The problem with TAS, and a solution

Chanoire

2006-05-17 07:35:54 pm

It's a Shakespearan type of word. Not incorrect, just not common usage.

RT-55J

2006-05-17 07:51:40 pm

Armor Guardian

Quote from Chanoire:

It's a Shakespearan type of word. Not incorrect, just not common usage.

*Adds it to his big old list of Shakespearean words that make him more awesome than every other playwright in the history of the English language a few places below bump and laughingstock*
-
Nice page break. ;)

13M13

2006-05-17 08:36:46 pm

l'appel du vide

Quote from Dragonfangs:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=516709&topic=28159010

Well...that was interesting...

EDIT: vvv "TASs"?

Zeke

2006-05-17 08:41:19 pm

Time bomb set get out fast!

Quote from Ekarderif:

Joining the likes of Personal Identification Number numbers, Liquid Crystal Display displays, Redundant Array of Independent Disks arrays, and The TTP Project, we now have Tool Assisted Speedrun runs.

Heh, usually I'd be the one pointing that out. I used "tas run" in that post mainly because I couldn't decide what the plural of "tas" would be. Tases? Tasses? Tes? Tax?

Quote from SABERinBLUE:

Quote from Zeke:

We don't have to like it, but we should use it.

Who is the "we" here?

Those who (a) believe a "tas problem" exists and (b) want to do something about it. Obviously that's not everyone here. You know me better than to think I was trying to issue orders to the community or something -- I was just making a case.

When I say we "should" take Nate's suggestion, I mean it not morally but practically. This is about the only action we can take to protect our interests. That doesn't mean we have to take it, and in all likelihood we won't. I haven't even decided if I'm going to start using the term. But I do believe that it makes sense and merits real consideration.

[quote="Ekarderif"]Joining the likes of Personal Identification Number numbers, Liquid Crystal Display displays, Redundant Array of Independent Disks arrays, and The TTP Project, we now have Tool Assisted Speedrun runs.[/quote]

Heh, usually I'd be the one pointing that out.  I used "tas run" in that post mainly because I couldn't decide what the plural of "tas" would be.  Tases?  Tasses?  Tes?  Tax?

[quote="SABERinBLUE"][quote="Zeke"]We don't have to like it, but we should use it.[/quote]

Who is the "we" here?[/quote]

Those who (a) believe a "tas problem" exists and (b) want to do something about it.  Obviously that's not everyone here.  You know me better than to think I was trying to issue orders to the community or something -- I was just making a case.

When I say we "should" take Nate's suggestion, I mean it not morally but practically.  This is about the only action we can take to protect our interests.  That doesn't mean we have to take it, and in all likelihood we won't.  I haven't even decided if [i]I'm[/i] going to start using the term.  But I do believe that it makes sense and merits real consideration.

USBCD36

2006-05-17 09:36:47 pm

Quote from Dragonfangs:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=516709&topic=28159010

Well…that got shot down kinda early on…

spineshark

2006-05-18 12:22:33 am

in the name of justice!

yeah, of all things i think it's funny that maur came and really ruined it.

did this even prove anything? i know that it is 44% of what i expected...

nate

2006-05-18 12:30:24 am

oops. maur is going to shoot himself when he sees this topic, hahaha. ah well, it seemed to be working. any ideas for other places we can test this? gaming-age forum (neogaf.com) comes to mind.

transience

2006-05-18 01:20:53 am

twenty eight fifty

haha, "oops" indeed. if you need me to make such a topic, i can - i don't find people on gamefaqs game boards to really look at karma though. you should be fine.

Red Scarlet

2006-05-18 04:33:32 am

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

Quote from nate:

oops. maur is going to shoot himself when he sees this topic, hahaha. ah well, it seemed to be working. any ideas for other places we can test this? gaming-age forum (neogaf.com) comes to mind.

Does anyone aside from me actually have an account there though?
Because my posting it would kind of be weird.

Qlex

2006-05-18 08:50:40 am

Two cents incoming, but they are huge so I used more than Random Zelda Person's "think of a description/write it down/post it" method :

--- No TAS player would accept the word cheated. I'll make it clear and simple : Cheated means illegal, so the word creates a lot of blur about it. Some people don't look about things that look illegal. Also considering that lots of viewers don't know about TAS, cheated :
- leads to the same conclusion as for codebreaker runs, but they are seen for completely different reasons (If you want me to explain it, don't hesitate)
- can answer to a completely different question that can turn TAS problem into something bad, the perfect example about my idea is here, May 15th post. Sure "What a Doozie" said it was fake, not cheated, but people can be confused with those two words, as for cheated, illegal, and codebreaker. Plus cheated is said in Nesvideos to be wrong. "The game is hacked" and "The buddy overcomes human limit" are two different cheated words.

