Before we even get into this, let's get things straight. You, Nach, an administrator for the site, are seriously attacking people for disagreeing with you, and yet expect to still be considered a fair judge? There is absolutely no need for that (especially considering I, despite my disagreements, was very civil and objective in debating the judgement and not anything related to you as a person. Thanks for showing the same respect back jerk) and honestly, if you hadn't been so damn determined to insult me, I wouldn't be coming after this judgement as much as I am. This post probably would not have been created. But you insist on being right, and you leave me no choice. Here we go. Let's start from the top of the judgement issued. Regardless of if it was part of the factors that led to the judgement or not, it was part of the judgement rendered and therefore needs to be considered (I have always been of the opinion that anything in the judgement text is relevant to the judgement and if you wish to say something that is not relevant to the judgement it should be made as a post in the thread, but this is apparently not how Nach operates, thus the need for this paragraph).

In terms of PAL games in general, different platforms, different companies, and different games all exhibit varying levels of quality. Obviously if a PAL game is the original then it can be easily considered the main version of a game. For some platforms, there are also no difference game-wise if something is running in NTSC or PAL mode. However, for platforms designed to be timed and framed into old television sets, there are important differences between the two modes. Once there is a difference between the two, games designed for NTSC which are not modified for PAL generally exhibit some very weird behavior. As one example, I've seen fighting games where the key combos to execute various moves barely work when playing in PAL mode, the timing is altered enough that the game doesn't recognize the key presses the same way. As many PAL ports are like this in some fashion, it's ample reason to reject them, Just play the original which works normally.

This is not a theory, but a valid fact (for older consoles, including the NES), that PAL is a different framerate than NTSC. While games not modified for PAL do exhibit odd behavior, SMB is not one of them. Furthermore, modifying the game for PAL NES does not make it a port as you seem to insist- the NES is the NES, even if the framerate differs; it's not like the NES was only released in NTSC regions and those with the PAL standard got the SEN instead. Despite region differences, the NES is the NES, and while regions may be differentiated in the rules of TASVideos.org, nowhere does it mention that consoles are as well. Even if you presume the rules intended for regions are also applicable to consoles, that is firstly not stated, and secondly, cannot truly be considered and applied given that the judgement rendered is also relying on the specificities of the rules to arrive at a rejection, and thus using the specificities of the rules against it is a completely valid option. The only thing I can find on the judging rules and movie rules is regarding ensuring that you are using the correct settings regarding PAL or NTSC and obsoleting runs done with the wrong settings will result in a movie time adjustment for the movie aiming to be obsolete.

The region settings must be correct If you are running an NTSC game ((U) or (J)), you must set your emulator to record in NTSC mode. Likewise, if you are running a PAL game ((E)), you must record your movie in PAL mode. Any other setting will get your movie promptly rejected. Note that such settings are enabled automatically in most emulators, but it's better to check before you start recording. If you are obsoleting a movie that was recorded with the wrong settings, that movie's completion time will be adjusted to account for the fact that PAL games run at 50 Hz and NTSC at 60 Hz. This rule only comes into effect on older console games that have badly programmed region lock-out.

((from http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#RegionSettingsMustBeCorrect - while it is not relevant to the submission, it is the only thing I can find on the rules regarding differences between PAL and NTSC consoles, and specifically console and not game. If there is a rule specific to consoles regarding region differences that I am not seeing, please link me it in your reply.)) Regarding SMB, the game is modified appropriately (in most cases, MrWint's post demonstrates an exception) such that an autorejection is not applicable. Furthermore, the company which released the game was the same company that released the game for the NTSC regions, and, as stated below in the judgement, is a company which takes great care in ensuring that all regions it releases the game for end up having the gameplay be comparable with each other, despite framerate differences.

When we look at PAL ports, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original.

You once again insist on calling it a port despite still being for the NES. As far as the rest of this paragraph, it is explanation of how past cases where a game has been different yet the same (not necessarially ports, since some are and some aren't) have been considered on TASVideos- relevant, but nothing in here needs to be addressed. Just note this paragraph addresses all types of differences with versions and games.

If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original (and this could make sense to occur in games that are not meant for old television sets). If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original. The answer to that hinges on do the engine differences necessitate very different ways to play the game, and do those differences register with the audience at large. In most cases, PAL runs should be rejected, but based on the various aforementioned criteria, there are cases where PAL runs will definitely be accepted. <p>Nintendo unlike other companies has always aimed to do a decent job porting NTSC games to PAL. Nintendo is often one of the only companies where you will see the PAL game having various timings corrected to ensure that the game-play closely matches that of the NTSC version. Nintendo is often one of the only companies that adjusts the resolution of the displayed game to match the different resolution PAL televisions are capable of. Nintendo often also does some localization, converting currency, weight, and measurements to be those used locally. The attention to detail by Nintendo in PAL porting started with early NES games, and improved as Nintendo ported more and more and with newer platforms.

