Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Forewarning: I wrote this in a bit of a hurry. Information is based on my understanding of the situation and could be misleading or even wrong due to that. If so, it will be corrected ASAP.
#4947: dwangoAC, Ilari & p4plus2's SGB Pokémon: Red Version "Pokemon Plays Twitch" in 08:11.42 I'd love to end the OP there, just linking that submission, but I do feel more explanation is in order. Let's talk about why we currently can't publish these runs. For those of you unaware, TASvideos procedure regarding judgement, acceptance and publication revolves around input file verification. The input file for a TAS is provided and a Judge verifies that it is legitimate first and foremost. Legitimacy here means availability, determinism, reproducibility, and ensuring that the file is presented as-is with no outside modification needed. This is why the GDQ showcases were a hard sell for publication for us at the time of the above submission. The nature of the GDQ showcases means that these criteria for legitimacy cannot be met through the input file. To the best of my knowledge, every single TASBot ACE showcase outside of the very first one has required a very, very specific setup of consoles, hardware and software that fall far outside the boundaries of the original game. The input files for these showcases were built specifically for the showcases, built specifically to be played back on console, and as such would not be able to be downloaded and reproduced by anyone at all. There are also issues with legality at times, in that certain showcases may include copyrighted content baked into the input file. This, notably, has been an issue for some currently published ACE showcases as well. There is a simple-sounding solution to this: Make it so we don't need an input file for these showcases. However, that comes with a few caveats. The easiest one to deal with is that the site isn't currently equipped to handle submissions and publications without input files. This could easily be handled through dummy input files, with the only issue there being we would need to explicitly state that the input file is a dummy file specifically created to fit the site's need to have one. A bigger caveat is that, well, it goes against how we've been operating for nearly 20 years. We would effectively have to redesign our standards of verification for these showcases to be able to judge their legitimacy without the need of an input file. Granted, I personally also find this to be an easy fix: These are console verified in front of a live crowd. In a way, they are almost more legitimate than a decent chunk of our published runs. I have no qualms accepting them as-is, personally, but that is purely a personal opinion, and not an official stance from the Senior Judge. Defining the protocol for how we verify showcase runs would have to be a decision we come to together as a staff team, ideally with some community discussion. So, well, let's have that community discussion. I'd like to outline our potential plans for the present and future of handling the showcase runs. Current: Showcase runs are submitted by dwangoAC or any of the involved authors, using dummy input files to mitigate that requirement. The runs are taken as legitimate and verified by the nature of the live performance. They are accepted and formally published. The official encode would contain the entirety of the GDQ showcase, plus any additional material deemed appropriate by dwangoAC or any of the involved authors. Whether or not these videos are also hosted on TASVideosChannel is up for discussion. Publication descriptions would contain any additional information necessary to understand the runs. Future: Showcase runs are given their own URL code, i.e xxxxM for Movies, xxxxS for Submissions, and xxxxG for Games. Some proposed codes are L (for Live), D (for Demonstration), and E (for Event). These would be added and maintained through an entirely separate UI from submissions, with the permissions to use it being locked to Admins and dwangoAC, potentially Senior staff as well. These would function identically to publications, just without the need to be processed through the submission system, and without the need for input files. Any formally published GDQ showcase would be moved over to this new system. Other suggestions and ideas are more than welcome, of course. I consider this high priority for us. I find it embarrassing that we are yet to finalize a way of making this work. I'd like to start implementing new procedures for this as soon as possible in order to correct this ongoing mistake. If you have anything to say, even if it's just "I support these plans", please say 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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player (907)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
Note: I don't want to see content limited to just things I'm involved in or that come in through the TASBot community that's formed out of the adjacent "on console TAS content" work. I very much want to see a future where someone can submit something shown live and have it included regardless of where, so long as it's verified to have legitimately taken place at an event (online or otherwise). I'm of course well known as an inclusionist but I think we can find a happy balance. I'd also include the entire ambassador team in the list of folks with access to help validate runs submitted this way. I have more thoughts on this matter but I'm still quite busy coming off of the SGDQ 2022 content so I'll have to check back here later. :)
I was laid off in May 2023 and became too ill to work this year and could use support via Patreon or onetime donations as work on TASBot Re: and TASBot HD is stalled. I'm dwangoAC, TASVideos Senior Ambassador and BDFL of the TASBot community; when healthy, I post TAS content on YouTube.com/dwangoAC based on livestreams from Twitch.tv/dwangoAC.
