One of Nesvideos finest TAS is done!! JXQ's 100% run!

2006-04-23 01:51:52 am

Yeah, I guess that post's helpful, too... All I really wanted to say is that if you don't care enough to watch the run, you probably shouldn't care what "time" it got according to the stupid game timer.

13M13

2006-04-23 02:43:48 am

l'appel du vide

Quote from JXQ:

For example, 13M13 - your third line in your first post after mine, which said something to the effect of "for what it's worth, the run was well played" - was this removed by you, or Nate? I have no idea, and I wouldn't put it past Nate to remove things like that.

I removed it. Despite my enjoyment of the run, your original post didn't sit very well with me...as such, by removing that comment, I felt my response to your attitude would be more direct. I seriously doubt Nate would ever consider editing my (or anyone else's) post in such a manner.

Is your frustration warranted? Yes. But, unlike Saturn's reaction to the opposition in this thread, your remarks weren't very constructive.
Don't knee-jerk the knee-jerks...

SonicandTails218

2006-04-23 03:11:08 am

Quote from Ryan Ferneau:

Quote from SonicandTails218:

I could walk up to a store and steal a pack of bubble gum and never get caught. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

But what if you could COPY all the bubblegum in the store?

That's still wrong. By copying a pack of bubble gum, I am essentially taking away money from the store-money that would have been made by selling the bubble gum instead.

Granted, you can't copy bubble gum, but the point still stands. I read once that the West (US and Europe, in other words) is more guilt based than shame based-it's not if you've done wrong, it's if you get caught. It obviously holds true here. I'm not going to try and take the moral high ground here, I admit I do download roms, and I do pirate things here and there. I'm not saying that it's right. I'm saying that no justification in the world keeps it from being wrong.

SABERinBLUE

2006-04-23 03:53:49 am

Cook of the Sea

Quote from JXQ:

If you don't like TAS's, then why even post in this thread? Your post is off-topic and Nate should delete it the same way he deletes posts about how TAS's are good. (Since I'll be accused of making this up, I'm refering to Angerfist's post about the Fusion TAS being deleted for being "off-topic" even though it was posted in a thread about a TAS to Fusion.)

I can't remember offhand if that was nate that did that (I think it was) but yes, this was done. However, I recall undeleting the thread.

Chanoire

2006-04-23 04:22:24 am

Quote from JXQ:

My post was trying to make that a little more clear, and saying it politely does not have the same impact. If you think I'm immature, flaming, trolling, or whatever, I couldn't care less. What I do care about are the people who realized the point I was making beyond the rudeness, and maybe will start to question how things are done. This is how I "try and actively change things for the better." A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad. Watch me care.

In my experience at this forum, it's just the opposite. A polite, well-thought-out post will be far more thought-provoking than the same content in the guise of flamebait, which only serves to make everything you say sound like generic us vs them whining. You clearly don't expect Nate to be at all sensible, logical, respectable because he holds extreme views; likewise, if you start in with trolling ("I swore I'd never register here" was a good introduction to that tone) then no one will expect you to say anything meritorious under the venom, because it will sound like you're just expressing a "screw you all" message. Again.

(No, nothing you said was that strong, but please bear with me; my comp spontaneously reboot when I hit the "submit" button on the first version of this post, and I'm too stubborn to take that as a sign.)

Where was I? Oh. With regards to the firestorm in Saturn's thread, it was certainly the thoughtful posts, most notably Bisqwit's, which brought the temperature down and the respect up, resulting in "actively changing things for the better" at that time. I think you'll agree that things have improved since before that thread. And I should also hope that it's clear by now that many forumers here do not need their eyes aggressively opened to, quote, what goes on around here.

Quote from JXQ:

But you are operating on a site which he has full control of and influence over. This immediately removes my trust for the content that is displayed, because it could easily be edited by Nate so that things stay "respectful", as it's been put. (Precisely why my post did not use this same respect.)

That's quite an assumption. Perhaps you were unaware that at least two posts that were flames directed at TASing were deleted. Respect is a two way street. And there are mods other than Nate, who have their own viewpoints and act accordingly.

By the way, I would consider Monster's re-record comment as jocular rather than sarcastic; after all, he referred to segmented speedruns using them too. And he's mentioned redoing segments of his no-damage Prime run often enough.

[quote="JXQ"]My post was trying to make that a little more clear, and saying it politely does not have the same impact. If you think I'm immature, flaming, trolling, or whatever, I couldn't care less. What I do care about are the people who realized the point I was making beyond the rudeness, and maybe will start to question how things are done. This is how I "try and actively change things for the better." A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad. Watch me care. [/quote]
In my experience at this forum, it's just the opposite.  A polite, well-thought-out post will be far more thought-provoking than the same content in the guise of flamebait, which only serves to make everything you say sound like generic us vs them whining.  You clearly don't expect Nate to be at all sensible, logical, respectable because he holds extreme views; likewise, if you start in with trolling ("I swore I'd never register here" was a good introduction to that tone) then no one will expect you to say anything meritorious under the venom, because it will sound like you're just expressing a "screw you all" message.  Again.

(No, nothing you said was that strong, but please bear with me; my comp spontaneously reboot when I hit the "submit" button on the first version of this post, and I'm too stubborn to take that as a sign.)

Where was I?  Oh.  With regards to the firestorm in Saturn's thread, it was certainly the thoughtful posts, most notably Bisqwit's, which brought the temperature down and the respect up, resulting in "actively changing things for the better" at that time.  I think you'll agree that things have improved since before that thread.  And I should also hope that it's clear by now that many forumers here do not need their eyes aggressively opened to, quote, what goes on around here.

[quote="JXQ"]But you are operating on a site which he has full control of and influence over. This immediately removes my trust for the content that is displayed, because it could easily be edited by Nate so that things stay "respectful", as it's been put. (Precisely why my post did not use this same respect.)[/quote]
That's quite an assumption.  Perhaps you were unaware that at least two posts that were flames directed [i]at[/i] TASing were deleted.  Respect is a two way street.  And there are mods other than Nate, who have their own viewpoints and act accordingly.

By the way, I would consider Monster's re-record comment as jocular rather than sarcastic; after all, he referred to segmented speedruns using them too.  And he's mentioned redoing segments of his no-damage Prime run often enough.

Red Scarlet

2006-04-23 04:28:15 am

I('d) like to watch (some MP3 runs)

Why is it a "natural progression" for this specific site to embrace emuvids since they're the new thing? Surely you know about SDA, a site about console speedruns being watchable in video form, which Nate and Radix are a part of? That kind of is a different branch of what Nate and Radix do.

There are multiple communities about similar things. They don't all have to be of the same thing. This site specifies Metroid Sequence Breaking and plays a large role in a site that hosts console speed runs. There is a high chance of there being a bias by said people.

Personally I don't really care what Nate has to say about it. It's his site, he pays for it, and as long as he does, it's his call. He doesn't like them, so leave if it bugs you. It's not your site.

Do I agree with his stances on various things? Probably not. Would I call him out on something I don't agree with? Yeah. But I wouldn't tell him how to run his site.

Since I guess my post where I avoided all this shit was ignored, I will say that the emuvid looks nice, but there is almost nothing that can be used by a person playing the console game, which is one of my personal annoyances by these videos. It was a nice visual show.

Get angry at what I posted if you want. I don't really care anymore. Both sides have their adamants. Both sides have their members that want to be civil with one another. The idea about what each type of run *IS* makes it impossible for both sides to see eye-to-eye completely. It will probably never change.

Why is it a "natural progression" for this specific site to embrace emuvids since they're the new thing? Surely you know about SDA, a site about console speedruns being watchable in video form, which Nate and Radix are a part of?  That kind of is a different branch of what Nate and Radix do.

