To me this is a different category entirely. That is "Heavy Glitch Abuse/Forgoes time-saving glitches". We want to implement new goals one at a time. I'd definitely be interested in considering such a goal but with each goal we add we need to revisit the entire list of rejected publications. In order to not completely overwhelm ourselves and try debating about too many different things at once, I limited things to one at a time.
Didn't mean to consider the others situations where it is considered as "Heavy Glitch Abuse/Forgoes time-saving glitches" as I knew we need to consider each case one at a time but ok thanks for the answer.
I feel that with the exception of ACE that we have hard rules about, we shouldn't impose any total bans on techniques in this category. And in my opinion, the important thing is that a run can be classified in this way, not that we come up with the specific rules for each game. So theoretically two people could come up with different no major skip glitch run rules and we could accept either maybe..
But in the case that two such runs are submitted, we would only accept ONE of them to Standard. In order for both to be published, we'd need one to go to Moons.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
I feel that with the exception of ACE that we have hard rules about, we shouldn't impose any total bans on techniques in this category. And in my opinion, the important thing is that a run can be classified in this way, not that we come up with the specific rules for each game. So theoretically two people could come up with different no major skip glitch run rules and we could accept either maybe..
But in the case that two such runs are submitted, we would only accept ONE of them to Standard. In order for both to be published, we'd need one to go to Moons.
What I meant was about banning others from Standard not from the all site. So I totally agree with all what you said. So probably the only one acceptable to Standard should be the fastest one and others only acceptable for Moons for now.
I feel that with the exception of ACE that we have hard rules about, we shouldn't impose any total bans on techniques in this category. And in my opinion, the important thing is that a run can be classified in this way, not that we come up with the specific rules for each game. So theoretically two people could come up with different no major skip glitch run rules and we could accept either maybe..
But in the case that two such runs are submitted, we would only accept ONE of them to Standard. In order for both to be published, we'd need one to go to Moons.
What I meant was about banning others from Standard not from the all site. So I totally agree with all what you said. So probably the only one acceptable to Standard should be the fastest one and others only acceptable for Moons for now.
Was sorta replying to the concept in general and not to you specifically.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
My final question before this is officially arranged, is do we want to have any advises to our future selves working on those submissions? Like some simple guidelines on what to aim for? Probably existing judge guidelines don't quite cut it? Like
The goal difference should be easy to explain and to understand, without prior knowledge of the game at hand
Techniques of identical nature should be treated identically
The decision should resolve the community consensus, not limit it
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
This sounds good but I feel like I'd come up with something once I actually start looking through stuff.
EDIT: I think a guiding principle when it comes to handling Standard goals in general is to not cram into it. We may not have everything we want to be in standard right away. Instead, we can add additional goals later if lots of runs fit into them better.
For example, while [4131] NES Mega Man by Shinryuu, pirohiko, Maru & finalfighter in 09:45.35 skips a significant amount of the game with the delay object glitch, it doesn't skip a huge amount of the game all at once, which is how I would define a major skip glitch. As such a run forgoing delay object glitch or memory corruption in general would not qualify for "forgoes major skip glitch". Instead we can add different goals over time that are closer to a correct label for such a run.
Additionally, we only allow for one such run in standard that fits standard. If two runs are sufficiently different and fit the goal description, we use whichever one more people consider to make sense as a "forgoes major skip glitch" run to go to Standard and have the other one qualify for Moons to be accepted.
EDIT2: Actually in regards to Delay Object glitch, it IS technically what leads to ACE, so one could also consider forgoing that to be forgoing the major skip glitch.
My main point is, I don't think runs that forgo glitches unrelated to major skips should qualify as this specific standard goal. We can add more goals later and such runs might fit those goals better.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
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: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Still Moons only.
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: 8/30/2020
Posts: 43
Location: United Kingdom
documenting my little rant
it kinda feels like the moons page is a bit vague. i was looking at it and it kinda felt like the page was worded rather complexly (not a word but idk the actual word lol) and there was only actually brief information on the class itself. I feel like it could potentially do with a slight rewrite just to make it more clearly show what moons entails, eg. What would actually qualify it with examples, clearer explanation of the rules that get it in (audience feedback, types of goals) and a deeper explanation of what the class actually is.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
weils wrote:
documenting my little rant
it kinda feels like the moons page is a bit vague. i was looking at it and it kinda felt like the page was worded rather complexly (not a word but idk the actual word lol) and there was only actually brief information on the class itself. I feel like it could potentially do with a slight rewrite just to make it more clearly show what moons entails, eg. What would actually qualify it with examples, clearer explanation of the rules that get it in (audience feedback, types of goals) and a deeper explanation of what the class actually is.
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: 8/30/2020
Posts: 43
Location: United Kingdom
feos wrote:
weils wrote:
documenting my little rant
it kinda feels like the moons page is a bit vague. i was looking at it and it kinda felt like the page was worded rather complexly (not a word but idk the actual word lol) and there was only actually brief information on the class itself. I feel like it could potentially do with a slight rewrite just to make it more clearly show what moons entails, eg. What would actually qualify it with examples, clearer explanation of the rules that get it in (audience feedback, types of goals) and a deeper explanation of what the class actually is.
Yeah, definitely. I learnt more from them than the Moons page itself. The latter page actually answered the question I looked to the Moons page for the answer for initially.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Added rules links to Standard and Moons.
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.