Darkman425
He/They
Editor, Judge, Skilled player (1289)
Joined: 9/19/2021
Posts: 263
Location: Texas
I can see TASBot and other similar showcases be on their own Event kind of pages. Though for resources on producing those, assuming the creators make them openly available and there are no potential copyright issues, should be linked and not necessarily hosted on TASVideos. While maybe not necessary, it would help any future folks who want to try their hand at these kind of TASes by having some sort of resource to examine on their own.
Switch friend code: SW-2632-3851-3712
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2212)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1086
Location: US
I support finding a way to do this. I find the idea of a separate publication type/area of site (as described in the "future" section of Samsara's post) to be an ideal goal. We need to find a way to officially recognize/publish these showcase runs that otherwise can't be processed through our standard judging process due to the need for extra hardware or external data only possible at such a live event. In my opinion, TASing, at its core, is effectively answering the question, "What can be done in/to this game with a sequence of perfectly timed button presses?" While we typically answer this question along the lines of "beating games really fast, often in entertaining ways," these showcases are simply offering different answers to that same question. Unfortunately, some of these showcases use unscripted data from an outside source (live chat, or even human input like Savestate's in the SGDQ 2022 example), which isn't information we can "verify" in an input file. HOWEVER, the results that are seen on the screen at the event are still the result of button presses processed through the controller ports. These runs stand therefore as valid answers (albeit very complex ones) to the question of "What can be done in/to this game with a sequence of perfectly timed button presses?". We need to officially celebrate them by some means of inclusion on the site (beyond gruefood).
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
dwangoAC wrote:
Note: I don't want to see content limited to just things I'm involved in or that come in through the TASBot community that's formed out of the adjacent "on console TAS content" work. I very much want to see a future where someone can submit something shown live and have it included regardless of where, so long as it's verified to have legitimately taken place at an event (online or otherwise). I'm of course well known as an inclusionist but I think we can find a happy balance. I'd also include the entire ambassador team in the list of folks with access to help validate runs submitted this way.
This would be the case, of course! I was primarily using you/TASBot as an example because of the prominence of the GDQ showcases, but it would definitely be open to anyone and anything that fits the criteria.
DrD2k9 wrote:
We need to find a way to officially recognize/publish these showcase runs that otherwise can't be processed through our standard judging process due to the need for extra hardware or external data only possible at such a live event.
This and the rest of the post are exactly why I want this solved as soon as possible, because it's honestly silly that we've gone this long without even considering finding a solution. It almost comes off like we're saying these runs aren't valid, even though they clearly are. Their validity just comes in a different form.
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Arc
Editor, Experienced player (814)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 534
Location: Arizona
The issue comes down to the basic philosophy of the site. The original idea is to play games so beautifully that the result can be considered a work of art. The rules emphasize the manner of playing the game. But over 20 years, speedrunning has become more stale, and the rules are limiting artistic potential. And that is how you end up getting submissions like #7390: Arc's NES The Legend of Zelda "Kino" in 04:14.51, which does not complete the game or even really "play" it, but it pushes the concept of "video games as art" in a new direction. For something "beyond input" like #4947: dwangoAC, Ilari & p4plus2's SGB Pokémon: Red Version "Pokemon Plays Twitch" in 08:11.42, the closest real-life analogy is avant-garde or experimental films. The best example that I know of is Mothlight (1963), which is a short film that was created without using a camera. If a film can be made outside of standard methods, then a TAS can be as well. Publish it as an entirely separate class from other movies, and hold it to a high standard of artistic and technical merits for publication. I don't think we need 1000+ word arguments about breaking rules or whatever. If the sentiment favors including more experimental art, then create a new experimental class (not playground) and publish. Bada bing bada boom.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Arc wrote:
For something "beyond input" like #4947: dwangoAC, Ilari & p4plus2's SGB Pokémon: Red Version "Pokemon Plays Twitch" in 08:11.42, the closest real-life analogy is avant-garde or experimental films. The best example that I know of is Mothlight (1963), which is a short film that was created without using a camera. If a film can be made outside of standard methods, then a TAS can be as well. Publish it as an entirely separate class from other movies, and hold it to a high standard of artistic and technical merits for publication. I don't think we need 1000+ word arguments about breaking rules or whatever. If the sentiment favors including more experimental art, then create a new experimental class (not playground) and publish. Bada bing bada boom.
