Yeah... as indicated in my post, I don't really consider that a problem. Heck, even the author of the movie didn't seem to mind. He knew it was unoptimized.
Besides, it's not a democratic vote, it's an opinion poll. And there are more factors to consider than the popular answer to one question (or several), otherwise there wouldn't really be a need for judges.
The problem presents itself in polls like the one for turok. 20 yes, 0 meh and 1 no, and because the one person who voted no was a judge, it gets rejected.
I know his reasoning for doing it, but it still feels wrong for a movie that was enjoyed by 100% of the other people who voted to rot.
Dude, seriously, shut up. Get your facts straight, adelikat voted yes, rejected the movie BEFORE it had a single no vote, and no other judge could have voted no at that point. Everything else is a result of your imagination, so stop this endless annoying rant aimed at how unfair the world is.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
With that recent Turok: Dinosaur Hunter submission by nfq, I voted yes on the current question because I did find it entertaining. Then in my post with my comment, I noted that if the question were, "do I think this movie should be published", I would vote no because I didn't think it was up to the site's standards of quality.
I believe that the spirit of the poll question is "did you like this movie so much that you think it should be published?". It's just shortened. Too much.
I don't really understand why some people are taking the poll question so literally when it should be quite clear what it really is asking (ie. "should this be published or not?").
That's one reason why IMHO the question should be more specific.
Jesus, 1 post on the submission, and 1 post here is an endless rant? Sounds more like I struck a nerve.
Yes, you indeed struck a nerve of me wanting stupid people to stfu.
The first post was already senseless. After it's been pointed out to you personally that you're wrong, you already had Xkeeper jumping on the rant bandwagon (yeah, he loves that, and it's also annoying). Now, since you didn't read what was addressed to you, you still continue with groundless accusations. Stop it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
wtf moozooh how can you go on about stuff like this after that incredibly embarrassing tirade you went on yesterday on IRC? You made like 60 times less sense than Twelvepack, have made easily 60 times more posts about it and yet you don't shut up, so what's the deal?
Who was it embarrassing for? You?
I made valid, backed up points, none of them based on false accusations.
Sorry man but that's just an outright lie.
All I'm saying is if it's ok for you to go on like that when you find something you find unjust and still are way off about, jumping at people's throats for making like 2 posts because they "struck a nerve" is just bullshit.
Mind if I ask you to prove your words, for once?
Fabian wrote:
All I'm saying is if it's ok for you to go on like that when you find something you find unjust and still are way off about, jumping at people's throats for making like 2 posts because they "struck a nerve" is just bullshit.
Stop the hypocrisy, would you. You yourself are jumping at my throat every time you decide my words are not justified, each time comparing apples and oranges, even though I present well-argumented justification for all of them, which you choose to ignore because it's all a matter of opinion.
Questioning the argumentation is one thing, defying it is another. I was arguing with Baxter and others not because they said something I thought was fair but decided to deny it, it was because their arguments themselves I considered questionable, as they were addressed multiple times in two threads from a fairly friendly to any party point of view.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The bolded parts are not valid, backed up points. It's just rambling nonsense from someone who's pissed because the run he's lobbying to get accepted is about to be rejected. It's not what we usually see from you moozooh, I agree you often are more rational than this.
[16:31:14] <moozooh> <Baxter> if it's really different, then make another category
[16:31:25] <moozooh> yeah, because we know it's so easy.
[16:31:37] <Baxter> '?
[16:31:43] <moozooh> seriously, we WISH it was possible to create a new category.
[16:32:22] <Baxter> if it's not possible, then just reject this one... doesn't seem like even a remotely hard decision to me
[16:32:22] <moozooh> what the fuck, "then make another category"? there is but one man who can do that and he won't, at least not now.
[16:32:31] <moozooh> and you're saying it as if we were creating new categories on a daily basis.
[16:32:43] <moozooh> in fact, there would be no arguments if we could.