Aside from once again calling PAL a port (I'll stop pointing this out from now on, but this error is basically all throughout the judgement), the judgement actually starts to get into NES vs PAL on a practical level. And regarding the statement about a "somewhat different engine" (as is the case with SMB) (("If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original.")) the answer here should be an emphathetic "Yes", based on the quality of the adaptation. To follow on the next sentence you state, the engine differences do not necessitate very different ways to play the game (they aim to make the gameplay as identical as possible regardless of region) and the differences in the engine, made with that goal in mind, are extremely difficult to notice. Comparing the general movement of NTSC to PAL via the comparison encode created (credit to Feos, originally posted on Page 4 of 12) you notice very few differences. Note that this compares the TAS submitted by HappyLee vs the TAS already on TASVideos.org and does not compare the TAS submitted by MrWint. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBRHMF8sHiU for reference) However the kicker here is actually in the first sentence. "If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original [...]" (emphasis added). Nintendo, as a game company, has always aimed to offer the exact same quality across all regions of the game it releases. I would argue they succeed, and your sentiments (based on the second paragraph here) seem to mirror mine. In regards to "engine/quality" the / is indicative of "or", thus the sentence reads "engine or quality" and while the engine may not be the same, the quality is (by your own sentiments), thus qualifying this run to obsolete NTSC based on the judgement text given (unless you, a site administrator, are not actually in line with site rules in your judgement text. But that would be embarassing to be pointed out to be wrong by a mere member, so you won't admit this).

For its time in history and in comparison to a bunch of other early NES PAL games, Super Mario Bros. PAL is actually a relatively decent port (although maintains several noticeable differences from the NTSC original in terms of movement and other factors). Since the game is non-original but a decent port (relatively during its debut), it definitely qualifies for consideration as to whether it should be published alongside the original as another game variant. This game happens to also be a game I'm quite familiar with. I played many of its variants on NES (since the 80s!), SNES, and Gameboy Color. I also dabbled in its programming and made various hacks on NES and SNES versions. In my opinion, I find this game qualifies for having many branches made of it. I can also see the SNES variant qualifies for certain branches as an acceptable TAS to show off a run without as many glitches being possible, and the Gameboy Color variant for some of its challenges that earlier versions do not offer. The question of course is, is there value in this PAL variant that we have lacking from all our other variants and branches thereof?

I've got rather little to say on this pair of paragraphs. Aside from disagreeing on the "several noticeable differences", it acknowledges that the PAL version is a quality version and could be published alongside the NTSC run. The second paragraph addresses the various versions and ports of SMB and then questions if the PAL version (already stated to have been a quality version that can be published) has unique value against the whole slew of versions and ports of the game, thus drawing into doubt what has already been stated (that the PAL version could be published). Odd uncertainty visible here.

The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.

We'll get to the actual comparisons next, but the initial statement is factually wrong. If you look at the submission times, the PAL TAS is, in fact, faster than the NTSC TAS. A possible rewording that would be at least possibly correct is that SMB PAL is slower when evaluating the gameplay segments alone. However, even this rewording ultimately ends up being incorrect when the numbers are properly evaluated. Furthermore, it is possible to sacrifice gameplay time to shorten the nongameplay time, and end with the same real time, due to the frame rule in SMB. Therefore, any gameplay time comparisons are ultimately subject to the fact that despite everything, you may end up with the "same" frame rule in the end, making gameplay vs nongameplay irrelevant in some cases. Next, we have the comments about what non-playable parts are included, and included in this list is "Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle" which is after the end of input and thus isn't included in TASVideos.org timing at all. I would expect an administrator of the site, including one that has stated he is "quite familiar with" to realize when the timing of the TAS would end for a game. And yet this error was made. While errors like this one may not be deemed relevant by the judge to the decision ultimately rendered, they certainly show that the judgement is made by someone whose expertise is questionable at times (including this one, especially as this is not the only error in this judgement text), and for said judge to be an administrator of the site certainly does not paint things in a better light for Nach. As also discussed here, the alterations made for the game's transition to PAL framerates included modifying the frame rule. NTSC's frame rule is 21 frames and the game runs at 60 frames per second (roughly), or 0.35 second chunks (technically slightly less, but for some slight simplicity here we'll round to two decimal places), and the most you would wait is 20 frames (0.33 seconds) (assuming if you meet the frame rule exactly you move on "instantly"). PAL's frame rule is 18 frames and the game runs at 50 frames per second, or 0.36 second chunks, and the most you would wait is 17 frames (0.34 seconds). Therefore, to correct the final few sentences, PAL actually gets slightly more time per frame rule to sneak into the frame rule (0.36 seconds vs 0.35 seconds), while NTSC is actually faster to the next frame rule if you go barely over (0.33 seconds vs 0.34 seconds), and not the other way around, as is stated in the judgement text. Even if my presumption that you move on instantly if you meet the frame rule exactly is wrong, the second corrected statemet still holds true (0.35 seconds vs 0.36 seconds). Yet another error by Nach.

