Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
But please give me an example of a statement that'd debunk your claim if it was true.
If it were true, it'd be something like:
Nach, all entertainment ratings over 8 also always have a technical rating over 8, because getting over 8 on either one means heavily luck manipulation was used to complete the game in an impossible condition. As we know, these impossible conditions when conducted are seen by the audience to be at least an 8 on each, and neither ever gets over an 8 without it. Therefore there is a causal link between the two, at least when we look at the segment which is over 8, even though there is some variance beyond that.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
But this depends on the author being truthful. I could make a submission I spent one hour on, change the rerecording count into the billions, and write a long text about how I spent years researching the game and post a disassembly I generated with some tool, and make it seem like I really did go nuts with it.
I think a level of trust in TAS authors is warranted. Getting a point or two higher technical rating is such an inconsequential thing that it would feel extremely stupid for someone to go to great lengths to try to fool viewers into thinking a lot of work was put into the run. If somebody is really so petty as to try to fool people like that, well, that person is quite petty and stupid, and the "damage" is rather minimal. Non-existent, even.
I think that the vast majority of authors can be trusted to be honest.
My problem with anything that relies on the submission text is exactly that: It requires a detailed submission text. Not everyone writes those and I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the movie itself. There are things that require outside knowledge currently listed in the voting guidelines. The first is "Frame Perfection". While obviously presence of obvious mistakes does not require outside knowledge, the presence of known improvements does. The second is "Tools". While these are often made clear in the submission text, it may not necessarily be the case, and cannot be ascertained by watching the movie itself. Lastly is amount of work, which was previously covered.
I don't think you were necessarily wrong Warp by including these things, but I don't think they work.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
The only thing that would let us use rating anyhow is a way to create movie lists based on rating. All you can do right now is simply sorting the list you already have, and there's no reason to expect your list is lucky enough to relate to tech top in any way. Right now you can use several movie tokens to create lists, and none of them inherently outputs tech top.
The closest you can get is http://tasvideos.org/Movies-Popular.html but that uses combined rating above 8. You can not pick which rating you want to be above 8, and you can not pick a different cutoff. So you end up with a list of 270 movies that take annoying time to load, and then you have to manually edit the link to sort them by rating, because the Filter module doesn't have an option to only show Popular. Like, if you just get to the Popular list and then use the Filter to sort by some rating, you'll get a list of a few thousand movies instead: Popular token will be lost.
If we had tokens allowing to show only movies with tech or entertaining rating above X, then both could be used in all sorts of creative ways. Lack of this custom cutoff for entertainment rating is compensated by our promotion based movie system: Newcomer-rec > Stars > Moons > Vault > Gluefood Delight. It's easy to find an already limited list of entertaining movies. It's hard to find such a list for technical movies. I described here how hard it is to obtain info about our most technical movies.
Nach wrote:
My statement on the matter is that while there is some actual link in what occurs between entertaining and technical because one often fuels the other, the actual link in results is of a temporal nature.
You can show me all the lists you want, that does absolutely nothing to debunk my claim of the rating link being of a temporal nature. If you want to debunk my claim, you must show that there is a causal link between the two which cannot be broken. Anything else is arguing in the wrong arena.
BTW, before I get too far with this, please explain me on an idiot-proof a rubber duck level why the link here is temporal. Maybe if I see how you learned this, I can learn this myself and we'll be able to skip some unnecessary part of this talk.
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.
My problem with anything that relies on the submission text is exactly that: It requires a detailed submission text. Not everyone writes those and I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the movie itself.
I think a detailed submission text is quite relevant, informative and useful, especially for a technical rating. I suppose I could say "if you don't write a detailed submission text, don't expect a very high technical rating".
Given that many TASes require countless hours of work and grinding, often even days, weeks and months, writing a detailed submission text ought to be a rather minuscule part of all that work, requiring, perhaps, in the worst case scenarios, 15-30 minutes of writing work.
Of course, and as noted in those guidelines, not all games may lend themselves to great technical feats (in the same way as not all games can be great entertainment, no matter how you try to run it), and thus there isn't much to write about. In those cases, well, expect a low technical score.
A low technical score shouldn't be taken as a sign that the run is badly made. It could perfectly well be that it's not a good game to show great technical prowess.
At least in the optimal case, of course (ie. every person who gives a technical rating uses this approach for deciding a good score).
I don't think you were necessarily wrong Warp by including these things, but I don't think they work.
Maybe, but I think the major problem is not the submission text (or possible forum discussions that the author has made for creating the run). Viewers will have their own opinions on what "technical score" means, and there may be as many opinions as there are people.
With this I don't mean to say that they are wrong if they don't think about it like me. When I wrote that section, I tried to give some ideas and some inspiration, rather than trying to make everybody conform to my views.
As has been noted, cross-contamination of categories is certainly a problem. A run with a very high entertainment score is very unlikely to have a very low technical score (and vice-versa). I suppose it's natural for people to think that it's "wrong" to give an extremely entertaining run a poor technical score. Likewise if people find a run mind-numbingly boring, they aren't very likely to give it a stellar technical score.
Optimally the entertainment and technical scores would be completely independent of each other, one having zero influence on the other. A run could perfectly well have a technical score of 10 and an entertainment score of 0 (quite unlikely, but theoretically possible.) But of course this might be too naive of a view.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos, okay, I'll look into your rating request.
Nach wrote:
BTW, before I get too far with this, please explain me on an idiot-proof a rubber duck level why the link here is temporal.
Maybe if I see how you learned this, I can learn this myself and we'll be able to skip some unnecessary part of this talk.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