--- Despite of that, TAS should not be evocated in tool-assisted videos. Tool-assisted speedrun is wordy, which is not really a problem, but is composed of terms that an average viewer can hardly get, and that a viewer unaware of speedruns cannot get at all. I talked about speedruns with my classmates and they didn't know what did the name mean, like "speedruns of what?". We can easily answer to the question, but about"tool-assissted, what tools?".... we have already talked a lot about it, but just another thing :
One day I sent some links to TASes in a forum, and said a long paragraph about it, saying it was basically done on emulator. Thanks god and thanks to red color tags people saw it, and one said "I ignored it was possible to do that on an emulator.", proving that when it is declared that a TASer uses tools or emulator, that cannot make a single difference at all : They have to be explained everything clearly. TAS or EAS cannot help, even if true. Look, the architect in Matrix is speaking such a truth like AWESOME, right? Yet nobody gets what the hell he's saying.
Speedrun is a foreign world to a lot of people, so why even trying to explain TAS, a foreign section of a foreign world, with a single sentence? The problem is that those people have the internet, right? See what Nate brought here : Some other guy that was not aware at all about the situation could have said this. I might be confused with the version of average viewer by Nate and my version of a viewer, yet the viewers I am talking about can get into that situation.
So yeah, you can't understand anything, even by looking at the word or the sentence "It'sTASsohttp://www.bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/whateverwhatever", unless you look at their clear and neat explaination of TAS.

--- This is not a question about majority or minority : Viewers really get what a real-time speedrun means by seeing 10 secs of the mentionned video and cannot get what a TAS is even by looking at the name.
Theory : Say that, like how internet works, a real-time speedrun video appears in a forum. Of course the guy is not about to question himself, when he sees some people completing the game fast : The player has a controller, has a TV screen in front of him (her), and plays real-time. It is a solid image that cannot be thrown away from the viewer's mind, because they all act like that when they're playing with their PS2/Gamecube/Xbox don't they? I called it "real-time conditions", because they all are words used that can be understandable for everyone and cannot be misunderstood. If we write down "That movie is done in real-time conditions, for further details see http://www.speeddemosarchive.com" during a waiting time, two things can happen :
- The viewer doesn't care, which is part of the problem (We should put a big and flashy REALTIMECONDITIONSOMGWTFBBQSHIFT to make those guys get it >_>)
- The viewer will think "Of course! Why the hell are they saying that?" and understands that she (he) was right.

When a TAS comes to the public random forum, the users have not to care at multiple moments : They have to realize that :
- It is not done on real-time conditions : The player is not frustrated by seeing he (she) has to do a complicated move again, because in TASes moves are always trivial, and when done, done without a single chance (In theory, K? Wonders of a computer never cease...) that they would have to redo these 2 seconds of the game. Which is what makes real-time speedruns sooo great IMO. Some TASers can do that without working a lot (if some nasty boy were willing to feel superior to some others, he would just have to take his improved emu and do in 2 days a difficult game).
- It is something too different than the image of the real-time player, meaning that TASes are more than they can expect. When I realized what TASes were, I didn't think those guys were able to stop the game so they would use 2 players! That image implicates the fact that you see perfect moves, that explains what can the character do in the game more like a demo.
If we need a word, it must be a word that makes everyone wonder what the movie is enough for everyone to read CYBORG

That's roughly what I had to say about it. I love real-time speedruns and tool-assisted speedruns, I want to say authors of both runs might have the same feelings about the game, but that they can be liked for completely opposite reasons. If anyone felt something bad like not really friendly tell me please.

Two cents incoming, but they are huge so I used more than Random Zelda Person's "think of a description/write it down/post it" method :

--- No TAS player would accept the word cheated. I'll make it clear and simple : Cheated means illegal, so the word creates a lot of blur about it. Some people don't look about things that look illegal. Also considering that lots of viewers don't know about TAS, cheated :
   - leads to the same conclusion as for codebreaker runs, but they are seen for completely different reasons (If you want me to explain it, don't hesitate)
   - can answer to a completely different question that can turn TAS problem into something bad, the perfect example about my idea is [url=http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/5-minute-mario-bros-speed-run]here[/url], May 15th post. Sure "What a Doozie" said it was fake, not cheated, but people can be confused with those two words, as for cheated, illegal, and codebreaker. Plus cheated is said in Nesvideos to be wrong. "The game is hacked" and "The buddy overcomes human limit" are two different cheated words.

