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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
c-square wrote:
I ask that the question of triviality not be pre-judged here and now, but left open for discussion in the future. This way, the run is free to be adjudicated on its merits against the site rules at that time, and is not weighed down by any judgement of triviality made today.
That's a fair request! You can even cancel this until then, and uncancel whenever things change. Anything that would be put in the rejection note would basically repeat what is already said in the thread, and you won't be able to unreject it yourself if we reject it.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Full ending is preferred indeed, however I haven't precisely compared the available options yet.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
c-square wrote:
No, I didn't think to mention it. To expand on what I wrote in the submission:
c-square wrote:
Levels 2 and 4 remove all limitations on the speed of input, meaning that multiple keys are accepted per frame. This means that the strategy used in Level 1 does not work here, and a completely different strategy is required to make sure the script is keeping the input flowing just ahead of what the system can accept.
Each frame, the system provides the game with between 1 and 4 inputs from the keyboard buffer. There doesn't appear to be any obvious pattern to the number of inputs accepted each frame. The script keeps the keyboard buffer primed with six characters beyond the last character accepted to ensure no frame is sub-optimal.
I'm not sure if that is what you meant by "makes input rate per level unpredictable throughout the whole level, and with due effort you could reach unexpected quantities of accepted input," though if it isn't, I'd like to know what was meant.
The game seems to match what I meant. If the input rate is not constant, optimization is non-linear. Still borderline trivial IMO because you just look at the upcoming 6 chars, hold their buttons, and the game advances to the next few chars. You don't really have to ponder any strategies at all.
c-square wrote:
Regarding Boxxle, do you mean that walking one direction takes a different number of frames than walking in another, or that pushing in one direction is slower than pushing in another? If so, I can certainly see a complicated function to solve; however, from watching the run it definitely appears that direction doesn't impact movement speed.
Even with constant speed, there's a lot of movement in different directions that you need to optimize. Proving it's trivial once you know the route, and that's the only possible route, would in itself be non-trivial.
c-square wrote:
The fact that Salary Man and Bishi Bashi Special 3 were once accepted to Moons is irrelevant. If they stayed in Moons, then there's no issue. But if these runs are being demoted out of moons and being considered for vault, then they should be subject to the same criteria as any other submission for vault. If they pass, they can enter vault, if they don't they should be unpublished. For example, Moons doesn't have a goal choice limitation either, but that doesn't mean a once-moons Playaround should get to be 'grandfathered' into vault just because.
When demoting Moons movies to Vault we don't do full rejudgement from scratch, because priority is too low. If those games run at fixed timer and all you do is just hit known-in-advance buttons as many times as you can, then that's trivial indeed.
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.
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.
In Boxxle there's a lot of different movement to optimize. Salary Man and Bishi Bashi Special 3 were initially accepted to Moons, which doesn't have a triviality rule.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Having to rely on external capture software means it's underdeveloped. I wouldn't want to allow a new TASing emulator to be submittable if it required external capture tools.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Just like with Sharp Shot, there's no way to have a meaningful optimization competition (even with self) for a "fastest completion" goal. Because the game lasts for fixed amount of time, with a few exceptions that are trivial not to run into.
And just like with Sharp Shot, this movie is not a speedrun record, it's a score attack. While in the future I would really like to add score attacks for timed games as an acceptable goal (looks like the only competitive goal for them), the current Vault rules are worded in a way that doesn't allow non-speedruns.
However...
Tools being super inefficient doesn't mean it's hard to optimize the game itself. You just need to repeat the same known-in-advance action 100000000000 times. You know how fast you can input it optimally for every level. It doesn't seem to ever change in corresponding levels.
If some glitch is discovered that makes input rate per level unpredictable throughout the whole level, and with due effort you could reach unexpected quantities of accepted input, then there's again a complicated function to solve. Until then, it looks absolutely linear and pre-determined.
So even for a potentially accepted "max score in a timed game" situation, this game would still be too trivial to get max score in.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Does the game ever punish you for not doing anything? For mistakes?
Also
feos wrote:
But why it is absolutely impossible to TAS this game manually?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
There's no perfect agreement yet on what we'll be proposing. Once we decide that, we'll announce that proposal and ask for more opinions, but from reading the thread most of the stances are already visible. I don't know if we will get any more useful data if this becomes a poll. Because Yes/No is not as useful as brainstorming together.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
moozooh and Moth talked about this in the chat. Moth's stance is still "authorship should not change upon resync". I can ask adelikat again if you want.
