I thought this would be a good idea for "obsoleting" outdated publications.
The discussion about unpublication has been brought up before but think this could be a good compromise. If this were published, any movie could be set as "obsoleted by" the publication grue. This can be useful in some publications where a movie is indeed obsolete (due to an abundance of new tricks, or a change in TASVideos quality standards) but has no movie for which to replace it.
The currently published any% version of Ocarina of Time is a good example where the current run is heavily outdated and improvable by about an _hour_! Yet we are nowhere near seeing an improvement. In such a case it could be obsoelted by the publication grue. This way the movie stays on the site (and treated just like any other obsoleted movie) but is not displayed as a current "record".
The actual movie file for this submission is moot. I picked .fm2 since it was text and allows me to explain the purpose of it. I chose rerecord counts and movie length as such that they wouldn't mess with site statistics in any meaningful way. If published it would be in its own unique "Grue" category so it would not interfere with movie lists.
I could have brought this up in a discussion thread but I thought a submission would be more appropriate and a better attention getter. Voting yes on publication of this is voting for this implementation of "unpublication". Any movies it would obsolete, however, should have their own poll or discussion beforehand.
Commence discussion.
On a side note, if published, I think we could have a lot of fun with the video file & screenshot ^_^
adelikat: Rejecting this submission due to not being popular by the audience.
adelikat: Changing system ID so that I can "grue" the Grue ID
Now you're saying exactly what I just said.
"We have a process for publishing movies, what process would there be for unpublishing, that someone finds one frame where it can be improved?"
The sentence was somewhat confusing, and I apologize if I understood incorrectly what you were trying to say.
Notice, it's a question.
Also notice the bolded part, what system do we use? There has been no talk as of yet how it would work exactly. Now you mention voting and judging. Okay, does that mean each movie has to be periodically reviewed? What system do you propose?
Someone already suggested doing the same as with the submissions which were saved from the grue to be re-evaluated, but in this case it would be the reverse. That doesn't sound like a completely bad idea to me.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Someone already suggested doing the same as with the submissions which were saved from the grue to the re-evaluated, but in this case it would be the reverse. That doesn't sound like a completely bad idea to me.
Yes, but how do we select the movies which need to be reevaulated it?
Low scores in ratings? Just a judge's say so?
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: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Regarding Nach's question: pehaps a similar manner as the un-grued submissions underwent? A separate thread could be started for people to nominate movies and allow people to second them. Then a decision could be made to open the submission thread up to discussion. After 1 month or so, an admin could make the final decision. Make it an occurence every two years at he same time as a submission revival thread to take care of both issues at the same time. This also shows casual members that we are willing to reconsider options for both sides (rejected runs that should have been published and published runs that should have been rejected)
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Xkeeper wrote:
I don't see how it's "embarassing", given that at the time most of these movies were pretty comparable to what you'd see back then
why not just add a note in the video description that the movie is fairly outdated? better than having a ghost publication obsoleting 27 different movies.
Actually, there is only about 3-5 movies that would even be viable enough to pass the any kind of judging process. And in all these cases, those movies were questionable even then.
Such as:
Oot - it was just a test run, but a huge outcry from certain audience members caused the publication of this test run. Even back then it was improvable by about 15 minutes.
Combatribes - published without passing the audience test. Thus a lot of people might like to see this at least "rejudged"
BOB - was unoptimized and had poor viewer response. By judging standards of then, it should have not passed, but it was published for whatever reason.
Top Gear/F-Zero - single level demo's that never fit entirely the rules of the site then or now.
Note: I'm not saying I personally want any of these unpublished. I'm merely suggesting which ones I think the audience might be in favor of, based on past discussions.
Ideally, we would make good judging decisions from now on, and there would be no knew ones to add to the list (Ideally of course)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
The one level demos I think stand out well because they really make no sense.
I'm not so sure about the other ones. I'm in favor to leave them with nothing more than some sort of "we want this obsoleted" marker on it.
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
Someone already suggested doing the same as with the submissions which were saved from the grue to the re-evaluated, but in this case it would be the reverse. That doesn't sound like a completely bad idea to me.
Yes, but how do we select the movies which need to be reevaulated it?
Low scores in ratings? Just a judge's say so?
Do we need to have this conversation here? If we have a system for "unpublication" that the people can agree to, then we can easily hammer out the details of how a movie meets criteria. Such a system is rather obvious anyway: A combo of age, ratings, and discussion.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
adelikat wrote:
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
Someone already suggested doing the same as with the submissions which were saved from the grue to the re-evaluated, but in this case it would be the reverse. That doesn't sound like a completely bad idea to me.