I'd associate "beyond input" more with performance art than cinematography, because replay files would not be the focus of such a class anymore (which is what we call movies here). But otherwise yeah, we can make this work based on staff agreement to push a certain experimental entity to the site and present it (almost) like a publication. Being restricted to replay files would result in hacking around this restriction by providing dummy files, but we'd also have to do something about movie length to make it present some actual info about the duration of the event in question. That sounds even more hacky. The publication module would need to be reworked quite a bit. There could still be input files, and there could be several of them, and some files may not be submittable input. Multiple input files is already a thing, but currently they dictate all the metadata, which we don't want here. They may not be attached to any game, or they may contain several games. We may still need a thread for each "publication", but maybe not a submission page? What about obsoletion?
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.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2212)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1086
Location: US
feos wrote:
Being restricted to replay files would result in hacking around this restriction by providing dummy files, but we'd also have to do something about movie length to make it present some actual info about the duration of the event in question. That sounds even more hacky.
(emphasis mine) Regarding length of run: If a dummy movie file is going to be present anyway, we could make it from all blank inputs that was as many frames long as needed to show the appropriate time frame.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
DrD2k9 wrote:
Regarding length of run: If a dummy movie file is going to be present anyway, we could make it from all blank inputs that was as many frames long as needed to show the appropriate time frame.
I know how to do it, I'm saying "That sounds even more hacky". It can't be a long term solution, even if it's the least evil for now until a new entity is developed.
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.
Skilled player (1738)
Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 4980
Location: ̶C̶a̶n̶a̶d̶a̶ "Kanatah"
Showcase runs are given their own URL code, i.e xxxxM for Movies, xxxxS for Submissions, and xxxxG for Games. Some proposed codes are L (for Live), D (for Demonstration), and E (for Event). These would be added and maintained through an entirely separate UI from submissions, with the permissions to use it being locked to Admins and dwangoAC, potentially Senior staff as well. These would function identically to publications, just without the need to be processed through the submission system, and without the need for input files. Any formally published GDQ showcase would be moved over to this new system.
Just to clarify, it's specific to these events right? I mean, I'd support making codes L,D,E if it was for special events like this, and not some livestream of someone no one here has heard of, but has a massive following. Are there any requirements for what other showcases are allowed?
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player (907)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
jlun2 wrote:
Just to clarify, it's specific to these events right? I mean, I'd support making codes L,D,E if it was for special events like this, and not some livestream of someone no one here has heard of, but has a massive following. Are there any requirements for what other showcases are allowed?
I personally feel it should be a submission process where the submitter demonstrates that it's a significant run and it's judged based on that. I'm an inclusionist of course but I'd rather see everyone get an opportunity to submit something. At any rate, I'm going to submit a run with a dummy submission file and we'll see how things go.
I was laid off in May 2023 and became too ill to work this year and could use support via Patreon or onetime donations as work on TASBot Re: and TASBot HD is stalled. I'm dwangoAC, TASVideos Senior Ambassador and BDFL of the TASBot community; when healthy, I post TAS content on YouTube.com/dwangoAC based on livestreams from Twitch.tv/dwangoAC.
Post subject: Time to revive this
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Surprise! I'm reviving this discussion! Several months too late!!! As you may have seen on the workbench for a very long time, Triforce% was submitted and has been stuck in limbo since then, as we haven't quite come to a consensus on how we want things to work, and a lot of our proposals and ideas are maybe a bit too grand for us to implement without a lot of community discussion first, and frankly we've been waiting on this for too long. As such, I want to publicly draft the changes we can make sooner rather than later, so that we can get what we need in place now and then have discussions over the changes we can make going forward.