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.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
What is defined as full completion in this movie?
And more importantly, are the levels just timed no matter what? Can't you complete them sooner?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
It the new movie makes it sync on console but introduces problems on its own (audio/visual/gameplay) then that defeats the point of resyncing on a more accurate emulator. Because the console version can make it appear less accurate to how it was meant to work.
Not sure if we still mark those as console verified, but making a submission that introduces problems that didn't exist before, doesn't advance the state of art IMO.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
moozooh wrote:
Not of resyncs per se; the way we treat emulation differences has made me think—perhaps mistakenly—that even if, say, there were two movies submitted independently and at the same time, with no discernible difference in gameplay, the movie made on a more accurate emulator would be preferred even if slower due to extra loading lag and such. If this is a correct impression then there is also no reason not to give priority to a more accurate movie if it is available.
It's a correct impression.
moozooh wrote:
What we explicitly disallow (EDIT: I guess the better word would be discourage) right now is submitting such movies, but what I mean more specifically is having an updated movie be the base of a publication regardless of the procedure through which it was offered. There are some published movies resynced for console verification that have no gameplay improvements in the resyncs themselves but none of them are anything more than a sidenote on an existing publication at best.
Both the way the rule is worded right now and the way publications of runs later resynced to console are presented makes it look like we don't really want this kind of contribution and only reluctantly acknowledge it. I'm not saying that's how we treat it in reality—but that is how we project it outwardly via our documented policies and behavior. In this respect I also want the rules to read in a more welcoming way even if they don't exactly lead to a significant difference in operation.
When console verification became a thing, we invented a way to give it recognition. When state of art has advanced, we invented another way to reflect that too. Now we're about to invent yet another. It's not fair to read the current policy as discouraging resyncs.
moozooh wrote:
feos wrote:
How do we verify this?
On a case-by-case basis in a similar way as we handle other uncertain situations: by relying on the author's research and judge's discretion. Basically, what a judge would be trying to determine in this case is whether the new author's research offers a deep enough insight into the game that it proves they would've found an improvement if they were any, and hence warrant a joint credit for the work they've done. If it only relies on already-existing research, it would simply be treated as a regular resync; i.e. rejected and used to update an existing publication with a mention in the publication text and such if other conditions discussed earlier are met.
In other words, in this situation the new author already needs to demonstrate effort worthy of full credit to earn just the joint credit. Think about it from their perspective, too: when they set out to improve a run that falls under the situation we're discussing they don't know beforehand that they won't be able to find an improvement, yet they still put in all the work that would be necessary to find one. It's not their fault if there is nothing left to improve. But their effort still does contribute something meaningful despite that, so in my opinion a co-authorship is warranted in such case.
If there's no clearly measurable improvement, there's no way to verify research alone in order to distinguish good faith from abuse. In some games you have dozens of experts, and each of them can actually try and check some improvement ideas and explain in great details why it didn't work. There's no sensible limit to this. Just imagine everyone who understands SM64 starts claiming co-authorship to every SM64 movie where that potential improvement could have worked. Now, if they aren't 100% honest, SM64 TASing is insane enough to make some made-up story believable (I'd get lost once parallel universes are brought up). Then you'd need a judge who has TASed that game and can prove that it's BS (entirely, or just 10% of the story) or you need to talk to other SM64 TASers and ask them to disprove the BS.
If the original TASer has used someone's extensive research and relied on it, and that made the new improvements possible, we don't have anything against that researcher being added to co-authors if the main author feels it's due. But if the original author doesn't agree that new research is worth expanding authorship post-factum, without gameplay improvements, I don't think it's fair to force them to accept that fact and deal with it.
moozooh wrote:
Okay, that argument itself is entirely fair, but I think it's somewhat misguided. The way I see it, we're already doing a thing that is very similar with the way we replace submission files when an improvement is made in the time window between submission and publication. As far as I'm aware, those do, in fact, get erased—or at least they aren't available in any way a regular user (or even one with slightly elevated privileges like myself) can access. I think we need some kind of consistency between this, because a resync to fix emulation issues without affecting anything else is, to me, no different from trimming unnecessary input at the end or something else like that: a minor fix not affecting the movie as a whole or its creative choices in particular.