There are multiple communities about similar things.  They don't all have to be of the same thing.  This site specifies Metroid Sequence Breaking and plays a large role in a site that hosts console speed runs.  There is a high chance of there being a bias by said people.

Personally I don't really care what Nate has to say about it.  It's his site, he pays for it, and as long as he does, it's his call.  He doesn't like them, so leave if it bugs you.  It's not your site.

Do I agree with his stances on various things? Probably not.  Would I call him out on something I don't agree with? Yeah.  But I wouldn't tell him how to run his site.

Since I guess my post where I avoided all this shit was ignored, I will say that the emuvid looks nice, but there is almost nothing that can be used by a person playing the console game, which is one of my personal annoyances by these videos.  It was a nice visual show.

Get angry at what I posted if you want.  I don't really care anymore.  Both sides have their adamants.  Both sides have their members that want to be civil with one another.  The idea about what each type of run *IS* makes it impossible for both sides to see eye-to-eye completely.  It will probably never change.

transience

2006-04-23 05:11:41 am

twenty eight fifty

Quote from JXQ:

And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks? Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.

you are a wee bit sensitive if you're caught up in quotes in an otherwise complimentary post. i put "time" in quotations because you obviously didn't do the run in 39 minutes. i recall the number 100,000 rerecords earlier in the thread, which i assume is an estimate. i really don't care for reactions at all - in fact, i forgot this had even happened until i was flipping through the new threads for the day. if i wanted to get a reaction out of you, i could get a much more entertaining one 100,000 different ways. or 39 different ways, if you prefer.

as you can tell, many of us, myself included, disagree with the way that nathan handles this so-called "controversy". everyone else is fine with letting the past be in the past. if you haven't noticed, he's abstaining from this thread because he knows that anything he says will get a reaction. on the flipside, you just wrote a couple thousand words insulting the administrator of this site, who i would assume you've never even talked to. he quoted ERB because it was a funny quote, not because he's trying to pick on you. again, you seem a wee bit sensitive.

if anything, you are the one looking for a reaction.

[quote="JXQ"]And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks?  Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.  [/quote]

you are a wee bit sensitive if you're caught up in quotes in an otherwise complimentary post. i put "time" in quotations because you obviously didn't do the run in 39 minutes. i recall the number 100,000 rerecords earlier in the thread, which i assume is an estimate. i really don't care for reactions at all - in fact, i forgot this had even happened until i was flipping through the new threads for the day. if i wanted to get a reaction out of you, i could get a much more entertaining one 100,000 different ways. or 39 different ways, if you prefer.

as you can tell, many of us, myself included, disagree with the way that nathan handles this so-called "controversy". everyone else is fine with letting the past be in the past. if you haven't noticed, he's abstaining from this thread because he knows that anything he says will get a reaction. on the flipside, you just wrote a couple thousand words insulting the administrator of this site, who i would assume you've never even talked to. he quoted ERB because it was a funny quote, not because he's trying to pick on you. again, you seem a wee bit sensitive.

if anything, you are the one looking for a reaction.

JXQ

2006-04-23 05:13:28 am

Quote from 13M13:

Is your frustration warranted? Yes. But, unlike Saturn's reaction to the opposition in this thread, your remarks weren't very constructive.

Being constructive was never my goal. My goal was to bring my view of this thread and site.

Quote from Chanoire:

I should also hope that it's clear by now that many forumers here do not need their eyes aggressively opened to, quote, what goes on around here.

This comment is based on your opinion of how things are done here. Me saying the opposite is based on my own opinion. I hope it's clear that even if many forumers do not need their eyes "aggressively" opened to what goes on around here, maybe they will be glad they were when they look back on it.

Quote from Chanoire:

By the way, I would consider Monster's re-record comment as jocular rather than sarcastic

Well, I wouldn't. He said over 100,000 re-records takes a lot of skill, complete with a little smirk face, when he clearly meant the opposite, in his first post, responding only to "check out this TAS". That's pretty basic, unwarranted, "trolling" sarcasm. (OT: Thank you for teaching me the word "jocular" though! It's a strange-looking word...)

Quote from Chanoire:

"I swore I'd never register here" was a good introduction to that [trolling] tone

Well I always told myself I wouldn't join because I knew I would end up saying something like this. But looking back, I see now how it could lower the appearance of actual content in the post. Hopefully I can learn from that.

Quote from Red Scarlet:

Why is it a "natural progression" for this specific site to embrace emuvids since they're the new thing?

Because, as you said, this site specifies in Metroid Sequence Breaking, and using tools may be able to find sequence breaks that normal play could not, like 0% Fusion. Maybe one day, someone will use tools to figure out 21% Prime.

And I'm not telling Nate how to run his site. I'm informing people of what he does. Individuals will choose whether or not to participate in this forum.

I'm also not sure why you think I'm angry or getting angry with you specifically; I haven't even said anything to you. I'm glad you (somewhat?) liked the run, and thanks for not sarcastically attacking it. I will now take your advice.

[quote="13M13"]Is your frustration warranted? Yes. But, unlike Saturn's reaction to the opposition in this thread, your remarks weren't very constructive.[/quote]
Being constructive was never my goal.  My goal was to bring my view of this thread and site.

[quote="Chanoire"]I should also hope that it's clear by now that many forumers here do not need their eyes aggressively opened to, quote, what goes on around here.[/quote]
This comment is based on your opinion of how things are done here.  Me saying the opposite is based on my own opinion.  I hope it's clear that even if many forumers do not need their eyes "aggressively" opened to what goes on around here, maybe they will be glad they were when they look back on it.

[quote="Chanoire"]By the way, I would consider Monster's re-record comment as jocular rather than sarcastic[/quote]
Well, I wouldn't.  He said over 100,000 re-records takes a lot of skill, complete with a little smirk face, when he clearly meant the opposite, in his first post, responding only to "check out this TAS".  That's pretty basic, unwarranted, "trolling" sarcasm.  (OT: Thank you for teaching me the word "jocular" though!  It's a strange-looking word...)

[quote="Chanoire"]"I swore I'd never register here" was a good introduction to that [trolling] tone[/quote]
Well I always told myself I wouldn't join because I knew I would end up saying something like this.  But looking back, I see now how it could lower the appearance of actual content in the post.  Hopefully I can learn from that.

[quote="Red Scarlet"]Why is it a "natural progression" for this specific site to embrace emuvids since they're the new thing?[/quote]
Because, as you said, this site specifies in Metroid Sequence Breaking, and using tools may be able to find sequence breaks that normal play could not, like 0% Fusion.  Maybe one day, someone will use tools to figure out 21% Prime.

And I'm not telling Nate how to run his site.  I'm informing people of what he does.  Individuals will choose whether or not to participate in this forum.

I'm also not sure why you think I'm angry or getting angry with you specifically; I haven't even said anything to you.  I'm glad you (somewhat?) liked the run, and thanks for not sarcastically attacking it.  I will now take your advice.

Chanoire

2006-04-23 05:33:34 am

I guess we see that emoticon differently. I see it as possibly troubled or taken aback, and I couldn't really figure out its intent (bemusement at the high number was my main thought), but smirk never occurred to me. I'd expect :P for that purpose. Getting harder to tell with 4x as many as there used to be. :?

