I think that "Concept demos/Other" section really means "movies that would not normally be published on this site but have been granted an exception." Unlike the ALttP glitch run, this run doesn't reach an ending screen, which could be enough to qualify it as something that would not normally be published (although it reaches the screen that is supposed to come after the ending screen, so maybe that's close enough).

Precisely. Knowing this submission does not do anything particular to publish it. There is no concept or demoish in this run, its just another version of Mario, nothing else. Vatchern, you said you had no problem if this run would obsolete Poms run but let me ask you, on what grounds did it achieve that goal? By switching ROM version. Please.. Again, Bisqwits walkathon run is 10 times more clearer goal than this. It showed that you dont need to press the run button to finish the game. Phils run shows that you can change ROM version and claim its faster run than Poms. I dont like the idea of accepting these type of runs, because if we do accept it, then everyone can pick different ROM versions to complete a certain game faster and claim its a demonstration. Demonstration of what? Demonstration of getting published?

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Its really all about the Benjamins.

on what grounds did it achieve that goal?

Out of all SMB versions he found the one where minus levels can be used to finish the game. How many of us even knew it was possible? I, for example, only heard of minus world once, and that's all. It should be published at least for clever usage of minus world that some people did not ever see. It creates some feeling of "WTF?" when the game is done, it's very rare amongst the speedruns on this site. And note, he found version of game that starts longer. And was not change of version from one without some nice glitch to one with kind of... common?

I haven't seen the video but from all what I've read I say this should be published alongside Pom's video. The video does try to complete the game as fast as possible, unlike the walkathon. The game version is just different. Of course I wouldn't recommend publishing movies of all FDS games alongside the NES ones, but this game is just so popular and well-known that many people would probably be very insterested in this seeing video. I think it's a strong enough reason to grant this an exception. So that's a NO for this going to concept demos.

JXQ, it is OK to pitch ideas of how a concept demo could (or should) be defined, but saying it the way you did will cause Bisqwit to ignore you completely.

What, to spite me? If that's the case, then it's his loss (and immature). I actually care about things much less than I pretend to, but this is a good way to drive a point home (even if some think I'm being mean about it). If that's not the case, then I still think it should be addressed. Ignoring this is silly because it would help reduce these repeated, circular discussions on the forum, the same discussions which said admin has become annoyed by himself, moved around, locked, and so forth. So, the longer it's ignored, the longer this silliness will take place.

If this movie were slower than the published run, it would have been published as a concept demo: showing how to beat -1 world. The problem becomes from the fact that it is much faster than the published run, so it also fulfills the goal completes the game as fast as possible, and thus belongs to the main category. Theoretically, it could obsolete Pom's movie (based on time alone). But the movies are so radically different that they should co-exist, as they show very different things (one movie is not included in the other). Phil uses a different game version, but doesn't the Super Mario 3 run abuses ROM specific glitches, too?

Well, it depends on what you define as "the game". I mean, from what I hear, you're technically completing levels that are further in the game than the last level, but not the last level itself...

Let me be the first to say that the correlation of this run and Pom's run is similar to the Crystalis runs, one has "whacky warp" the other doesn't Hence, they co-exist The difference is, this run is actually interesting. How about stopping all the pointless bickering by renaming the "concept/others" section to the "weird shit" section. Then you could all stop flinging feces at each other.

Yeah, don't bring light to the issue, because then you're a lousy no-good complainer who's flaming the forums. Instead, sidestep it, and hope it goes away. Very effective.

What was wrong with my attempted definition (at the end of page 5)? That seems to be the only obvious pattern followed by the movies that are already in that section.

I think creating a weird shit section is clearly the only fair way to resolve this.

I think creating a weird shit section is clearly the only fair way to resolve this.

What happens when we start putting submissions in there, even when the authors meant for them to be serious attempts? That's a pretty hilarious slap in the face.

What was wrong with my attempted definition (at the end of page 5)? That seems to be the only obvious pattern followed by the movies that are already in that section.

My point has been that all of us can throw in our perceived definitions, and all it does is clutter things up without getting to the root of the confusion.