I think it's entirely fair to have everything available in history as long as the superior version is the one the publication is based on. I'd love to hear more opinions on this from movie authors as well, but I think it's a very reasonable take.
With submissions, the old file gets invalidated because we don't have to do anything with it, we just make sure the new one actually plays properly. Then all the workflow is applied to the new file, and it gets published if it's good.
Among all else, publication is a way to notify everyone that a new movie is there and it's worth checking out. If you don't make a new publication out of a resync, people don't know it has been changed, aside from those subscribed to TASVideosChannel on youtube, and probably some people who were in chats when it happened.
I still don't see any harm in making resyncs new publications that would justify rewriting published record history (which feels like erasing political opponents from photographs).
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
MESHUGGAH wrote:
A new post as this is more about the removed page by Nach which was part of the rules (go back 1 page for the link where I linked it or watch the previous version of Wiki: MovieRules).
The page was not removed and it was never a part of the rules. There only was a link to that page that tried to explain what we mean by board games, but now the actual rule wording is better so we don't need that link anymore.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Looks like I had a lengthy txt file pointing out the errors on that page which I unfortunately lost after mistakenly formatting my TASing hard drive.
According to the table at the bottom of the page, sports gets 4/7 while "classic board" gets 0/7.
A short list for each genre with valid information, first about subjective values and then about the table:
- Best version is subjective and there is no need to discuss it
- Not single opponent is another stuff that has nothing to do with genres or they should be TASed or whatever
- Imprecise movement.... ?
- Unknown rules... ? I never saw a sport game with unknown rules.
- Escapes simple non-visual definition. Again I have no idea what would this do with TASing.
I guess these lines were written before vault or I don't know.
- Sports sometimes have a definitive version (BMX) and sometimes not (FIFA)
- Pretty sure that many classic board games have multiple enemies, even the listed examples have some
- Other version also have multiple enemies, even the listed examples have some
I guess I could list the errors on this page for an eternity. My point is that this page shouldn't be used as an up-to-date information or the base of judging as many mistakes are present there.
That table is entirely Nach's personal opinion, and a few times I tried I was unable to get comprehensible picture from him that could be reused in game genre definitions. You'd need to have a new thread to discuss that page and I doubt you ever get comprehensible answers from him either.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Then I don't understand how that system does not support original TAS and its authors. Original authors remain the same. Isn't that support?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Did you watch the video I linked? It talks about actual TASing environment and how it's used to make optimal movies without too much hustle. What you're describing is not workflow. What TAS tools do you use to create a TAS and how exactly do you use them?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Technickle, what's your TASing workflow? Most of us here do it like this: Post #499336 onward.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I don't like this approach. My current opinion according to feos' version is a strong No as this system would not support the original TAS and it's TASers.
Was that a reply to my latest post or to TiKevin83?
TiKevin83 wrote:
I 100% agree on authorship but I think it would be good to have resyncs that get console verified to have a point reward unless we don't see a reason to incentivize that.
Authorship is the only way to get player points so I dunno.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Regarding game shows, my personal opinion is that they shouldn't be blanket banned. I don't see this as part of the discussion on the above linked thread by Samsara. I guess I'm in the minority who thinks game show TASes and some other banned genres should be allowed to get a chance case by case. If that's the case, it's not important to create a thread, I just want to understand why they get no chance to be allowed.
I haven't seen a huge argument over some partially game-show game that still had noticeable TAS merits, I haven't taken a strong opinion in that discussion, and I haven't discussed the hell out of potential future-proof rule for them, coming up with an improvement, and then a few years later with complete removal of the ban because the main problems are already covered in another rules I participated in improving. For this reason I don't have an opinion on game show game TASes. But if you are Masterjun, your approach to having this solved is causing step one in my description: the huge argument; and AFD is your canonical date for this.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
I don't know a complete answer until we come to an agreement. My personal opinion is this:
Resyncing should only be done if an old movie had audible or visible emulation errors and a resync fixes them, or the old run didn't sync on console and the new one does. When none of those issues remain anymore, new resyncs will be rejected.
A new run should sync on a versioned release of a currently approved emulator.
No known improvements are there to implement.
A resync is a new submission, and it obsoletes the previous run, but previous authors remain as if it was them who created the resync. Resyncer gets no points and no authorship. To get authorship and points, make an actual improvement.
Notifying the previous authors is not required.