[16:33:10] <moozooh> ok, give me a GOOD reason it should be rejected.
[16:33:19] <Baxter> it's slower than the current run
[16:33:21] <Fabian_> it's worse than hero's run
[16:33:34] <Baxter> and it's goal is less interesting
[16:33:34] <Fabian_> it would be good in a separate category though
[16:33:38] <Fabian_> but you covered that already
[16:33:41] <moozooh> Fabian_: "worse"? can you back up that claim?
[16:33:44] <Fabian_> no
[16:33:48] <Fabian_> it's my opinion
[16:33:50] <Fabian_> it's subjective
[16:33:52] <Fabian_> I think it's worse
[16:34:10] <moozooh> the goal is less interesting is also a subjective opinion.
[16:34:12] <Fabian_> yes
[16:34:14] <Fabian_> no arguments
[16:34:23] <Baxter> moozooh: of course it is
[16:34:30] <moozooh> it being slower is also subjective because in the actual rooms, where the gameplay happens, it's faster.
[16:34:34] <adelikat> I agree with Fabian (no joke intended)
[16:34:49] <adelikat> it is indeed less entertaining (to me)
[16:35:13] <Baxter> moozooh: it being slower isn't subjective imo
[16:35:46] <Fabian_> it's slower real time and faster in-game time, I don't see a way to make that a matter of opinion
[16:38:31] <moozooh> Baxter: yet it is. yet again, if hero made a run on 1.51 that was slower in realtime due to the emulator-added lag, you likely wouldn't that argument, because (guess what) speed is subjective. but i have no intention to fight other people's opinions, so i won't continue this argument either.
[16:38:49] <moozooh> present that argument*
[16:38:59] <Fabian_> wow you're really grabbing for straws here moozooh =/
[16:39:01] <adelikat> moozooh, you do realize that argument is weak right?
16:40:08] <moozooh> no, it's just an example that the numbers you see in the "time" field don't always constitute the level of optimization, entertainmment or anything else.
[16:40:45] <moozooh> and your general argument is "this number is bigger, boo hoo".
[16:40:50] <Fabian_> you will have to explain to me how the numbers I see in the "time" field should ever constitute the level of optimization etc
[16:40:54] <Fabian_> you're just talking about different things here
[16:40:57] <Fabian_> so.. what?
[16:41:03] <Fabian_> speed is
[16:41:03] <Fabian_> sped
[16:41:05] <Fabian_> +e
[16:41:54] <Fabian_> to further clarfiy moozooh, no one is saying the numbers you see in the "time" field has anything to do with the level of optimization
[16:41:59] <Fabian_> because saying that would mean you were insane
[16:42:03] <Fabian_> as it has nothing to do with reality
[16:42:06] <Fabian_> it's just making sentences up as you go
[16:42:19] <moozooh> ok, to bring you some examples
[16:42:49] <moozooh> <Baxter> it's slower than the current run <-- based on numbers, not gameplay.
[16:43:43] <Baxter> moozooh: read my post at the forum, it explains my opinion better than that one line of text
[16:43:53] <Fabian_> and the reason it's based on numbers, not gameplay, is the numbers you see in the "time" field has nothing to do with the level of optimization, it has to do with the numers you see in the "time" field
Alright, I have no problems addressing all of this.
Fabian wrote:
[16:34:30] <moozooh> it being slower is also subjective because in the actual rooms, where the gameplay happens, it's faster.
Yes, it is subjective, there is nothing wrong with this statement. I, who is used to play this game very often, make note of the gameplay sequences more so than all the others, so it makes perfect sense when I think that when something is slower due to lack of items allowing greater speed, it is slower overall. Perception of speed is subjective by definition.
Fabian wrote:
[16:38:31] <moozooh> Baxter: yet it is. yet again, if hero made a run on 1.51 that was slower in realtime due to the emulator-added lag, you likely wouldn't that argument, because (guess what) speed is subjective. but i have no intention to fight other people's opinions, so i won't continue this argument either.