I see two things that we could do right now. One is the ability to submit movies without input files. I think we can just tie this to a permission and deal it out to staff for now, but if there's enough interest from people in the community we can always create a new role that can be given on request to anyone who wishes to submit live event material. Just as long as it isn't universal. The other is a new URL code. I'm partial to xxxxE for Event, but it really could be any letter that isn't one we're already using. I see these pages being identical to Movie pages, just without the little "Emulator Replay" bit at the bottom with the input file in it, and maybe no "A/V files" either unless we want to upload backups to Archive. For short-term implementation, "Event" could just be a new class like Standard/Alternative, and when a submission is accepted to it then it tells the site to publish to the xxxxE code instead of the xxxxM code. With the above, this is how I see the submission process playing out:
  1. A TAS is created for a live event, and the creator(s) wish to submit it to TASVideos, but do not have a submittable input file.
  2. The creator(s) ask for and receive permission to submit movies without input files if they do not already have it.
  3. The run is submitted, using the official recording or VOD as the encode.
  4. The run is accepted to the Event class.
  5. The run is published with an "E" URL code, using the official recording or VOD as the listed encode.
  6. We can also mirror the VOD to TASVideosChannel with permission from the submitters. This would be a lovely bonus, but not a requirement.

Is there anything else we need? Do we need either of these things at all? Is it even feasible from a site code perspective? Given how long it's been since Triforce% was submitted and how much longer it's been since I started this discussion, we could really use answers to those questions. I'd just like to ask that any new ideas be kept simple: As much as I love seeing grand ideas (we have a few huge proposals being discussed internally and I'm absolutely open to hearing big ideas from the community as well), it's important that we get some structure in place as soon as possible. Once we do, I'm more than happy to discuss where to go from there. Ideally, I'd like a consensus before May so we can officially pass it off to the devs, but I'll settle for me not taking another 9 months to continue the discussion ._.
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Skilled player (1021)
Joined: 1/9/2011
Posts: 230
I love the idea of creating an Event tier and having it be an option on the submission page. I really don't think there's a need to give a special role for a user to be able submit them to the site. There's already ways to deal with people who spam/abuse the submission queue. As for actual implementation, typing 'Event' somewhere in the branch name could allow the submission without an input file (but maybe require a video link in the Embedded Video section). I don't know if that's a feasible option, but it seems cleaner than adding a checkbox or something to the submission page.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
WarHippy wrote:
I love the idea of creating an Event tier and having it be an option on the submission page. I really don't think there's a need to give a special role for a user to be able submit them to the site. There's already ways to deal with people who spam/abuse the submission queue. As for actual implementation, typing 'Event' somewhere in the branch name could allow the submission without an input file (but maybe require a video link in the Embedded Video section). I don't know if that's a feasible option, but it seems cleaner than adding a checkbox or something to the submission page.
Spam and abuse are only a part of my overall concern. In a way, my main concern is actually the opposite of that: Abuse would be a lot easier without an input file requirement, of course (nothing could stop someone stealing a video, hosting it on their channel, and claiming it as their own, for example), but it would be people trying to submit legitimately that would be more troublesome to deal with in my opinion. I feel like making it universal would accidentally set up the idea that we no longer require input files for any submission, which is something we've been asked to do numerous times in the past and will never actually do. I'm a bit terrified at the idea of implying such a thing and then constantly having to explain to people that, no, it's only allowed in very rare cases. All that being said, there can definitely be a better way to implement it than making it a permission that has to be given to your account. It just needs to be clear to casual users that the option of submitting without an input file only applies to Event runs and should not be used in any other circumstance.
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Skilled player (1021)
Joined: 1/9/2011
Posts: 230
Samsara wrote:
...it would be people trying to submit legitimately that would be more troublesome to deal with in my opinion.
That's why there would be a specific trigger to not require an input file (such as typing a specific word into the Branch label or checking a box). Even if for some reason a person did such a thing, it would be pretty easy to ask them to upload an input file. Any judge could then add it to the submission just like when anyone uploads an improvement after submitting. As you said, you're looking to make things happen by May (less than a week away now). Things can be changed down the line if it somehow becomes a real problem.