--- Despite of that, TAS should not be evocated in tool-assisted videos. Tool-assisted speedrun is wordy, which is not really a problem, but is composed of terms that an average viewer can hardly get, and that a viewer unaware of speedruns cannot get at all. I talked about speedruns with my classmates and they didn't know what did the name mean, like "speedruns of what?". We can easily answer to the question, but about"tool-assissted, what tools?".... we have already talked a lot about it, but just another thing :
One day I sent some links to TASes in a forum, and said a long paragraph about it, saying it was basically done on emulator. Thanks god and thanks to red color tags people saw it, and one said "I ignored it was possible to do that on an emulator.", proving that when it is declared that a TASer uses tools or emulator, that cannot make a single difference at all : They have to be explained everything clearly. TAS or EAS cannot help, even if true. Look, the architect in Matrix is speaking such a truth like AWESOME, right? Yet nobody gets what the hell he's saying.
Speedrun is a foreign world to a lot of people, so why even trying to explain TAS, a foreign section of a foreign world, with a single sentence? The problem is that those people have the internet, right? See what Nate brought [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=other_games;action=display;num=1114928159l]here[/url] : Some other guy that was not aware at all about the situation could have said this. I might be confused with the version of average viewer by Nate and my version of a viewer, yet the viewers I am talking about can get into that situation.
So yeah, you can't understand anything, even by looking at the word or the sentence "It'sTASsohttp://www.bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/whateverwhatever", unless you look at their clear and neat explaination of TAS.

--- This is not a question about majority or minority : Viewers really get what a real-time speedrun means by seeing 10 secs of the mentionned video and cannot get what a TAS is even by looking at the name.
Theory : Say that, like how internet works, a real-time speedrun video appears in a forum. Of course the guy is not about to question himself, when he sees some people completing the game fast : The player has a controller, has a TV screen in front of him (her), and plays real-time. It is a solid image that cannot be thrown away from the viewer's mind, because they all act like that when they're playing with their PS2/Gamecube/Xbox don't they? I called it "real-time conditions", because they all are words used that can be understandable for everyone and cannot be misunderstood. If we write down "That movie is done in real-time conditions, for further details see http://www.speeddemosarchive.com" during a waiting time, two things can happen :
   - The viewer doesn't care, which is part of the problem (We should put a big and flashy REALTIMECONDITIONSOMGWTFBBQSHIFT to make those guys get it >_>)
   - The viewer will think "Of course! Why the hell are they saying that?" and understands that she (he) was right.

When a TAS comes to the public random forum, the users have not to care at multiple moments : They have to realize that :
   - It is not done on real-time conditions : The player is not frustrated by seeing he (she) has to do a complicated move again, because in TASes moves are always trivial, and when done, done without a single chance (In theory, K? Wonders of a computer never cease...) that they would have to redo these 2 seconds of the game. Which is what makes real-time speedruns sooo great IMO. Some TASers can do that without working a lot (if some nasty boy were willing to feel superior to some others, he would just have to take his improved emu and do in 2 days a difficult game).
   - It is something too different than the image of the real-time player, meaning that TASes are more than they can expect. When I realized what TASes were, I didn't think those guys were able to stop the game so they would use 2 players! That image implicates the fact that you see perfect moves, that explains what can the character do in the game more like a demo.
If we need a word, it must be a word that makes everyone wonder what the movie is enough for everyone to read CYBORG

That's roughly what I had to say about it. I love real-time speedruns and tool-assisted speedruns, I want to say authors of both runs might have the same feelings about the game, but that they can be liked for completely opposite reasons. If anyone felt something bad like not really friendly tell me please.

Izo

2006-05-18 01:39:32 pm

soaking through

Quote from Chanoire:

It's a Shakespearan type of word. Not incorrect, just not common usage.

Shouldn't it be <i>'twould</i>? As in 'twas.

Chanoire

2006-05-18 01:47:24 pm

Yes, since the apostrophe takes the place of the omitted letter. But RT was complaining about the word itself rather than its spelling. And it probably was written in various ways; Shakespeare spelled his own name a dozen different ways.

(...so my leaving out the other E in "Shakespearean" is surely correct for one of them. >_>)

RT-55J

2006-05-18 06:29:42 pm

Armor Guardian

Quote from Izo:

Shouldn't it be <i>'twould</i>? As in 'twas.

'Twas - It would
T'would - That would
'Twould - It would

uh oh... I need to list one more contraction lest the world implodes

Go go gadget neologism!

I'ven't - I have not

>.>

DJGrenola

2006-05-18 08:39:47 pm

ok guys, let's try to focus on the TAS thing.

13M13

2006-05-19 08:29:09 am

l'appel du vide

Quote from Red Scarlet:

Quote from nate:

oops. maur is going to shoot himself when he sees this topic, hahaha. ah well, it seemed to be working. any ideas for other places we can test this? gaming-age forum (neogaf.com) comes to mind.

Does anyone aside from me actually have an account there though?
Because my posting it would kind of be weird.

Aye, I do quite havith such an account. I didn't realize it took that long to get verified though...indeed they are the hardest of the hard... laugh new

Qlex

2006-05-20 01:37:32 pm

BMB, could you bring the topic that talked about it please? Thanks.

Maur

2006-05-21 06:12:57 pm

Quote:

yeah, of all things i think it's funny that maur came and really ruined it.

Quote:

<Maur> heh, i wasn't supposed to post in that topic on gfaqs, was i
<nate> :)
<Maur> i'm guessing that's why you wanted me to read the entire topic :P
<nate> yep

Yep. Oh well. Sorry guys. :/

Several things came to mind when I read this topic.

