Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
So something I've sorta been aware of is this sorta fear of rejection. Not only from submitters being afraid of having their submission rejected, but also judges being afraid to use rejection because it sounds too harsh and too permanent when we might accept it later after some rules change or some new structure gets built. My current proposal is "Declined", it sounds much less harsh, and far less permanent.
[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
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1354)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
I have a different idea: removing Rejection altogether and instead use Cancellation for the purpose. Authors would still able to cancel or uncancel their submission, however the senior judges may be able to lock a submission if they deem that an author isn't giving proper arguments against a verdict. Just like moderators lock a thread when the discussion stops being constructive.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
I don't like repurposing cancellation because one that's not even really what the term means, and two, it'd sorta disrupt multiple systems we have in place. A judge would only be able to accept after a couple days but can cancel instantly (we can revisit that discussion but besides the point). I don't particularly like the idea of people being able to uncancel at will, that would likely create extra work for moderation. If anything, I would like a different status altogether for submissions judges need to take off the workbench early for various reasons ("closed" could 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
Site Admin, Skilled player (1251)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
"Declined" sounds ok, tho I'm not a native speaker.
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.
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2638)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6437
Location: The land down under.
What's your thoughts on "Unnaceptable in the current standings"?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.
Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
Spikestuff wrote:
What's your thoughts on "Unnaceptable in the current standings"?
A little long, could be used in a judgment note, but not ideal for say a feed.
[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
Site Admin, Skilled player (1251)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Spikestuff wrote:
What's your thoughts on "Unnaceptable in the current standings"?
I think we need to have an explanation of whatever term we end up having, linked as something like [?] near the actual definition, similar to how there are tooltips in some apps and on some sites. That way we can have comprehensible sentences without cluttering the decision field itself. Also "unacceptable" has a "don't dare do this" vibe 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.
GMP
He/Him
Editor, Reviewer, Active player (395)
Joined: 5/22/2020
Posts: 197
Location: Chennai, India
How about the term "Archived"? That's effectively what is happening when a submission is rejected isn't it? And there is no negativity attached to it. But perhaps that's actually the problem with it since the message "you can do better than this" needs to be conveyed.
Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
Well one could argue that runs that are accepted are being archived in a completely different way. It also could lead to confusion where one might think the status is final when again, we clearly want to revisit submissions when rule changes occur.
[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
GMP
He/Him
Editor, Reviewer, Active player (395)
Joined: 5/22/2020
Posts: 197
Location: Chennai, India
Yeah "Archived" seems to be in like the other end of the extreme. Also I agree that Declined sounds much nicer.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1088
Location: US
A few ideas: "Unacceptable" "Currently unacceptable" "Unpublishable" "Unpublished" "Currently Unpublished" "Withheld" "Currently denied" "Denied" (though without "Currently" it's not much different than rejected.) "Vetoed" "Suppressed" (i kinda like this one. It may be suppressed now, but could come back in the future) "Inadmissable"
Editor, Skilled player (1439)
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 2108
I would personally argue that this is not a "everyone's a winner" club, and some submissions really are bad and should be rejected. I think the site generally has a pretty good attitude about recognizing work these days and the discussion that I see is usually friendly and respectful. I think the word that is used when a submission gets yeeted* is pretty insignificant compared to the rejection message a judge writes and the feedback that is posted under the submission. Of the choices I've read in the thread, "denied" or "declined" sound best to me. I'd still overall be in favor if just keeping it as it is. *my suggestion
Editor, Player (69)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1050
I agree with what scrimpeh wrote and think that the term should be kept as is. If it is changed, what do you think will keep people from becoming afraid of the new term?
Current Projects: TAS: Wizards & Warriors III.
nymx
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2232)
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 930
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
I kinda like the word "Rejected". It keeps me in check, as I try everything to avoid getting one. That way, you set a standard for people to follow. I didn't like it that my first submission got rejected...so I tried harder, until I finally got a submission through. scrimpeh is right..some work is just no good. We need to foster an environment that demands quality. For me...it made me very determined to never receive that type of stigma. So...keep "Rejected".
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence. ---- SOYZA: Are you playing a game? NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing. SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real? ---- Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes? Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :) ---- BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
scrimpeh wrote:
I would personally argue that this is not a "everyone's a winner" club, and some submissions really are bad and should be rejected. I think the site generally has a pretty good attitude about recognizing work these days and the discussion that I see is usually friendly and respectful. I think the word that is used when a submission gets yeeted* is pretty insignificant compared to the rejection message a judge writes and the feedback that is posted under the submission. Of the choices I've read in the thread, "denied" or "declined" sound best to me. I'd still overall be in favor if just keeping it as it is. *my suggestion
What about the cases where we aren't rejecting a run for optimization, but simply because due to our current rules or our current infrastructure we can't really accept it? Does it really make sense to use "rejected" in such a case? We're at a point where we have a lot of runs on the queue that are delayed because nobody wants to "reject" a run that we ultimately want to at some point or in some way accept. That creates a lot of unnecessary claims and runs on the workbench that are going nowhere and makes it hard to figure out what actually is having work done on it and what isn't. It isn't just about being nicer about it (tho I am definitely in favor of that too), it's also about being accurate to what we actually mean when we don't accept a run.
