The Elite Forum
The Big Three Plus One => GoldenEye 007 => Topic started by: RWG on December 10, 2012, 06:22:57 pm
-
The Elite Council.
The idea behind the Elite Council is to have a sort of parliamentary or governing body that will come together and decide a solution when a problem does arise. This sounds simple enough. Come, Cara and I suggested names and ultimately we came up with a group of people (which will be listed below.)
The following is the final section of the proof policy which pertains to the Elite Council. Members of the council voted specifically against this section which in turn blocked the entire passing of the new proof policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
13) All other concerns and issues, as well as the selection of proof moderators, will be made by the elite council.
i) Anyone found to be abusing the game in a way detrimental to the speedrunning community not yet covered in this policy, will be dealt with in a fair and appropriate manner determined by the council; with according rules written into the policy.
ii) The elite council consists of Jon “Ngamer†Bearder, Derek Clark, Steve “Comeasur†Bryze, Ricky “Infil†Pusch, “Thingyâ€Â, Ryan “Your Eliteness†Dwyer, Tyler “Thiradell†Wishall, Axel Zakrisson, Hugo “Carathorn†van der Wolk, Bryan Bosshardt, Jim “Jimbo†Barrett, David “DK†Kovaz, Karl Jobst, and Ryan “Goose†White.
iii) The council will come to a majority vote for a decision on any necessary matters. These votes will be made PUBLIC to the elite after a vote is made. You will see exactly who voted for which decision.
iv) When a decision is needed, there will be a 24 hour voting period. Any member of the council who does not cast a vote in that period will not have their vote count.
v) If public opinion of a council member becomes negative, discussion will be held in public forum to remove or replace members of the council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am trying to work on a solution to get some of these members more involved in the process, or allow them to remove or replace themselves from the council. I am simply making this thread as both an update so the public knows where we are in regards to passing a new policy, as well as having a group to make a decision when a decision is needed.
Hopefully soon after this is all sorted out, we can start working on a decision regarding the Henning situation.
-
The Elite Council.
The idea behind the Elite Council is to have a sort of parliamentary or governing body that will come together and decide a solution when a problem does arise. This sounds simple enough. Come, Cara and I suggested names and ultimately we came up with a group of people (which will be listed below.)
The following is the final section of the proof policy which pertains to the Elite Council. Members of the council voted specifically against this section which in turn blocked the entire passing of the new proof policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
13) All other concerns and issues, as well as the selection of proof moderators, will be made by the elite council.
i) Anyone found to be abusing the game in a way detrimental to the speedrunning community not yet covered in this policy, will be dealt with in a fair and appropriate manner determined by the council; with according rules written into the policy.
ii) The elite council consists of Jon “Ngamer†Bearder, Derek Clark, Steve “Comeasur†Bryze, Ricky “Infil†Pusch, “Thingyâ€, Ryan “Your Eliteness†Dwyer, Tyler “Thiradell†Wishall, Axel Zakrisson, Hugo “Carathorn†van der Wolk, Bryan Bosshardt, Jim “Jimbo†Barrett, David “DK†Kovaz, Karl Jobst, and Ryan “Goose†White.
iii) The council will come to a majority vote for a decision on any necessary matters. These votes will be made PUBLIC to the elite after a vote is made. You will see exactly who voted for which decision.
iv) When a decision is needed, there will be a 24 hour voting period. Any member of the council who does not cast a vote in that period will not have their vote count.
v) If public opinion of a council member becomes negative, discussion will be held in public forum to remove or replace members of the council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am trying to work on a solution to get some of these members more involved in the process, or allow them to remove or replace themselves from the council. I am simply making this thread as both an update so the public knows where we are in regards to passing a new policy, as well as having a group to make a decision when a decision is needed.
Hopefully soon after this is all sorted out, we can start working on a decision regarding the Henning situation.
-
That was a very detailed policy. Good work, but you have way too much free time on your hands.
-
1i) This version could never be the exact copy in use for the new policy, since it uses the word "Currently" for something that would predate the policy when it is in place.
5) TNS
I do not agree these should count. Though I am curious what exactly happens when this occurs on a new file. Will it go on to the next level and have a completion sign for the specific level, but when you enter that level again and quit out, there is no Best Time?
7) It's not professional to use words such as lame. Try not to put opinions in the policy.
iv) I have no clue how a Mouse controller would be helpful :P
than -> that
I believe GE is programmed to have maximum turning speeds that controllers can't go beyond. TAS has tools that are much more precise than a real controller, even there the speed is the same (to the eye, I don't know the numbers). Doesn't hurt to keep it in though.
9) Maybe mention emulator/TAS to be used for testing theories/strategies/ideas, not to be played and ranked.
10ii) refer to 7)
11i) Console modification should be allowed and preferred to make NTSC fit in JP console or vice versa, not sure which way it worked.
