(Link to video)
Submission Text Full Submission Page
"Unlike most 2D Mario games, Super Mario Bros. Special didn't have any warps, and this was faithfully kept in this romhack. This means that every level has to be completed." A quote from the movie page of the newly published TAS of this hack.
But that's not true. In fact, not every level has to be completed, because you can freely choose a starting world in the title screen.
The goal of my TAS is clear: fastest completion. The real any% run of this hack should start at World 8.
This is not cheating, because it's simply allowed by the hack creator (Frantik). He stated it in "Readme.txt": "There are two special features accessible from the main title screen: Press B to select the starting world..."
After saving the princess, you'll get the very same ending text & credits. I see no reason not to use it in an any% TAS.
Other than that, it's just an ordinary SMB hack TAS.
Frankly, it's not my favourite hack, and far from my favourite TAS. But to me, if this hack is allowed to be published on this site, it deserves a real any% run.

Suggested screenshot (frame #9175)


Samsara: Claiming for judging.
Samsara: Well, this was quite a ride.
HappyLee has been banned from TASVideos for 3 months for repeated disruptive behavior in this submission's thread. Given the author's arguments and accusations, I would like to summarize and explain the situation from a rules and judgement perspective.
First, I must clarify up front that the decision made for this run is mostly independent of HappyLee's temporary ban, in that the ban only affects one possible outcome, and only temporarily. While it is true that the run would have been cancelled or rejected had his ban been indefinite, the defining factor behind this decision is based entirely off of the nature of the TAS itself. On TASVideos, we occasionally receive submissions that require us to re-evaluate our MovieRules. This is in no way a bad thing, this is something that we want as staff. For myself especially as Senior Judge, I want nothing more than to ensure our rules are clear, readable, understandable, and malleable. If the community decides that there needs to be a change, there will be a change. This has been happening quite often lately, and I'm proud of the work we have all done as a community to make things easier and more reasonable, from the TAS authors who make runs that challenge the rules to the community members who discuss them and come to a consensus.
This was, in a way, one of those submissions. It found a weakness in the rules, and that weakness was corrected. However, unlike other submissions that lead to edits of the rules, this one found a weakness of omission and not a weakness of complication. The usage of this form of level selection as a time saving technique has never been allowed on TASVideos, and in my opinion it's unlikely that it ever will be. I don't believe any speedrunning community, RTA included, would ever count skipping 87.5% of a game through a level selection system as a legitimate strategy for an any% speedrun. Keep in mind, however, that this is an opinion and not a firm statement. There is a possibility the overall community's thoughts on this could change in the future, and we will change accordingly to fit the desires of the community.
That being said, there are ways in which this run could have been treated differently, and I'd like to go over three of the more notable ones.
The first is that this could be considered an individual level TAS. These are normally not allowed as they are incomplete runs, but we have accepted them in the past, whether it was because of the site's past focus on pure entertainment showcases, the game presenting itself as disconnected levels or level sets or, um, through a former staff member's flagrant abuse of power. That last one should never have happened and will never happen again, but I feel it should be mentioned for accountability purposes and to illustrate that individual level TASes have been frowned upon since the very beginning of the site.
In cases where we accept individual level TASes, we have a clause in the rules that handles how to treat these runs, namely that they will always be obsoleted by full game runs of their respective games, due to what we call "full content overlap". That is, the entirety of an individual level run will be contained in a full game run, so there is no need to have both published alongside each other. Were someone to create and submit a full run of Biker Mice From Mars, it would obsolete the "final round" TAS linked above. For this run, though, the full game run already exists and has been published. so even if we determined this run to be a valid individual level run, we still cannot accept it. Of course, since this is an SMB1 ROM hack, it is following SMB1's presentation of a long series of connected stages, and as such any usage of the title screen level select is explicitly skipping required content. This is confirmed further by the published run's statement that there are no warp zones, meaning all worlds and levels are normally required to be played. In short, we have to rule out this run being acceptable as an individual level.