In order to get a better handle on this, I went to time the actual playable segments between the fastest NTSC and this PAL run (note, there may be rounding errors, and it's possible I was a frame off either way for some calculations):

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 12.2305 | 12.083  | -0.1475
1-2       | 21.583  | 21.15   | -0.433
4-1       | 23.983  | 23.967  | -0.016
4-2       | 17.9495 | 17.567  | -0.3825
8-1       | 40.0825 | 40.233  |  0.1505
8-2       | 24.8655 | 23.383  | -1.4825
8-3       | 22.6985 | 22.767  |  0.0685
8-4       | 32.5275 | 32.601  |  0.0735
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 195.92  | 193.751 | -2.169

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Based on this NTSC is slower by ~2.169 seconds (about 130 frames in NTSC).

Let us compare this table vs the one by MrWint (albeit comparing MrWint's PAL TAS vs the NTSC TAS, but given that his TAS matches the submission by HappyLee in real time identically, the fact that the two are different and that his is potentially "faster" should end up being irrelevant).

Area      |                NTSC          |                PAL           |   diff
          | start    end #frames    time | start    end #frames    time |
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
1-1       |   196    564     368   6.123 |   172    475     303   6.059 | -0.064
1-1-sub   |   655    766     111   1.847 |   553    642      89   1.780 | -0.067
1-1-end   |  1048   1288     240   3.993 |   897   1093     196   3.919 | -0.074
1-2       |  2486   3766    1280  21.298 |  2060   3105    1045  20.897 | -0.401
4-1       |  3981   5424    1443  24.010 |  3291   4490    1199  23.977 | -0.034
4-2       |  6584   7172     588   9.784 |  5429   5905     476   9.519 | -0.265
4-2-end   |  7247   7723     476   7.920 |  5972   6363     391   7.819 | -0.101
8-1       |  7933  10344    2411  40.117 |  6553   8557    2004  40.074 | -0.043
8-2       | 10979  12475    1496  24.892 |  9038  10199    1161  23.217 | -1.676
8-3       | 13122  14489    1367  22.746 | 10821  11961    1140  22.797 |  0.051
8-4       | 15223  15747     524   8.719 | 12478  12913     435   8.699 | -0.020
8-4-cont1 | 15917  16184     267   4.443 | 13075  13293     218   4.359 | -0.083
8-4-cont2 | 16354  16549     195   3.245 | 13455  13610     155   3.100 | -0.145
8-4-water | 16719  17415     696  11.581 | 13722  14365     643  12.858 |  1.277
8-4-cont3 | 17589  17867     278   4.626 | 14530  14759     229   4.579 | -0.046
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
Sum       |                11740 195.345 |                 9684 193.653 | -1.692

Given the difference is a half second, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of the table given in the judgement text, and even if you discount rounding errors and errors by a frame, a half second is far too large a difference in this case. However, since I don't have an accurate table for HappyLee's TAS and that is the one that was compared in the judgement I cannot say where the errors were (I have no way to calculate these myself since I do not own either ROM personally). Furthermore, given the relative ease with which MrWint was able to describe when the player has control of Mario and the fact that, from this thread alone, I do not see Nach asking anywhere how to make a proper comparison, leads me to believe that there was very little care put into the comparison, which makes sense if you consider that, to Nach, it was an afterthought since "it's not relevant". Except it is, even if Nach does not believe so.

However, there is a flaw with this logic. These runs aim for overall fastest real time, and thereby performs some actions which are slightly slower in the playable segments in order to abuse how the non-playable part is played as well as avoid 3 or 6 castle fireworks animations. However, the NTSC run goes significantly out of its way in 8-2 to abuse this trade off, by ~2.379 seconds in my calculation. If the run would discount non-playable segments to achieve the fastest possible any-variant time, we'd instead be looking at:

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
8-2       | 22.4865 | 23.383  |  0.8965
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 193.541 | 193.751 |  0.21

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) In this case, the NTSC version is faster by 0.21 seconds (about a dozen frames)! NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included in 1-1, because unlike other levels, going through that here is a decision that can be avoided. In that case the 1-1 times become:

Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 18.1655 | 18.433  |  0.2675
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 199.476 | 200.101 |  0.634

((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Gaining the NTSC run an additional 0.415 seconds (about 25 frames). All in all, PAL being necessarily faster in terms of game-play is doubtful.

As I initially mentioned in my post on Page 9 of 12 (responded to by Nach on Page 10 of 12), the first paragraph here ignores the fact that PAL also contains gameplay/nongameplay tradeoffs to avoid the firework animations as well. Once again, another error, this time extremely significant and relevant, which was dismissed by Nach as:

The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC.