I'm going to possibly contradict myself and say that I'm still not quite clear on what you refer to as "going on around here". Nate not liking TASs is certainly known. Nate deleting posts that defend them is neither commonplace nor substantiated in this thread; the only suggestion was his first post, which does not seem to have been acted upon. Other mods being more moderate, so to speak, and (un)doing as they see fit is known now if it wasn't before, but I don't think that's the eye-opening you intended. If anything, one would hope your own eyes are opened in that regard. Not being a mod, I can't speak for their, er, modus operandi, but I have the distinct impression that deleted posts are moved to hidden boards rather than thrown down the bit bucket, and hence can be undeleted as far as the general populace is concerned. And clearly Nate is not such a martinet as to demand that only his word goes and his staff must do exactly what he himself would...if he would indeed do all that you expect.

I guess we see that emoticon differently.  I see it as possibly troubled or taken aback, and I couldn't really figure out its intent (bemusement at the high number was my main thought), but smirk never occurred to me.  I'd expect :P for that purpose.  Getting harder to tell with 4x as many as there used to be. :?

I'm going to possibly contradict myself and say that I'm still not quite clear on what you refer to as "going on around here".  Nate not liking TASs is certainly known.  Nate deleting posts that defend them is neither commonplace nor substantiated in this thread; the only suggestion was his first post, which does not seem to have been acted upon.  Other mods being more moderate, so to speak, and (un)doing as they see fit is known now if it wasn't before, but I don't think that's the eye-opening you intended.  If anything, one would hope your own eyes are opened in that regard.  Not being a mod, I can't speak for their, er, modus operandi, but I have the distinct impression that deleted posts are moved to hidden boards rather than thrown down the bit bucket, and hence can be undeleted as far as the general populace is concerned.  And clearly Nate is not such a martinet as to demand that only his word goes and his staff must do exactly what he himself would...if he would indeed do all that you expect.

Red Scarlet

2006-04-23 05:39:24 am

I('d) like to watch (some MP3 runs)

Quote from JXQ:

Because, as you said, this site specifies in Metroid Sequence Breaking, and using tools may be able to find sequence breaks that normal play could not, like 0% Fusion. Maybe one day, someone will use tools to figure out 21% Prime.

And I'm not telling Nate how to run his site. I'm informing people of what he does. Individuals will choose whether or not to participate in this forum.

And that's what people did with 0% Fusion. Many things were found out via emulators for Super Metroid, Zero Mission, and probably the first 2 games. Some things were found out via romhacking. There is plenty that people have found out "using tools". Hell, some of the stuff I found in my runs I discovered them by trying on the emulator first or practicing them on the emulator.

I'm not really getting what you mean. Do you mean that the site is supposed to throw away console videos and just look at/work with the emulator ones you guys do now? That will likely never happen at this site because of SDA and who runs it (administrators of this site). And "natural progression" seems to infer one is better than the other..what happened to them being separate things? There is an audience for both. Let both have their communities.

And people know "what he does". Read several other topics, many of which are in the Super Metroid section of the forum. I doubt you are really informing anyone that was unaware of Nate's stance. Individuals have chosen whether or not to participate in the forum and community as a whole. See Ekarderif, who quit his emulator video and stopped coming here because of his feelings about Nate's stance.

You may feel as though you are "fighting the good fight against the tyrrany of this site's webmaster" but it is already known. Your comments aren't doing much positive in this particular website. Making your first post a bit about the webmaster instead of what this topic is about (your video), seems as though you had an ulterior motive about joining up, instead of talking about said video. Don't expect people to put a lot of weight in what you say when that's what you want to talk about in a topic about your video, not you, not about emuvids vs console vids, not about emuvids communities vs console vids communities.

The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.

So why not talk about your video? Isn't that what this topic is supposed to be about? Or do you just want to stir trouble and not have a topic dedicated to your video be about..your video?

[quote="JXQ"]Because, as you said, this site specifies in Metroid Sequence Breaking, and using tools may be able to find sequence breaks that normal play could not, like 0% Fusion.  Maybe one day, someone will use tools to figure out 21% Prime.

And I'm not telling Nate how to run his site.  I'm informing people of what he does.  Individuals will choose whether or not to participate in this forum.[/quote]

And that's what people did with 0% Fusion.  Many things were found out via emulators for Super Metroid, Zero Mission, and probably the first 2 games.  Some things were found out via romhacking.  There is plenty that people have found out "using tools".  Hell, some of the stuff I found in my runs I discovered them by trying on the emulator first or practicing them on the emulator.

I'm not really getting what you mean.  Do you mean that the site is supposed to throw away console videos and just look at/work with the emulator ones you guys do now?  That will likely never happen at this site because of SDA and who runs it (administrators of this site).  And "natural progression" seems to infer one is better than the other..what happened to them being separate things?  There is an audience for both.  Let both have their communities.

And people know "what he does".  Read several other topics, many of which are in the Super Metroid section of the forum.  I doubt you are really informing anyone that was unaware of Nate's stance.  Individuals have chosen whether or not to participate in the forum and community as a whole.  See Ekarderif, who quit his emulator video and stopped coming here because of his feelings about Nate's stance.

You may feel as though you are "fighting the good fight against the tyrrany of this site's webmaster" but it is already known.  Your comments aren't doing much positive in this particular website.  Making your first post a bit about the webmaster instead of what this topic is about (your video), seems as though you had an ulterior motive about joining up, instead of talking about said video.  Don't expect people to put a lot of weight in what  you say when that's what you want to talk about in a topic about your video, not you, not about emuvids vs console vids, not about emuvids communities vs console vids communities.

The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think.  Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.

[img]http://redscarlet.paragonsigma.com/compare.png[/img]

So why not talk about your video? Isn't that what this topic is supposed to be about?  Or do you just want to stir trouble and not have a topic dedicated to your video be about..your video?

Andrew Mills

2006-04-23 08:57:39 am

Strategy Guide Writer

With regards to the actual video itself, I'm only half way through it and I suitably impressed by what is on display here. Shocked

8-) The Phantoom and Kraid fights in particlar were very much "WTF?!" moments, and I'm very impressed with the large number of ultra-quick shinesparks on the go. The route is certainly new and I'd like to thank JXQ for his entertaining run. :D I'm very much looking forward to watching the rest of the run.

*uploads run to his server for mirroring*

moozooh

2006-04-23 09:17:55 am

Quote from Red Scarlet:

Do you mean that the site is supposed to throw away console videos and just look at/work with the emulator ones you guys do now?

Sadly, I don't know what in the world have lead you to this thought.

DJGrenola

2006-04-23 10:09:41 am

Good morning all. *stretches*

JXQ, I'm glad you decided to post a follow up - at least now we can get some sort of intercourse going. No, not that kind of intercourse.

Quote from JXQ:

regardless of which type of running you prefer, the other still exists

I think that's point one and the bottom line - as I said, TAS won't go away until the sun stops rising.

Quote from JXQ:

Is what I posted helpful? Not to some. But what if someone reads this thread, and then my post, and maybe their mind opens up a little bit to what really goes on at this site. I feel I have helped them.

Yeah, I can certainly see what you were trying to do, but I'm going to have to disagree. For the purposes of analysing this, there are two kinds of people - those who know the score concerning TAS at m2k2sda and those who don't. Those who do know the score are already aware of the problem and should have made up their own mind about the issue by now. To those who don't know the score, your original post really does just look like flamebait because it requires knowledge of the issues you brought up to see the underlying missive. Hence I don't really think it did any good, even if it was intended to be illuminatory. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly of the opinion that humour can go a long way towards fixing what is wrong in this world, but in my opinion your original attitude was counterproductive. You can of course turn round and say that Nate sigging Monster was equally tasteless and counterproductive, and, well, even though I fear Nate's wrath and have a hard time taking what looks like a stance of betrayal, I'll probably agree with you.