[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
Editor, Skilled player (1439)
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 2108
Memory wrote:
What about the cases where we aren't rejecting a run for optimization, but simply because due to our current rules or our current infrastructure we can't really accept it? Does it really make sense to use "rejected" in such a case? We're at a point where we have a lot of runs on the queue that are delayed because nobody wants to "reject" a run that we ultimately want to at some point or in some way accept. That creates a lot of unnecessary claims and runs on the workbench that are going nowhere and makes it hard to figure out what actually is having work done on it and what isn't. It isn't just about being nicer about it (tho I am definitely in favor of that too), it's also about being accurate to what we actually mean when we don't accept a run.
This seems to be more of a result of the site undergoing significant restructuring at this point, resulting in a lot of movies that were previously considered unpublishable to become publishable. I don't think that situation will occur very often in the future (though of course I could be wrong). I think the issue comes from using 'rejected' to mean two separate things: - Rejected due to bad optimization - Rejected due to game choice / category choice / other The circumstances of the latter may change at some point and can result in a movie being unrejected later. Based purely on the semantics of the word, I don't see a problem with using "rejected" to convey the second meaning also. More open-ended terms might imply that a submission is likely to be revisited in the future, even if it realistically still has no chance to. If we have a bunch of runs on the workbench right now that we want to clear for the time being but know will be revisited later, I would also throw "shelved" into the ring as another candidate to highlight those cases. Even then, I would still use "rejected" for runs that have significant disqualifying factors that are unlikely to change in the future, i.e. that are probably rejected for good. I'm not sure if splitting the terms is a good idea/easily implemented though.
CoolHandMike
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Experienced player (895)
Joined: 3/9/2019
Posts: 693
Rejected is fine with me. But if it must be changed, change it to something that implies it is not acceptable as is. Canceled does not really carry the meaning of who canceled it or why it did not get in which would be nice. Maybe instead have multiple statuses for rejection? Unaccepted: Unoptimized, or like Unaccepted: Obsolete Emulator, Unaccepted: Pending Updates, Unaccepted: Uses Emulator Bug, Unaccepted: Existing Tas Faster etc.
discord: CoolHandMike#0352
Banned User
Joined: 4/1/2022
Posts: 122
I think "Refused" would be a alternative term?
WIP
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Emulator Coder, Expert player (3811)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2829
Location: US
My opinion is to leave it as rejected, it's clear and to the point.
Skilled player (1022)
Joined: 1/9/2011
Posts: 230
Accepted Not Accepted
Judge, Moderator, Player (200)
Joined: 7/15/2021
Posts: 112
Location: United States
Who's to say that any replacement term won't end up walking the euphemism treadmill again and take on the exact same negative, permanent connotations as "rejected" does now? Also, should we make a poll for this?
Arc
Editor, Experienced player (814)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 534
Location: Arizona
Split it into two separate classifications. Rejected for movies that will never be published (there is no more accurate term in English than 'rejected'). Deferred is the proper term for something that could be given consideration in the future.
GMP
He/Him
Editor, Reviewer, Active player (395)
Joined: 5/22/2020
Posts: 197
Location: Chennai, India
Arc wrote:
Split it into two separate classifications. Rejected for movies that will never be published (there is no more accurate term in English than 'rejected'). Deferred is the proper term for something that could be given consideration in the future.
Problem I see with Deferred is that it gives the notion that the rules will change at some point, and the run will become acceptable at some point in the future for sure. We already have 'delayed' for that. What we are looking for is a term that indicates in a very subtle manner that the rules may change to make the run acceptable in the future, I guess.
Arc
Editor, Experienced player (814)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 534
Location: Arizona
GMP wrote:
Problem I see with Deferred is that it gives the notion that the rules will change at some point, and the run will become acceptable at some point in the future for sure. We already have 'delayed' for that.
Deferred means that a decision about whether to publish will not be made until some indefinite point in the future. Since no decision has been made, there is no indication either way about whether it will or will not be published. It leaves open the possibility that it could be without promising anything. Delayed is not the same thing. Delayed is used to mean "hold on, don't accept this yet," usually because of a technical or optimization problem that needs investigation.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1251)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Arc wrote:
Deferred means that a decision about whether to publish will not be made until some indefinite point in the future. Since no decision has been made, there is no indication either way about whether it will or will not be published. It leaves open the possibility that it could be without promising anything. Delayed is not the same thing. Delayed is used to mean "hold on, don't accept this yet," usually because of a technical or optimization problem that needs investigation.
This makes sense to me so far.
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.