- which only further questions why all these comparisons are part of the judgement text if they don't matter (as I stated near the beginning here)? MrWint provided a corrected table for 8-2, here.

8-2       | 10979  12363    1384  23.029 |  9038  10189    1151  23.017 | -0.012
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
Sum       |                11628 193.481 |                 9674 193.453 | -0.028

Not only do proper numbers make things closer, it actually keeps things favoring PAL, unlike in the incorrect information where NTSC pulls ahead here. And once again, these numbers can easily be accurately obtained as posted by MrWint yet Nach did not ask in this thread how to do so. Nor was it asked how to in the SMB thread on the forums, either (at least not since April, which is much before this TAS was submitted, and likely not at any point in 2017). So once again, a lack of effort in parts that Nach believed were not relevant. Only when you get to the 1-1 splits could you possibly start to consider NTSC ahead, but a glance across the SMB thread indicates even that may not be the case. So the whole point about NTSC being faster in gameplay than PAL is extremely questionable, if not completely incorrect, and a slew of false numbers in the jugdement text support the skewed view of Nach. Proper numbers don't make the argument Nach does, though - PAL is faster than NTSC in both real time and quite likely as well in gameplay time (I say quite likely because analysis is still ongoing in the SMB thread) So in all of this text, we have evaluated the judgement text that, according to Nach, was not relevant, and yet with the very next sentence stated is indicated to be relevant. And the text above is, while partially accurate, inaccurate and wrong, especially in the most important parts (the gameplay time). Yet despite being not relevant it is part of the judgement text. Once again, it's either relevant and part of the text or not relevant and should not be part of the text. And if you're going to reference it in text that is actually your judgement text then it certainly is relevant, and should be error free, or have minor grammatical errors at worst. And as has been shown and proven, the text is not error free, and the errors that do exist are far more than minor grammatical errors- it can be argued that the significance of these errors alone should call for a rejudgement of the TAS, but since this is our final post, we will go much further than this.

Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this? I decided to ask other judges for their opinions for the different possibilities, raised a few counterpoints with them, then assessed how they changed their opinion. I will not list their names because I should be the sole person receiving any fallout for the judgment on this run. What follows is how I characterize the opinions they conveyed to me.

Before I mentioned (counter)points:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
A     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
B     | Absurd   | Yes         | Maybe
C     | Yes      | No Way!     | Maybe
D     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
------------------------------------------

After:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
B     | Absurd   | No Way!     | Yes!
C     | Maybe    | No Way!     | Yes
D     | Absurd   | Maybe       | Yes
E     | Absurd   | No          | Yes!
------------------------------------------

((EDIT: Tables reformatted to show properly)) (One judge was unique in each group)

Let me requote that first statement. "Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this?" This statement being made about information that was not relevant to the judgement that was made. If that alone does not scream contradiction, I have no clue how to show you any clearer. What are the counterpoints presented? This is never stated. If we assume that it was the above information, not only do we now get to show that Nach is wrong, but that Nach has actively lied in regards to the judgement text made - you cannot claim something is not relevant if it is the counterpoints you yourself use in discussion with other judges to formulate a ruling on the judgement! If we assume that the above information was not the counterarguments presented, then we have the issue of secrecy. And given the errors in the information above, we have secrecy plus information that is already under a cloud of doubt, coming from someone who has attacked members of the site and is under scrutiny for his or her errors in judgement text, being crucial to the ultimate judgement rendered, for a submission that is very prominent for TASVideos.org. Either way you slice this, there are monstrous questions present here and nothing said by Nach will ever clear things fully in this regard - and this is entirely unacceptable.

When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant. However, those are not good reasons to accept something, we have rules. Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting. After assessing everything yesterday for one last time, I was conflicted on what to do. After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other. In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things. Rejecting.

The first statement made here is also not language I would expect of an unbiased judge. Declaring a major, valid, consideration "lunacy" is utterly absurd. Especially when, as has been shown above (and I will delve further into this later), it is a valid version for obsoletion of NTSC. The rest of this set of paragraphs goes into the final thoughts that led to the rejection of the run. "After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other." A 'slight' difference, backed with inaccurate information acquired hastily without true accuracy that was, quite possibly unintentionally, used to mislead other judges into the ruling given, is what rejects this run. And yet this site is supposed to support accuracy, encouraging the use of proper, accurate ROMs and emulators to obsolete older TASes done without proper, accurate ROMs and emulators ( see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#PlayGamesThatAreEmulatedWell and http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ). Finally, regarding the decision tree posted, I've already evaluated that in a post on Page 10, and it was replied to. This post is already long and I have only started to delve into things, so I will not repeat my analysis of the decision tree here. Now for your last response to me.

Furthermore, the concept of "original version" and "non-original version" is not on TASVideos.org in any form until you mentioned it here.