Quote from JXQ:

Once TASing came to the front, the logical progression of this site would be to use these new tools to find out even more about the Metroid series that couldn't be discovered through conventional playing. This has been done to a point - for example, I saw a thorough document of Kejardon's that documented everything under the sun and then some about memory locations and glitches for Super Metroid.

Again I risk misrepresenting Nate, but I don't think he has any issue with this particular use of tools. As far as I am aware his sole worry is ...

Quote from Red Scarlet:

The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.

... (as Scarlet points out) unfair comparisons between runs done on consoles and runs done using tools. It's difficult to know exactly the limits and hard edges of his dislike for TAS because as I said, he's often quite cryptic about it, so I apologise to him if my analysis is awry.

Quote from JXQ:

What I do care about are the people who realized the point I was making beyond the rudeness, and maybe will start to question how things are done. This is how I "try and actively change things for the better." A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad. Watch me care.

Well, I can understand that attitude, but I think you should care. You could have left out the rudeness and your point would still have remained (although in fairness, it probably wouldn't have got this level of attention - I would have just thought "oh God not another TAS/anti-TAS salvo exchange and not posted). Even though I may well have just proved your point, the fact remains that on such a delicate topic as this, truth-by-sardonicism is a dangerous game, and I feel you'd have got more accomplished by just being straight about it instead of wrapping it up in cynicism. For what it's worth, if anything, I apologise for calling you a liar.

Quote from JXQ:

For example, 13M13 - your third line in your first post after mine, which said something to the effect of "for what it's worth, the run was well played" - was this removed by you, or Nate? I have no idea, and I wouldn't put it past Nate to remove things like that.

The fact that 13M13 removed it, and the reason why he did so I think demonstrates to some extent that your method of expressing displeasure wasn't productive - it cost you a compliment.

Quote from JXQ:

What did bother me was that he came to a thread about a Super Metroid tas and decided to say "I don't like tool-assisted runs. [sarcastic comment about re-records]."

You're right, that didn't help. I may be reading too much into this, but I have a theory as to why he reacted as he did. Monster has a position of authority over at scu, a site that has on occasion been known to have its differences with this one (for altogether different reasons than the TAS phenomenon). Perhaps he felt that by defending Scarlet's runs he would improve that situation without considering possible damage that might be done in the TAS/anti-TAS sphere. That's just a thought, mind you, and I would rather avoid pretending I'm anyone's spokesperson.

Quote from JXQ:

Then it also bothered me how Nate says "HAHA FUNNY I'LL INSULT JXQ'S RUN MORE IN MY SIGNATURE". Tell me that isn't trolling. A site's administrator is trolling, and that is beyond ridiculous [...] So when you come down on me for my "flames" to Nate, remember that your own admin does the same thing, except he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes at the same time.

I think you have a valid grievance and your logic here is flawless. Personally I'd rather that had not been done, but as Red mentioned, I don't shell out bucketfuls of cash every month to keep this site going. If Nate wishes to carry on doing these sorts of things, that's his prerogative, and I'm not about to desert him just because of one belief he holds regarding one issue (although you have to believe me when I say that there are several trusted members who bang on at him all the time to relax his stance on TAS). I'm not a TASer, so I can live with it, even though I thoroughly dislike conflict. Ekarderif, it seems, was not so forgiving, and I do miss him and wish he hadn't left.

Quote from JXQ:

(Since I'll be accused of making this up, I'm refering to Angerfist's post about the Fusion tas being deleted for being "off-topic" even though it was posted in a thread about a tas to Fusion.)

I've never played Fusion and don't check the board, so I can't comment on that.

Quote from JXQ:

And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks? Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.

I agree with you, and I told him as much after he posted it.

Quote from JXQ:

If Nate was more for the site and less for himself, then this thread wouldn't even stick out among the others. But obviously that is not the case, and I hope if anything, more people realize that as a result of this discussion.

Please don't think that there aren't some people at m2k2 who hold the same opinion. I think there are quite a few people who are disappointed that the Ekarderif thing finished the way it did.

Quote from Ryan Ferneau:

All I really wanted to say is that if you don't care enough to watch the run, you probably shouldn't care what "time" it got according to the stupid game timer.

That is a statement devoid of all logic. I'd certainly be interested to know what the ratio of best human time to best cyborg time is, and I have never played Super, so watching the run would be about as meaningful to me as watching a kaleidoscope.

Quote from Chanoire:

Perhaps you were unaware that at least two posts that were flames directed [i]at[/] TASing were deleted.

The lady speaks the truth, and this proves that in at least some regard, keeping things civil is definitely at a higher priority than "LOL KILL TEH TAS" is.

Quote from Red Scarlet:

The idea about what each type of run *IS* makes it impossible for both sides to see eye-to-eye completely. It will probably never change.

I think ultimately Red will prove to be right, but equally I think we can do more to keep things sweet.

Quote from JXQ:

Being constructive was never my goal. My goal was to bring my view of this thread and site.

Again, that makes me wonder whether I'm wasting my time.

Quote from Red Scarlet:

And "natural progression" seems to infer one is better than the other..what happened to them being separate things?

Red, I think he was talking about the use of tools to improve console times via practice or finding new tricks, not that TAS *runs* are a natural progression from console ones.

postscript: as an indirect result of this thread, I got told that apparently I have a "mystique" by an intelligent young lady, so anything else now is a bonus.

Good morning all. *stretches*

JXQ, I'm glad you decided to post a follow up - at least now we can get some sort of intercourse going. No, not that kind of intercourse.

[quote="JXQ"]regardless of which type of running you prefer, the other still exists[/quote]

I think that's point one and the bottom line - as I said, TAS won't go away until the sun stops rising.

[quote="JXQ"]Is what I posted helpful? Not to some. But what if someone reads this thread, and then my post, and maybe their mind opens up a little bit to what really goes on at this site. I feel I have helped them.[/quote]

Yeah, I can certainly see what you were trying to do, but I'm going to have to disagree. For the purposes of analysing this, there are two kinds of people - those who know the score concerning TAS at m2k2sda and those who don't. Those who do know the score are already aware of the problem and should have made up their own mind about the issue by now. To those who don't know the score, your original post really does just look like flamebait because it requires knowledge of the issues you brought up to see the underlying missive. Hence I don't really think it did any good, even if it was intended to be illuminatory. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly of the opinion that humour can go a long way towards fixing what is wrong in this world, but in my opinion your original attitude was counterproductive. You can of course turn round and say that Nate sigging Monster was equally tasteless and counterproductive, and, well, even though I fear Nate's wrath and have a hard time taking what looks like a stance of betrayal, I'll probably agree with you.

[quote="JXQ"]Once TASing came to the front, the logical progression of this site would be to use these new tools to find out even more about the Metroid series that couldn't be discovered through conventional playing. This has been done to a point - for example, I saw a thorough document of Kejardon's that documented everything under the sun and then some about memory locations and glitches for Super Metroid.[/quote]

Again I risk misrepresenting Nate, but I don't think he has any issue with this particular use of tools. As far as I am aware his sole worry is ...

[quote="Red Scarlet"]The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.[/quote]

... (as Scarlet points out) unfair comparisons between runs done on consoles and runs done using tools. It's difficult to know exactly the limits and hard edges of his dislike for TAS because as I said, he's often quite cryptic about it, so I apologise to him if my analysis is awry.

[quote="JXQ"]What I do care about are the people who realized the point I was making beyond the rudeness, and maybe will start to question how things are done. This is how I "try and actively change things for the better." A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad. Watch me care.[/quote]

Well, I can understand that attitude, but I think you should care. You could have left out the rudeness and your point would still have remained (although in fairness, it probably wouldn't have got this level of attention - I would have just thought "oh God not another TAS/anti-TAS salvo exchange and not posted). Even though I may well have just proved your point, the fact remains that on such a delicate topic as this, truth-by-sardonicism is a dangerous game, and I feel you'd have got more accomplished by just being straight about it instead of wrapping it up in cynicism. For what it's worth, if anything, I apologise for calling you a liar.

