This was one of my first TASes. I didn't think it would be acceptable due to the ending time, but then I saw ShesChardcore submitted a slower run than mine and was accepted (not published).
Comparing the two side by side, mine is 9 frames faster and was completed sometime in 2022.
Additionally, mine finishes 20 minutes faster due to difficulty settings which will surely be much more enjoyable for YouTube. The dificulty settings make no difference in this run as all content is skipped.
RTA difference is 20 minutes, TAS difference is 9 frames.
Using the default difficulty saves some frames, and ShesChardcore placed Kevin further to the left on the steps, which causes the robot to grab Kevin X amount of frames later. I also have quicker and "instant" (no RTA setup) movement to the entry point, although this is negated in any final time gain as you have to wait for the robot to spawn, but it's pretty. Additionally, I release L on the earliest possible frame right on the edge of the hitbox of being grabbed by the bandits. All in all, time saved. Or rather, it was shorter to begin with. Glad to pull this one from the archives. Hope you enjoy my run.
The current publication spends some time setting the difficulty level to Expert. This submission leaves the difficulty level at the default Beginner. The main difference in difficulties, aside from the game timer, is that there are Expert only traps and crafted weapons. Since the methods are the same for ending input early across difficulties, the menuing to go about that doesn't itself counts as a valid time save since none of the Expert difficulty content was ever interacted with in the first place. However the change in menuing did affect when the robot used for the screen wrap glitch appeared and also saved an additional frame, so both parts are a valid improvement.
There was a small discussion about which one constitutes having the "best ending". I came to the conclusion that neither technically have the "best ending". There is a maximum rank the game can give by earning over 250,000 points called "Certified Expert". That isn't the whole story since with some testing it's possible to get that rank without actually saving all the houses, just that the Wet Bandits get caught by the police and the score threshold is met. There's also the choice of a maximum score run which would get that title and save all the houses for the bonus points. Whether these theoretical branches would be separate or not is something that only future me should worry about if that time comes.
Dug this out of an old hard drive. It should be noted it was in .tasproj form, so the date on the bk2 is current as I had to convert. Not that it matters.
I'd also like to wish ShesChardcore a happy retirement after an incredible tenure of TASing.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Oh and I would like to welcome everybody to share in the cringe of my roots
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6436
Location: The land down under.
Something I noticed whilst observing... besides a single frame improvement on your TAS (asking co-auth),
There's a difference between yours and ShesChardcore that you don't bring up.
Wet Bandits immediately go after Chardcore and in doing so, she comes out with the best ending:
Wet Bandits loot two houses before coming to the one you're in and that results in the worst clear ending.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
I'll look into it. Tried some basic RNG manip (start delay, movement on sled, movement in house) and always got the same result.
Also combed through all the speedruns on speedrun.com (including ShesHardcore's 3rd place run which followed the same standards of my TAS including difficulty and AI house progression), and on easy mode like all of the rest,
and no runner was able to perform with these circumstances. All had the scenario play out as in my TAS. There was some that triggered The Old House instead of The Mansion but it doesn't seem feasible to get a different result than those without a difficulty swap. I'd say if they were ending up with one of the different 5 houses there would be some RNG going on, but the layout was like 90% Mansion, 10% The Old House, 0% the others. Unless there is some serious RNG delay going on (to the point of it being of questionable worth), I'm pointing to the difficulty of altering the order the AI gets to the houses.
I'll have to look into if the difficulty settings changes the order of the houses. Since it wasn't mentioned in the submittal text, I figure it was likely a coincidence as there's no obvious RNG manipulation present in their file (I checked this morning), rather than an intended outcome. The movement and inputs in the entire run are clearly done with the intention of the fastest result. If there needed to be some RNG manipulation, some up and down spam on the sled is a good way without losing any frames.
I'll keep poking at the RNG but if it's difficulty based I would certainly prioritize the run ending twenty minutes earlier.
