As far as those people also getting promoted to other duties, the solution there needs to be do have a slash ranking. Judge / Expert Player. Such a system is on the TODO list.
I think that people not "losing" their previous independent rank when they get a new one is rather important. If someone has contributed lots of very good runs and then eg. becomes an editor, it would be a shame if he "loses" his previous rank indicating his player status.
It's also informative to others if they can see if someone is eg. a site manager and also contributes lots of runs.
Maybe we should have a tag for "heavy AI manipulation" which would be similar to "heavy luck manipulation" but for when the game AI logic is manipulated very significantly?-)
I suppose the point of this category is to demonstrate a lot of random number generator abuse. "Heavy" or "Signficant" luck manipulation obviously refers to exploiting an RNG numerous times throughout a run, perhaps almost every time the RNG is used, as is the case in many RPG TASes.
I wouldn't say that "significant" refers only to the frequency of abuse, but also to the magnitude of the results. For example, if manipulating the RNG saves 0.1 seconds, I wouldn't call it significant, but if it saves 1 minute, then it's very significant. By "magnitude" I also refer to the likelihood of something happening: For example if something happening has a probably of 1 in 1000, and it's triggered 20 times in a row (which would be virtually impossible to achieve during normal play), that's significant.
I think the version number should be for the site, not the author. The reason for the version number from my understanding at least is to track obsoletions. If we do version number by author, this functionality disappears.
I meant using an author version number in addition to the main version number.
I used to have Adblock enabled, which removed all the ads, until I discovered that it in some cases it hindered the operation of certain useful javascript/flash elements (the embedded videos at tasvideos.org being one but not the only example), so I disabled it. However, unfortunately I have to confess that over the many years I have browsed the WWW I have developed such a strong ad blindness that I mostly don't even notice the ads, so I can't rally even tell what they are about.
Maybe I should try paying attention to them just to form an opinion on their relevance.
I'd like to see bittorrent as lossless. But that's just me.
Lossless would be good, but only if it doesn't make the video file humongously large and/or require an obscure codec (possibly available for a limited amount of systems/players).
so I think the order is heading toward:
game name-special category (if applicable)-version number-author.file format
I think there should be something between the name and the version number even for the "main" (and possibly only) run of the game, for consistency. I don't have a good suggestion for an appropriate keyword right now, though.
Also, would it be a good idea to preserve the current idea of an author-specific version number (in other words, it tells how many submissions the author has made for that game in that category)? This would be independent from the main version number. (OTOH it could get a bit redundant as with many submissions the two numbers would be the same as they have only one author who has ever attempted to TAS the game...)
If we are going to rename the files to a consistent standardized format, maybe it would be a good idea to add the publication date as well.
An alternative to this would be to add some kind of numbering scheme which identifies how many versions of the same run have been published before (it would be like the current versioning, but instead of counting publications by the specific author, it would count publications for that game in that particular category). This could be even more useful and also interesting (because it would tell how many runs have been published so far for that game in that category).
Wasn't this discussed already in another thread? One opinion (which I agree with) was that precisely because now people can watch acceptable-quality versions of the videos streamed directly to their browsers, the versions distributed through bittorrent ought to be of maximal quality because of their intended use (ie. because most people downloading the video will usually want to watch it fullscreen at maximum quality, or use it for derivative works).
(Of course that doesn't mean that space should be wasted. The bitrate should still be as tight as possible once the desired visual quality has been achieved.)
What function are you using to write to the file? For example NSLog() does always include a timestamp on each written line (on purpose). It's not supposed to be used to write data files, only to write actual log files (with timestamps on each line).
If you want to write "raw" data to a file, use the C functions in stdio.h for that.
The current large awards in the movie pages as well as people's profile pages, smaller and more inconspicuous versions in their forum posts. Would that sound like an idea?
I wonder why I'm getting tons of messages like this from mplayer when I try to watch the video:
[mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x88ff200]Invalid timestamps stream=0, pts=212517001, dts=212518673, size=22
I have a few questions about Objective-C if anyone is familiar with that?
I currently develop for the iPhone for a living, so I'm somewhat familiar with Objective-C out of necessity.
Anyway, a few test cases has started to fail because the system is adding a time stamp to the output file. The new output file will then always differ with the correct file in comparison since the correct file does not have this time stamp.
So far so good and everything is logical and nice, but now I'm trying to find the cause of this time stamp issue, which has proven to be not so easy.
I don't really understand what you mean by "time stamp". What "time stamp"? Where is it adding it? Among the data being written to the file (because that's the only way that the contents of a file could differ)? Please be more specific. A small example (of what you should be getting and what you are getting instead) could be helpful.
May I suggest that the award "img" tags had a "title" attribute with the name and year of the award? That way in most browser when you hover the image the browser will show this title.
(Also currently the award image seems to link to the page explaining all awards, but not to the specific award inside it.)