[quote="JXQ"]For example, 13M13 - your third line in your first post after mine, which said something to the effect of "for what it's worth, the run was well played" - was this removed by you, or Nate? I have no idea, and I wouldn't put it past Nate to remove things like that.[/quote]

The fact that 13M13 removed it, and the reason why he did so I think demonstrates to some extent that your method of expressing displeasure wasn't productive - it cost you a compliment.

[quote="JXQ"]What did bother me was that he came to a thread about a Super Metroid tas and decided to say "I don't like tool-assisted runs. [sarcastic comment about re-records]."[/quote]

You're right, that didn't help. I may be reading too much into this, but I have a theory as to why he reacted as he did. Monster has a position of authority over at scu, a site that has on occasion been known to have its differences with this one (for altogether different reasons than the TAS phenomenon). Perhaps he felt that by defending Scarlet's runs he would improve that situation without considering possible damage that might be done in the TAS/anti-TAS sphere. That's just a thought, mind you, and I would rather avoid pretending I'm anyone's spokesperson.

[quote="JXQ"]Then it also bothered me how Nate says "HAHA FUNNY I'LL INSULT JXQ'S RUN MORE IN MY SIGNATURE". Tell me that isn't trolling. A site's administrator is trolling, and that is beyond ridiculous [...] So when you come down on me for my "flames" to Nate, remember that your own admin does the same thing, except he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes at the same time.[/quote]

I think you have a valid grievance and your logic here is flawless. Personally I'd rather that had not been done, but as Red mentioned, I don't shell out bucketfuls of cash every month to keep this site going. If Nate wishes to carry on doing these sorts of things, that's his prerogative, and I'm not about to desert him just because of one belief he holds regarding one issue (although you have to believe me when I say that there are several trusted members who bang on at him all the time to relax his stance on TAS). I'm not a TASer, so I can live with it, even though I thoroughly dislike conflict. Ekarderif, it seems, was not so forgiving, and I do miss him and wish he hadn't left.

[quote="JXQ"](Since I'll be accused of making this up, I'm refering to Angerfist's post about the Fusion tas being deleted for being "off-topic" even though it was posted in a thread about a tas to Fusion.)[/quote]

I've never played Fusion and don't check the board, so I can't comment on that.

[quote="JXQ"]And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks? Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.[/quote]

I agree with you, and I told him as much after he posted it.

[quote="JXQ"]If Nate was more for the site and less for himself, then this thread wouldn't even stick out among the others. But obviously that is not the case, and I hope if anything, more people realize that as a result of this discussion.[/quote]

Please don't think that there aren't some people at m2k2 who hold the same opinion. I think there are quite a few people who are disappointed that the Ekarderif thing finished the way it did.

[quote="Ryan Ferneau"]All I really wanted to say is that if you don't care enough to watch the run, you probably shouldn't care what "time" it got according to the stupid game timer.[/quote]

That is a statement devoid of all logic. I'd certainly be interested to know what the ratio of best human time to best cyborg time is, and I have never played Super, so watching the run would be about as meaningful to me as watching a kaleidoscope.

[quote="Chanoire"]Perhaps you were unaware that at least two posts that were flames directed [i]at[/] TASing were deleted.[/quote]

The lady speaks the truth, and this proves that in at least some regard, keeping things civil is definitely at a higher priority than "LOL KILL TEH TAS" is.

[quote="Red Scarlet"]The idea about what each type of run *IS* makes it impossible for both sides to see eye-to-eye completely. It will probably never change.[/quote]

I think ultimately Red will prove to be right, but equally I think we can do more to keep things sweet.

[quote="JXQ"]Being constructive was never my goal. My goal was to bring my view of this thread and site.[/quote]

Again, that makes me wonder whether I'm wasting my time.

[quote="Red Scarlet"]And "natural progression" seems to infer one is better than the other..what happened to them being separate things?[/quote]

Red, I think he was talking about the use of tools to improve console times via practice or finding new tricks, not that TAS *runs* are a natural progression from console ones.

postscript: as an indirect result of this thread, I got told that apparently I have a "mystique" by an intelligent young lady, so anything else now is a bonus.

arkarian

2006-04-23 10:47:34 am

red chamber dream

Guess I'll throw in my two cents:

Quote from JXQ:

Once TASing came to the front, the logical progression of this site would be to use these new tools to find out even more about the Metroid series that couldn't be discovered through conventional playing.

Quote from Red Scarlet:

There are multiple communities about similar things. They don't all have to be of the same thing. This site specifies Metroid Sequence Breaking and plays a large role in a site that hosts console speed runs. There is a high chance of there being a bias by said people.

I would like to suppourt Red Scarlet by further stating that this site was originally created for the sole purpose of documenting Metroid Prime and Fusion tricks and legitimate speed runs. I feel that nate was being very lenient when he decided to include information on all the Metroid games. It was never the intention of this site to document anything that can not be done on a console/handheld. Cyborg runs, like them or not, are an entirely different genre and are not something that nate wants to document here. That's his decision entirely, and everyone needs to respect that. It's not a matter of whether he (or anyone else) likes the runs or not; it's a matter of what he believes this site is here for.

Quote from JXQ:

This is how I "try and actively change things for the better." A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad. Watch me care.

If you don't care that you are being immature and making people mad, then you need to be put on probation or something. This is a warning.

Quote from JXQ:

I realize that not everyone here is like Nate, far from it. But you are operating on a site which he has full control of and influence over.

Whether you understand this yet or not, that's completely untrue. Sure, nate has the final say on all decisions regarding the site/forum (well, sometimes he may leave a forum decision to another admin or a mod), but he quite frequently asks for the opinion of other members of the Forum Management. For example, the social topic was not nate's idea; many of the rules were not actually written by nate, and so on and so forth.

Quote from JXQ:

[...] was this removed by you, or Nate? I have no idea, and I wouldn't put it past Nate to remove things like that.

Tell me, exactly how long have you been a member of this forum? One day? That is nowhere near enough time to get to know who nate is. I have been associating with nate for nearly two years now, and I still haven't gotten the hang of him. But I do know that nate would never edit someone's post like that. The only reason we mods/admins edit posts is if they contain something that breaks the forum's rules - that's it. Also, you can tell who has edited a post by reading the very bottom of it, in small print. It will say something like, "Last edited by (user) on (date)." If it says nothing at the bottom, then the post has not been edited.

Quote from JXQ:

Then it also bothered me how Nate says "HAHA FUNNY I'LL INSULT JXQ'S RUN MORE IN MY SIGNATURE". Tell me that isn't trolling. A site's administrator is trolling, and that is beyond ridiculous.

Again, you don't know nate well enough to understand him.

Quote from JXQ:

If you don't like TAS's, then why even post in this thread? Your post is off-topic and Nate should delete it the same way he deletes posts about how TAS's are good.

Because everyone is allowed to state their opinion? Even if you don't like something, you are certainly permitted to converse about it, so long as you're not flaming of course, which is why the mods exist to delete such posts. We've done our best to keep this thread free of flaming, but some still exists (intentionally, as far as I can see), as it has sparked new conversation (however controversial it may be); deleting it would be inappropriate at this time.

Quote from JXQ:

And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks? Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.

I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is not a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time". The quotes had no derogatory value that I could see.

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.