Yes, but how do we select the movies which need to be reevaulated it?
Low scores in ratings? Just a judge's say so?
Do we need to have this conversation here? If we have a system for "unpublication" that the people can agree to, then we can easily hammer out the details of how a movie meets criteria. Such a system is rather obvious anyway: A combo of age, ratings, and discussion.
Well if this discussion is only about obsoleting by a phantom movie, then I wholeheartedly object for the reasons I states above.
I thought this discussion was about what to do as alternatives to a phantom movie, and what would warrant it...
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
mmbossman wrote:
Nach wrote:
I'm not so sure about the other ones.
Hence the discussion, as well as the recommendations to have the submissions rexamined. If people want to keep them, they'll stay.
My point is, I don't like the idea of unpublification of whole movies which comply with our site more or less.
I'd rather see them obsoleted by a new movie. At most we label them.
But of course if we have a system, we would have each movie in question reexamined.
In summary: I'm fine with removing the one level demos. As for the others, I'm fine with labeling them in a special way, based on community discussion, but I don't want to see them unpublished.
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
I'd rather see them obsoleted by a new movie.
I think everybody agrees with that. The problem is, as has been mentioned, that nobody is obsoleting them.
Perhaps then we need to provide incentive to do so.
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.
why not provide bounties
you know, maybe some $ in exchange for a publishable obsoletion
let people give the owners $xxx, then $xxx - 10% (used for the server as a "donation"/fee) is posted as a bounty for obsoleting or creating a certain movie
though this would inherently require somewhat more inclusionist rules for tasvideos so whatever
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
adelikat wrote:
So what am I supposed to do as an admin? Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
What a ridiculous thing to say. Do jack shit about it. This whole "I need to remove the current OoT tas cause its hurting my site" is such a cacophony, unresponsible and unadmirable approach that I really don't know where to begin. Man, instead of encouraging Guano to improve it, you are intentionally/unintentionally "forcing" him to redo his movie with your approach. He would most probably feel like shit if he saw this. Hearing a judge such as mmbossman saying:
mmbossman wrote:
[OoT embarrasing
must be really encouraging for Guano to read. Way to go!
I was very close not finishing my Metal Slug X tas because you indirectly/directly forced me to do it with 2-players because its theoretically faster than a 1-player run. But I knew there would be some people who would enjoy it. You discourage me, feeling less joy submitting movies here.
Edit: For the record, AKA (and whoever it was he is working with) has said on several occasions that they will/are improving the current Ocarina of Time run.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
I vote yes to unpublishing Batman Begins.
Me, Bloobiebla and Swordlesslink are planning on doing OoT during the summer. That way we're all available and have no real distractions, so expect to see a new OoT run in June/July.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Get off your high horse angerfist, not everything I say has to be sunshine and rainbows. Guanobowl has stated on a couple occasions that he has no intenion of improving OoT due to the birth of his daughter. And AKA et al have been saying they'd improve it for almost two years now, with several restarts and no real progress. Last I heard, they wanted to wait for mupen plus, which hasn't shown any progress for a year either.
There's nothing wrong with admiting that there are some subpar movies published here. I don't get hurt if someone says they don't like one of my movies. Stop putting words into other peoples mouths.
As for your complaint about me "forcing" you to do a 2 player movie, it's fully unfounded. 2 player runs are usually more fun than 1p movies, and your only reason for not wanting to do one was because your keyboard couldn't handle the input, which is a horrible cop out and excuse.
Keep to the issue at hand, if you want to berate me about how I don't give everyone the special olympics treatment, then send me a PM
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I guess this thread is a thread about the general concept unpublication whether I want it to be or not. In that case I'll throw in an argument.
I've always been not in favor of unpublication, but I have encountered arguments for it over the years, for instance:
I judge a mediocre submission as rejected for poor game choice. Soon after I submit a movie of a far worse game choice which gets accepted and published. What was the difference? My movie was an improvement to another movie that was a bad game choice.
I've been confronted with this with a more or less "How is that fair?" kind of argument. Or a "why should that movie get a free pass that way?"
I've never been able to successfully counter such arguments.
This submission was an idea I had that could possibly be a compromise between those with this sentiment and those (like me) who don't want to see movies just get deleted from the publication system.