First, the rule of the majority over the minority. Alright, sure. If they're in the same government, and if the government is a democracy or republic, it can. But since when has this situation been comparable to a government?

There isn't a speedrunners/TASers (or whatever you want to call them) supercongress in existance. It's more along the lines of separate countries, neither of which has any authority over the other.

Second. The word cheated. It may get the point across (and perhaphs a lot more - when I think of cheated, I think of gamesharks/codes/so on, and feeding people misinformation along that line is probably just as bad as not feeding them anything at all), but it's completely derogatory. Argue as much as you want, but I will never feel that the best 'imperfect solution' we can come up with is a giant middle finger in Bisqwit's direction.

A less offensive version of this would be "this video was produced with techniques you may consider cheating," as opposed to "this video was cheated." Still, I wouldn't want something I worked so hard on to be labelled as cheated, however softly the term is invoked. And don't compare this to the existance of gameshark code hackers. The entire point of TASing is to see just how far it's theoretically possible to break the game without outside tools. The entire point of code hacking is the exact opposite. Introducing cheating ruins the point of TASing, and implying cheating amounts to an insult.

To quote izo:

Quote:

I don't see a problem with the meaning of the word; rather, I just think that labelling their runs with something as blatantly derogatory and demeaning as the word "cheated" is just gonna make this dispute even more heated and hostile. It's also something that they'll never agree to, and that, kids, is why utilitarianism doesn't work.

Third. People are given the chance to see an info notice. I know this has been mentioned before, but if people refuse to read what information they're given, why should we bother to go out of our way to correct them? Even if the correction didn't involve insulting a group of people, I wouldn't care at all. If the majority wants to be stupid, the majority will be stupid, and that isn't our problem - it's theirs. If people refuse to read a leaflet to understand a concept, we are under no obligation to shout it in their ear.

And it's not as if the leaflets are hidden or obfuscated. Take a look at the avi encoding of JXQ's sonic 1 TAS. The pertinent information is not contained in a statid that can be easily cut off, it's watermarked onto the first dozen seconds of green hill 1. "This is a tool-assisted run. If you don't know what that means, check the Why and How page <link>" or something very similar. The only way you could get rid of that is by cutting out part of the actual run - and no, I don't consider watermarking it across the entire run to be an option.

Finally, fourth... I'll let this do the talking.

Quote:

<Maur> a problem that hasn't been mentioned in the topic though, as far as i've read, are those who think regular speedrunning uses cheats aswell
<Maur> like this:
<Maur> http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=197771&topic=27988266
<Maur> "Then the record doesn't count. Skipping any of the game by use of means that the game didn't intend for doesn't count as beating the game."
<Maur> do we need to label our videos because of people like him?
<Maur> and why?
<nate> no because that's not the majority audience
<nate> have you reached the end of the topic yet?
<Maur> how do you know that's not the majority?
<Maur> and how do you know that catering to them, even if it was a minority, would not hurt the majority and would therefore be worth it anyways?
<nate> in the absence of any concrete evidence i just have to guess

If TASers need to explain what they do to people who may think they're cheating, don't we (we as in SDA) need to do the same? Sure, these people may not be in the majority, but if we can do it without harming ourselves, the logic this topic is based on would dictate that we should.

Food for thought.

[quote]yeah, of all things i think it's funny that maur came and really ruined it. [/quote]

[quote]	<Maur>	heh, i wasn't supposed to post in that topic on gfaqs, was i
	<nate>	:)
	<Maur>	i'm guessing that's why you wanted me to read the entire topic :P
	<nate>	yep[/quote]

Yep.  Oh well.  Sorry guys. :/

Several things came to mind when I read this topic.

First, the rule of the majority over the minority.  Alright, sure.  If they're in the same government, and if the government is a democracy or republic, it can.  But since when has this situation been comparable to a government?

There isn't a speedrunners/TASers (or whatever you want to call them) supercongress in existance.  It's more along the lines of separate countries, neither of which has any authority over the other.

Second.  The word cheated.  It may get the point across (and perhaphs a lot more - when I think of cheated, I think of gamesharks/codes/so on, and feeding people misinformation along that line is probably just as bad as not feeding them anything at all), but it's completely derogatory.  Argue as much as you want, but I will never feel that the best 'imperfect solution' we can come up with is a giant middle finger in Bisqwit's direction.

A less offensive version of this would be "this video was produced with techniques you may consider cheating," as opposed to "this video was cheated."  Still, I wouldn't want something I worked so hard on to be labelled as cheated, however softly the term is invoked.  And don't compare this to the existance of gameshark code hackers.  The entire point of TASing is to see just how far it's theoretically possible to break the game without outside tools.  The entire point of code hacking is the exact opposite.  Introducing cheating ruins the point of TASing, and implying cheating amounts to an insult.