Guess I'll throw in my two cents:

[quote="JXQ"]Once TASing came to the front, the logical progression of this site would be to use these new tools to find out even more about the Metroid series that couldn't be discovered through conventional playing.[/quote]
[quote="Red Scarlet"]There are multiple communities about similar things. They don't all have to be of the same thing. This site specifies Metroid Sequence Breaking and plays a large role in a site that hosts console speed runs. There is a high chance of there being a bias by said people.[/quote]
I would like to suppourt Red Scarlet by further stating that this site was originally created for the [i]sole[/i] purpose of documenting Metroid Prime and Fusion tricks and legitimate speed runs. I feel that nate was being very lenient when he decided to include information on all the Metroid games. It was never the intention of this site to document anything that can not be done on a console/handheld. Cyborg runs, like them or not, are an entirely different genre and are not something that nate wants to document here. That's his decision entirely, and everyone needs to respect that. It's not a matter of whether he (or anyone else) likes the runs or not; it's a matter of what he believes this site is here for.

[quote="JXQ"]This is how I "try and actively change things for the better."  A side-effect is that I look immature and some people are mad.  Watch me care.[/quote]
If you don't care that you are being immature and making people mad, then you need to be put on probation or something. This is a warning.

[quote="JXQ"]I realize that not everyone here is like Nate, far from it.  But you are operating on a site which he has full control of and influence over.[/quote]
Whether you understand this yet or not, that's completely untrue. Sure, nate has the final say on all decisions regarding the site/forum (well, sometimes he may leave a forum decision to another admin or a mod), but he quite frequently asks for the opinion of other members of the Forum Management. For example, the social topic was not nate's idea; many of the rules were not actually written by nate, and so on and so forth.

[quote="JXQ"][...] was this removed by you, or Nate?  I have no idea, and I wouldn't put it past Nate to remove things like that.[/quote]
Tell me, exactly how long have you been a member of this forum? One day? That is nowhere near enough time to get to know who nate is. I have been associating with nate for nearly two years now, and I still haven't gotten the hang of him. But I do know that nate would never edit someone's post like that. The only reason we mods/admins edit posts is if they contain something that breaks the forum's rules - that's it. Also, you can tell who has edited a post by reading the very bottom of it, in small print. It will say something like, "Last edited by (user) on (date)." If it says nothing at the bottom, then the post has not been edited.

[quote="JXQ"]Then it also bothered me how Nate says "HAHA FUNNY I'LL INSULT JXQ'S RUN MORE IN MY SIGNATURE".  Tell me that isn't trolling.  A site's administrator is trolling, and that is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]
Again, you don't know nate well enough to understand him.

[quote="JXQ"]If you don't like TAS's, then why even post in this thread?  Your post is off-topic and Nate should delete it the same way he deletes posts about how TAS's are good.[/quote]
Because everyone is allowed to state their opinion? Even if you don't like something, you are certainly permitted to converse about it, so long as you're not flaming of course, which is why the mods exist to delete such posts. We've done our best to keep this thread free of flaming, but some still exists (intentionally, as far as I can see), as it has sparked new conversation (however controversial it may be); deleting it would be inappropriate at this time.

[quote="JXQ"]And why make posts with little subtleties about how TASing sucks?  Example - transience - thank you for your comments, but putting "time" in quotes is just trying to get a reaction as well.[/quote]
I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is [i]not[/i] a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time". The quotes had no derogatory value that I could see.

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.

Andrew Mills

2006-04-23 10:55:51 am

Strategy Guide Writer

Quote from Arkarian:

If it says nothing at the bottom, then the post has not been edited.

Sorry, but I feel that this should be corrected. If a mod or Admin edits someone else's post themselves, then it won't give you that last edited by text at all and there's no way of telling.

However, this is not to say Nate or another mod removed the text (I haven't looked at the post in question), but I feel that this misinformation about editing text should be corrected. The text will ONLY appear if the original poster edits their text after another reply has been made.

/off topic.

arkarian

2006-04-23 11:03:51 am

red chamber dream

Quote from Andrew Mills:

Sorry, but I feel that this should be corrected. If a mod or Admin edits someone else's post themselves, then it won't give you that last edited by text at all and there's no way of telling. [...]
he text will ONLY appear if the original poster edits their text after another reply has been made.

Really? I honestly didn't know that; to be honest I never really understood why and when that text at the bottom appears. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from Andrew Mills:

/off topic.

Not really, as it was a correction. Thanks again.

Saturn

2006-04-23 11:29:45 am

Quote from Arkarian:

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs.

I'm sure JXQ checked this forum often before he even registered here. He is enlightened about the TAS vs console conflict and surely knows certain members here for more than just 2 days.

And Andrew is right about the Editing thing. The text doesn't normally appear when a post is edited by a admin/mod.

arkarian

2006-04-23 11:58:04 am

red chamber dream

You cannot truly know a person unless you talk to them for a while. Therefore, he has only "known" these people for two days.

Quote from Saturn:

And Andrew is right about the Editing thing. The text doesn't normally appear when a post is edited by a admin/mod.

I know; I already addressed him.

moozooh

2006-04-23 12:07:31 pm

Quote from Arkarian:

Cyborg runs, like them or not, are an entirely different genre and are not something that nate wants to document here.

Is that really so? How does it deal with the fact there were at least three "cyborg runs" around here, with one of them still being in progress (and appreciated as well)?

Quote from Arkarian:

That is nowhere near enough time to get to know who nate is. [...] Again, you don't know nate well enough to understand him. [...] You cannot truly know a person unless you talk to them for a while. Therefore, he has only "known" these people for two days.

But that's applicable to everyone! Moreover, you can't truly know a person if you talk to them for a while. You can't truly know when they are being sincere. You can't truly know anything concerning another person at all. And for that precise reason, the only way of appraising someone is listening to his words and looking at his deeds, as only they can make an image of this person in one's mind.

Quote from Arkarian:

Because everyone is allowed to state their opinion? Even if you don't like something, you are certainly permitted to converse about it, so long as you're not flaming of course, which is why the mods exist to delete such posts.

Understanding of a border between a conversation and a flame is purely individual. If you have a clear definition of it, share it with us.

Quote from Arkarian:

I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is not a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".

:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.

Quote from Arkarian:

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.

...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?

[quote="Arkarian"]Cyborg runs, like them or not, are an entirely different genre and are not something that nate wants to document here.[/quote]
Is that really so? How does it deal with the fact there were at least three "cyborg runs" around here, with one of them still being in progress (and appreciated as well)?

[quote="Arkarian"]That is nowhere near enough time to get to know who nate is. [...] Again, you don't know nate well enough to understand him. [...] You cannot truly know a person unless you talk to them for a while. Therefore, he has only "known" these people for two days.[/quote]
But that's applicable to everyone! Moreover, you can't truly know a person if you talk to them for a while. You can't truly know when they are being sincere. You [i]can't truly know anything concerning another person at all[/i]. And for that precise reason, the only way of appraising someone is listening to his words and looking at his deeds, as only they can make an image of this person in one's mind.

[quote="Arkarian"]Because everyone is allowed to state their opinion? Even if you don't like something, you are certainly permitted to converse about it, so long as you're not flaming of course, which is why the mods exist to delete such posts.[/quote]
Understanding of a border between a conversation and a flame is purely individual. If you have a clear definition of it, share it with us.

[quote="Arkarian"]I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is [i]not[/i] a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".[/quote]
:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.

[quote="Arkarian"]Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.[/quote]
...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?

DJGrenola

2006-04-23 12:41:02 pm

Quote from moozooh:

Quote from Arkarian:

I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is not a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".

:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.