Yeah, don't bring light to the issue, because then you're a lousy no-good complainer who's flaming the forums. Instead, sidestep it, and hope it goes away. Very effective.

Passive Aggression (Don't Do It) Passive aggression, as defined here, is the highly annoying and frustrating tactic of saying the opposite of what you mean in order to keep discussions peaceful and not appearing to be a troublemaker or to cause conflict, but implying heavily what you really mean through dissembling, indirect speech and the spreading of guilt to others for having opinions that differ from yours. This isn't necessarily a conscious behavior, as those exhibiting it may honestly be trying to keep the peace rather than being deceptive, but one must be on guard for this. At least three quarters of every tube within the Internets is stuffed full of passive aggressive people, because the Internets allow the aggression of interacting with people while also necessitating the passivity of not having to look at or hear the people you are interacting with. People who spend a lot of time on the Internets are, in a general sense, not good at and don't entirely grasp the workings of interpersonal relationships. It helps to remember this, and respond accordingly when confronted with these situations. Honesty and flexibility are required to combat this problem. You have to be able to be honest without being a self-righteous dick about it. It may rankle one's sense of justice, but there's a difference between coddling someone and just being polite and disarming. Couching your statements in language that indicates you're not being insulting or goading goes a long way towards keeping emotions at an even keel. Sometimes it's a subtle thing, other times, it's obvious. Which would you rather see in response to something you've written? "Sorry, let me clarify, I actually meant that I find melted cheese to be a delicious substitute for personal lubricants." or "You misunderstand. I clearly meant that melted cheese is great lube, but you've misconstrued what I said." Both statements saying the same thing, but the former is not assigning blame or being condescending, and is a polite way to defuse a potential annoyance while furthering a calm debate. Those exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior have trouble adhering to this notion, as well as the rule of keeping a proper perspective. If an argumentative and mildly condescending post like the latter example above does manage to get through someone's personal manners-filter, perhaps defensive in tone but clearly on a relatively insignificant and harmless topic, the passive-aggressive person will often overreact to this terrifyng threat of confrontation, retreating with over-concession and massive abuse of the smiley emoticon until it reeks of insincerity. "I'm sorry, you're right. :)" "Really, it's okay. :) Cheese is probably much better than what I was thinking. :)" "In fact, maybe I'll go get some cheese :) Try it out :) Prove you right :) Never mind what I said :)" This would be the passive part. They will not go get cheese or try it out. This is followed later by statements like: "Wow, this cheese is... never mind. :) No, whatever people want is fine. :) No, it's just... it's fine. Whatever, it's fine. :) I mean, I've never used it and won't so I don't really feel like I'm... but whatever, it's fine. :) I thought we were going to use the other thing, but it's fine. :) Just tell me what you want me to do. :)" Repeated occurrences of this sort of thing have the effect of spreading guilt for disagreeing with the person, while at the same time serving to derail and drag down the cheese lubricant scene until it's no fun for anyone involved, even the people that enjoy cheese, because it can eventually come to feel like pulling teeth to get a solid, unequivocal response. The PA person may feel as though they're being peaceful and mitigating and a good sport, and on the surface, that's what the words mean, but in actuality, it serves to frustrate the people trying to work with them. There are ways to have a civil debate without tempers flaring, but it requires honesty - the polite sort of honesty discussed above (as well as perhaps some cooling-off time before the debate, to vent negative emotions). If an honest impasse is reached after such a thing, well, this is where flexibility comes in. Perspective helps to realize any big impasse about a role-playing game on the Internets is really not THAT important to be stubborn about, and being flexible enough to find a workable compromise helps to legitimately keep the peace. It also requires you do not then proceed to start whining, however subtly, about not getting your way. This is key. This is called being an adult. The Wiki definition of passive aggression is "passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. Sometimes a method of dealing with stress or frustration, it results in the person attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways." It's as though the PA person is subtly, passively, indirectly punishing people for not agreeing with them, and hoping that will make the punished change their minds over to the PA person's point of view. Another form of passive aggression is claiming you're not doing exactly what you're doing. Bill O'Reilly specializes in this. "Have you ever heard of this obscure little factoid that I know? You haven't. Of course you haven't. But I'm not being condescending here." 1.) He is absolutely being condescending. 2.) If the factoid is obscure enough, it's indistinguishable from the truth, which gives him the imaginary leverage to argue his point. When you lie, make it something that won't be proven wrong unless someone goes out and actually does research on it. The proof of the lie will never find a public forum after the initial confrontation anyway, because everyone's attention span is too short for it. (Another thing Bill O'Reilly does is that 'I am speaking with truth and knowledge' voice, when saying even the most inane things. Like he was talking about Al Franken's book and calling him "vicious, and that's with a capital V." In that same "I know all" tone of voice, and that's the lamest adjective-modifying phrase ever when defending yourself from someone who's just called you an out-and-out liar, but I digress). Saying you're doing the opposite of what you're doing. As if acknowledging the bad impression someone might be getting from you excuses you from making that impression. "I know I'm partially to blame here, but you caused this yourself." You are not actually taking any blame. "I know you want to do this with that other player. It's okay, I don't mind." You are implying that you should get to approve how other people spend their time. "I know I have made mistakes, but you people are all ratpacking on me by telling me I've made them." The problem is the mistakes, not the people pointing them out. "Oh, I don't care. You decide." You had really better not care, and you can't complain if you don't like the decision. Putting the choice in someone else's hands does not give you the right to bitch at them if you don't like what they choose. Passive aggression is essentially dishonesty. Dishonesty contributes to drama. Be honest and direct, but don't be a jerk about it. Be polite. Don't be intractable. Flexibility and the ability to let things roll off your back are crucial. Save the strong, self-righteous stances for actual important real-life issues. Is this really so hard?