To quote izo:
[quote]I don't see a problem with the meaning of the word; rather, I just think that labelling their runs with something as blatantly derogatory and demeaning as the word "cheated" is just gonna make this dispute even more heated and hostile. It's also something that they'll never agree to, and that, kids, is why utilitarianism doesn't work.[/quote]

Third.  People are given the chance to see an info notice.  I know this has been mentioned before, but if people refuse to read what information they're given, why should we bother to go out of our way to correct them?  Even if the correction didn't involve insulting a group of people, I wouldn't care at all.  If the majority wants to be stupid, the majority will be stupid, and that isn't our problem - it's theirs.  If people refuse to read a leaflet to understand a concept, we are under no obligation to shout it in their ear.

And it's not as if the leaflets are hidden or obfuscated.  Take a look at the avi encoding of JXQ's sonic 1 TAS.  The pertinent information is not contained in a statid that can be easily cut off, it's watermarked onto the first dozen seconds of green hill 1.  "This is a tool-assisted run.  If you don't know what that means, check the Why and How page <link>" or something very similar.  The only way you could get rid of that is by cutting out part of the actual run - and no, I don't consider watermarking it across the entire run to be an option.

Finally, fourth... I'll let this do the talking.

[quote]	<Maur>	a problem that hasn't been mentioned in the topic though, as far as i've read, are those who think regular speedrunning uses cheats aswell
	<Maur>	like this:
	<Maur>	http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=197771&topic=27988266
	<Maur>	"Then the record doesn't count. Skipping any of the game by use of means that the game didn't intend for doesn't count as beating the game."
	<Maur>	do we need to label our videos because of people like him?
	<Maur>	and why?
	<nate>	no because that's not the majority audience
	<nate>	have you reached the end of the topic yet?
	<Maur>	how do you know that's not the majority?
	<Maur>	and how do you know that catering to them, even if it was a minority, would not hurt the majority and would therefore be worth it anyways?
	<nate>	in the absence of any concrete evidence i just have to guess[/quote]

If TASers need to explain what they do to people who may think they're cheating, don't we (we as in SDA) need to do the same?  Sure, these people may not be in the majority, but if we can do it without harming ourselves, the logic this topic is based on would dictate that we should.

Food for thought.

Yoshi348

2006-05-21 07:23:01 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

Quote from Maur:

The entire point of TASing is to see just how far it's theoretically possible to break the game without outside tools.

I know exactly what you're trying to say, but given what TAS stands for that still sounds pretty funny.

nate

2006-05-21 08:51:32 pm

Quote from Maur:

First, the rule of the majority over the minority. Alright, sure. If they're in the same government, and if the government is a democracy or republic, it can. But since when has this situation been comparable to a government?

it's not, really. i was just painting a picture of an ideal for people, a way out of the current situation into something better.

Quote from Maur:

Second. The word cheated. It may get the point across (and perhaphs a lot more - when I think of cheated, I think of gamesharks/codes/so on, and feeding people misinformation along that line is probably just as bad as not feeding them anything at all), but it's completely derogatory. Argue as much as you want, but I will never feel that the best 'imperfect solution' we can come up with is a giant middle finger in Bisqwit's direction.

i disagree that feeding people misinformation is worse than the status quo so long as we are talking about making the situation better for the majority of speed runners and the majority audience. the popularity of tas may suffer, thus making this the imperfect solution i admitted it was, but i also offered the suggestion that the people who will be put off by the "cheated" label might be mostly people who hate on tas when they find out the truth about what they saw, meaning that the solution could positively impact the tas community as well. unfortunately, this is conjectural.

Quote from Maur:

A less offensive version of this would be "this video was produced with techniques you may consider cheating," as opposed to "this video was cheated." Still, I wouldn't want something I worked so hard on to be labelled as cheated, however softly the term is invoked.

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. it is the duty of every content creator to endeavor to label his or her creations in such a way that they are taken by the majority audience at face value for what they really are. the only exception i can think of to this is if the content creator is deliberately trying to deceive the majority audience, and the tasers have repeatedly said that their intention is not to deceive anyone.

i also don't believe that the tasers are evil per se, rather that they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the evil of their inaction. i think it would be highly illustrative for them to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they try to tell other people what is and is not important.

Quote from Maur:

Third. People are given the chance to see an info notice. I know this has been mentioned before, but if people refuse to read what information they're given, why should we bother to go out of our way to correct them? Even if the correction didn't involve insulting a group of people, I wouldn't care at all. If the majority wants to be stupid, the majority will be stupid, and that isn't our problem - it's theirs. If people refuse to read a leaflet to understand a concept, we are under no obligation to shout it in their ear.

i suppose i am different from most people in that i never tire of trying to make the world a better place. clearly if the majority is not going to move on its own, then it is you who must move it in order for anything to change. the status quo should never be satisfactory to you. if it is, then that's how you know you've outlived your usefulness.