Another possibility is that the input itself could be salvageable outside of being published. If this is a strict improvement to the published run's World 8, perhaps the two runs could be spliced together as a compromise solution. This presents a (thankfully) much simpler to describe set of problems, namely that this run and the published run cannot be adequately compared. Any improvement that this run contains would need to be recontextualized in the full game run, as conditions between the two could be completely different due to the level select. Notably, the full game run is fully powered up through World 8 while this run remains small Mario, which leads to this run actually being slower overall as it needs to wait for a piranha plant in 8-4 that the full game run can just kill, so there's no real compromise solution here either.
The final possibility is to accept the run as a new branch altogether, putting it in Alternative or Playground. Alternative is clearly ruled out by the community reaction, with the run receiving a wealth of No votes. PG, on the other hand, was quite literally made to support runs like this. There is a major problem with this option, though: The run was submitted as an any% run of the hack. As such, without any changes, it does not qualify for Playground. Placing it there would require us to change the run and treat it as something else. Not only is this going against HappyLee's original intention for the run, but given his temporary ban, he is unable to make any statements regarding how the run is presented. We should not, under any circumstances, make any changes to an author's work without their explicit consent, so as of right now we will continue to treat this run as HappyLee submitted it, which means it cannot currently be placed in Playground. However, it is still an option for the future, once HappyLee returns and is able to publicly consent to it.
I believe that's everything I would like to address. If anyone has any questions about how this submission was handled from a judgement and rules perspective, feel free to ask me directly. If need be, I will continue to update this judgement with further notes and clarifications to ensure that my thoughts and actions are understood and not misinterpreted.

Active player (497)
Joined: 11/19/2007
Posts: 128
I think when it comes to ROM hacks, there's usually some expectation that the run will involve gameplay that is substantively different to the original game. I haven't watched the other TAS of this game, but going by this run alone, I didn't see anything that hasn't been done before. It looked like basically just holding right + jumping through a couple of levels that look more or less identical to ones from the original game. Of course I don't blame HappyLee for that... I find the original SMB TASes interesting for historical / nostalgia reasons, but I've never really found SMB to be a very exciting game for speedrunning. Therefore, although I'm sure the run is optimised, I decided to vote no. As for the whole debate about passwords/the rules etc. (which admittedly I haven't fully read), with respect to HappyLee, who is clearly a great TASer, I don't really find the run interesting enough for the discussion to even be very meaningful. I don't really know how the site works, but I would hope that the rules are as they are and continue to evolve so as to accommodate the most entertaining content, and to weed out runs that are obviously at odds with the site's mission. If a new run came along that was met with high praise, but was in conflict with some detail of one of the rules, I'm sure there would be majority support for amending the rules to accommodate the new run. I don't think this run is anything like that, and even if you could win the argument that this is the `true any%', having it obsolete the full game TAS would seem like a hollow victory to me.
Expert player (2453)
Joined: 12/23/2007
Posts: 822
Masterjun wrote:
HappyLee wrote:
A judge changed the MovieRules just to reject my TAS, how should this be allowed?
It is. If we couldn't change rules, we'd be stuck in 2006 rules. If rules couldn't be changed to reject exactly one movie that it applies to, then I would leave. If you don't trust TASVideos staff with Movie Rules, you should try to become staff yourself, or leave.
I'm not saying that rules can't be changed. Like feos said: "changing a policy only happens when there's a common agreement". That I fully agree. But in this case, movie rules were changed before deeper discussions even took place, and the person who changed it happened to be the judge of this submission, and the new rule change happened to lead to rejection of this submission. In my opinion, a judge should make judgements based on current existing rules, instead of judging while making & changing rules. Or at least, there should be further discussions and community consensus, before change of rules took place.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Masterjun
He/Him
Site Developer, Skilled player (1970)
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 1179
Location: Germany
HappyLee wrote:
In my opinion, a judge should make judgements based on current existing rules, instead of judging while making & changing rules. Or at least, there should be further discussions and community consensus, before change of rules took place.
Judging wrongly because you can't change the rules doesn't make sense. Asking for community consensus for small stuff is unnecessary, this is what we have staff for.
Warning: Might glitch to credits I will finish this ACE soon as possible (or will I?)