I think losing a few frames AND having the run last 40 minutes instead of 20 minutes is a dealbreaker for best ending if it comes down to not being able to get the best result with RNG manipulation (sans difficulty), especially because it's the standard for the speedrunning community. I definitely think a movie last 20 minutes to 40 minutes would be more ideal for the YouTube channel, and all in all the ending is just text on a screen.
I've seen runs with better "best endings" settle for the "quickest ending" and this run has the same endings besides just text on a screen.
Either way, I'll keep looking into it but will await a judge. (Hopefully one that isn't friends with the other author for fairness)
Hoping I'll crack open some RNG door but I'm pretty sure it's just difficulty based.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
FWIW I'm fine with any decision that gets made.
You're correct in that it was a happy little accident that I managed the "best ending" and I wasn't even trying to manipulate such. I used the hardest difficulty to be cheeky (a trait I've displayed quite a bit in the past two months or so) knowing full well about the longer time run out. Hardest difficulty isn't a requirement anyway.
I'm on board with whatever you and the judges want to do. I wasn't expecting things to play out like this.
FWIW I'm fine with any decision that gets made.
You're correct in that it was a happy little accident that I managed the "best ending" and I wasn't even trying to manipulate such. I used the hardest difficulty to be cheeky (a trait I've displayed quite a bit in the past two months or so) knowing full well about the longer time run out. Hardest difficulty isn't a requirement anyway.
I'm on board with whatever you and the judges want to do. I wasn't expecting things to play out like this.
Hey there. Hopefully you don't take offense to me submitting, I wouldn't have done so if I hadn't spent hours on the game months prior (and glitch hunting dating back to 2011) and only didn't submit because I figured it was a bad game choice. Obviously you could imagine my emotions when I realized this was not the case, hah! I had a finished run sitting in a drawer for months.
No ill will or anything. It's just a TAS. Seems there is way too much energy in this thread than there needs to be. I mean I don't even know you.
I made a comment on Discord that the grue bot was spamming the forum and had a screenshot of some of your cancelled/rejected submissions (most of which were cancelled, not sure how that would be offensive as there's no shame in cancelling), I was trying to make a joke about the bot itself, and Spikestuff went off on me, which probably doesn't look good on this turn of events either. Probably explains their reply. It's really not that complicated and I have no ill will for anybody.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
No ill will and no offense taken. I'm a fan of the better of the 2 runs being published, whichever that is deemed to be. I'm less concerned about my own TAS and more concerned about showing the best TAS. No different than RTA running, any new WR is great for the game.
No ill will and no offense taken. I'm a fan of the better of the 2 runs being published, whichever that is deemed to be. I'm less concerned about my own TAS and more concerned about showing the best TAS. No different than RTA running, any new WR is great for the game.
Amen. Thanks for the cool attitude. There's always the option for two categories, but that's probably not worth it.
It's just my opinion that somebody watching on YouTube would put more weight on the final number than the TAS number. It's also how the RTA runs are timed. And obviously 20 minutes is about as big as it gets. I'd hate to see somebody mistaken that you *have* to wait the full 40 minutes as they aren't going to be aware of the difficulty settings.
It really all comes down to how heavily we can abuse the TAS timing, which in both scenarios is "a fuckton" and "a double fuckton". Obviously in any other scenario RTA timing would be implied and the difference would be apparent and there would be no question. Here, it's a bit blurry.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Also FWIW I would like to reiterate that I believe I save some frames outside of the difficulty change itself as well, so all that aside there is that as well. I could technically slap the difficulty back to how it was and still be ahead, so at best there's a little bit of fine tuning.
I was sorry to hear about your retirement and hope you make a return sometime.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
great work! i always like to see an improvement, even if it is small.