Quote from Maur:

And it's not as if the leaflets are hidden or obfuscated. Take a look at the avi encoding of JXQ's sonic 1 TAS. The pertinent information is not contained in a statid that can be easily cut off, it's watermarked onto the first dozen seconds of green hill 1. "This is a tool-assisted run. If you don't know what that means, check the Why and How page <link>" or something very similar. The only way you could get rid of that is by cutting out part of the actual run - and no, I don't consider watermarking it across the entire run to be an option.

the situation should be evaluated not by how much has been done, but by whether enough has been done. enough has not been done.

Quote from Maur:

Finally, fourth... I'll let this do the talking.

Quote:

<Maur> a problem that hasn't been mentioned in the topic though, as far as i've read, are those who think regular speedrunning uses cheats aswell
<Maur> like this:
<Maur> http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=197771&topic=27988266
<Maur> "Then the record doesn't count. Skipping any of the game by use of means that the game didn't intend for doesn't count as beating the game."
<Maur> do we need to label our videos because of people like him?
<Maur> and why?
<nate> no because that's not the majority audience
<nate> have you reached the end of the topic yet?
<Maur> how do you know that's not the majority?
<Maur> and how do you know that catering to them, even if it was a minority, would not hurt the majority and would therefore be worth it anyways?
<nate> in the absence of any concrete evidence i just have to guess

If TASers need to explain what they do to people who may think they're cheating, don't we (we as in SDA) need to do the same? Sure, these people may not be in the majority, but if we can do it without harming ourselves, the logic this topic is based on would dictate that we should.

Food for thought.

perhaps if something is clearly considered objectionable by the majority (such as tas) then clear warnings should be added. but because sda is the majority and (like most majorities) desires to stay that way, probably we would just disallow anything considered objectionable. tg goes mental with this, banning everything they become aware of and then only allowing things through they're sure the majority would approve of.

i think without any concrete evidence that a majority of people disapprove of tas, it will be difficult for me to assert my beliefs on other people. it will come down to whether people believe me or don't believe me, which is unacceptable. i am irrelevant here - what i am saying should not be taken as a viewpoint, but it's irresponsible to cast things otherwise unless i have proof backing me up.

[quote="Maur"]First, the rule of the majority over the minority.  Alright, sure.  If they're in the same government, and if the government is a democracy or republic, it can.  But since when has this situation been comparable to a government?[/quote]
it's not, really. i was just painting a picture of an ideal for people, a way out of the current situation into something better.

[quote="Maur"]Second.  The word cheated.  It may get the point across (and perhaphs a lot more - when I think of cheated, I think of gamesharks/codes/so on, and feeding people misinformation along that line is probably just as bad as not feeding them anything at all), but it's completely derogatory.  Argue as much as you want, but I will never feel that the best 'imperfect solution' we can come up with is a giant middle finger in Bisqwit's direction.[/quote]
i disagree that feeding people misinformation is worse than the status quo so long as we are talking about making the situation better for the majority of speed runners and the majority audience. the popularity of tas may suffer, thus making this the imperfect solution i admitted it was, but i also offered the suggestion that the people who will be put off by the "cheated" label might be mostly people who hate on tas when they find out the truth about what they saw, meaning that the solution could positively impact the tas community as well. unfortunately, this is conjectural.

[quote="Maur"]A less offensive version of this would be "this video was produced with techniques you may consider cheating," as opposed to "this video was cheated."  Still, I wouldn't want something I worked so hard on to be labelled as cheated, however softly the term is invoked.[/quote]
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. it is the duty of every content creator to endeavor to label his or her creations in such a way that they are taken by the majority audience at face value for what they really are. the only exception i can think of to this is if the content creator is deliberately trying to deceive the majority audience, and the tasers have repeatedly said that their intention is not to deceive anyone.

i also don't believe that the tasers are evil per se, rather that they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the evil of their inaction. i think it would be highly illustrative for them to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they try to tell other people what is and is not important.

[quote="Maur"]Third.  People are given the chance to see an info notice.  I know this has been mentioned before, but if people refuse to read what information they're given, why should we bother to go out of our way to correct them?  Even if the correction didn't involve insulting a group of people, I wouldn't care at all.  If the majority wants to be stupid, the majority will be stupid, and that isn't our problem - it's theirs.  If people refuse to read a leaflet to understand a concept, we are under no obligation to shout it in their ear.[/quote]
i suppose i am different from most people in that i never tire of trying to make the world a better place. clearly if the majority is not going to move on its own, then it is you who must move it in order for anything to change. the status quo should never be satisfactory to you. if it is, then that's how you know you've outlived your usefulness.

[quote="Maur"]And it's not as if the leaflets are hidden or obfuscated.  Take a look at the avi encoding of JXQ's sonic 1 TAS.  The pertinent information is not contained in a statid that can be easily cut off, it's watermarked onto the first dozen seconds of green hill 1.  "This is a tool-assisted run.  If you don't know what that means, check the Why and How page <link>" or something very similar.  The only way you could get rid of that is by cutting out part of the actual run - and no, I don't consider watermarking it across the entire run to be an option.[/quote]
the situation should be evaluated not by how much has been done, but by whether enough has been done. enough has not been done.