Expert player (2453)
Joined: 12/23/2007
Posts: 822
NxCy wrote:
I think when it comes to ROM hacks, there's usually some expectation that the run will involve gameplay that is substantively different to the original game. I haven't watched the other TAS of this game, but going by this run alone, I didn't see anything that hasn't been done before. It looked like basically just holding right + jumping through a couple of levels that look more or less identical to ones from the original game. Of course I don't blame HappyLee for that... I find the original SMB TASes interesting for historical / nostalgia reasons, but I've never really found SMB to be a very exciting game for speedrunning. Therefore, although I'm sure the run is optimised, I decided to vote no.
Fair enough. But please understand, that most SMB hack TASes are like this. I only thought of making a TAS of this hack after I saw the published TAS. I just wanted to make fastest completion TAS of this hack. Beating a game as fast as possible is a large part of what we do on TASVideos. As I said in the submission text, this is far from my favourite TAS. Whether people like it or not, I'm OK with it.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Expert player (2453)
Joined: 12/23/2007
Posts: 822
Here's a new argument, a relevant example that's maybe worth thinking and discussing about. What if (hypothetically) Super Mario World is made this way, that every road on the map is already unlocked when you first enter the game, and you're allowed to walk everywhere or start at any level on the map? Then it would be an open world game. Hypothetically, let's call it Super Mario Open World. The any% run (no ACE) would be: walking to the last level on the map, beating Bowser, saving the princess, the end. It's maybe a boring run compared to other categories like "all stages" and "all exits". Call it cheap or lame as you want, but that would be the fastest completion of Super Mario Open World, which certainly would be allowed as a speedrun category. What I'm saying is this: if the game Super Mario Open World is made that way, then all of the other stages would be optional, at least for the fastest game completion. This hack is a lot like Super Mario Open World. The hack creator allows player to start from 8-1 instead of 1-1, so why not do it when you want to save the princess as fast as possible? I haven't played many games myself, so I can't think of better examples. If you know a game like this, please help comment.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Emulator Coder, Judge, Experienced player (595)
Joined: 2/26/2020
Posts: 697
Location: California
For ignoring the Site Admin's request to remain civil by creating personal attacks shortly after, HappyLee has been banned until 2023-04-26. Update: HappyLee has now been banned indefinitely due to ban evasion.
Active player (432)
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
For what it's worth, that's a low bar banning someone for three months.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11267
Location: RU
I'll reply to posts as I read them, just to not leave things unanswered.
HappyLee wrote:
Well said, but in this case, the rules are changed by the judge Samsara before community consensus was reached. My TAS was targeted by the new rule change, so I'm not satisfied, and then I got threatened and the topic got locked.
You keep claiming it to be a new rule that never existed before, but you didn't provide a list of examples where submissions doing exactly the same thing have been accepted. If it's a new rule, then it's different from the policies we used to have. If we used to have different policies, then we were judging identical cases differently. Examples please?
HappyLee wrote:
feos wrote:
There's also a point that pressing B is not a password. But is it any different in what it does, compared to level passwords in other games?
What they do are the same: skipping some levels. But so does a Warp Zone. So the discussion needs to go deeper than that.
I already explained the difference between warps and level selects. If you disagree, quote me and disprove.
HappyLee wrote:
As stated before, I'm totally in favour of the rule banning passwords or in-game cheat codes (at least for most of the cases), because they are considered cheating. And the previous MovieRules are very clear about this one.
I also explained that we don't rely on the definition of "cheating". We rely on whether something adds gameplay or removes it, and whether it's entertaining enough for Alternative class (formerly Moons).
HappyLee wrote:
The world selection feature I used is very different from using passwords or in-game cheat codes.
It's not, and I explained why. Did you even read my post?
HappyLee wrote:
What we really should be discussing is: should we ban non-gameplay level selection, just like banning passwords and in-game cheat codes.
It's what we usually do, until personal accusations become the only subject of the thread. The point you refuse to recognize is that the spirit of the rules has never allowed this, and single-button level select was simply never brought up until now.
HappyLee wrote:
It would be great if people can provide convincing examples, like explaining what damage it could cause if we allowed non-gameplay level selection, but so far I haven't seen any example similar as this case.
It feels disappointing and anticlimactic when majority of the game is skipped before the game has even started, just to call it "fastest completion". Doing this via glitches is fine, because it's unintentional, so you have to discover and implement such an exploit. If you select the last level from the get go, there's zero challenge in that, so people simply don't like seeing that, traditionally.
