Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Please nominate eligible TASers.
Nominations are open until 2020-01-07 23:59 UTC.
Voting is open until 2020-01-14 23:59 UTC.
PSX TASer of 2019 candidates:
lapogne36Lil_GeckoNitrofskiSpikestuffWoops
Congratulations to the winners, lapogne36 and Nitrofski!
-------
Please see the discussion to learn how the winners were determined.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
I nominate Nitrofski, lapogne36, and Woops.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Well, this isn't the result I expected or wanted. The only TAS I've contributed to has been in equal parts brought to life thanks to lapogne36. As far as I've heard, we were actually tied very close to the end. If it were up to me, I would most definitely share the award with him.
If that can actually be done, then consider this an official request.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Nitrofski wrote:
Well, this isn't the result I expected or wanted. The only TAS I've contributed to has been in equal parts brought to life thanks to lapogne36. As far as I've heard, we were actually tied very close to the end. If it were up to me, I would most definitely share the award with him.
I tracked down the person who casted the deciding tie-breaker vote to find out why they voted the way they did. I asked them if this was a mistake, perhaps they didn't realize you both only had a single TAS which you both worked on?
The response was that they realized there was a single TAS you both worked on. However, the credits to the TAS was listed as "Nitrofski & lapogne36" which is not alphabetical, and therefore you guys at least subconciously determined that Nitrofski did (slightly) more work than lapogne36 for this TAS. Since between the two of you, the work was unequal, the one who did (slightly) more work should be viewed as the best PSX TASer of 2019.
Now, there's every chance that this line of thinking is incorrect, and if you share with us why the naming is what it is, the person who voted the way they did might want to retroactively change what their vote was. On the other hand, retroactively changing votes isn't something we want to go about doing.
So first of all please share with us what you guys were actually thinking regarding the credit naming. Second of all, I'd like to hear from others what they think about retroactively changing votes for this kind of situation.
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.
Hi Nach,
I admit, I don't think there was any conscious decision as to the order of the names in the listing. I understand the reasoning. Alphabetical is my goto to avoid such situations, yet I admit I didn't even realize the names were not in alphabetical order. This was the order of the names on the movie file when we joined efforts, and that was just reused as-is when creating the submission.
I have no recollection of consciously choosing to put my name first when the movie file was first created 2.5 years ago. If it was conscious however, it would have been because I was behind the first attempt. Yet lapogne was alone behind the second attempt, which yet again makes us equal on that front.
In retrospect of the project, I would consider both our contributions to the movie equal. It is hard to judge. I would consider lapogne36 to be as deserving as myself of the award.
Thanks for looking into this and sorry for the trouble.
"Usually" when someone is writing multiple names including himself, he puts his name first because it's the most obvious one, and it's not limited to TAS submissions. I don't remember reading anything about alphabetical order of TASers' names before.
On that note, if a similar case were to happen in future years (2 or more TASers with the exact same movies and equal contribution), I would recommend the mods to only let one choice in the list instead of several to prevent this sort of strange situation.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
The tie-breaker told me that they are fine with retroactively changing their vote to uphold the tie.
Is that fine with everyone else too? One person told me so far via PM that they don't like the idea of retroactively altering the votes. That whatever was voted should remain, even if in error. We don't want to open the floodgates to people changing their mind for all sorts of reasons if they dislike the outcome. Do other people have other opinions here?
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.
I think if both parties (as in both the winner and 2nd place winners) are ok with it then it should be changed to reflect that.
The only exception I would say is if 2nd place wasn’t 1 vote short from having a tie, otherwise that would open up the 1st place winner giving 2nd place winner the tie, even if 2nd place lost by 7 votes or something.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
to be honest this specific instance is pretty much the only I'd find acceptable. If two TASers have worked on the same TASes together and their submissions do not mention one having contributed more than the other, it seems silly to me to even guess at name ordering being a conscious or even an unconscious decision. It's too likely to be reading something that's not even really there.
[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
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
As I've received no other feedback on this subject, it looks like the majority want to see lapogne36 get this award.
I agree with Memory's reasoning that for this specific kind of situation, retroactively changing the vote should be allowed.
Congratulations lapogne36 on your win.
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.
This was a very good decision, and I think it's great that the outcome was reached with maturity.
If I were in the same situation as Nitrofski (only 1 TAS and equal contribution), I would feel very shitty about not sharing the win. Even if I got 100 votes and my co-author 0, I know I would want to share it. I'm not Nitrofski, so I can't say if he felt bad or just found the situation awkward, or something else; but I will say his response to the initial outcome displays commendable sportsmanship. Tangent: I would have asked to share this year's SNES TASer nomination if I thought there was any chance of winning. Yuzuhara, total, and myself only had 1 TAS in 2019, a shared effort by all of us. But, I don't consider the ACE TAS that interesting (I doubt Yuzu and total found it that interesting either), and I knew the other nominations would definitely beat us out by a lot. Though, personally, I expected a Metroid win here. I even contemplated posting a request that my name be removed, but I didn't want to make a big deal out of something so meaningless. I decided the best course of action was to just lose naturally and quietly, and that was correct. The only reason I'm posting about it now is because I ramble sometimes and it's somewhat relevant to the topic. If you read this entire thing, please unread it, because it was pointless to read.
In the future, it might be a good idea to allow any nominee (or nominator) to suggest a shared ballot before voting even begins, something along the lines of "Well, my only eligible TAS here was co-authored by xxx, so I would like them to share the nomination with me." That makes sense to me, seeing how the movie category wins are shared by every listed author.
In this sort of situation, silence implies consent, but that's all the more reason to voice support for the decision.
Congratulations to this year's winners.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
fmp wrote:
In the future, it might be a good idea to allow any nominee (or nominator) to suggest a shared ballot before voting even begins, something along the lines of "Well, my only eligible TAS here was co-authored by xxx, so I would like them to share the nomination with me." That makes sense to me, seeing how the movie category wins are shared by every listed author.
In that case if they believe the work put in was equal, if they make such a request, we can probably honor it.
fmp wrote:
In this sort of situation, silence implies consent
Silence does not imply consent.
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.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
The site's system implicitly assumes that if two people worked on one TAS, they receive equal points for it. Perhaps in the same sense, if multiple people have done identical work in terms of movies, then we could automatically consider them together as one voting option for awards (or separate them on request).
Either way, I'll see about getting this addressed in the nomination rules for future awards.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