It helps to remember this, and respond accordingly when confronted with these situations.

Copypasting livejournal entries is the proper way to respond to passive aggression. Gotcha.

Exactly

Then you could all stop flinging feces at each other.

This attitude bothers me. It gives off the message of 'any arguing is bad arguing, and I'm above that and so much more mature than those involved that I'll make comments toward them' message, which is passive aggressive itself, but worse, hypocritical. Aside from that, I hope you had fun with your post. It was fun to read.

I didn't say any arguing is bad arguing. I'm saying this is not something worth arguing over.

What was wrong with my attempted definition (at the end of page 5)? That seems to be the only obvious pattern followed by the movies that are already in that section.

My point has been that all of us can throw in our perceived definitions, and all it does is clutter things up without getting to the root of the confusion.

You are invited to make a new thread. If you believe that doesn't help, go and PM Bisqwit with ideas. Although you have the most complaints about the "concept demo" definition, I have not seen one idea from you which you believe best defines a concept demo.

(some long-winded post)

That was unnecessary, and hypocritical too.

Maybe a newcomers reflections may cast a little light on the issue?! I get really interested when reading about this run. I would really like to see it, so I hope there's no question about whether or not to publish it. I hear you discussing about what section this game should belong to; of course it shouldn't obsolete any other SM runs on this site, and my opinion is that it fits best into "Concept demos/Other". It has NOT been completed as the creators intended it to, by beating 8-4. It may not be a "Concept demo", but it sure is a "Other".

Although you have the most complaints about the "concept demo" definition, I have not seen one idea from you which you believe best defines a concept demo.

All of us can throw in our perceived definitions, and all it does is clutter things up without getting to the root of the confusion.

It takes those who are in charge of maintaining the movies to define what it is - not anyone else, including me, the passive-aggressive complainer, or you, the one who is trying to speak in Bisqwit's absence - otherwise circular discussion will (and did) occur.

It takes those who are in charge of maintaining the movies to define what it is - not anyone else, including me, the passive-aggressive complainer, or you, the one who is trying to speak in Bisqwit's absence - otherwise circular discussion will (and did) occur.

If you and I and everyone else have no interest in even trying to help solve the problem, then the people up there (Bisqwit and the publishers) certainly don't, which is what is going on now. So complaining any more won't solve anything. Let's stop complaining.