Thanks Logan!
edit: adding discord context here because this post is tiny
Just for context of what was said (CPP and Pearl seemed to get the joke):
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Other movie suddenly published by Spikestuff after sitting in limbo for an entire month and a half, 8 hours after I submitted mine, even posting on the thread days prior to my submission there was an improvement, and then x-posting this thread there as well.
Not sure why there are games (figuratively) being played here.
I'm not one for drama, but I feel I'm being dealt an alternate hand due to the undeserved Discord conflict yesterday.
Just seems odd
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
This is referring to the movie accidentally running a frame long at the very end of the file which I fixed several posts back just during routine polishing and double checking.
I mean, really?
Spikestuff wrote:
(asking co-auth),
Spikestuff wrote:
(asking co-auth),
Spikestuff wrote:
(asking co-auth),
Spikestuff wrote:
(asking co-auth),
Spikestuff wrote:
(asking co-auth),
Well
feos wrote:
Only if you copy a huge part of their movie and add a bit of your input here and there, then it might require co-authorship.
It's great to know that here at TASVideos it helps to know people, and additionally if somebody's (whom you've never spoken to prior) feathers get ruffled by misinterpreting a silly Discord joke, it can directly affect the results of your submissions and how you're treated here on the forums. Oy vey.
Really welcoming to new users. Love me some cliques.
I mean, any other scenario looks like this:
#6236: alex_ik's NES Contra in 08:48.36
Dacicus: Processing...
feos: Sorry for the delay, but now this movie can't be published, because an improvement has been submitted, and this record has been beaten. So I have to reject it in favor of the new movie.
Mothrayas wrote:
If the site publishes a movie knowing that a faster movie already exists (and is on the submission queue), it's violating its own rule.
It's unfortunate whenever this happens to an already-accepted submission, but this is not the first time it has happened. No movie is confirmed for publication until it has reached the movie publication list. Accepted movies can still be rejected in light of new evidence.
And this is where it really gets good
Spikestuff themself even agreed with Mothrayas in that instance AND cemented it by using another example, lol.
Spikestuff wrote:
If you're placing an argument for that you might as well place an argument for this then.
As feos, Mothrayas and myself have pointed out.
The decision won't change and that's final.
It's unfortunate it got bested, but it is what it is.
So what's up? It's unfortunate it got bested, but it is what it is. Right?
So you:
- Get into beef with me on Discord
- Leave snarky remarks on my submission
- Claim to want co-author for deleting a single frame
- Disregard comments made 10 days in advance that a faster solution exists
- Rush to publish a submission that has been waited to be processed for over a month and a half (sudden rush), hours after mine is submitted and you've seen it
- Completely go against the words of other high-ranking officials but moreso go against your OWN words
Each of these is something in itself, but the chain of events is wow.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 7/3/2022
Posts: 463
Location: Berkshire, UK
OtakuTAS wrote:
- Rush to publish a submission that has been waited to be processed for over a month and a half (sudden rush), hours after mine is submitted and you've seen it
correction: spikestuff actually commented on this about 1 hour after they published chard's tas, so they wouldn't have seen it before then.
if i were you, i would just ignore them. you don't want to end up getting banned.
- Rush to publish a submission that has been waited to be processed for over a month and a half (sudden rush), hours after mine is submitted and you've seen it
correction: spikestuff actually commented on this about 1 hour after they published chard's tas, so they wouldn't have seen it before then.
Viewed =/= interacted. I'd like to think not, but with a 10 day old post citing my intentions to submit a better run, a post on the thread several hours prior to their publishing, a submission several hours prior to publishing, etc., I think it would be very hard to miss. I'm not sure what the backend for publishing is like, but I imagine you'd have to try pretty hard to avoid blatant activity in the thread surrounding it.
I also had a lengthy friendly Discord conversation with another user late last night during periods of Spikestuff's activity citing my submission and details about the game, again something else that would be hard to miss.
