.
Samsara wrote:
Giving a Moon to every single award nomination would pollute the well in such a way that nobody would be able to understand what a Moon is supposed to be under this new system.
A Moon would be every movie nominated for an award. It's right there in the sentence. If you don't like the idea, that's fine. But Moon would have a completely clear and objective meaning. (It is more clear than "player imposed restrictions/concepts that don't explicitly and officially exist in the game that meet acceptability reasons based on entertainment.")
People keep incorrectly saying that it would make it too easy to become a Moon, even though I showed that it would reduce the current number of Moons by 550. The percentile breakdown if the suggestion were used would be 61% default pub level, 34% Moons, 5% Stars. (Whereas currently, 58% of movies are Moons.)
To further expand on those numbers: Last year, we had 244 published (non-obsoleted) runs: 133 Moons, 96 Vault, and 15 Stars. With Vault movies being ineligible for nomination, that makes 148 eligible runs. 97 individual movies were nominated for awards, almost 2/3 of that pool. That brings us to the ~39% of the total number of published runs in the year.
Your proposed change would more or less just switch the number of runs in Vault and Moons. It's basically keeping Moons as a "tier" that movies can be "elevated to" because of entertainment, and that's literally the thing we're trying to avoid with the new system: Moons isn't meant to be an entertainment-focused category for EVERY run. That's what the current site is like. Moons under the new system is meant to be an entertainment-focused category for runs that explicitly wouldn't make it onto the site otherwise.
As for it being easier to make it to Moons, I think the main thing you're not taking into account is why people nominate movies for awards. Honestly, I don't blame you for that, because it's rare that people actually talk about why they nominate movies... Which is exactly the problem. There's no justification needed to nominate a movie, and we're not going to outright discard someone's nomination or force them to try and justify it, since there wouldn't be any limits on what can be nominated under the new system. An award nomination isn't so much a measure of the audience-wide entertainment we expect from Moons: A good number of movies are nominated for awards, only to get no votes whatsoever when voting happens, which means that not even the person who nominated the run voted for it in the end. Also, given that we'd also be expanding the list of eligible award movies, it's possible that nominations could spike as well, as there are non-entertainment-focused categories like Glitchy/Lucky TAS that could easily account for several movies that aren't be eligible under the current system.
At the end of the day, I want the awards period to just be a fun site thing that we get together for to celebrate the accomplishments of the year. I don't want it directly tied into how we categorize movies, at least not any more than we already do with the movies that win awards. I will say there could be some expansion of the awards in general, though, and maybe I'll add that to my list of things to discuss in the future, but I don't see it as a super high priority.
TiKevin83 wrote:
I'd definitely want demo tier to be a thing but it seems complex to avoid movies in that tier becoming elitist.
What saves it from elitism, in my opinion, is the site naturally shifting away from "We have too many branches for this game!" by openly allowing far more of them to be publishable to begin with. I feel like one of the most common criticisms I see on CatExt-type TASes is "Why do we need this run?", because there's always been this unwritten rule about keeping the number of branches as low and as unique as possible. I'm definitely guilty of this myself, even quite recently. Getting rid of that sort of mentality means we might actually see more runs getting approval that they wouldn't get under the current system.
If we as a community generally agree that a Demo tier is something we should have, then we should definitely be talking about it here. My main concern is publication, mainly: The further we get into demonstration, the harder it is to justify TVC publication. Some runs, particularly our older ACE showcases at GDQ, wouldn't even be able to be encoded as-is, other runs may not be complete game runs and thus difficult to justify fully publishing. That's why I brought up the idea of an "ascended Userfiles" system earlier, where it's not quite full publication with 4k TVC encodes, but it's still a functional, categorized part of the site that includes easily accessed videos of some kind.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to not have a thing called Moons at all, ie to implement the proposed Moons flag but call it something else. That way it's clear that this is something completely new and not related to the old tier system.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
plokmijnuhby wrote:
I wonder if it would be a good idea to not have a thing called Moons at all, ie to implement the proposed Moons flag but call it something else. That way it's clear that this is something completely new and not related to the old tier system.