You must be having a really hard time. "Original" appears 4 times on this TASVideos.org page: http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html which happens to be the Judging handbook. I'm sure next you'll be arguing that the judging guidelines don't actually refer to how to judge these games.

http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#ManagingGameVersionsPortsOnMultiplePlatforms I had missed that "original version" is mentioned in the judging guidelines since it is not mentioned with regard to region (only platform), but "non-original" is still not mentioned (though one could argue anything not original is non original) and what is original is not clearly defined when it comes to regions, only with regards to platforms. One could possibly argue that SMB PAL is not original based on the release dates of the game (late 1985 for J/U, early/mid 1987 for PAL) but given the NES was not released for PAL until late 1986 or even 1987, it is uncertain if, had the NES been released earlier in those regions, the release date would have been the same. Furthermore, given that the game is for the NES, the game was released for the original console and SMB PAL is therefore an original release since it was released for the original console. In short, unless it can be proven completely that the PAL NES is different enough from other regions (which Warp expressed this concern, though I have yet to see any proof of it. Framerate changes and fixing the DPCM glitch is not enough to completely split the consoles.) then being released for the original console should be sufficient enough to be considered the original version. Especially without version numbers to show some versions otherwise are not (as with some modern games, where there are re-releases that fix glitches and such and these versions are differentiable by looking at the actual game package (be it a cartridge or disc)).

SMB PAL is an acceptable version (and if it's not, that's on you, the judge, to show why, against all of the reasons presented in the thread)

You mean the reasons presented in the thread against it on the first pages, which quoted the Movie Rules regarding NTSC vs PAL? Many in the thread didn't consider it acceptable at all till MrWint's analysis. Also I presented my own analysis in my judging comments. Based on your comment here, it appears you're not even aware of what I wrote.

http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#NtscVsPalUsaJapanVsEurope Based on the Movie Rules, which allow for the use of PAL if "there are significant technical and/or entertainment merits to using this version". And as others have stated in the thread, these merits exist. Firstly, being faster is a significant entertainment merit, especially for SMB PAL, a TAS that has seen one frame of improvement since 2009 (quoting others from the thread). Secondly, the technical merits from being adapted to PAL do not detract as they usually would due to Nintendo's efforts at adapting the game to PAL standards. There is clear merit to use of PAL in line with TASVideos.org rules, and while it may not be enough on a close decision or scrutiny, there is certainly enough that the factor of obsoletion or not should not be "lunacy" and should be examined further than a casual passing glance.

given it is on the original console (NES) it is effectively an "original version".

This fails common sense. It's not the original version and you know it.

"Original console = original version" fails common sense?!?! At least debate me with some facts.

The onus is on you to show that there are actual differences besides the framerate which makes PAL NES a different console entirely

Why should I attempt to prove a ridiculous claim that I never made that bears little relevance?

If you wish to show that SMB PAL is not an original version, this is part of it. If you don't care if it's an original version or not, you don't have to, but then you have to show why. Which involves showing why, even if you accept SMB PAL is original, it is still not a good version, and if you do not accept it, why it is not deserving of comparison to what you deem the original. The former is not possible to do because it is a good version - you've admitted this yourself - and the latter would require showing why the same game, when moved to a different region, becomes a different enough game that it cannot be compared to another region, despite being the same game. So I ask: What is SMB PAL, then, and why is it what you consider it?

A direct comparison is very easy - you compare from start of input to end of input, with each set of inputs at its proper framerate, and then time them. And in this comparison, PAL is ahead, because it finishes its inputs first in realtime. The framerate changes are not hard to deal with, there is zero reason this should have even been brought up.

I bring them up because the rules do:

• Keep in mind that time gained solely through basic ROM differences will be discounted for the purpose of comparison. This includes:
  • differences in title screen, cutscenes, and menus (unless menus are the game's main control interface).

Being that these are our rules, it is rather obvious how some of them apply to this case. (Although as I mentioned both in judgment and again in my decision tree, some of it is not clear cut.)

You bolded cutscenes, yet you fail to consider what the gameplay time does to the cutscenes. Say each of two regions has a ten second cutscene, not including the time it takes (during this cutscene) for the player to walk across the screen (which takes five seconds normally). Region A has no way to manipulate this. Region B could execute a glitch, which costs two seconds of gameplay time, but it speeds up the walking by three seconds. Which region is faster (let's assume, for simplicity's sake, this is the only difference between the two)? Answer before moving on- I'll have the answer in the paragraph after this one. A proper comparison would be to include the differences caused by the gameplay in the cutscenes. You claim that the cutscenes differ in time, however, ignore the fact that this is due to differences in each game's gameplay time (which, as addressed above, even your comparisons on this are questionable at utter best) and the fact that SMB features a frame rule which causes such non-gameplay cutscenes to only progress at specific frame points. In short, since the gameplay time affects the cutscene time inversely (longer gameplay can cause shorter cutscenes) it is unfair to discount cutscene length when comparing versions as they are affected directly by the gameplay itself, and therefore should be included when comparing the gameplay. Regardless of how you slice this, though, PAL still beats NTSC overall, and under whatever comparisons you wish to include. Using correct information, of course. Now, the answer: Region A, because of two seconds less gameplay time, even though it's slower in real time by one second. If you answered this, congradulations on holding out to an extremely authoritarian view of the rules. Let me further show you the rules exactly and be just as pedantic as you are about how the rules are explictly stated. You get your treat with the next quote. If you answered that Region B is faster by one second of real time and that the cutscene length must be included because of the glitch, then congradulations on getting this question right. You just showed that all of the analysis in your judgement text was not relevant because PAL beats NTSC in real time and the cutscenes inside the TAS are affected by the gameplay itself and therefore can't truly be discounted when doing a region comparison.

Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.

If you answered the first answer, then here's your treat. The rules might not exist in a vacuum, but your pedantic insistance on treating them in an authoritarian manner here goes against you, because the rules explicitly state that comparisons between NTSC-U and NTSC-J are subject to the comparisons of text and such, and that because none of the rule includes PAL, explicitly stating NTSC-U and NTSC-J it does not apply to PAL. If you answered the latter, let me actually address your point. Title screen may be a very small difference if any exists at all. I haven't calculated, because it's possibly a hundreth of a second or so if it exists at all. Language change is zero. And cutscenes were addressed above. So all of the rules you want to apply are either changes of zero, very nearly zero, or inapplicable due to the interaction between gameplay and non-gameplay times- and even if you do include the gameplay only, it is still questionable at best if NTSC is ahead of PAL.

Where in the TASVideos.org rules does it state that when comparing versions from different regions you need to factor in framerate changes?

How about you tell me where the rules state that this should NOT be factored in? Since it's up in the air, I find any direct comparison to be flawed.

I'm not the judge here. It's not my job to know the rules, it's yours (and given some of what's been said above, that knowledge you have is certainly not entirely correct). Show me where it says they need to be factored in.

"Conclusion: I don't have the slightest idea." Then why are you even rendering a judgement if you don't know?

Why are you getting hung up on a point which didn't in the end have any bearing on the outcome? Your whole argument here would only be valid if I accepted it as a new branch, then you could argue that it was supposed to obsolete it.

This (and several previous quotes, I won't quote them all here) fail to address various facets where the decision tree fails its fact checks despite them being "meaningless comparisons", to quote Nach. Except they aren't because as part of the actual judgement text you have counterarguments made which likely included parts of the judgement text which were not stated to be relevant, which was this part of the decision tree that is "meaningless comparisons". You can't have it both ways and have it be relevant and not. Plus, once again, you fail to adress my points and attack me as a person. And you wonder why I've been calling you out on this so hard?

In regards to obsoletion, I believe the decision against doing so was reached extremely hastily without considering the rules of TASVideos.org as they stand now. The decision posted covers a fair bit of what is described as "extraneous content not related to the decision made" and this "extraneous content" is furthermore inaccurate and also does not conform to site rules. The decision against a new branch (assuming we are not considering obsoletion) is likely the soundest part of the judgement given yet even this has its flaws due to various factors, including partially the hasty decisions made prior.

You're welcome to make your own opinions and characterize others and their actions as you see fit. We're going to have to disagree.

Except disagreeing is not based on opinion, but facts being pointed out to you that are in most cases ignoring. Must be good to be an admin and not have anyone above you to demote you so you don't have to worry about your actions. Now let's get to Feos's posts. I don't have a lot to quote from these since most of it has been stated, but what I do is rather relevant.

If we can't change the rules and the minds of the judges, we need to convince the audience that they weren't quite right. If we can't convince the audience, we are either wrong ourselves, or haven't came up with compelling arguments.

Part of convincing the audience involves having your facts straight and not being wrong. When your judgement text is (compared to most) riddled with errors and inaccuracies, convincing an audience that was clearly in favor of the judgement you did not choose becomes a much harder task, and you get people, like myself, which will point out the errors and inaccuracies and call for a rejudgement of the TAS. The sheer quantity of errors in the judgement text (relevancy does not matter since it is part of the whole text) certainly throws into doubt the correctness of the judgement - which leads towards the calls for rejudgement. That it has only come from one person or that it comes from many should not matter. If there is sufficient reason to revisit the judgement, it should be revisited.

Or we also can try to tweak everything: the rules, the judges' opinions, the audience's opinions, making one huge compromise. I know it works, we've done that before with little to no complaints on the result.

My analysis done here is irrespective of changing the rules (which is a different topic and I will not address here), but any move towards compromise certainly does not lend this judgement to lasting. So the judgement is not only under scrutiny from my end, but is also under potential scrutiny from a revisit due to rules changes (and you can certainly bet any rule change made is with this submission in mind and this submission, under potential rule changes, would be revisited). The house is crumbling, Nach. You can die inside it or not, it's up to you.