HappyLee wrote:
Samsara posted two examples, but they only completes a task or a branch of a game. My TAS completes the game and got the true ending. Noxxa and LogansGamingRoom posted an example which includes a faulty ROM (or bad version of a game), but I didn't use a faulty ROM.
Those examples were posted to show that we don't have a precedent proving this has always been allowed.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm not familiar with many games, but I posted an example of the "both quests" RTA category. It uses world selection to start the second quest in World 8 in the title screen, just like in this TAS. I don't see anyone complaining about this usage of this non-gameplay level selection. This RTA category is popular among top speedrunners. For example, Niftski (current SMB RTA WR holder) did it in his 4:54.798 World Record run. If people can accept using non-gameplay level selection in that case, so why not in this run? The only difference is, in this hack, world selection is allowed before seeing the Princess.
The difference is that we can't blindly copypaste RTA rules, because they are written by people who happen to be mods for a given game, and their rules only apply per-game. Also people in this thread mentioned that hitting B only takes you to world 8 after you've already completed the game normally. So it's similar to newgame+ content and abilities. Even then, we can't mindread why RTA people allow this, someone would have to ask them. But when I spoke to the Spyro community, they told me they allow certain things just for convenience, regardless of how tasvideos threats them. And indeed we can't dictate how the outside world plays games.
HappyLee wrote:
What if the missing gameplay is optional? Since world selection is allowed by the hack creator, Worlds 1-7 are not required for saving the princess and getting the true ending. My TAS aims for the fastest completion, so natually I don't have to play every level if they are optional.
Of course it's optional if the game has a way to skip it. Passwords in other games also make some levels optional. And passwords in other games are also allowed by game creators, sometimes showing you the true ending after password usage.
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11267
Location: RU
HappyLee wrote:
Maybe so. But a skipped TAS won't be accepted here mostly because it would be too much like the published TAS (with only about 21% difference), not because the level skip itself is banned by the movie rules. If the movie difference is greater than 50%, then I'd support setting a different category here as well, similar to speedrun.com.
50% difference means one is taking a different route, showcasing unique gameplay in both cases. If 50% of gameplay are just missing, that's not 50% difference.
Lobsterzelda wrote:
Movies which use level-select codes or passwords are more the exception than the norm when it comes to TASes on this site. In other words, there needs to be a good reason why the level-select/password should be allowed to be used, as opposed to it being OK by default. This applies to all movies which use passwords (which are few and far between to begin with, since it doesn't make sense to use passwords for TASes of most games).
We do have movies that use a code to access some level, but that's for levels that you have to unlock, and there's unique gameplay in those levels. It's never a code to simply start at a later level.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm not saying that rules can't be changed. Like feos said: "changing a policy only happens when there's a common agreement". That I fully agree. But in this case, movie rules were changed before deeper discussions even took place, and the person who changed it happened to be the judge of this submission, and the new rule change happened to lead to rejection of this submission. In my opinion, a judge should make judgements based on current existing rules, instead of judging while making & changing rules. Or at least, there should be further discussions and community consensus, before change of rules took place.
The consensus is already there. The community did not split in 2 halves, one arguing that single-button level select is okay, and another arguing that it's not okay. The spirit of the rule is clear to the people posting in this thread, which is why nobody else thinks that the rules have changed. The deeper level is that when the policy is worded poorly or even wrongly, community members will be pointing it out, saying that there's a loophole. But if it's worded in a comprehensive way, just not perfectly, the community will agree with it from all angles, like we're seeing in this thread. Additionally, Samsara is an expert judge who has the required skills to determine which policies make sense and why, and skills to assess whether or not it makes sense to fix the big trends. If that was not the case, it would be easy to find loopholes in her reasoning against level select. Please pay attention to my thought here.
  • It doesn't make sense to target someone with truth, right? Especially when that truth is confirmed by the entire community, both users and staff members.
  • If someone is targeting someone else, they don't care about truth and logic, they simply ignore those.
  • And when that happens, there is broken logic in the reasoning, because logic was not the goal.
  • Relying on facts and logic is morally good, because there's no other way to reach a solution when several parties have contradicting stances, and there needs to be some compromise.