[16:38:49] <moozooh> present that argument*
[16:38:59] <Fabian_> wow you're really grabbing for straws here moozooh =/
Good job on completely dismissing the main point of my statement, as usual. But in truth, if such run was submitted, you would in fact have to choose what is more important in this case, actual optimization, or the number you see in the "time" field. Call it grabbing for straws, but the question is absolutely valid, and it has fundamental importance not limited to Super Metroid or any other game. In fact, this question has been raised before with games like Star Fox, for instance.
Fabian wrote:
16:40:08] <moozooh> no, it's just an example that the numbers you see in the "time" field don't always constitute the level of optimization, entertainmment or anything else.
[16:40:45] <moozooh> and your general argument is "this number is bigger, boo hoo".
See above. Cpadolf's submission has clearly higher level of optimization (and is more up-to-date in general), which was confirmed by Hero of the day — it is only because of his choice of goals this argument is happening. The question of ingame vs. realtime is exactly the same as with, for instance, taking damage to save time vs. taking no damage. You have no right to imply that a run made without taking damage is less optimized than a run made with it; yes it would pose the same problem regarding which of them to consider more optimal. Obviously, a friendly approach would imply looking at comparable sequences and seeing which of them is faster there. Rejecting a no-damage run just because it's slower would be very short-sighted. Abolishing no-damage category because it's slower by definition than taking damage to save time (and being fundamentally redundant in runs where taking damage doesn't save any) is something I don't see happening, and I don't see why having ingame time as a goal is so different, either. Care to share your thoughts?
Fabian wrote:
[16:42:49] <moozooh> <Baxter> it's slower than the current run <-- based on numbers, not gameplay.
See above. The argument form it was presented in clearly implied that instead of overall gameplay, movie length was given priority in appraising the quality.
Now please, would you also paste a few more lines which concluded the discussion, where I further elaborate my position and give my opinion on other arguments? Unfortunately, my IRC client (Opera, which is also my browser) doesn't save logs so I can't do that myself.
Also, I would still like you to elaborate who the aforementioned "tirade" was embarrassing for, and also why are you so eager to shut me up every time I say something that doesn't appeal to you.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Look there's no need to do this point by point. I think it's a bit shitty of you to change "speed is subjective" to "perception of speed is subjective" since it's just a 180 degree turnaround and completely changes what you're talking about, but whatever it's fine. We disagree and I can accept that.
We also disagree about what's important when it comes to timing method/level of optimization/goal importance/etc but that stuff is 100% subjective so there's no point bringing that up in here trying to convince the other he's "wrong" or anything.
Anyway to answer your other concerns, the tirade was embarrassing for you.
I am eager to shut you up a lot of the time because you are an elitist asshole who attack others for things you are guilty of yourself. If you didn't get up on your high horses and had to put everyone down so often we'd get along just fine. This is really the main point, I'm not looking to blow holes in your argumentation just for the fun of it or because I "just don't like you".
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
hmm... too many pages to read in this thread!
Just remove the MEH option and it will be fine.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
I think it's a bit shitty of you to change "speed is subjective" to "perception of speed is subjective" since it's just a 180 degree turnaround and completely changes what you're talking about, but whatever it's fine.
You can't measure speed without perceiving it. I've had this argument about subjectivity going on since late 2005 ([1], [2]). Yes, two days ago in the channel I was inaccurate in my choice of words (forgive me), but it doesn't mean I have changed my position a little bit in regards to what I meant.
Fabian wrote:
We also disagree about what's important when it comes to timing method/level of optimization/goal importance/etc but that stuff is 100% subjective so there's no point bringing that up in here trying to convince the other he's "wrong" or anything.
I accept that, and it was the reason I wanted you to paste the rest of the conversation, where I actually show that I really do. Apparently, not pasting it would help you get the point across, but let's be fair.