-
Yeah maybe instead of "lame" you can use "discouraged" or something similar. Overall, a good solid policy.
-
Not bad goose. You have my seal of approval. Especially for the controller part. 9/10 overall. :D
-
OK - I may as well put in my comments.
Original: 2) All legitimate records submitted are property of the-elite.net
Should be: 2) All legitimate records submitted are joint property of the player in question and the-elite.net
In my opinion - I shouldn't give up my rights to the record. Of course Elite needs control - however by the same token - saying that they are the property of Elite only infers you cannot remove times - edit times etc - as they are no longer your property.
10) Concerning the discovery of new strategies.
This part is a little iffy. I can understand why it's implemented - but it forces the playing field to be level. The leaderboards then just become "who can replicate WR strats the best". If I'm not a skilled player but find a new strategy - I essentially get no accolades because I can't out skill the other players - my name is never going to be mentioned on the leaderboards. I'm not concerned about this as much as just kind of shrugging my shoulders though.
9) Concerning emulators
Just a general point
- This should just say "You can't use emulators on the rankings". You're trying to write a proof policy for races? This is not the point of it. Races have their own set of rules - which should be either their own policy - or not at all. (Just make it agreement between racers.) You're kind of sliding in this whole racing thing without mentioning it elsewhere - which is silly.
4) Concerning video quality.
This generally needs a re-write. Pretty much you say that you just can't have a UWR if you don't have a capture card. I agree - but if you can provide solid webcam footage (Clemens does pretty solid webcamming) it should be allowed. If it's B&W - it should be color etc etc. I said this elsewhere - but isn't the point of proof simply to prove that you aren't cheating? This isn't SDA where they are looking for very good quality footage as an archive. It's a proof policy - not a quality policy. If it can be clearly seen (decent quality video/audio) that any reasonable person can tell there are no cheats - then that should be fine.
Everything regarding Elite Council members
This is where I get a little hot under the collar. You clearly say that "the Elite Council is to have a sort of parliamentary or governing body" yet then you just say "These are the dudes." Who chose these people? It sure as hell wasn't me - how is that parliamentary? Was it just you Goose who said "Well these people seem like the best people". What I'm trying to say is there has been little to no transparency on the issue. I just logged on and BAM - proof policies and Councils! Were there discussions - I don't know. That's the big point - I and many others simply don't know what's happened. Just those in the loop.
I would also point out that there are 14 members as I counted. You need an odd number so there can be a majority vote.
I'd also point out that if a secret ballot for voting is not used (making the votes public) people need to understand that these people are making decisions based on their own beliefs. I would warn any member of the council that their decisions are going to be scrutinized beyond belief. The whole "negative opinion could results in removal" is quite hogwash. Essentially - a council member could make some votes that everyone disagrees with - bam - negative opinion. There needs to be a sort of "parliamentary privilege" system in place. (See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege))
That's just my 2 cents for all of that.
-
v) If public opinion of a council member becomes negative, discussion will be held in public forum to remove or replace members of the council.
I hereby file a request for replacing council member Goose with OHMSS.
Just joking, I like your policy :nesquik: Well done, nice effort!
i) The time not saved glitch occurs when an objective completes in the last frame of the fadeout of a run. This has been seen on, but not limited to: Facility, Runway, Frigate, Depot, Jungle, Control. The mission status will read “Completed,” the time will not save as best time, no cheat will be unlocked if applicable, but the level will advance to the next level.
You could also mentioned that there is no ending cinema.
7) Concerning use of third party controllers
i) It’s really lame and frowned upon, but we are not able to enforce use against third party controllers.
It is not lame. Face it, we have late 2012 and official N64 sticks are shit in the long run. You can't expect anyone who wants to compete to play the ebay game for ages and hope for an actual 8+/10 controller, that will turn into a 4/10 within months anyways. I know a bunch of people around here love searching and collecting original stuff in top condition, but that's a minority really.
I think it was dwit who recently said that he order a couple of controllers in supposedly great condition and they all turned out to be shit.
With my "best" controller, Duel A 4.10 or 4.20 is maxed (not counting sideways-cruise) and some turns in GE are impossible but I have no means of getting a better one (besides playing the ebay game, which I wont), so a GC style stick would be a great help.
iv) Mouse controllers ( like this https://i.imgur.com/m9bsJ.jpg ) and any other controller than allows turning input of greater than the maximum value, are banned.
Typo. But, as president Wouter has already outlined, the whole paragraph is pretty much void.
ii) An emulators only rankings could be implemented if popularity calls for this.
Meh, you should drop this paragraph. The whole emulator section could just say "Not allowed for times on the ranks". Keep it small and simple. Plus people can do whatever the fuck they want in private, your wording kinda sounds like the policy pretends to have power besides ranking-matters ("should primarly be used for blah ...").
ii) Hoarding a new strategy is allowed (though lame) so that you can keep it to yourself and keep playing until you obtain an untied world record.