  • Accepting someone's stance without sufficient logic and facts is morally bad, because it may hurt other parties in the long run.
    • For example, by making it impossible for them to comprehend what we expect from their work, since that expectation chaotic.
I keep digging deep into this talk, and I do not notice any problems in what Samsara has been arguing the whole time. Therefore it can't be considered a personal attack on you.
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11267
Location: RU
HappyLee wrote:
Here's a new argument, a relevant example that's maybe worth thinking and discussing about. What if (hypothetically) Super Mario World is made this way, that every road on the map is already unlocked when you first enter the game, and you're allowed to walk everywhere or start at any level on the map? Then it would be an open world game. Hypothetically, let's call it Super Mario Open World. The any% run (no ACE) would be: walking to the last level on the map, beating Bowser, saving the princess, the end. It's maybe a boring run compared to other categories like "all stages" and "all exits". Call it cheap or lame as you want, but that would be the fastest completion of Super Mario Open World, which certainly would be allowed as a speedrun category. What I'm saying is this: if the game Super Mario Open World is made that way, then all of the other stages would be optional, at least for the fastest game completion. This hack is a lot like Super Mario Open World. The hack creator allows player to start from 8-1 instead of 1-1, so why not do it when you want to save the princess as fast as possible? I haven't played many games myself, so I can't think of better examples. If you know a game like this, please help comment.
There is notable difference in your example. SMW has an overworld which is an explicit part of its gameplay, and you choose how you route your session. We've mentioned several times that we only have a problem with non-gameplay level select, be it a menu, a password, or a button combination. If primary gameplay consisted of menus, then menu would maybe have been considered a gameplay level select, and allowed. Also if all you can do is start at a certain level, there's nothing to route, because you can't select level order, and you only see the ending after the one final level. Bottomline: non-gameplay level select is not a sensible way to reach the ending sooner... literally because there's zero gameplay in it, so there's nothing to feature as a separate goal.
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.
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3246
I know it is tempting to abuse the wording of Movie Rules sometimes (I'm sure I did so in the past), but I would be careful not to make it the hill to die on. After all, judges can do anything they want, for any reason (I see this as a good thing, by the way). In that sense, it is sad that someone chose to defend to the death this submission, of all things.
AngerFist wrote:
For what it's worth, that's a low bar banning someone for three months.
Note that MESHUGGAH was banned for far less (it wasn't even about forum posts).
Judge, Skilled player (1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
FractalFusion wrote:
I know it is tempting to abuse the wording of Movie Rules sometimes (I'm sure I did so in the past), but I would be careful not to make it the hill to die on. After all, judges can do anything they want, for any reason (I see this as a good thing, by the way).
I don't think that the judges can do anything they want. I think judges should follow the rules, and they did in fact follow the rules: it's the author that has misinterpreted a rule, and there isn't anything wrong with that. The ones that are free to do anything they want are the submitters (except when plagiarizing). The problem here is that the author insisted that their interpretation of the rules was correct, despite the numerous explanations by staff members, effectively trying to force their own opinion of what the judgement should be. I also tried once to exploit a loophole in the Movie Rules: #6092: ThunderAxe31's GB Rolan's Curse "hardest password, game end glitch" in 04:36.89 This resulted in my submission getting rejected, and the relative rule was promptly clarified. Not modified, just clarified. I tried bringing arguments in favors of getting my submission accepted, but in the end I was explained that I misinterpreted a rule, and I had to acknowledge that. Then I stopped insisting, because I couldn't find anything unfair in the judgement.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Fortranm
He/Him
Editor, Experienced player (775)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1115
HappyLee wrote:
Here's a new argument, a relevant example that's maybe worth thinking and discussing about. What if (hypothetically) Super Mario World is made this way, that every road on the map is already unlocked when you first enter the game, and you're allowed to walk everywhere or start at any level on the map?
Now this is funny. This actually (kinda) exists, as the Arcade variant of SMW. XD To be honest, I actually wouldn't mind seeing the "all exits" category being done on this version with a starting point other than the first one, as long as it still does complete all exits in the game. However, it would feel a weird to call an any% movie done on this version with a different starting point that somehow ends up being faster the any% of SMW, but even then a movie like that might actually have more of a reason to be published as a separate branch if it features a completely different set of levels being played while this movie simply jumps to a later point in a set of levels without any branches. Also, to give this movie some benefit of doubt:
No power-up is taken.