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.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
I have a whole bunch of reasons laid out on why resync should not compete with initial TASing. Authorship matters can be deduced from that as well.
If you create a TAS alone, you are its sole author.
If you improve a part of an existing TAS, and take the rest of the movie, you are a co-author.
If you reTAS from scratch and beat someone else's movie, you're a new sole author.
If you do not improve gameplay, you're not an author of a TAS.
Nothing prevents you from finding a real improvement if there is. If you know the game well enough, you very well may find it.
There's no way to measure effort that had to be invested into a resync. So there's no way to distinguish between low-effort resync spam just to gain points and painstaking work that involved a ton of research and trial-and-error. So there's no way to distinguish between cases when common sense says it's fair to become a co-author and cases when it's obviously an abuse. So if actual superplay is not improved, it's better to retain the unambiguous borderline we've always had.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
moozooh wrote:
Despite being a more faithful representation of the game, which should always be preferred with all else being equal, the resync is essentially relegated to being a sidenote—even though in theory it should take priority since the rules invalidate gains made thanks to emulation inaccuracies.
I don't understand this sentence (the part after the dash). We don't expect emulation accuracy to get worse over time, so we don't explicitly invalidate gains new movies get from worse accuracy. Implicitly we do ignore such differences, but why does it affect priority of resyncs?
moozooh wrote:
2. Nobody is allowed to offer a resync on behalf of the author (under the original author's name, of course) if they aren't around. That situation has, in fact, happened in the past, when adelikat submitted a resync of Phil & Genisto's Circus Charlie in their name, having failed to find meaningful improvements. And it was accepted because the previous run was made on a horribly inaccurate, long-deprecated emulator, and there was an effort going on to replace all runs made on it with something better. This situation is liable to repeat in the future as TASes become better-optimized, and we'll likely run into it whenever we orchestrate new efforts to get deprecated emulators off the site and find other movies without known improvements.
We don't disallow other people from resyncing movies to work on console. There's no explicit rule for resyncs, even though this thread was made so we could have one. The situation of console resync being added only happened once, and we can still tweak it as we need.
moozooh wrote:
2. Situations where a different author had genuinely tried to find gameplay improvements but failed, yet their effort resulted in a different (more accurate) time compared to the original movie, this is best done via a separate submission, and credit can then be shared between the author(s) of the original movie and the author(s) of the attempt at improvement. This addresses concern #3 and the other half of #2.
Mothrayas and adelikat disagree with changing authorship here (even to co-authorship). Nach isn't posting in these threads, but I can conclude that since he doesn't want non-gameplay improvements to be accepted, he also disagrees with authorship being changed upon resync.
Otherwise, I like the precedent of #1411: Phil & Genisto's NES Circus Charlie in 03:22.68, and majority seems to agree that submitting a resync is acceptable as a new publication, if conditions are met.
moozooh wrote:
3. Once a movie is confirmed to sync on console, no future resyncs for it are necessary.
I like this.
moozooh wrote:
1) the existing publication has no documented improvements;
I like this.
moozooh wrote:
2) the author of the movie intending to replace it has failed to find improvements but can prove their due diligence in trying;
How do we verify this?
moozooh wrote:
3) the change of emulator has lead to fixing immediately evident presentation issues (wrong visuals/sound/game behavior) and/or made it sync on console.
I like this.
moozooh wrote:
1. Minor resyncs where relatively few actions need to be taken to achieve sync on a more accurate emulator can be added to the existing publication as per the current practice, but the time and encode should be changed appropriately and the old movie file removed from the publication page. Having a less accurate movie made on a deprecated emulator alongside a more accurate one serves no functional purpose. A link to it can remain in the submission message for posterity. Such resync can be offered by whoever as long as the credit remains with the author(s) of the original movie. This addresses concerns #1 and partially #2.
I HATE this. We do not, ever, unpublish movies. We do not erase them from the database. If it was created, accepted, and published, it is a valid verified record. We are an archive of records among other things. We want to be persistent and reliable. And the work that was invested in it should not be undone. I'm scared to even think of other potential "reasons" to erase a movie from the site. The only reason this should ever happen is accidentally using an entirely wrong movie or having a movie containing illegal data in it somehow. Erasing it doesn't only say it's bad to have it on the site (we backwards-obsolete impossible movies that were proven to have relied on emulator bugs), it says it's dangerous to still host it! There's no reason to act like the pre-resync movies are that bad.
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.