"how is that fair" is solved by moving towards inclusionist, i.e. publishing good runs of any game regardless of the actual game's quality or fitness for a "speedrun"
but trying to argue that idea on tasvideos is like trying to make the titanic not sink
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
What fucking high horse are you talking about mmbossman? Honestly, what the hell are you smoking man?
mmbossman wrote:
and your only reason for not wanting to do one was because your keyboard couldn't handle the input, which is a horrible cop out and excuse.
I stated in irc that a 2-player could very possibly be slower because of a few factors, so no, I did not do a 2-player run just because of my keyboard. error1 did a sporadic test wip of the first level and he came out about 1 second slower than my run using 2-players, even though my run is improvable.
You don't get it do you? You use fucked up discouraging word like embarrassing makes me wanna donkeypunch you badly. At that time, Guano's run was more than decent. Now its severely outdated because of massive new amount of tricks and route discovery. You discourage, shove that word into your head. Nobody said you have to be kind and all (because that's morally wrong).
By the way, since you rated 6.5 for the technical aspect of my 100% Kensiden run, please point out the flaws, I am extremely curious to know.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
We realise that as of this time (June 2008), the target tool-assisted completion time for this game has been lowered greatly. For an example, see submission #2012. However, we don't want to replace this movie with one that has a lower quality of play, since that would go against the site's standards.
May I note, "June 2008"
I don't know why anyone feels the need to come up with a formal site mechanism that says this statement for 1-2 movies. This published grue thing is not necessary by any means.
Retroactive obsoletion is another completely fine issue, for that one movie where the completion conditions of a published movie were similar, (albeit not exactly the same).
The debate on unpublication is an entirely separate issue, which I vote yes to for the 2 movies that don't really satisfy the site criteria. If that other game has no potential to make a good run and was poorly played it should be unpublished too. If it could make a mediocre run and was poorly played it may as well stay.
-
With regard to poor runs, I feel like the worst published runs should be somewhat representative of the minimal threshold at which to accept a movie. I myself obsoleted Dragon's Lair. It's a really hard game. Also, there was an AVGN of it. The movie does suck, but it is worth watching to a spectrum of individuals. It has some minimal value to contribute to the site. Even most of the oldest runs are still watchable by some value. On top of that, if you want to get rid of that run, I don't really care. I wasted a bit of time obsoleting it to scratch a 2004 movie off the list. I'll live.
I don't really know how bad the couple runs we are talking about are, but if they provide no minimal value to the site, and don't look to improve in value with an improvement in quality, they may as well be removed by an overwhelming majority vote.
Again, we are talking about like two movies in each case. This doesn't need to be any sort of sweeping generalization.
Sorry to barge in, but if I remember correctly, the run was known to be seriously suboptimal even before it was accepted for publication, but it was published anyways because people wanted an OoT run so badly. IIRC there was some controversy even back then. "Decent" might not be the best word for that.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Angerfist: I'm sorry I discouraged you by stating my opinion, I didn't realize that my opinion mattered that much to you.
You also are confusing an issue: I never said that Guanobowl's movie was embarrasing because he made it, or because it was particularly sloppy when it was made. It's embarrasing because it can now be beat by a huge amount by a real-time speedeunner. For a site that specializes in beating video games fast, that is embarrassing. If anything, the fact that it is embarrassingly slow by today's standards should provide more encouragement and motivation to obsolete it, not less.
you resume the problem perfectly
peoples wanted it published, if we were to unpublish the run peoples would brag about the lack of an OoT run and might even submit their own run without knowing all of the improvables things...
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Maybe we should create a page of these runs that are slower than the real time runs, and create a page of them, where they are all listed for all systems. Would this make obsoleting them a little bit easier, so people would know exactly which runs need to be obsoleted?
This might help.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 4/20/2005
Posts: 2161
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
There are also cases where the real time speedrun might be slower than published TAS, but uses a new route or trick that would save a significant amount of time if applied to the TAS. Goonies 2 for the NES is one example, the run on SDA uses a new route that would save many seconds in the TAS, although it times in at a higher time.
There are also many games that have short and incomplete WIPs in the forum that show big potential improvements in the published TAS. Rockin' Kats for NES is one example.
Perhaps it all boils down to how much the run is known to be improvable by. This raises the question, when is a run "very improvable" and would fit such a list? If it has 20 seconds of known improvements? 10? 5? 1 minute? This discussion raises many deep questions... :)
I'm not taking any stand here, I'm just bringing up some points.