Post subject: another possibility?
ViGadeomes
He/Him
Judge, Active player (310)
Joined: 10/16/2017
Posts: 461
Location: France
For most of these event TASes, there should be (an) input file(s) until the point where the TAS is not deterministic/determined anymore no ? (mostly until the point of ACE just before python scripts start generating inputs depending on external elements: Twitch chat, discord chat, Skype). I'm pretty sure all TAS showcases have a part of it with prepared inputs that will always do the same and so should be replayed as any other TASes (rest of them wouldn't be considered TAS but more a kind of AI if I can call it this way). So a solution, if it's still possible to recover them for old showcase events and not impossible by some tech limitations that i'm unaware of, would be to still ask for input file(s) ? So the concern about preventing cheats by others users shouldn't be that of a problem. We shouldn't look at these input files extensively during judgement if there is one needed ofc. It's only a proposition, I'm good with anything !
KennyMan666
He/Him
Joined: 8/24/2005
Posts: 375
Location: Göteboj
So my thought on this is the question of that since they differ from the regular movies on the site in key ways, and have already been showcased on live events with the videos out there on stuff like GDQ's own Youtube channel, do they really need to go through the same submission and publication process as everything else, to the point of creating dummy input files to force them into the existing system that's clearly not made with them in mind? Since they are TAS content made by the TASVideos community, having them on the site with stuff like submission comments, technical explanations, and things like that is of course something very desirable. But many of them have such different goals, some have been more like art installations than gameplay, many have been made with a different intent from the start. They've been made more for spectacle than showing off theoretical perfect gameplay. They're often conceptually different from even playarounds. I think it would make more sense to just create a separate section of the website for them. Another heading in Movies, under Publications and Submissions. "Showcases", or "Events", or something like that. A list of them, similar to the Publications list, and individual pages for each one, similar to the other Movie pages—but both made for this purpose, without requiring any input file, or anything like that, that simply does not apply to them. The way I'm seeing is that because they were shown off at live events, they're effectively already published. Unless there's some reason to not have them featured on the website, it just seems kinda silly to overcomplicate it and treat them like regular submissions/publications when they so obviously do not fit in that box.
Det man inte har i begåvning får man ta ut i energi. "I think I need to get to Snoop Dogg's level of high to be able to research this post." -Samsara Read my fanfic, One Piece: Pure Corruption
Player (13)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 506
In my opinion, Samsara's proposition appears to be excellent. If TASVideos is willing to host the occasional video content while minimizing risks, this plan sounds solid. However, I think there are a few important details missing. First, on which grounds would someone be allowed to submit Event content? There is a risk of selection bias by limiting it to staff and their subjective opinion as to who deserves the related permission. This is probably fine short-term, but it may become a problem once people outside of the TASBot community would like to contribute. Second, on which grounds would an Event submission be accepted vs rejected? The standard must obviously be lowered for such publications compared to pure TASes, but where should the line be drawn? I think it's important for Event submissions to include all documentation and custom software required for reproduction, at the very least. I'm not sure if anything else should be required. Otherwise, again, it sounds like a solid plan.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Sorry for the minor delay on this response!
WarHippy wrote:
That's why there would be a specific trigger to not require an input file (such as typing a specific word into the Branch label or checking a box). Even if for some reason a person did such a thing, it would be pretty easy to ask them to upload an input file. Any judge could then add it to the submission just like when anyone uploads an improvement after submitting.
ViGadeomes wrote:
So a solution, if it's still possible to recover them for old showcase events and not impossible by some tech limitations that i'm unaware of, would be to still ask for input file(s) ? So the concern about preventing cheats by others users shouldn't be that of a problem. We shouldn't look at these input files extensively during judgement if there is one needed ofc.
Combining these two posts, I think I'd rather take the option of still requiring input files over not requiring them universally. Showcase runs could just use dummy files (like Triforce% does), which wouldn't even require any changes to the submission system, and there's still the potential of discussing better options going forward while having a working one in place already. I'll admit I might be a bit (or a lot) too worried about the potential for abuse, whether intentional or unintentional, so I'd need to be certain that whatever system we end up going with in the future is foolproof enough to seamlessly replace our current full input file requirement.
