Exactly as I said. The reason behind hacks judgments that I gave was ignored. Do we need any more proofs? We aren't going to get anything but pure flamewar here.
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
No, it's your opinion that it's a bad protocol. Dyshonest agrees with you. Everybody else, however, does not. You lose.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
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.
No, it's your opinion that it's a bad protocol. Dyshonest agrees with you. Everybody else, however, does not. You lose.
On the other hand nothing has actually been posted to show why arbitrary limits for games/hacks are actually helpful, just that they're there and they should be respected.
"It is what it is. Do not try to change it."
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
Such poor decisions, as you put it, shouldn't be made.
Or rather, if they are... why is it such a big deal to revoke something or just leave things where they are? It's not like we're dealing with political bills over here, it's simple movies. Changes can be made very easily...
As far as I can tell the videos here are for entertainment value first and documentation (i.e.: the non-entertaining "to the vault" movies) second. Even a lot of the stereotyped, poorly-made Kaizo hacks are more entertaining than a lot of games here (fighting games, endless autoscrollers, bad games like E.T., etc). Why do hacks get treated differently? The game engine? There's more to a game than that.
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
Are we running out of space?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Such poor decisions, as you put it, shouldn't be made.
You're right, but I don't have a time machine to undo it. Many poor decisions also only turned out to be poor in retrospect, but seemed reasonable at the time they were made.
Dyshonest wrote:
Or rather, if they are... why is it such a big deal to revoke something or just leave things where they are? It's not like we're dealing with political bills over here, it's simple movies. Changes can be made very easily...
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Dyshonest wrote:
As far as I can tell the videos here are for entertainment value first and documentation (i.e.: the non-entertaining "to the vault" movies) second. Even a lot of the stereotyped, poorly-made Kaizo hacks are more entertaining than a lot of games here (fighting games, endless autoscrollers, bad games like E.T., etc). Why do hacks get treated differently? The game engine? There's more to a game than that.
Until recently, we rejected bad games too. It wasn't until the introduction of the vault (where we disallow hacks) could poorer games be accepted.
Hacks get treated differently because there's a lack of quality control on the creation of them. We mitigate featuring a slew of garbage on the site by applying a quality control process to runs of hacks and unlicensed games.
xnamkcor wrote:
Nach wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
Are we running out of space?
Stop making it about space. If you read what Mothrayas was saying about organization, the judge comments, or other things I said in regards to this, it's about keeping garbage on our site to a minimum, as well as exposure thereof.
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: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Dyshonest wrote:
If you read what I wrote, I stated that multiple hacks can be published as long as they cover a different niche. Most standard SMW hacks, which have new level design designed for regular playability and maybe some custom graphics, would compete with SDW for the "good/entertaining hack" spot. If it's an impossibly hard type of hack, it competes with Kaizo. And so on.
Why do they have to compete instead of merely being published? You keep saying there's no (arbitrary) limits, then why is it so imperative hacks compete with eachother?
To avoid redundant publications. As stated repeatedly, there are tons of half-decent/good/entertaining/whatever-term-you-want-to-use-next hacks for games like SMW. Instead of flooding the site with publications of every single hack that is deemed "entertaining", we only have the best hack of its niche published.
This way we ensure we have a limited, but high-quality and diverse selection of hack runs on the site.
Dyshonest wrote:
Also, nowhere did I say they had to be entertaining.
But hacks have to be?
Yes. And so do unlicensed games, nonstandard goal runs, etc. See also: Wiki: Vault.
And again, the reason is that hacks or unlicensed games can be thrown together in a few hours with little thought.
It isn't possible to get an official, licensed, approved game released without multiple parties involved, so it suffers much less from that problem. It also makes a good and non-arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a legit, Vault-publishable game, and what does not.
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.
If you're keeping it to a minimum, why does the vault exist?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Let's say we have a TAS published on this site for every single hack hosted by SMWcentral, we would have 961 hacks (including the legacy ones) of only SMW like games... I think it's too much. :o) We need to be picky.
They can be listed somewhere on the forum or a new page... or gruefood delight.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
If you're keeping it to a minimum, why does the vault exist?
1) To rectify some past poor decisions.
2) An overwhelming amount of our users wanted us to keep track of TAS speed records for well known games that see speed-run competitions, even though the runs themselves aren't all that entertaining.