I think anybody at this point would have to try very hard to ignore that this is mere coincidence. Even if so, I think quite the case is built at this point and how this is handled going forward is very crucial to indicate how honest people are, who the site curtails to, if the rules apply to all or just some, and the fairness of the site (and less importantly the community) as a whole.
There are too many variables at this point for this all to be an incredible stroke of luck, but at best, sloppy publishing not checking a forum thread for a game known to have a possible faster movie inbound since 10 days ago. At best.
But I do think it would be incredibly hard to deny how things look and the sequence of events that led to this point.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Dacicus: Processing...
feos: Sorry for the delay, but now this movie can't be published, because an improvement has been submitted, and this record has been beaten. So I have to reject it in favor of the new movie.
Mothrayas wrote:
If the site publishes a movie knowing that a faster movie already exists (and is on the submission queue), it's violating its own rule.
It's unfortunate whenever this happens to an already-accepted submission, but this is not the first time it has happened. No movie is confirmed for publication until it has reached the movie publication list. Accepted movies can still be rejected in light of new evidence.
Nobody liked how it happened back then, but legacy policies of the site (we've been a part of them) have evolved since 2019. These days we try to be content creator focused, and to judge things according to what makes sense to us, the community.
https://tasvideos.org/Forum/Subforum/3https://tasvideos.org/MovieRules/History
It also so happens that the people who wanted the policies to be less strict and more humane, are the head of the staff team now, so yeah if we can reach a consensus about some change, we implement it. The main problem is that we need actual problematic situations to occur to start a talk about it, because otherwise everyone is busy with regular site duties (and real life).
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.
if i were you, i would just ignore them. you don't want to end up getting banned.
I'm not aware that I'm breaking any site rules, nor have I been rude to anybody. I think a ban over this would just further my cause.
Bisqwit created an amazing community and adelikat has done a phenomenal job at owning the site, but I can't help feeling from my first day joining (and a long time before, lurking) that you really need to walk on eggshells around here, select people are too sensitive (see: failed Discord joke and getting snapped at) and/or do not like the ideas of others, and on top of that there's a select number of important users that are very tight-knit (see: clique reference above), who also happen to now compromise a majority of the people who serve the site in some capacity. I suppose the outcome of this may end up being an example of this.
I kept my mouth shut for a long time on things like perhaps how being in the Discord is a bit odd compared to other communities, but if a tiny misunderstanding is going to bleed over into the main point of the site I figured I should say something.
Again, we can all pretend this isn't what happened here but I believe it's extremely clear.
I think there definitely could be some improvements to the checks & balances system, because right now the site leans almost completely to one side. I've ran and been apart of many large communities and it is extremely important. I remember watching the Nach trilogy go down and although I think the right decision was made, I do think it's important to have people on board that you don't always agree with and have different viewpoints (not citing that particular scenario as there were many more different variables, irrelevant variables, mess, and the range of extremes was a bit too wide).
Adelikat himself and Feos are always people I look forward to hearing from as they are very well-grounded (as are many others), but I do think there are some people around that are not only too extreme in their ideals, but also tend to live in an echo chamber, hampered by the fact there really isn't anybody else on the team who drastically differs in opinions. Additionally, with a large majority of the site's most active users serving in some capacity (see: The Discord chat has very few white names, although that's just one example), if you haven't noticed the userbase itself is eerily quiet, either because they worry about what you just said Logan, or because they just don't care, or perhaps because they know, like me, their input is likely going to be irrelevant in the end, because when you have 5 other like-minded, badged-up, official users to agree with you, the decisions practically make themselves with little room for other voices. I'd rather have stricter submission guidelines than that.
I spoke to several people in different speedrunning communities for particular games who time and time again seemed to have a hesistance to submitting to TASVideos and relayed similar stories of feeling like an outsider.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk. I could see from 100 miles away what was happening here, and I think it's a much bigger problem manifesting into this tiny TAS. Just some food for thought.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
- Rush to publish a submission that has been waited to be processed for over a month and a half (sudden rush), hours after mine is submitted and you've seen it
correction: spikestuff actually commented on this about 1 hour after they published chard's tas, so they wouldn't have seen it before then.
if i were you, i would just ignore them. you don't want to end up getting banned.
can we leave the moderation to the mods, thank you
[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
and to judge things according to what makes sense to us, the community.