KennyMan666 wrote:
So my thought on this is the question of that since they differ from the regular movies on the site in key ways, and have already been showcased on live events with the videos out there on stuff like GDQ's own Youtube channel, do they really need to go through the same submission and publication process as everything else, to the point of creating dummy input files to force them into the existing system that's clearly not made with them in mind?
Keep in mind this is a short term solution, the idea being that we put something solid in place ASAP so we can actually start accepting these kinds of runs instead of taking months to come up with and implement a brand new plan for the site. I'd like for a fully separate system in the future, ideally one that can be overseen by the Ambassador staff or even some new team of volunteers, but it would be a lot of extra work at the moment, both in terms of planning work from the staff/community and the actual dev work needed to put everything in place.
Since they are TAS content made by the TASVideos community, having them on the site with stuff like submission comments, technical explanations, and things like that is of course something very desirable. But many of them have such different goals, some have been more like art installations than gameplay, many have been made with a different intent from the start. They've been made more for spectacle than showing off theoretical perfect gameplay. They're often conceptually different from even playarounds. I think it would make more sense to just create a separate section of the website for them. Another heading in Movies, under Publications and Submissions. "Showcases", or "Events", or something like that. A list of them, similar to the Publications list, and individual pages for each one, similar to the other Movie pages—but both made for this purpose, without requiring any input file, or anything like that, that simply does not apply to them. The way I'm seeing is that because they were shown off at live events, they're effectively already published. Unless there's some reason to not have them featured on the website, it just seems kinda silly to overcomplicate it and treat them like regular submissions/publications when they so obviously do not fit in that box.
They are going to be separate. Effectively a copy of publications/movie pages, just going to a different place. The URL would be something like https://tasvideos.org/1E to differentiate them from publications and to give them a separate home. The logic all checks out, though: We don't need to verify them and they are effectively already published works, and there has always been a reason to feature them on the site, but in the short term it is just much easier for us to use the submission/publication system while we work out bigger, better plans for the direction of the site.
SmashManiac wrote:
IFirst, on which grounds would someone be allowed to submit Event content? There is a risk of selection bias by limiting it to staff and their subjective opinion as to who deserves the related permission. This is probably fine short-term, but it may become a problem once people outside of the TASBot community would like to contribute.
The aim would be that it's open to anyone who shows TAS content at an event, yeah. Locking it to staff or by request would definitely be a short term only thing, and that's mainly because I haven't really seen event content outside of TASBot or something adjacent to that community so it makes more sense to limit it for now to the people we know are actually doing it. Granted, that could be because we've been so slow that it feels like we may even be actively discouraging it. Hopefully this will remedy that possible discouragement.
Second, on which grounds would an Event submission be accepted vs rejected? The standard must obviously be lowered for such publications compared to pure TASes, but where should the line be drawn? I think it's important for Event submissions to include all documentation and custom software required for reproduction, at the very least. I'm not sure if anything else should be required.
My honest take is that it can be handled case-by-case and doesn't need to be too strict. I suppose titling this thread specifically to be about TASBot's showcases is accidentally tunnel visioning people into the showstopper ACE stuff, but we can and should accommodate for anything and everything outside of that as well. If someone shows a block of already published TASes during a marathon, we could give it an event entry and not even need to do any verification work on it. If someone does a panel at a convention that only talks about TASes or TASing, we could give that an event entry as well and, again, there wouldn't need to be any sort of formal process to verify it. Documentation is probably the farthest I'd go with a strict requirement and that would only be for ACE/real hardware stuff: Given how complicated those runs are to make, I'd be surprised if there was no documentation at all, so it doesn't feel unreasonable to ask for it as a verification step. Anything past that would be greatly appreciated, but it should just be considered a bonus and not a requirement.
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
My optimistic goal of having something drafted before May wasn't exactly realistic, but I feel like everyone's on board enough with the general idea that a final draft can be made and pushed over to the site devs real soon. Shouldn't take long from here. Thanks for weighing in, everyone!
