I read the link on NLFiles but I did not understand it :(
$003D#Whichwayisforward#
$004C#DrawingInterrupt#
$004E#CurrentSpawnBlock#
$0050#temp XposSub#
$0051#temp Xpos#
$0052#temp XposHi#
$005D#NewBlockLo#
$005E#NewBlockHi#
$0060#ScoreLo#
$0061#ScoreHi#
$0062#Timer_frames#
$0063#Timer_seconds#
$0064#ninpo#
$0065#RyuHP#trace logger doesn't seem to collect data with a single frame advance, as far as I can tell
What I was not certain how to do was to get the same frame in another state where the increment does not occur
It's kind of like Mothrayas' "special one time exception." If it's good enough to have, just say it's ok. (And I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, exceptions are needed every now and then.) In this case it's just slightly more formalized since many PAL ports really aren't worth having. But, some are (like PAL SMB in my opinion), so let's leave an opening for them.
Due to this, PAL versions of ROMs are generally not allowed, unless there are significant technical and/or entertainment merits to using this version, or there is strong audience support.
Reading the rules in context of our discussions so far, I actually don't think it's unreasonable to state a general preference for NTSC ROMs, but this is only on the basis that they are likely to have a better audience response (because of their popularity), and that PAL ROMs tend to be broken because of the compensation for different clock speeds. Disallowing them in general unless special conditions are met is a step too far in my opinion. I think this could be fixed just by rephrasing the section, explaining that PAL ROMs are in fact allowed, but all the caveats apply so the NTSC version is the better choice in most cases. The current wording sends the wrong signals, and it causes rulings based on rules that should be guidelines.
logic dictates that when you are left with only flawed answers, it's not the question that is flawed but one of the assumptions you made along the way
it was a tool to make my point that having a double standard for NTSC and PAL creates these impossible situations, thus showing the premise itself must be flawed
I'm still somewhat interested in an answer to the question actually, in order to get to the bottom of our disagreement
We've had a few exceptions to this where a poor version was obsoleted by a better one (as was originally done for your Battletoads and Double Dragon).
I agree that a submission should not focus only on speed if it is to be considered for higher tiers, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that PAL runs shouldn't be under any higher pressure to deliver that NTSC runs, independent of the tier. Just because the new sumbission happens to be on the PAL version, it shouldn't be held to higher standards or have something expectional in it, a simple improvement (considering all aspects) is good enough. Again, all the usual caveats apply, they should be good versions and provide similar experiences.
Maybe think of it the other way. If there is an already published PAL version, and someone tried to obsolete it with an NTSC version (and the NTSC version happened to be released first), would you expect the same level of strict superiority and strictly better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes, etc?
If you wouldn't expect that, it points to the bias for NTSC and original versions that I'm arguing should be dropped. If you would expect it, then you're creating an environment where whatever version got published first has a large advantage, where it's easy to publish improvements on that version but not any different one, regardless of any other factors. This seems arbitrary to me.
Let me bring up a game that hasn't been TASed yet because of technical limitations: Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus was released for PS2 and later got an HD port for PS3 as part of the Sly Trilogy. The PS2 version has all the glitches and is very entertaining to watch as a speedrun, especially since many of the non-gameplay parts can be skipped in some way. The PS3 port removes the biggest and most spectacular skips and also forces you to watch all those cutscenes that you could skip in the original. From a technical perspective, the run is significantly different between the two releases: The original is fast paced and can skip 90% of two of the games chapters, while the port has to play every single level and is mostly reduced to use skips within the regular gameplay. Would a TAS of the PS3 version get rejected for having less entertainment value than the original, despite being a very different game? Or would it still get a vault publication because it's different enough?
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph
If this was regarding Super Adventure Island or Lemmings, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.