But the thing is, the verdict should have considered all these factors to begin with.

And it did not. And as a judge, by not considering the factors Feos included, you failed as a judge. You went against the audience with shaky reasons and questionable logic and parts of your judgement including wording such as "lunacy". And now you get to endure the wrath you brought upon yourself by being disrespectful to those questioning the judgement instead of actually debating them. You may be a judge, and you may be an administrator, but, frankly, you're an egotistic asshole, too. And if you ban me over that, that will only further prove that you have no ability to defend this judgement with logic and that this site as a whole is in need of serious change at the top. YOU attacked me first and I remained respectful up to this post, and even in here I have been respectful in the majority of what I said.

It's clear to everybody that this run has enough entertainment merits. See how the rule doesn't require both. And again, the technical aspect of that game that allows this one glitch there is the main part that makes it so entertaining to everyone. It is very minor. Yet it in reality turns out as an incredibly powerful and exceptional thing, I explained why. Not only because the game is fully known and suddenly the run is different. But mostly because it is still shorter in real time. That's the part that generates all the madness here, and it is as clear as the entertainment value of this run.

Quoted for emphasis. Judge rules don't require both, only one, and this run certainly has it and multiple people have said it. Not just myself and Feos, but many other people in this thread. A quote from Chanoyu's post that was replied to by Nach:

Therefore I think that the judge guidelines, as the OoT example shows, provide opportunity to at least soften the "lunacy" of obsoleting a "perfectly valid original".

I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.

No, comparing regions and versions for OOT and comparing regions for SMB is not apples to limousines. It's a very relevant one. MrWint's post (which I have quoted the tables from above, this is regarding other aspects of the post) and Nach's reply:

There are more things that are not recognized that would favor PAL. The suspicious time gain of NTSC in 8-3 is caused by the fact that doing the flag pole glitch costs (playable) time, and NTSC doesn't do one in 8-3, so these would be another couple frames gained by PAL in this calculation. My main point though is that the PAL version is faster than the NTSC version, not only on technicalities, even when only considering the actual gameplay. The individual level times show that PAL is consistently a tiny bit faster. And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.

Firstly, it's nice to see numbers from someone who is able to create proper data. Interesting to note the slight error in 8-4's water section which makes things as close as they are- would be interesting to know the difference had they used 6/5 instead of 7/6. But regardless (let's ignore the hypothetical question since it's truly irrelevant, the game uses 7/6 and not 6/5), perhaps since you mentioned unrecognized differences these should be clarified?

This doesn't invalidate the reasoning in the ruling, according to the helpful decision tree the same path still applies. So why is this relevant at all then? The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible. When you can show that PAL is only faster based on a technicality, it is easier to discount it as a port that doesn't reach the glory of the true original. It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion. However, if that isn't actually true, you're not left with much to justify the decision.

I strongly believe this to be the case. If it is, Nach certainly won't admit it. God forbid.

I can understand why people are upset about this decision. The way it looks like to me is that you have a submission on a different version of the game than the currently published one. It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.

It's a middle ground that should not exist at all, regardless of the game's notoriety or fame.

And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point. The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case. Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.

I am glad I am not the only one that sees this.

None of the other judges had seen any numbers I came up with prior to me posting the judgement. The numbers didn't have anything to do with how they were convinced either. Nor were numbers even relevant to any point any judge thought of except for one of them. This was also already mentioned in this thread.

So now we know that the counterpoints which you posed to the judges that caused several opinions to differ is not even something you felt was relevant to disclose to us, seeing as it's not what you posted prior to the "Judgement" portion of the judgement and it's not part of the judgement itself (because there's absolutely nothing in there that could possibly make a counterpoint -

Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.

- these two paragraphs are the only possible part that could possibly include a counterpoint and it's not in here at all) this mysterious counterpoint which is not in the judgement text despite being extremely relevant as it caused two judges to change their opinion and affected the others as well, coming from a person who has invalid data and wrong facts and is incorrect in the rules of TASVideos.org. You can understand my extreme skepticisim here.

Instead of attacking me claiming not much thought went into the decision (which I spent over a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges), or my opinion of PAL which I laid out in the judge notes which is contrary to your conclusion regarding my opinion, why not consider that you yourself may be a bit biased because of the game or the effort you put into it.