This movie is different from the W8 portion of the published one in the sense that Mario stays Small while he is in the Fire state in the latter, but this doesn't seem to make too much of a difference for this game, unfortunately.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11267
Location: RU
LogansGamingRoom wrote:
on second thought, this movie sucks. now don’t get me wrong, the actual gameplay’s fantastic as usual, but if you want to skip to a future world, you should do that after you start the actual game. you’ve been tasing since 2008 so you should know this by now. no vote for breaking an obvious rule. go improve the previous tas properly.
LogansGamingRoom wrote:
lee, for someone who’s known as a legendary taser, you’re behaving ridiculously rn. that’s like if i submitted a 10 minute glitchfest of super mario world and said it was better than the currently published one, which is nearly 3 hours fyi. stop acting so bloody hostile towards everyone just because we pointed out a single rule that you don’t like. i’m afraid this tas is gonna get rejected and you’re just gonna have to deal with that.
LogansGamingRoom wrote:
the final world is not, i repeat, IS NOT, a harder difficulty, bonus content or a cosmetic improvement. [...] so please, will you stop wasting your time here and focus on a different tas project?
Your tone is extremely disrespectful. Please stop telling people what to do and wording it like you're speaking on behalf of the entire community.
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.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
I'd like to make a quick note about this run's judgement. Normally, in the case of the author being banned, we would immediately cancel the run with a short explanation and leave it at that. However, I feel this situation warrants a much more carefully crafted judgement summarizing the events in the thread, addressing and clarifying the accusations lobbied at myself and the rest of staff. This may take another day or two to write, proofread, rewrite, and have it signed off by other staff members involved. In the meantime, if there are any questions surrounding the non-acceptability of this run or the current state of our rules, I will be happy to answer them here and further address them in the upcoming judgement. Thank you all for your understanding.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Player (50)
Joined: 4/1/2016
Posts: 285
Location: Cornelia Castle
HappyLee being banned? That's a bad move, I'd say. He has created many wonderful TASes and set the bar quite high for SMB TASing. It's ok to disagree with the rules, and he didn't mean to attack anyone.
DJ Incendration Believe in Michael Girard and every speedrunner and TASer!
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player (898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
DJ Incendration wrote:
HappyLee being banned? That's a bad move, I'd say. He has created many wonderful TASes and set the bar quite high for SMB TASing. It's ok to disagree with the rules, and he didn't mean to attack anyone.
Putting my senior staff hat on for just a moment, while I agree that it's absolutely okay to disagree with the rules, it's not okay to do so in a way that attacks others. There was some bad behavior in this thread from more than just HappyLee, but I'd specifically point out that HappyLee was asked to refrain from personal accusations and he did not stop. When he was temporarily banned, he blatantly created an alt account in direct violation of the rules he claimed to have read so carefully. I'm advocating for a moderate response as I feel HappyLee got caught up in the moment there; still, if HappyLee's indefinite ban is reversed I expect him to exercise more kindness to others in his discussions than what was demonstrated in this thread.
I was laid off in May 2023 and could use support via Patreon or onetime donations as I work on TASBot Re: and TASBot HD. I'm dwangoAC, part of the senior staff of TASVideos as the Senior Ambassador and BDFL of the TASBot community; I post TAS content on YouTube.com/dwangoAC based on livestreams from Twitch.tv/dwangoAC.
Player (50)
Joined: 4/1/2016
Posts: 285
Location: Cornelia Castle
He was not trying to attack others. How was there any bad behavior? He was pointing out what others did, not to attack them but to explain what's been going on in the thread. While he hadn't stopped yet before the ban, I'm sure he would have stopped soon. Creating alt accounts is actually a good thing. I'll give you an example of why, though it's not directly related to TASVideos. On Discord, there's a bot called Myuu, and once you start the game on one account, the only way to start from the beginning again is to create an alt account. That's not a bad thing. What was the name of his alt?
DJ Incendration Believe in Michael Girard and every speedrunner and TASer!