I think what luke said about oversensitivity in this regard is probably fair. I think we can all agree that it's very important that TAS times do not get mixed up with console times and vice versa. How one differentiates the two is purely a question of semantics. Plus, luke was joking, but that sort of thing is always lost on the web, which is why I didn't think the quotes were a great idea, in the same way that I didn't think JXQ's use of satire was a great idea.

Quote from moozooh:

Quote from Arkarian:

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.

...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?

Perhaps we do, but then we don't find it necessary to post our opinions in an unpleasant manner on bisqwit's site or other TASing sites. I think I should remind you that you guys have taken it to us here, not the other way round, and we have a right to defend ourselves and Nate if we want to.

[quote="moozooh"][quote="Arkarian"]I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is [i]not[/i] a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".[/quote]
:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.[/quote]

I think what luke said about oversensitivity in this regard is probably fair. I think we can all agree that it's very important that TAS times do not get mixed up with console times and vice versa. How one differentiates the two is purely a question of semantics. Plus, luke was joking, but that sort of thing is always lost on the web, which is why I didn't think the quotes were a great idea, in the same way that I didn't think JXQ's use of satire was a great idea.

[quote="moozooh"][quote="Arkarian"]Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.[/quote]
...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?[/quote]

Perhaps we do, but then we don't find it necessary to post our opinions in an unpleasant manner on bisqwit's site or other TASing sites. I think I should remind you that you guys have taken it to us here, not the other way round, and we have a right to defend ourselves and Nate if we want to.

arkarian

2006-04-23 01:31:39 pm

red chamber dream

Quote from moozooh:

But that's applicable to everyone! Moreover, you can't truly know a person if you talk to them for a while. You can't truly know when they are being sincere. You can't truly know anything concerning another person at all. And for that precise reason, the only way of appraising someone is listening to his words and looking at his deeds, as only they can make an image of this person in one's mind.

It seems to me that many people I talk to have a problem with trust. I believe that one cannot truly know another unless without some kind of trust. I have known nate long enough to be able to believe his personality (rather than thinking it's a lie) and what he says, and that is why I can say I know him. Forming an image of a person in one's mind is not reality - you're just putting your own mind's twist on how the person behaves.

Quote from moozooh:

Understanding of a border between a conversation and a flame is purely individual. If you have a clear definition of it, share it with us.

You say that the understanding of flaming is individual - I agree with that fact. Additionally, I am a mod: you cannot argue with that fact. Finally, as I am a mod, I have the power to judge what is and what is not considered flaming. I do not need to give a clear definition of it, as there is none. Flaming is whatever a mod or admin believes is flaming. It can be loosely defined in the rules, but, when it all comes down to it, the mods/admins have the final say about flaming and how to punish it. As a mod, I do have a clear, individual understanding of flaming, and that's all that matters - as I am the one who wields the power.

Quote from moozooh:

Quote from Arkarian:

I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is not a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".

:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.

No, please do. Because you have provided no counterargument, you have nothing to stand on. By solely laughing at me, you are explicating to everyone that you have no counterargument: you are simply trying to make me look bad. In fact, how can you argue with what I just said? A cyborg run is not a true run with a real-life time. It takes hours and hours to complete one, so the final ":39" is not, in fact, the true time.

Quote from moozooh:

Quote from Arkarian:

Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.

...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?

What issue are you referring to? Both Saber and Grenola have been around this site and know nate much better than DXQ does. That has nothing to do with them agreeing with DXQ on some of his points.

[quote="moozooh"]But that's applicable to everyone! Moreover, you can't truly know a person if you talk to them for a while. You can't truly know when they are being sincere. You [i]can't truly know anything concerning another person at all[/i]. And for that precise reason, the only way of appraising someone is listening to his words and looking at his deeds, as only they can make an image of this person in one's mind.[/quote]
It seems to me that many people I talk to have a problem with trust. I believe that one cannot truly know another unless without some kind of trust. I have known nate long enough to be able to believe his personality (rather than thinking it's a lie) and what he says, and that is why I can say I know him. Forming an image of a person in one's mind is [i]not[/i] reality - you're just putting your own mind's twist on how the person behaves.

[quote="moozooh"]Understanding of a border between a conversation and a flame is purely individual. If you have a clear definition of it, share it with us.[/quote]
You say that the understanding of flaming is individual - I agree with that fact. Additionally, I am a mod: you cannot argue with that fact. Finally, as I am a mod, I have the power to judge what is and what is not considered flaming. I do not need to give a clear definition of it, as there is none. Flaming is whatever a mod or admin believes is flaming. It can be loosely defined in the rules, but, when it all comes down to it, the mods/admins have the final say about flaming and how to punish it. As a mod, I [i]do[/i] have a clear, individual understanding of flaming, and that's all that matters - as I am the one who wields the power.

[quote="moozooh"][quote="Arkarian"]I know luke already replied to this, but I took the quotation marks as referring to the fact that the :39 is [i]not[/i] a real time. It has been tool-assisted; therefore, it is a "time".[/quote]
:DDDDDDDDDDD!!!111
I won't comment on the logic of this argument. This is too much.[/quote]
No, please do. Because you have provided no counterargument, you have nothing to stand on. By solely laughing at me, you are explicating to everyone that you [i]have[/i] no counterargument: you are simply trying to make me look bad. In fact, how [i]can[/i] you argue with what I just said? A cyborg run is [i]not[/i] a true run with a real-life time. It takes hours and hours to complete one, so the final ":39" is not, in fact, the true time.

[quote="moozooh"][quote="Arkarian"]Basically, JXQ, I think you have an issue with misunderstanding. You have not been around this site long enough to see how it truly operates; you assume many things about the site just because some of its members don't like cyborg runs. Try to be patient and learn some things before posting again.[/quote]
...Despite the fact SABERinBLUE and DJGrenola agreed with him on some (if not most) of his points? They have this issue as well, don't they?[/quote]
What issue are you referring to? Both Saber and Grenola have been around this site and know nate [i]much[/i] better than DXQ does. That has nothing to do with them agreeing with DXQ on some of his points.

AngerFist

2006-04-23 01:43:21 pm

Now shouldnt a admin remove the last 20 off-topic posts (including this one) to a proper thread? None of them are discussing what this thread is all about.

Quote from Red Scarlet:

The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.

Wrong. The author chose to write that (not Bisqwit but that wouldnt make any difference) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing a speedrun with a tas as long as you know the difference + every tas .avi states in the beginning how that certain run was made. Also, we are sick and tired correcting ourselves everytime a speedrunner/speedrun community complains, no more compromising. We couldnt care less because we've done all the changes that where possible.

DJGrenola

2006-04-23 02:02:32 pm

Quote from AngerFist:

Now shouldnt a admin remove the last 20 off-topic posts (including this one) to a proper thread? None of them are discussing what this thread is all about.

It was considered, but the conclusion was reached that the less power wielded in this thread the better, otherwise JXQ might see it as supporting his "nate deletes entire thread" argument. Don't tell the mods how to do their job.

Quote from AngerFist:

Quote from Red Scarlet:

The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.

Wrong. The author chose to write that (not Bisqwit but that wouldnt make any difference)

She didn't say Bisqwit wrote it. Stop seeing things that aren't there.

Quote from AngerFist:

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing a speedrun with a tas as long as you know the difference

I think the issue is that not everybody does know the difference, and I'm going to have to beg to differ. There is everything wrong with comparing a TAS with a speedrun. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same thing.

Quote from AngerFist:

+ every tas .avi states in the beginning how that certain run was made.

... but as long as you're doing that, as you say, I don't think console runners can ask for much more.

Really I think it might be time for me to back out of this, I think I've accomplished all I can (which is a big fat zero, but hey).