[quote="Maur"]Finally, fourth... I'll let this do the talking.

[quote]	<Maur>	a problem that hasn't been mentioned in the topic though, as far as i've read, are those who think regular speedrunning uses cheats aswell
	<Maur>	like this:
	<Maur>	http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=197771&topic=27988266
	<Maur>	"Then the record doesn't count. Skipping any of the game by use of means that the game didn't intend for doesn't count as beating the game."
	<Maur>	do we need to label our videos because of people like him?
	<Maur>	and why?
	<nate>	no because that's not the majority audience
	<nate>	have you reached the end of the topic yet?
	<Maur>	how do you know that's not the majority?
	<Maur>	and how do you know that catering to them, even if it was a minority, would not hurt the majority and would therefore be worth it anyways?
	<nate>	in the absence of any concrete evidence i just have to guess[/quote]

If TASers need to explain what they do to people who may think they're cheating, don't we (we as in SDA) need to do the same?  Sure, these people may not be in the majority, but if we can do it without harming ourselves, the logic this topic is based on would dictate that we should.

Food for thought.[/quote]
perhaps if something is clearly considered objectionable by the majority (such as tas) then clear warnings should be added. but because sda is the majority and (like most majorities) desires to stay that way, probably we would just disallow anything considered objectionable. tg goes mental with this, banning everything they become aware of and then only allowing things through they're sure the majority would approve of.

i think without any concrete evidence that a majority of people disapprove of tas, it will be difficult for me to assert my beliefs on other people. it will come down to whether people believe me or don't believe me, which is unacceptable. i am irrelevant here - what i am saying should not be taken as a viewpoint, but it's irresponsible to cast things otherwise unless i have proof backing me up.

SABERinBLUE

2006-05-21 09:03:39 pm

Cook of the Sea

Quote from nate:

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Since when do needs have anything to do with this?

Quote:

i suppose i am different from most people in that i never tire of trying to make the world a better place. clearly if the majority is not going to move on its own, then it is you who must move it in order for anything to change.

Ah but then are you not acting externally of the majority and therefore a minority yourself?

Quote:

the status quo should never be satisfactory to you. if it is, then that's how you know you've outlived your usefulness.

That's opinion.

Ekarderif

2006-05-21 09:40:59 pm

Quote from nate:

i disagree that feeding people misinformation is worse than the status quo so long as we are talking about making the situation better for the majority of speed runners and the majority audience.

Slavery served the majority well.

Quote from nate:

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

The angry mob argument. Sweet.

Quote from nate:

i also don't believe that the tasers are evil per se, rather that they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the evil of their inaction.

You saying that other people are self-absorbed?

Quote from nate:

i suppose i am different from most people in that i never tire of trying to make the world a better place.

What you want != better

Quote from nate:

the status quo should never be satisfactory to you. if it is, then that's how you know you've outlived your usefulness.

I want world peace. I got world peace. Therefore, I am useless.

Quote from nate:

the situation should be evaluated not by how much has been done, but by whether enough has been done. enough has not been done.

Yes it has.

Quote from nate:

perhaps if something is clearly considered objectionable by the majority (such as tas) then clear warnings should be added. but because sda is the majority and (like most majorities) desires to stay that way, probably we would just disallow anything considered objectionable. tg goes mental with this, banning everything they become aware of and then only allowing things through they're sure the majority would approve of.

So we follow TG's example. Got it.

Quote from nate:

i am irrelevant here - what i am saying should not be taken as a viewpoint, but it's irresponsible to cast things otherwise unless i have proof backing me up.

Translation: ignore my rant.

I'm pretty sure I'll be gone for a long while again. Nice to see that some people will never change.

[quote="nate"]i disagree that feeding people misinformation is worse than the status quo so long as we are talking about making the situation better for the majority of speed runners and the majority audience.[/quote]
Slavery served the majority well.

[quote="nate"]the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.[/quote]
The angry mob argument. Sweet.

[quote="nate"]i also don't believe that the tasers are evil per se, rather that they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the evil of their inaction.[/quote]
[b]You[/b] saying that other people are self-absorbed?

[quote="nate"]i suppose i am different from most people in that i never tire of trying to make the world a better place.[/quote]
What you want != better

[quote="nate"]the status quo should never be satisfactory to you. if it is, then that's how you know you've outlived your usefulness.[/quote]
I want world peace. I got world peace. Therefore, I am useless.

[quote="nate"]the situation should be evaluated not by how much has been done, but by whether enough has been done. enough has not been done.[/quote]
Yes it has.

[quote="nate"]perhaps if something is clearly considered objectionable by the majority (such as tas) then clear warnings should be added. but because sda is the majority and (like most majorities) desires to stay that way, probably we would just disallow anything considered objectionable. tg goes mental with this, banning everything they become aware of and then only allowing things through they're sure the majority would approve of.[/quote]
So we follow TG's example. Got it.

