So, let me ask back at you: What is your problem with the term TAS and why do you want to use "timeattack" instead? Is it some kind of pride thing ("why would we need to explain ourselves? if stupid people think these are genuine unassisted speedruns it's their problems, not ours")?
In that particular post, the reason I did it was out of spite. I used it because you didn't.
In general, though, I use whatever other people are using, because, as I said before, I don't think it really matters.
That said, what was the point in your latest reply to my post? Before that post, I had already stated that I hadn't read this thread as thoroughly as I could have. I didn't present any arguments against your summarization of this thread because I agree with your point, in general - that a space hardly makes a difference, and that, although it may not be as common as the term "time attack", that the term "tool-assisted speedrun" is more accurate.
So really, I think the only thing we disagree on is how frequently the term "time attack" is used synonymously with the term "tool-assisted speedrun". Unfortunately, I don't really see how one can provide non-antedotal evidence, either way, and as that isn't the main issue that this thread is attempting to address, I'm content with dropping this. Are you?
Also I should point out that it doesn't even show that time attack is a standard term. It was just used in 2 of the many responses, probably both by members of this site.
I will grant that as far as evidence goes, the slashdot.org article isn't very great. Unfortunately, finding solid evidence on this subject is kinda hard. Although that said, to defend the evidence, no one refered to anything as a "tool-assis..." speedrun. So, in that slashdot.org article, the term "time attack" is more prevalent, regardless of whether or not the people who said it post here.
Did you even read this topic? The most important part of the argument against the term time attack is that it's already used for non-save state runs. Arc's argument was that timeattack was different because he removed the space and therefore won't be confused with time attack. Then I responded by saying that people think of both terms as the same thing, so calling it a timeattack will just make people think you're talking about a time attack, which makes the term timeattack confusing and a bad term.
Hmmmm. I actually only quickly skimmed through it... I guess I did so a little to quickly...
quote]No, "time attack" is already a standard term for something else, and it's still being used to refer to the other definition much more than it is to refer to save state runs.
Whether or not time attack is more frequently used to describe something else doesn't change the fact that a majority of people refering to "tool-assisted speedruns" do so using the term "time attack". The slashdot.org link I provided demonstrated this.
Maybe you'd have a good point if people in that article were calling it a "timeattack."
Really? So let me get this straight - you think that "because people frequently use term x to describe y, z is a valid term" is a good argument? Wow. If this is the kind of quality reasoning I can expect from you, then I'm going to do my best to avoid reading any of your other posts.
Btw, thanks for supporting my argument by providing some evidence that people think of timeattacks and time attacks as the same thing.
I'm not really interested in reading your other posts to find out what your argument is, but you've drawn the conclusions I intended you to draw from the evidence.
After all the stuff Arc said about them being different, you mix them up and call a save state run a time attack.
You said it, yourself - that "people think of timeattacks and time attacks as the same thing". So do I. As such, what does it matter if I use one term or another?
Further, near as I can tell, ommitting the space to distinguish between the alternate definition of time attack is a practice that was adopted in this thread. Given this, it seems rather hypocritical to say that I'm the one "muddying the waters" when you're the one trying to break from convention (which has, above, been established to be a convention).
It's clear that people who agree with Arc think of both timeattacks and time attacks as being save state runs, so the argument that they won't be confused with the real definition of time attack doesn't work.
First of all, I don't think any definition is any more real than any other. Second, I think that context will tell you all you need to know about what meaning of a word someone is intending to invoke.
As an example, consider the word "baby". It can refer to the following three things:
1. an infant
2. someone who is childesh
3. someone to whom your attracted
Since you apparently don't think that humans have the capacity to chose definitions based on context, I suppose you think that someone who says "hey, baby, let's me and you [insert sexual action here]" is a pedaphile?
Also I should point out that no matter how hard you try to spread the opinion that timeattack and time attack mean different things, this will never become standard knowledge.
I really hate to break it to you, but neither definition of "time attack" is standard knowledge. Neither is the term "speedrun". Don't believe me? Then explain this.
When will you realize that that term was not invented by us? It was invented by the speedrun community before this site even existed.
You can think of it as being as ridiculous as you like, but you still can't change the fact that it's a standard term.
Someone can think that the term "popup menu" is ridiculous. However, does that mean he should invent a completely different term because of that and start using it (specially if the new term has a different meaning and will confuse people)?
That's a very good argument. Unfortunately, it also applies to time attacks. After all, the term time attack is a standard, too. If it wasn't a standard, why would so many people be using it?
Perhapes you remember the slashdot.org article about the "'Perfect' Zelda NES Speed Record Beaten"? It's probably the most publicity time attacks ever got. Anyway, take a look at the article. Hit Ctrl+F, and search for "assi" (which should be a substring of the correct spelling and common misspellings). You won't get any hits, whereas you will with "time attack"? Why do you think this is? If the standard is tool-assisted speedrun, then why does everyone there refer to it as "time attack"?
In short, it may not be a standard you like, but that doesn't mean it's not a standard.
You say that since these videos are not speedruns a different term should be used. Even if that is so, why use an existing term with a meaning different from what these videos are?
Right back at you.
Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "timeattack"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because that's the term you heard first and you have always used it and now you refuse to change?
No, no. Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "tool assisted speedrun"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because you're preferences trump everyone else's?
All in all, this debate is rather similar to the whole "American Indian" vs. "Native American" debate. One term may be more appropriate than the other, but that doesn't mean that you should pretend as if only one term existed nor does it mean wikipedia articles should only reflect one point of view.
Despite the fact that the term time attack may be misleading, the fact remains that a substantional number of people call tool-assisted speedruns time attacks. As such, I don't believe editing out all references to time attacks in the wikipedia entry for tool-assisted speedruns is appropriate. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't happen.
On that note, the recent history of wikipedia's entry for tool-assisted speedruns is interesting. It's pretty much been deleted and merged with the speedrun article, where it has had the following statement made about it:
Unassisted speedruns are usually considered more impressive, since they require the most skill, planning, and practice to pull off. Official recordkeeping only considers unassisted speedruns.
I don't know about you folks, but I think that statement is biased against tool-assisted speedruns.
Further, it's been my observation that the speedrun community generally does not see eye to eye with the tool-assisted speedrun community. Merging the two articles is only going to make wikipedia's discussion of time attacks progressively more biased, IMHO.