Which is fine except a large part of the community is also staff, and also think extremely alike. I would put "putting in a controversial opinion about TASVideos and winning", especially as somebody newer or not "in" with the group, into the same category as "winning the lottery". Now, if a large number of people were polled and agreed, that's basic decision-making and majority rules, but there isn't a very big pool of people that chime in and most who do have individual relationships with each other as well as positions of power. It gets to a point where decisions being made behind the scenes are basically like asking your grandma if you're right, she's always going to say yes, regardless of how right or wrong you are.
I cite the Nach thing again cautiously (I'm not well-versed in the lore enough to know about too many other similar situations), where it seemed like it was causing a lot of problems to be constantly debating, wherein the solution was deemed to just eliminate the resistance/Nach. Our government is always arguing, but removing an entire half to stop the arguing would undoubtedly create more problems (and dangerous ones) than it would solve. Removes the checks and balances and also any good ideas that get thrown out with the bad.
feos wrote:
It also so happens that the people who wanted the policies to be xxxxx, are the head of the staff team now
This kind of sums up my point, and can vaguely be applied to anything hence the edit... "So let it be written; so let it be done."
If two people who adamantly wanted to the site to be hot green colored got elected to admin positions, there is a high likelihood the site would be hot green colored
Anyways, my point is that Spike is obviously friends with Shes and everybody's pretty friendly with Spike so this is probably a lost cause. But I have a really hard time not seeing that there was more than just TASing involved in this debacle.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
As for the run itself, a lot of the new rules revolving around "entertainment", this game is a bit of an oddity where the "best ending" changes what words you get on a boring plain end screen that is the same between both versions.
I'd also like to reiterate the even without the difficulty change and resultant outcome of the thieves coming for the ideal house first based on the difficulty system, there is still a timesave and this is not as simple as what is being argued. I could switch to hard, make the RNG exactly the same, get the good ending, and still be ahead, but my heart isnt in it
But then it's going to be a whole thing again when somebody realizes the game can be 20 minutes shorter and the run can be several frames shorter. I am firmly believing in the fact that finishing the game 20 minutes later RTA is not somehow way better than different text and frame saves too
This game is probably #1 most abusing the TAS timing rule to begin with and just gets worse if you go from beginner to hard
And then you're not only losing 20 minutes of RTA, you're losing >10 frames
Which, beautifully in close, goes back to the fact of that I really don't think Spikestuff was really all that concerned about the ending rather than who was submitting
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
I think it's important to remember that while how ShesChardcore's submission was handled is different from precedent of how it was handled in 2019 (if we can call it still precedent) - the status of that movie's publication should have no bearing on this one. Assuming no complications, this run is faster and should obsolete the (newly) published run.
And yes, the reversal (with regards to previous precedent) of how that submission was handled (and how future cases like this should be handled, when the submission is already accepted) should have been clearly documented and outlined in the rules. This should be done soon.
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.
I think it's important to remember that while how ShesChardcore's submission was handled is different from precedent of how it was handled in 2019 (if we can call it still precedent) - the status of that movie's publication should have no bearing on this one. Assuming no complications, this run is faster and should obsolete the (newly) published run.
And yes, the reversal (with regards to previous precedent) of how that submission was handled (and how future cases like this should be handled, when the submission is already accepted) should have been clearly documented and outlined in the rules. This should be done soon.
Thank you
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
OtakuTAS wrote:
feos wrote:
and to judge things according to what makes sense to us, the community.
Which is fine except a large part of the community is also staff, and also think extremely alike.