Editor, Publisher, Player (46)
Joined: 10/15/2021
Posts: 370
He made the insinuation that Samsara was deliberately changing the rules in order to screw him over. Also, his sockpuppet was called HappyLee2 and it was made an hour after the ban.
Player (50)
Joined: 4/1/2016
Posts: 285
Location: Cornelia Castle
He was not trying to say it was to screw him over. He was saying that it happened. Also, HappyLee2 sounds fine to me. With HappyLee setting the bar so high for SMB runs, it doesn't make sense that he'd be banned indefinitely for something like this. I understand his points, and he wasn't trying to say anything bad about the staff. With him being banned, I am actually thinking about leaving the site. I'm not sure if I will yet, but I really wish he hadn't been banned.
DJ Incendration Believe in Michael Girard and every speedrunner and TASer!
Joined: 9/25/2016
Posts: 23
DJ Incendration wrote:
He was not trying to say it was to screw him over. He was saying that it happened. Also, HappyLee2 sounds fine to me. With HappyLee setting the bar so high for SMB runs, it doesn't make sense that he'd be banned indefinitely for something like this. I understand his points, and he wasn't trying to say anything bad about the staff. With him being banned, I am actually thinking about leaving the site. I'm not sure if I will yet, but I really wish he hadn't been banned.
Creating one or two skillful or even influential things does not give someone a free pass to be an arrogant jerk to others. I know that's harsh, but that's really the way HL was acting. To say he was so focused on the rules only to deliberately break them when things didn't go his way is arrogance, and frankly uncalled for. It doesn't matter what came before it. I doubt anything I say will change your mind, but I urge you to view this situation with an open mind and to reevaluate it. Not everything on this website is about video games and what people create, but also about the people that are doing the creating and how they treat one another.
Joined: 5/19/2010
Posts: 259
Location: California
Pankaj wrote:
sameasusual wrote:
If this submission and argument of allowing the use of in-game (non-password, non-cheat-code) level skipping were from a newcomer/rookie to TASing/speedrunning (or even a troll), I'd at least understand the potentially innocent nature of the question. But HappyLee has *checks notes* 17 active publications here on TASVideos at the time of posting, primarily of the original Super Mario Bros. games and its sequels/variants/hacks. Heck, one of them was published less then 24 hours ago! If this isn't an out-of-season April Fool's joke, it is a very bizarre hill to die on for someone as knowledgable of TASing as HappyLee.
So strange that you commented after 9 years and at the same time HappyLee's movie is getting intentional no votes (feels like voting pole abuse has started with multiple accounts which is against the site rules)
I come back to this topic not even a full day later and HappyLee being permabanned for ban evasion is only the second most surprising thing in this thread. Although, I'm not sure exactly whose sockpuppet I'm accused of belonging to LMAO. Perhaps Pankaj can clarify?
#3201
Pankaj
He/Him
Player (199)
Joined: 10/20/2022
Posts: 57
Location: Rajasthan, India
sameasusual wrote:
Although, I'm not sure exactly whose sockpuppet I'm accused of belonging to LMAO. Perhaps Pankaj can clarify?
You jumped into the questions which I did not even ask you, I just saw your post as an individual's post and expressed a doubt (only), I didn't accuse anyone.
Editor, Player (67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Samsara wrote:
In the meantime, if there are any questions surrounding the non-acceptability of this run or the current state of our rules, I will be happy to answer them here and further address them in the upcoming judgement.
One thing that stood out to me:
HappyLee wrote:
This TAS beats the game, and got the true ending.
Are there SMB hacks that have multiple endings? My understanding (possibly incorrect) from what I've read about hacking SMB is that it does not have much free space. Does this specific hack have multiple endings? If there is only one ending, I find it misleading to claim that this run got the "true" one. I had some other thoughts, but it appears that they will not make an difference for the judgment.
Current Projects: TAS: Wizards & Warriors III.
InputEvelution
She/Her
Editor, Player (13)
Joined: 3/27/2018
Posts: 166
Location: Australia
I believe the quote about "true endings" was mainly in response to Spike bringing up TASes they'd had rejected or sent to playground for not getting a good enough ending (such as Myst). HappyLee seemed to think this was a poor equivalence, and I think his reaffirmations later on that his TAS got a "real" or "proper" ending and not a bad one was part of that.