Agreed, "Moons" gives it an implied special label (like what "Stars" does). The flag for esoteric goals isn't supposed to make it special, so it's better to just give it something descriptive. "Demo" flag has been suggested, but I don't know if there are better ideas.
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.
I think the plan is to use new names. It's just convenient to refer to them by the names already on the site. The new idea for "Moons" and "Vault" is pretty far removed from the current understanding of them, though.
I just had a thought. Maybe the "external goals" tier should be judged not necessarily on entertainment so much as whether it provides an interesting experience distinct from the standard branches. I think anything that associates it with the "entertaining tier" goes against the goal of this proposed change.
What exactly does the term Demonstration mean in this context anyway? To me the term demo kind of imparts a meaning of something shown as a proof of concept that may not necessarily be the full featured product. Would a demo have to be a full complete playthrough? Would it even have to be optimized?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
arkiandruski wrote:
I think the plan is to use new names.
Records and Art?
arkiandruski wrote:
I just had a thought. Maybe the "external goals" tier should be judged not necessarily on entertainment so much as whether it provides an interesting experience distinct from the standard branches. I think anything that associates it with the "entertaining tier" goes against the goal of this proposed change.
Yeah there could be many meanings behind "this make sense, I want it to be published", and ideally, we'd list whatever makes sense for us as a community in guidelines for those "not-Moons-anymore".
CoolHandMike wrote:
What exactly does the term Demonstration mean in this context anyway? To me the term demo kind of imparts a meaning of something shown as a proof of concept that may not necessarily be the full featured product. Would a demo have to be a full complete playthrough? Would it even have to be optimized?
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.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(906)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
I've largely stayed on the sidelines on this conversation as I've been trying to stay "present" and in the moment with real life activities this week but I did want to chime in. My hope remains that some method can come together that can allow #4947: dwangoAC, Ilari & p4plus2's SGB Pokémon: Red Version "Pokemon Plays Twitch" in 08:11.42 to be published. I'm unconcerned with what names each tier is called, and frankly I'm unconcerned if there's even a concept of tiers at all in the future, favoring a very different approach to the site altogether that would be so drastically different as to be almost unrecognizable, but I'm also not unreasonable as I know such a redesign would both be difficult and fraught with disagreements. Still, here's my thoughts on the matter:
- I like having well curated runs that have gone through the full publication process and I definitely think that should still be a thing for the "best" content on the site. There's no reason to throw out what works, and our pipeline for high quality publications remains completely usable and viable. Let's obviously not throw that out.
- I like having a system where anyone can upload anything in any category for any game similar to speedrun.com. I'd obviously prefer a few changes compared to how speedrun.com handles things and I'm not interested in a clone of the site but the general principle of anyone being able to upload something appeals to me greatly, as does the freedom to have more categories than we do now for our heavily curated runs.
- I'm in favor of more freedom in the types of content we host. There's an entire category of differently-abled speedrunners who are using tools to assist their speedruns who can't post their results on any of the mainstream speedrunning sites. We don't let them on here either because it isn't perfect and therefore falls short of the glorious standard of the site. I'd like to inclusively welcome them in with tags that allow their content to be categorized appropriately. We've lost some of the essence of what made us unique back in the early days of Tool-assisted superplay movies and I want to see us welcome that somehow.
I'm in favor of allowing more experimental content types. There's someone currently working on a very different way of "tool-assisted" gameplay that relies on virtual intelligence, like MarI/O on steroids but with a lot more human crafting around it. There's no place for that kind of content here right now and there really ought to be.
- I'm in favor of allowing content from live events being shown, but I'm obviously biased here. I find it a travesty that so much content remains unpublished in any form on the site.
- I'm in favor of more game types to be represented, including board games, ABC runs, interesting limitations and the like.
When I have a bit more time I'll fully read through everything else discussed here but I kind of wanted to come in blind just to say things that might not have been possible to say if I had read the thread and been biased by it. In general, I'm unconcerned with what we call things or even how we group things so long as we're open to allowing other types of content. I'm extremely happy discussions are happening and I look forward to movement in some fashion even if it's not exactly what I want.