Fabian wrote:
Anyway to answer your other concerns, the tirade was embarrassing for you.
Completely ungrounded, needless to say.
Fabian wrote:
I am eager to shut you up a lot of the time because you are an elitist asshole who attack others for things you are guilty of yourself. If you didn't get up on your high horses and had to put everyone down so often we'd get along just fine.
Everyone, so often? Fabian, what the hell?
I agree I may often sound rude (being an asshole, if you wish, not like you are much different in this respect), but honestly, why are you accusing me of being elitist? Just because I'm telling someone off it doesn't mean I want to claim the superiority of my position or use something else like that to make a point. I always elaborate and back up my words, and never discard anyone else's opinion on grounds of being unworthy. I really don't understand why do you think I'm an elitist, perhaps you want to elaborate? (With examples, please.)
Moreover, regarding Twelvepack's issue, I know for sure you understood (and probably even share) my position, yet you used it to attack me by comparison of apples to oranges. Uncool.
Fabian wrote:
This is really the main point, I'm not looking to blow holes in your argumentation just for the fun of it or because I "just don't like you".
This is begging a question. As the issue you brought up was clearly unrelated to the topic at hand, was this argument simply a crusade for justice against moozooh the elitist asshole? Sweet, but what were you trying to achieve by starting it, especially here on the forums? You're saying you're not looking to blow holes in my argumentation, yet you have them in yours, since in your attacks you resort to ungrounded and farfetched statements, refuse to address many questions directed at you, and so on. I don't really understand it, and it doesn't seem like you would explain everything to me, but probably you should prepare yourself better next time.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you were inaccurate in your choice of words, would you say it's fair for someone who read those words to conclude you were talking rambling nonsense? If not, why is that?
I'm sure pasting the rest of the conversation would help you out on that, but the rest of the conversation, it sounds like, deals with the 100% subjective stuff. Why would you (or me) need help justifying your position there? No one is calling it into question, it's subjective.
"Everyone" is obviously a lie, you're right. "So often" is subjective, and I have no problem with my choice of words there. I hear you on the elitist thing, I just don't agree. Again it's a matter of opinion. It's understandable you don't feel you act in a certain way, it's probably understandable how I might disagree too.
"... and never discard anyone else's opinion on grounds of being unworthy"
This is where we don't agree. Of course I don't recall (m)any specific examples, if you felt like searching for our ~10 heated discussions we could maybe do some evaluating, but it seems pointless. The watermark thing is the only thing (and most recent I think?) that springs to mind. Wasn't there something else just a couple days before that? I'm not sure.
I share your position that "idiots should stfu"? Eh, yeah I guess. I have no idea about the specific issue about the votes etc.
Yeah I guess it's a "crusade for justice against you" if you want to put it like that. Like I said it pisses me off when you act like you do and say what you do to people. I'm not trying to achieve anything special except point out to you that you're being an asshole and if you considered it and maybe changed that would be a great bonus too.
"You're saying you're not looking to blow holes in my argumentation, yet you have them in yours,"
Don't really understand this, doesn't seem like two connected statements at all. Anyway what I'm looking for is to tell you you're being an asshole. It's fine if you think my argument sucks, though I wish you wouldn't.
If you were inaccurate in your choice of words, would you say it's fair for someone who read those words to conclude you were talking rambling nonsense? If not, why is that?
Because it's still not rambling nonsense, given the context of discussion? At least it seems so to me.
Fabian wrote:
I'm sure pasting the rest of the conversation would help you out on that, but the rest of the conversation, it sounds like, deals with the 100% subjective stuff. Why would you (or me) need help justifying your position there? No one is calling it into question, it's subjective.
Hahahaha, nice one. So basically, you pasted only that part of discussion which helped you to make a point, disregarding the rest, even though it had primary relevance to the subject at hand, and was not more or less subjective than the first part. That's a real argument winner right there.