[quote="AngerFist"]Now shouldnt a admin remove the last 20 off-topic posts (including this one) to a proper thread? None of them are discussing what this thread is all about.[/quote]

It was considered, but the conclusion was reached that the less power wielded in this thread the better, otherwise JXQ might see it as supporting his "nate deletes entire thread" argument. Don't tell the mods how to do their job.

[quote="AngerFist"][quote="Red Scarlet"]The Bisqwit forums and video descriptions are also not as pure as you'd like to think. Some of the same stuff goes on around there, including comparing to console videos in some of the descriptions.[/quote]

[b]Wrong[/b]. The author chose to write that (not Bisqwit but that wouldnt make any difference)[/quote]

She didn't say Bisqwit wrote it. Stop seeing things that aren't there.

[quote="AngerFist"]and there is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing a speedrun with a tas as long as you know the difference[/quote]

I think the issue is that not everybody does know the difference, and I'm going to have to beg to differ. There is everything wrong with comparing a TAS with a speedrun. It's like comparing apples to oranges. [i]They are not the same thing.[/i]

[quote="AngerFist"] + every tas .avi states in the beginning how that certain run was made.[/quote]

... but as long as you're doing that, as you say, I don't think console runners can ask for much more.

Really I think it might be time for me to back out of this, I think I've accomplished all I can (which is a big fat zero, but hey).

moozooh

2006-04-23 02:11:07 pm

Quote from Arkarian:

I have known nate long enough to be able to believe his personality (rather than thinking it's a lie) and what he says, and that is why I can say I know him. Forming an image of a person in one's mind is not reality - you're just putting your own mind's twist on how the person behaves.

1. Time does not characterize the degree of knowing oneself. That becomes very representative in some kind of relationships such as between children and their parents.
2. One cannot percieve a reality without putting his own mind's twist to it. In other words, either all you percieve is a "reality", or there is no such thing as "reality" at all.
3. Don't use something you can never prove as a basis.
Thus, you may tell me the person's "not like that" all the time, but if it acts like that, it doesn't make any difference to me. And it doesn't have to, apparently.

Quote from Arkarian:

Additionally, I am a mod: you cannot argue with that fact. Finally, as I am a mod, I have the power to judge what is and what is not considered flaming. I do not need to give a clear definition of it, as there is none. Flaming is whatever a mod or admin believes is flaming. It can be loosely defined in the rules, but, when it all comes down to it, the mods/admins have the final say about flaming and how to punish it. As a mod, I do have a clear, individual understanding of flaming, and that's all that matters - as I am the one who wields the power.

Such a beautiful position you got there! How was it like?.. "Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun." ;)

Quote from Arkarian:

No, please do. Because you have provided no counterargument, you have nothing to stand on. By solely laughing at me, you are explicating to everyone that you have no counterargument: you are simply trying to make me look bad. In fact, how can you argue with what I just said? A cyborg run is not a true run with a real-life time. It takes hours and hours to complete one, so the final ":39" is not, in fact, the true time.

Ok, that's simple: you can say JXQ's 00:39 is a real time because the game states that (you cannot argue with that), and it was not cheated (that means the end time is solely a result of a player's input). There is no such thing as "tool-assisted time" (or just "time") in this world.
But wait, I'm going to take this morony to some extent! Now, Behold! :D
1. You can't say Scarlet's 00:55 is a real time, cause it was multi-segmented (so, the time spent on the game was much much more than 55 minutes).
2. You can't say Smokey's single-segmented 00:38 is a real time either, cause the game didn't count the minutes wasted on the room transitions and item acquisition.
Now go argue with that, if you still think that argument had some logic in itself.

Quote from Arkarian:

What issue are you referring to?

This one:

Quote from Arkarian:

I think you have an issue with misunderstanding.

Quote from Arkarian:

Both Saber and Grenola have been around this site and know nate much better than DXQ does. That has nothing to do with them agreeing with DXQ on some of his points.

I fail to see logic in this statement.
-- Both Saber and Grenola know Nate better than JXQ does;
-- they agree with him;
-- thus, JXQ has some issues with misunderstanding (huh?), but Saber and Grenola have not.
Care to explain?

[quote="Arkarian"]I have known nate long enough to be able to believe his personality (rather than thinking it's a lie) and what he says, and that is why I can say I know him. Forming an image of a person in one's mind is [i]not[/i] reality - you're just putting your own mind's twist on how the person behaves.[/quote]
1. Time does not characterize the degree of knowing oneself. That becomes very representative in some kind of relationships such as between children and their parents.
2. One cannot percieve a reality without putting his own mind's twist to it. In other words, either all you percieve is a "reality", or there is no such thing as "reality" at all.
3. Don't use something you can never prove as a basis. 
Thus, you may tell me the person's "not like that" all the time, but if it acts like that, it doesn't make any difference to me. And it doesn't have to, apparently.

[quote="Arkarian"]Additionally, I am a mod: you cannot argue with that fact. Finally, as I am a mod, I have the power to judge what is and what is not considered flaming. I do not need to give a clear definition of it, as there is none. Flaming is whatever a mod or admin believes is flaming. It can be loosely defined in the rules, but, when it all comes down to it, the mods/admins have the final say about flaming and how to punish it. As a mod, I [i]do[/i] have a clear, individual understanding of flaming, and that's all that matters - as I am the one who wields the power.[/quote]
Such a beautiful position you got there! How was it like?.. "Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun." ;)

[quote="Arkarian"]No, please do. Because you have provided no counterargument, you have nothing to stand on. By solely laughing at me, you are explicating to everyone that you [i]have[/i] no counterargument: you are simply trying to make me look bad. In fact, how [i]can[/i] you argue with what I just said? A cyborg run is [i]not[/i] a true run with a real-life time. It takes hours and hours to complete one, so the final ":39" is not, in fact, the true time.[/quote]
Ok, that's simple: you [b]can[/b] say JXQ's 00:39 is a real time because the game states that (you cannot argue with that), and it was not cheated (that means the end time is solely a result of a player's input). There is no such thing as "tool-assisted time" (or just "time") in this world.
But wait, I'm going to take this morony to some extent! Now, Behold! :D
1. You [b]can't[/b] say Scarlet's 00:55 is a real time, cause it was multi-segmented (so, the time spent on the game was much much more than 55 minutes).
2. You [b]can't[/b] say Smokey's single-segmented 00:38 is a real time either, cause the game didn't count the minutes wasted on the room transitions and item acquisition.
Now go argue with that, if you still think that argument had some logic in itself.

[quote="Arkarian"]What issue are you referring to?[/quote]
This one:
[quote="Arkarian"]I think you have an issue with misunderstanding.[/quote]

[quote="Arkarian"]Both Saber and Grenola have been around this site and know nate [i]much[/i] better than DXQ does. That has nothing to do with them agreeing with DXQ on some of his points.[/quote]
I fail to see logic in this statement.
-- Both Saber and Grenola know Nate better than JXQ does;
-- they agree with him;
-- thus, JXQ has some issues with misunderstanding (huh?), but Saber and Grenola have not.
Care to explain?

AngerFist

2006-04-23 02:28:24 pm

Quote from DJGrenola:

Don't tell the mods how to do their job.

I wrote "shouldnt", meaning something they should probably do, not an order and they can perfectly answer for themselves.

Quote from DJGrenola:

She didn't say Bisqwit wrote it. Stop seeing things that aren't there.

Which is why I wrote: "not that would make any difference" and stop replying for her, she can answer for herself.

Quote from DJGrenola:

It was considered, but the conclusion was reached that the less power wielded in this thread the better..

So the rules about off topic is basically useless huh?

Quote from DJGrenola:

There is everything wrong with comparing a TAS with a speedrun. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same thing..

Yes but within our and your community, everyone knows the difference.