Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3579)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
DarkKobold wrote:
I'm not sure who split the thread, but I don't think moderators should be dissing forum members in such manner. I changed the topic title to something less offense to slowking.
While I 100% disagree with his opinion, I don't think he needs to be disparaged.
I split it and named it. At the time, the last few posts were all related to if slowking's sanity, seemed appropriate. The topic didn't say he was or wasn't, just that the thread was discussing it.
Actually it seems that you must not use a different ROM to any previous published movie. The only logical interpretation is that any future submission must sync on both (J) and (U) ROMs.
The only advantage of using J rom is to enable you to compare these run easily, but Bloob’s run is obviously faster than you needn’t compare.
It seems that that Japanese run disappointed several audience because of the language version and the quality. So, why did they suggest submitting instead of providing the .m64 file?
Yeah, it’s no use crying over spilt milk. And now it is being replaced. Why is there any problem? I’m not against using U rom for this site.
(Of course, you can use any version for youtube, nicovideo or something else if you are not going to submit to this site, imo.)
Actually it seems that you must not use a different ROM to any previous published movie. The only logical interpretation is that any future submission must sync on both (J) and (U) ROMs.
Actually it seems that you must not use a different ROM to any previous published movie. The only logical interpretation is that any future submission must sync on both (J) and (U) ROMs.
Your logic is flawed.
If there already is a published video. It's singular. There's no plural definition in the rules. Therefore, there are no rules for this situation!
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
If there already is a published video, do not use a different ROM than what it uses, unless the new ROM is obviously better, and you can show how it should be compared to the existing movie.
"(if) there is a" means there is at least one, or maybe more. You'd have to replace "a" with "exactly one" (or similar constructs) to get that other meaning.
As the sentence continues with a reference to "it" later on, however, it seems to be "retroactively presupposing" (Hidgens, 1985: 137) that there is in fact only one. This already gently hints at the fact, that "the creator" of these rules didn't really take all possible constellations of runs/submissions into consideration when typing that legendary sentence.
"unless the new ROM is obviously better" supposes that the judges possess an equally superior intellect and objective taste in ROMs as "the creator". Nowhere has it been defined what constitutes as "obviously better", therefore interpretations as to "the true spirit" (Warp, 2010) of the rule vary greatly, even among leading scholars.
Also, as it seems, you are only allowed to use a new ROM if you can show how it should be compared to the existing movie, and thus one would have to effectively be able to illustrate how to compare apples to oranges (oranges are obviously better btw). Only few in the history of TASVideos have thus far managed to accomplish this immensly difficult feat.
Btw, how "new" does that ROM have to be anyway? Doesn't that wording alone make switching back to an "old" ROM impossible? Discuss.
I don't think there's much to discuss. It has become clear that the wording of the rule is ambiguous and doesn't cover special cases. Trying to "discuss" what this ambiguous wording might mean according to people's personal opinions is rather moot. That's not the important issue.
What would be more important is to reword the rule to make it less ambiguous and clearer. I made such a request in the 'general' group, to no significant response. (It almost feels like people are more eager to fight over what their personal interpretation of the vaguely worded rule is than making the rule less ambiguous.)
That was part of the point I was trying to bring across with my post. I didn't want to offend anybody, just ridicule this discussion (and on another level point out that that guideline could be worded more clearly in many ways, though I also think to a great part it's just nitpicking). So yea, I'm being sarcastic in that entire post. I thought I had dropped enough hints, but now I can't tell if you didn't take at least part of the post too seriously. That's just my kind of humor, I'm sorry.
I agree with your request though as it seems some people take these few words way too literally and/or seriously.
I thought I had dropped enough hints, but now I can't tell if you didn't take at least part of the post too seriously. That's just my kind of humor, I'm sorry.
Ok, I didn't fully catch your original intent with your post.