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: 12/22/2006
Posts: 193
Location: Flowood, MS
The presence of runs for Air, Air 2 or Hard Relay Mario basically take the place of an SMB playaround, which would be uninteresting on its own. Both runs serve one purpose: to show off crazy SMB engine glitches, so there is no reason why this run shouldn't have obsoleted mine. TASVideos does not have to be a comprehensive resource of SMB glitchhack TASes.
<adelikat> tony hawk is porn for me
<Comicalflop>my mom is hot
Let's say we have a TAS published on this site for every single hack hosted by SMWcentral, we would have 235 movies of only SMW like games... I think it's too much. :o) We need to be picky.
They can be listed somewhere on the forum or a new page... or gruefood delight.
Do you honestly think we would even get close to that number of runs that pass the requirements for optimization of speed or are you purposefully being sensational?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
xnamkcor wrote:
Do you honestly think we would even get close to that number of runs that pass the requirements for optimization of speed or are you purposefully being sensational?
Of course there's a chance we would. Why assume that's impossible?
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.
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Overcomplicating things for the sake of doing so isn't a good reason, and you literally just said that things will remain overcomplicated for the sake of it because they were, at one point, overcomplicated.
This way we ensure we have a limited, but high-quality and diverse selection of hack runs on the site.
This should be enforced universally or not at all. It shouldn't just be hacks/unlicensed games considering a fair amount of licensed games blow rocks.
Let's say we have a TAS published on this site for every single hack hosted by SMWcentral, we would have 961 hacks (including the legacy ones) of only SMW like games... I think it's too much. :o) We need to be picky.
You're (poorly) using hyperbole in an attempt to try to prove something wrong but no one has ever eluded to allowing all hacks.
I think it's a good decision to have this run obsolete Air. Both hacks are built on the same principle, i.e. to be ultra-hard, requiring glitches to get through the level, and requiring savestates to actually play.
Ultimately this is still a Super Mario Bros run; we don't need a run for every single ROMhack (and there are thousands of those), for the same reason that we don't need a run of every possible goal people could come up with (e.g. minimum keypresses, minimum coins, minimum koopa kills while in a coinless walkathon, and so forth).
It's about quality, and about the fact that different branches of a game should be meaningfully distinct from one another.
There are many people on Youtube that routinely make TASes of various hacks for one game. While I do think there should be a repository for hack TASes, the current publication system at TASvideos is unsuitable for this purpose, and it doesn't need to be.
Put in the bluntest terms, it's not our job to include every hacked game TAS there is.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Overcomplicating things for the sake of doing so isn't a good reason, and you literally just said that things will remain overcomplicated for the sake of it because they were, at one point, overcomplicated.
I agree with your logic. Which is why we will continue doing what we're doing, because it's less complicated that way.
If your approach was the one that was less complicated we would have used it long ago. We computer people running the site are lazy at heart and like as little complication as possible.
Dyshonest wrote:
You're (poorly) using hyperbole in an attempt to try to prove something wrong but no one has ever eluded to allowing all hacks.
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
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.
There are many people on Youtube that routinely make TASes of various hacks for one game. While I do think there should be a repository for hack TASes, the current publication system at TASvideos is unsuitable for this purpose, and it doesn't need to be.
Put in the bluntest terms, it's not our job to include every hacked game TAS there is.
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Nach wrote:
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
No, I'm saying that obsoleting hacks with different hacks is horrible database protocol.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
xnamkcor wrote:
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Which can be made for every hack ever.
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
How can hacks meet optimization requirements?
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.
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Which can be made for every hack ever.
Could.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
xnamkcor wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Which can be made for every hack ever.
Could.
That means exactly the same thing in this case. Any other non-arguments we need to go over?
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
Nach wrote:
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
No, I'm saying that obsoleting hacks with different hacks is horrible database protocol.
Then I don't understand what you're saying.
I'll refrain from replying further.
If someone else understands the points xnamkcor is making, feel free to respond to him.
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.
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Which can be made for every hack ever.
Could.
Even considering only the hacks that do have well optimized TASes, the number would still be too large to deal with. Again, there's plenty of people on youtube who do TASes of hacks, and submitting them all to this site would simply be infeasible.
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.