Fabian wrote:
"Everyone" is obviously a lie, you're right. "So often" is subjective, and I have no problem with my choice of words there. I hear you on the elitist thing, I just don't agree. Again it's a matter of opinion. It's understandable you don't feel you act in a certain way, it's probably understandable how I might disagree too.
Since I don't really care too much, it's alright with me that you think of me whatever you do. However, if you agree that the point is questionable, do you consider your actions productive?
Fabian wrote:
This is where we don't agree. Of course I don't recall (m)any specific examples, if you felt like searching for our ~10 heated discussions we could maybe do some evaluating, but it seems pointless. The watermark thing is the only thing (and most recent I think?) that springs to mind. Wasn't there something else just a couple days before that? I'm not sure.
Dunno, I admit I have no recollection of something like that happening. Which is why, if it really bothers you, you should at least find something next time you decide to settle the conflict in such a way, otherwise it's nothing more than meaningless bickering with you coming off as no less an asshole as I am, which doesn't benefit neither you nor anyone else.
Fabian wrote:
I have no idea about the specific issue about the votes etc.
In short, this is what happened:
1) Turok submission received 20 yes votes;
2) adelikat, who was one of those 20, wrote a post where he explained he was entertained, then rejected it on grounds of being suboptimal;
3) someone else voted no (and I seem to recall there being a post about that from the person who voted no);
4) Twelvepack concluded the no vote came from a judge, and started a rant (in form of a rant);
5) Comicalflop pointed it out to him that the reasons the submission was rejected were completely unrelated to that vote;
6) Twelvepack ignored it and continued the rant here, which is why I decided to shut him. And now he's trolling, which confirms my claim of his stupidity.
Fabian wrote:
Yeah I guess it's a "crusade for justice against you" if you want to put it like that. Like I said it pisses me off when you act like you do and say what you do to people. I'm not trying to achieve anything special except point out to you that you're being an asshole and if you considered it and maybe changed that would be a great bonus too.
That's noble. But then again, in order to increase the efficiency of your actions, I would advise to point out what exactly I did wrong, and possibly suggest an alternative — otherwise it's no better than Phil or Saturn claiming someone's run is improvable, but not mentioning where or how.
Fabian wrote:
Don't really understand this, doesn't seem like two connected statements at all. Anyway what I'm looking for is to tell you you're being an asshole. It's fine if you think my argument sucks, though I wish you wouldn't.
You strive to reach a noble goal in treacherous ways, that's what sucks about it. In other words, being counterproductive to your own goal.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
" That's a real argument winner right there. "
I think this is pretty unfair of you considering you asked me to show examples of what I meant and that's why I brought it up. There are no examples of any kind of nonsense later on as far as I know and I strongly disagree that this first couple of nonsense sentences were as subjective as the rest.
I consider my actions productive enough and I don't consider the point questionable except to you obviously. That's just natural, no one takes criticism objectively.
I have no problem coming off as an asshole in my discussions with you. I agree I kinda do.
Anyway I'm done with this. Thanks for the suggestions.
Until next time,
Fabian
Alright, now that it's settled, could I ask a moderator to move the posts from this one onward to a separate thread and possibly lock them there? Would be highly appreciated.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
*Ahem* Number of frames? Even a computer program can measure that.
Sounds like you're measuring car's speed in frames, too. :P
Have you ever noticed that, for instance, when you drive at 40 km/h, then accelerate to 90, it feels too fast? Have you noticed that, if you accelerate to 200+ km/h and drive like that for some time, then decelerate to 90 km/h, it will feel slow? Have you noticed that driving at 40 km/h on a car and on a bike is completely different? For instance, I have. Same speed feels differently depending on many circumstances, you can't just deny that.
Thus, perception of speed is subjective, nonperception is irrelevant by default.
Perception of time suffers the same fundamental symptoms, actually. That's why instead of concentrating on an arbitrary number in case the goals are different, concentrate on the gameplay, and see which one appears slower.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
