Here are my ramblings.
I hope I understand the current system right, which is as follows:
- Standard, for movies with standard completion goals, i.e. fastest and full completion.
- Alternate / Moons, for movies with alternate completion goals. Any goal that completes the game and is, in someway, logically part of the game is allowed. Usually this means there is a user-chosen limitation imposed: certain character only, reverse boss order, minimum coins/jumps/w/e, no major glitches.
(TASes that complete the game are considered inherently interesting enough for publication, as long as they are not trivial.)
The point of a Demonstration / Showcase category in my opinion would be for movies that do not fit in above, for two main reasons:
1) The movie goal is not to complete the game, but e.g. individual levels, or execute a specific glitch. (In a way, the need to start at power-on does not make sense as a requirement for the movie itself. It would be needed for syncing of course, but it would be similar to movies that need a verification movie to work)
2) How the game is played differs from normal play, e.g. with cheatcodes, with wacky input methods, or at the same time as another game. Another example would be that the game is played unoptimally to prove a point or demonstrate a technique, glitch or something else (again, my opinion).
I think the main basis on which to discuss the topics of obsoletion, presentation, limitation and processing should be why you want these movies to be published at all. My answer to that would be something like this: that as long as they are tool assisted superplays that show an interesting facet of the game, or play the game in an interesting manner, they are important to the site goal and thus the site should do something with them. (I take as the site goal the mission statement, which talks only of running and playing a game, not completing it.)
1) Obsoletion: if the goals of two movies are not the same, what does it mean to obsolete? Especially with goals that are not about minimizing or maximizing something, but to demonstrate something, it's a hard question. Why would you even want to obsolete a movie that just demonstrates something anyways? Also, obsoleting implies judgment and limitation, so it may be better to get a grip on that first.
2) Presentation: Again it implies limitation, but I think there are definitely movies that deserve recognition like published movies even if they do not fit into the Standard-Moon mold (and are currently fated to Gruefood Delight at best). Discriminating on entertainment seems intuitive, since having every movie be published almost indiscriminately is just a bad idea.
3) Limitation: To limit these sorts of movies is I think a good idea. Otherwise what's the point in having them on this site? They should show superplay-quality, of course. Other limitations I'm not so sure about. Not limiting them means not publishing them (impossible workload) means they are just userfiles.
4) Processing: I can definitely see that allowing these kinds of movies makes for a lot more work for judges and publishers. Gain and effort spend should be in balance. I can imagine that it's a good idea to have submissions also apply for a publishing tier, where if you want to full 8K treatment you have to show why your movie is that interesting, and get some people to agree with you. (It is common practice that to get a motion even to table requires multiple signatures as well.)
My leaning is towards an implementation that is a combination of Showcase as extension of Userfiles as a base (no judge/publisher workload), but with curation to give attention to what is most worth watching, and make it more available.
Another fake-out horizon line.
Even though there's a horizon line here, it doesn't go all the way to the right. The background is one region if you fill it.