I linked the post describing evolution of the staff culture. We didn't initially come here already approaching things the way we do currently. We've been regular members of the community, interested in contributing in different ways, sometimes getting into arguments, sometimes agreeing on things. Over time we figured out different aspects of this hobby better, and worked on things the old way, while trying to push other things forward.
There have been LOTS AND LOTS of arguments among staff members, to the point of them willing to quit over something unfair, and other staff members would try to figure those problems out, eventually leading to some sort of a resolution and a compromise. When you do it for years, you end up understanding how to prevent new fights or at least how to de-escalate them.
Part of the reason why staff members "think alike" on a quick glance, is because they discuss things A LOT, and their posts either present results of some prior brainstorming, or they encourage new brainstorming. It's funny if one thinks that regular users don't participate in those. The thing is, regular users who are interested in operating on that level simply end up joining the team at some point.
And yeah, when you lead a community of geeks, it's silly to expect that people with power but without agreeable points will go away with ignoring such a community. Regular users will nitpick things to death if they don't agree with you, regardless of whether you are a regular user or an admin. So, to work with such a community and not make it fall apart, one needs to understand things from actual experience, and to be able to word things with accuracy and politeness. Which is what we've been learning here for all the years we've been here.
OtakuTAS wrote:
I would put "putting in a controversial opinion about TASVideos and winning", especially as somebody newer or not "in" with the group, into the same category as "winning the lottery".
Is this based on experience with our site? It's true that it looked that way in the past, the common notion was that tasvideos looked absurdly "elitist". But in actual discussion we still try to work with facts and logic, not whether someone belongs or not.
OtakuTAS wrote:
Now, if a large number of people were polled and agreed, that's basic decision-making and majority rules, but there isn't a very big pool of people that chime in and most who do have individual relationships with each other as well as positions of power.
If several parties all rely on facts and logic, there is some room for a compromise, especially if they agree to acknowledge their respective differences and feelings, and to resolve them in a future proof way. I don't see how "individual relationships" affect this.
OtakuTAS wrote:
It gets to a point where decisions being made behind the scenes are basically like asking your grandma if you're right, she's always going to say yes, regardless of how right or wrong you are.
What was the last decision we made behind the scenes and then repeatedly ignored community feedback? And who's our grandma?
OtakuTAS wrote:
I cite the Nach thing again cautiously (I'm not well-versed in the lore enough to know about too many other similar situations), where it seemed like it was causing a lot of problems to be constantly debating, wherein the solution was deemed to just eliminate the resistance/Nach. Our government is always arguing, but removing an entire half to stop the arguing would undoubtedly create more problems (and dangerous ones) than it would solve. Removes the checks and balances but also any good ideas that get thrown out with the bad.
Debating has always been a part of the (volunteer) job. Haven't I linked the subforum where we debate things even more now?
The problem is when somebody is barely possible to reach every time to actually have a debate (no interest in what's going on and how things are evolving), and when acknowledging facts happens ever more rarely. Did we mention all the problems with sticking with all the old technology? Did we need to post all the negative facts about someone, making sure everybody hates them? Also can it really be that one person who stopped participating in talks was the only one who could check and balance us, and the rest of the community can't? Finally what makes you think Nach's contribution to all the site operation was one half (or comparable to that), and the rest of the staff did the other half?
OtakuTAS wrote:
feos wrote:
It also so happens that the people who wanted the policies to be xxxxx, are the head of the staff team now
This kind of sums up my point, and can vaguely be applied to anything hence the edit... "So let it be written; so let it be done."
What edit?
OtakuTAS wrote:
If two people who adamantly wanted to the site to be hot green colored got elected to admin positions, there is a high likelihood the site would be hot green colored
First, why is it about only "two people" in your point? Second, did the community hate it, prior and after?
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.
Wet Bandits loot two houses before coming to the one you're in and that results in the worst clear ending.
Oh, and I just went back and checked this for the first time:
