Of course, I probably just could've skipped using the ejections in SBZ2 and SBZ3 and Final Zone and not mentioning the ejections in the submission text at all, and almost nobody would've noticed the other ejections in the run even if they're there, if I'd just wanted to have this run published as easy as possible, lying is an easy way to get love from people. But then I'd end up with a run that doesn't follow my goals which not how I make my TASes.
Aglar, you're already one of my favorite TASers of all time for your tireless, relatively thankless work on Baby Moses & friends, but these few sentences have put you still higher in my esteem. Know that there are people watching who appreciate clarity and precision in goal definitions as much as you do.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
X2poet, I just wanted to let you know that just about every time you post in a thread, it makes me incredibly happy.
I can't really explain exactly why. It just seems like your heart is always in the right place :)
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
...and a strong no on the entertainment side. Too many cutscenes and too little actual action.
I loved this run, but I skipped all the cutscenes. I did it because I haven't actually finished the game and want as few spoilers as possible while still seeing the run (and man, there sure weren't many spoilers...) but if I had played the game, I'd be even more eager to skip the cutscenes, having seen them all already. I don't really understand how the presence of cutscenes can lower your opinion of a movie when a) they have no bearing on how well the TASer did, and b) the fast forward button is right there.
Hmm, maybe someday I should start making cutsceneless encodes of runs like this. Would there be an audience for such things?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
There was recently an amazing series of ~5 obsoletions of (and a bit of forum drama around) the "Baby Moses" subgame in the game Bible Adventures, also originally submitted by Aqfaq, culminating in its publication. At first, most people thought the run was a joke, since the game is so uninteresting, but after a number of TASers took the initial run and broke the hell out of it, it was deemed good enough.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
This run is 12 seconds long and buys the central quest item from a shop. Do I really have to watch it before I vote yes? :D
Edit: I watched it, and voted yes.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Well, since no one's made this joke yet, I guess I have to be like GO REDO EVERYTHING FOR THAT 1 SECOND IMPROVEMENT IMMEDIATELY YOUNG MAN
But no, I'm as impressed & happy as everyone else. You're really good at stuff ^_^
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
It is usually none of your business why someone may have been banned.
...Which is not a good attitude to have towards members or the audience at all, because it's nontransparent and leaves ample room for distrust and speculations of abuse. If a person whom I considered to be a normal and helpful member of the community suddenly got erased from the site, what am I to think of them? Of the admins? Does that mean I can be banned for seemingly no reason too? There's no respect for community in this attitude, because expelling members is not a personal (as in: private) affair, it's a communal affair.
I think moozoh's point about public bans being useful for admins of other sites is a little silly (though it makes more sense in forums based around the exchange of physical goods, as he pointed out) but I agree with this part a lot. I think it would be great if any decision to ban a user was accompanied by the sort of thought-out judgment post by an admin that might accompany the acceptance or rejection reasoning on a controversial run.
This would make it clear to everyone what sort of behavior is not tolerated, and would make it clear to the bannee exactly what they did wrong. It would also make the admins somewhat publicly accountable for their actions; while I do mostly trust you guys, the occasional unsigned edit or inexplicable disappearance of a post do bother me a little bit.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
DarkKobold, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
And a great, open-minded judge. It's a good thing I'm not a judge, because I would have just accepted the first run right away and we never would have had any of this awesomeness :P
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
In my question, I tried to be clear that this was with permission/by request of the banned author, who just wanted the run on the site and didn't care about having their name near it anymore.
While it would always be hard to tell, I would never condone someone stealing a banned author's run and submitting as their own without permission.
In the case where the non-banned person was a coauthor from the beginning, and doesn't want his hard work wasted, but at the same time the banned author doesn't want it submitted without his name on... well, that's tricky.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Can I ask why the rule exists at all? Presumably a ban usually means 'Your forum posts are sufficiently destructive that we really want you to stop making them'. I don't really see what that has to do with the quality of a submitted TAS. Certainly it seems unlikely that a banned author would *want* to submit, given that they would be unable to respond to criticism and that they may bear some ill-will towards the community, but if they accept that they can't contribute by posting in the forums, but still want to contribute by submitting great runs, why turn them away?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
I agree that captions are great, but please don't replace the submission text. I enjoyed reading a bunch of this submission text, but I have no intention of watching the movie (I'm not really into Pokemon...)
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