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player (907)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
I just want to hop in and say that I'm completely on board with short term simple solutions. I personally would prefer using a placeholder file when submitting (honestly, I enjoy hiding easter eggs in them), and even more controversially I think we can have normal /####M locations for the moment until we get something like E going. At that point the only thing we'd need is proper labeling. I'd like to touch on something said earlier about discouraging other content - I'll be honest, it's not just discouraging non-TASBot content, it's been so bad that it's undeniably squelched TASBot discussions on the site in the past. I'm only just now remembering that yes, it's alright to start using the forums to talk about this stuff without fear of getting chased away again a la the Pokemon Red submission all those years ago. I see this as a way to heal several wounds and do awesome things so I'm happy to take some compromises if it means getting it to finally happen.
I was laid off in May 2023 and became too ill to work this year and could use support via Patreon or onetime donations as work on TASBot Re: and TASBot HD is stalled. I'm dwangoAC, TASVideos Senior Ambassador and BDFL of the TASBot community; when healthy, I post TAS content on YouTube.com/dwangoAC based on livestreams from Twitch.tv/dwangoAC.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2109)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Samsara wrote:
Shouldn't take long from here.
Two and a half months really isn't that long if you're comparing it to the entirety of linear time: https://github.com/TASVideos/tasvideos/issues/1614
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: I realized I was still bitter and it wasn't helpful
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player (907)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
Hi all, I'm here with my hat of dwangoAC, Senior Ambassador of TASVideos on to confess I've allowed bitterness to sneak back in on this topic. I'd like to apologize for how it's again recently impacted my participation on the site and in the community. It's not a new pain point by any stretch; the rejected Pokemon Plays Twitch presentation submission was all the way back in 2015 and I've held and personally battled with various forms of resentment around it ever since. I recently had a conversation with a couple judges where I somewhat stubbornly made an assumption about how unfair their judgements could be for runs that are different (in that case around PC games that include the OS boot time) and I realized after the conversation that I was out of line. In retrospect, I assumed the worst of our site judging process and in that moment I could only view the site through the lens of inflexibility when nothing could be further from the truth under the current proactive leadership we now enjoy. Judges, I respect the difficulties you face and recognize many of my needs and proposals have a direct impact on you as well and I'm sorry for not being more thoughtful of your own challenges on the site. My priorities as Senior Ambassador must always put the current needs of the site ahead of my own grievances and hopes for the site, which over the years have extended to a desire to allow a broader range of Tool-Assisted Speedruns and Superplays to be present on the site. I want to see everything from the live performances, events, and presentations of various forms as discussed in this thread but I also want to see other new forms of TAS content including game-specific rerecording frameworks and, even more controversially, I want to make it possible for players with disabilities who use tools or unconventional controller methods that are excluded elsewhere to submit runs here. All those things represent my desired future for the site, but it will take time, buy-in from other staff and volunteers, and probably a lot of experiments and failures along the way before we get there. It's clear I need to be a better representative of the site as it is now and I can't do that with this darkness weighing me down. I am therefore making a renewed effort and commitment to not allow past or current bitterness around this issue to seep in and cloud my interest in the site. I'm going to start by trying to be more involved in discussions where they're happening (generally on Discord) while doing my best to set aside my own biases and ensuring I'm not battering everyone over the head to prioritize solely what I want. I see how hard staff and volunteers are working to maintain and improve the site and I appreciate their efforts - keeping a site running is so often a thankless behind-the-scenes task but without their efforts we wouldn't have a site at all. I'll also be renewing the effort to harness the strengths of the TASVideos and TASBot communities together to create new content that continues to push the boundaries of what a TAS can be and how they can be presented regardless of whether what's created can be showcased here. There are exciting new frontiers to explore and we're only just getting started. Thank you to everyone who has been involved in these discussions and here's to TASVideos continuing to thrive!
I was laid off in May 2023 and became too ill to work this year and could use support via Patreon or onetime donations as work on TASBot Re: and TASBot HD is stalled. I'm dwangoAC, TASVideos Senior Ambassador and BDFL of the TASBot community; when healthy, I post TAS content on YouTube.com/dwangoAC based on livestreams from Twitch.tv/dwangoAC.