[quote="nate"]i am irrelevant here - what i am saying should not be taken as a viewpoint, but it's irresponsible to cast things otherwise unless i have proof backing me up.[/quote]
Translation: ignore my rant.

I'm pretty sure I'll be gone for a long while again. Nice to see that some people will never change.

Maur

2006-05-21 09:52:28 pm

Quote:

i also offered the suggestion that the people who will be put off by the "cheated" label might be mostly people who hate on tas when they find out the truth about what they saw

Some will. But then there's the people who'll go 'a gamesharked run? forget this' and walk away when they'll find a TAS perfectly acceptable. People like, say, me.

That's what I meant when I said that feeding them misinformation wouldn't be desirable. If they interpret it as 'omg codes hax!' then you've gotten them no closer to what actually happened and they're more likely to just skip viewing the why and how link.

Quote:

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

What need?

So the guy who thought the random smb vid he saw a while back was real. Alright, fine. However, if he tried to find other videos (probably through the website linked to in the vid, since that's the logical place to look), he'd quickly realized what happens. And if he doesn't, well, he doesn't care either way because he's not interested in this type of media at all. It'd be telling him stuff he doesn't care about and is likely to forget. And if he doesn't know it's a TAS, correcting that misconception is NOT worth the cost of denigrating an entire freaking community.

The many has it's need fulfilled by the current incarnation. If the many wants to view the why and how link, it can. If the many doesn't want to, it won't. The many already decides what it needs. It doesn't need to know how the videos were created if it doesn't want to. It decided that the time wasn't worth the knowledge gained, shrugged it's shoulders, and walked off somewhere. The content was labelled, if the many decides to ignore it, that's it's choice.

Sure, you could force the info on them, but the benefit isn't worth the cost it would take in the form of the TAS community. Degrading them isn't worth the chance to tell someone something he/she didn't want to know and will forget in an hour anyways.

Personal initiative is everything. If they refuse to take it, they are lost, and there's nothing you can do about that. The content is labelled. If they refuse to read the labels, I don't care what impression they get, and I won't hurt a community just to be sure that they won't get the correct impression.

I believe the ideal would not involve calling what a community produces cheated. Especially not when we're doing so because people refuse to read what we're already telling them.

[quote]i also offered the suggestion that the people who will be put off by the "cheated" label might be mostly people who hate on tas when they find out the truth about what they saw[/quote]

Some will.  But then there's the people who'll go 'a gamesharked run?  forget this' and walk away when they'll find a TAS perfectly acceptable.  People like, say, me.

That's what I meant when I said that feeding them misinformation wouldn't be desirable.  If they interpret it as 'omg codes hax!' then you've gotten them no closer to what actually happened and they're more likely to just skip viewing the why and how link.

[quote]the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.[/quote]

What need?

So the guy who thought the random smb vid he saw a while back was real.  Alright, fine.  However, if he tried to find other videos (probably through the website linked to in the vid, since that's the logical place to look), he'd quickly realized what happens.  And if he doesn't, well, he doesn't care either way because he's not interested in this type of media at all.  It'd be telling him stuff he doesn't care about and is likely to forget.  And if he doesn't know it's a TAS, correcting that misconception is [b]NOT[/b] worth the cost of denigrating an entire freaking community.

The many has it's need fulfilled by the current incarnation.  If the many wants to view the why and how link, it can.  If the many doesn't want to, it won't.  The many already decides what it needs.  It doesn't need to know how the videos were created if it doesn't want to.  It decided that the time wasn't worth the knowledge gained, shrugged it's shoulders, and walked off somewhere.  The content was labelled, if the many decides to ignore it, that's it's choice.

Sure, you could force the info on them, but the benefit isn't worth the cost it would take in the form of the TAS community.  Degrading them isn't worth the chance to tell someone something he/she didn't want to know and will forget in an hour anyways.

Personal initiative is everything.  If they refuse to take it, they are lost, and there's nothing you can do about that.  The content is labelled.  If they refuse to read the labels, I don't care what impression they get, and I won't hurt a community just to be sure that they won't get the correct impression.

I believe the ideal would not involve calling what a community produces cheated.  Especially not when we're doing so because people refuse to read what we're already telling them.

BlueGlass

2006-05-21 10:11:57 pm

Again: Why not just say somewhere in the video something to the effect of "This video was not made in real time. It uses savestates, slowdowns, and rerecords. For more information see http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/WhyAndHow.html" That tells people what the videos are without any effort on their part, advertises the site, and isn't derrogatory to the TAS community in any way.

13M13

2006-05-21 10:29:27 pm

l'appel du vide

Um...they do.

BlueGlass

2006-05-21 10:59:22 pm

No, they say "This is a tool assisted speedrun. For more details see http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/WhyAndHow.html" The problem with this, as has been preiously stated multiple times, is that people do not know what the tools are, and most people are clearly too lazy to type in the adress. The version I suggested leaves people in no dobut as to exactly what the tools are.