And yet you attack others all the time (no, I won't bother to quote every single one starting from your first response to me, you can look it up yourself) but cry foul when you get attacked. And yet you're an admin for the site. Shouldn't it be on you to be professional instead of attacking people and then crying foul when you get attacked? I have a strong feeling your butt would not be handed to you on a silver platter as often if you had more respect for people. But that's just my opinion. To respond with some facts, if you spent a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges, perhaps part of that time would have been better spent doing fact-checking and getting all of your data straight. Relevant or not, having wrong information in your judgement comments does not shine a positive light on the judgement itself. Furthermore, MrWint's bias should not be a factor here - MrWint is not juding this TAS. You, on the other hand, Nach, are. Your bias is extremely relevant for that reason.

adelikat provided an argument for why it does, see some of my earlier posts. Also, whether it's better or not isn't really grounds whether it should obsolete another. I think Super Mario All-Stars is better, should it obsolete everything?

Many people have given arguments as to why it does not. And given that the superior version can be judged to obsolete (see http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#ManagingGameVersionsPortsOnMultiplePlatforms ) it is relevant and grounds for considering obsoletion. From Feos's last post:

And if we abstract from the time-saver tricks and just take gameplay alone that's faster, that's where we need to clarify our rules. The reason to pick a PAL ROM version over NTSC should be superiority only IMO. Even if the two versions are similar in their quality, switching to PAL whenever it's faster feels like it reduces the challenge that has been traditional there and gives cheap time advantages. A similar thing happened to startup RAM state: we don't want to give this cheap method to everyone until we have a solid reason to. The solid reason being certain console possibility.

This points towards rules that need to change (not the topic for this thread, but making that note). Rules that, once they change, will likely result in the rejudgement of this TAS eventually.

Similarly, we should only switch to PAL if it's justified, makes sense, and in my earlier post I suggested these to check superiority: better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes. Some of these, or just one, but hugely superior. The decision to switch over should be a consensus between the viewers and the judges (and the author I guess?). Superiority here hasn't been proven, the PAL version is just shorter by its nature, and not the biggest part of the crowd wants obsoletion, and the judges disagree with it, so there is no consensus here.

And yet being shorter by its nature (in elements that matter) is completely accurate and valid and should be enough reason. It's not a different game, and it's not shorter in ways TASVideos.org rules ignore when doing comparisons. From MrWint's final post:

I can only go on what you wrote though, and my comments reflect the impression it had on me (and possibly other people). When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.

While I'm still not convinced this wasn't part of what you used with your counterarguments (and nothing you can say will ever change that, you have lost my trust as far as that goes), I'll at least entertain that your counterarguments you presented to the judges was not based on the data given (which, by the way, we still have no idea of).

You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.

I doubt you two are, but regardless. MrWint is completely correct in that if you wanted to put such data in your judgement text (relevant or not) you had ample time to figure out how to make this data right. And you screwed it up. Badly. You can see where this draws doubt into your arguments, Nach.

Regarding the original vs. non-original discussion, I admit I didn't read all posts in the thread in detail. I did however read all your responses (except the small-print you clearly don't want me to read), and you pointed to the Judging Guidelines, and gave an example of how acceleration changes difficulty in some sections. The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty. Of course a certain progression was clearly intended, but not everything that's different is automatically "non-original". If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL. My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.

Just pointing this out to show I'm not the only one who is debating the use of "original". Warp's last post, posted shortly before I was about to submit this:

This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.

It's a speedrun of a different game. As in, the games are not identical. The difference in speed is not because one run is more optimized than the other, but because one is using a different game, with functional differences, than the other. Personally I find it a bit silly to argue "this TAS is faster than that other TAS, therefore it should obsolete the latter", when the TASes aren't even running the same game binary. Because they are not bit-by-bit the same game, if both deserve publication, they should be published side-by-side.

There are many cases where games that were not bit-by-bit identical obsoleted each other. No, I won't find these, they're rather numerous. Region and/or version change can be responsible for changes in the exact sequence of bits that makes up the game, such that the published run is being obsoleted by a different run. As an example given above, OOT has changed from a 1.2 version to a 1.0 version to a different region of 1.0. All of these include changes to the game binary and yet obsoleted each other. So clearly the argument that ROMs that are not bit-by-bit identical should not obsolete each other is not supported by precedent and is also not supported by site rules (no such requirement exists). Furthermore, one can show that changes to the game binary are recommended in cases where the original run was not done with a proper ROM, as in the case of ROM errors (such as overdumped ROMs) (see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ). http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#UseTheCorrectVersion would not need to exist if we relied on the game binary being identical, as well. In short, the game does not need to be bit-by-bit identical for obsoletion on TASVideos.org. Precedent and site rules both prove this. No, I will not be providing a TL;DR (EDIT: Tried to, many times. Ended up being several paragraphs and too wordy). I put over eight hours into crafting this post just in this sitting, and over eighteen hours total into research and thinking about this one post. I don't expect you to put eighteen hours in to reading it. If you take anything away from this, take the fact that someone's put a lot of time into a set of points that are likely to be ignored by a site admin that is adamant about being wrong and insulting those who question him and think hard about how this site runs if one of its admins acts like this. And if Nach bans me, then it only lends more credence to my points. EDIT: Formatting (9/9/17)