Again, people can do whatever the fuck they want unless they want their times on the ranks, so you don't have to explicitly mentioned that in the policy. Compare: Denis Lucid shitstorm. I once read that accusation thread and it was embarrassing. People called him all kind of names because he found a new strat and just didn't give a shit about issuing his WR with details towards the-elite and did not "socialize".
-
I like that the policy acknowledges the various controller issues, Japanese cartridges, and PAL/NTSC converters. The video quality part is also solid. Good stuff!
I'd make a snarky remark about some inappropriate people in the council, but I think Goose acknowledged that well enough already.
-
A few people on the council were actually pushing for EVERY WR needing captured, good, quality; using the arguments "it's 2012, get with it" and "it doesn't make sense that you'll put in the effort to get a WR but not the effort to make a good quality video." Which is foolish because some people are too poor and a $40 capture card truly is an economic burden on them. Anyways.
I'll make the edits where there are typos and poor wording choice.
Regarding the controllers; there actually are controllers that allow GREATER than what is programmed in the game. That's why I explicitly ban them there. That mouse controller is one example. They do severe breaking stuff to the game because again they force the game to do stuff that wasn't programmed into it.
The council - originally Carathorn and I wanted to make a small council of 5 or maximum 7 people to get together and make these decisions. Like when the UN first started. We talked to Come who was the only admin who would listen to us (the others being Ngamer, Scott Abbey aka Thingy and Derek Clark.) Come made a private forum where we would discuss these matters, and of course he felt like he had to add people like Ngamer, Scott Abbey, Derek Clark, Thiradell, infil, etc. It wasn't the original idea Cara and I had in mind but it was better than "no one makes a decision until Third comes along 2 weeks later and randomly decides on his own to ban Henning from the rankings."
Regarding people's votes being scrutinized, that is exactly what we want. We want people to make the best decisions that will make everyone happiest, and if you are on the council and can't take the heat for one of your votes, then get out of the oven.
And we don't need an odd number because odds are (and proven to be true so far) that half the council doesn't vote. Many of them are pushing for 1 or 2 WEEK voting periods instead of a reasonable 24 or 72 hours.
Basically, the reason this policy isn't official yet is because Scott, Third, others, were like "we need at least a week to vote on an issue, and we need all members of the council to vote, so you need to email and PM us whenever there is a vote because hardly any of us actually check the elite boards or care about the elite."
So hopefully these sorts of issues can be resolved soon.
-
Solid except for the part about quality. I think thats simply far too strict. Some people will always be around that dont have capture quality, and you cant alienate them from having the right to have their run on the ranks as an untied. As long as the quality is reasonable, it should be good enough. That doesnt mean I'll never get captured quality, but youre basically saying if i webcam an untied it wouldnt count... LOL. And it's kinda funny because webcam quality runs are actually a lot more difficult to fake, nearly impossible probably.
-
Regarding people's votes being scrutinized, that is exactly what we want. We want people to make the best decisions that will make everyone happiest, and if you are on the council and can't take the heat for one of your votes, then get out of the oven.
Don't disagree - but there needs to be protection. If this is just a "let's do what the community likes and if we don't like what you think then goodbye" then that's BS. That's not a council - that's totalitarianism.
Perhaps a clause which says "Vote/s made inside council is not grounds for dismissal from the council"
EDIT:
To elaborate - what I'm trying to say is that people in the council need to be given the latitude to vote how they think. If they are afraid that voting for or against something will earn them disgust from certain members of the community who would move to eject them from the council - it's just intimidation. The whole point of having multiple members on a council (any council) is that you get many opinions - you then pose your differing arguments and come to an eventual decision via vote. If you just choose people from the one side of the fence - there's no point in having a council - that's just making the whole council thing arbitrary. You need people with differing opinions - and you need to protect them if they have a contrary opinion. (Obviously this isn't supposed to be protection from things like "I think Gamesharks are legit" - but actual opinions.)
Something else I was thinking of is that you need to have people are active and will vote on this council. You also need "statutory limits" for certain decisions. For example - if you are making a decision on a perma ban - it should be unanimous or close to it. It's like a death sentence - it has to be unanimous among the jury. (In Australia at least) You can't ban someone permanently on 51% of a vote - it needs to have a solid following. Also - in these kinds of votes - you need everyone to vote. You can't abstain - you have to get in there. As Goose said - if you can't stand the heat...
-
Goose, that forum wasn't private, at least not all the time. I remember reading it about a week ago (don't know exact date).
:nesquik:?
-
lmao. Karl wasn't a member but then I saw he posted in the forum so I added him to the list, thinking Come had added him. Maybe Karl just had the forum open and posted too.
-
Secret forums and councils, that'll solve everything!
(actually it's good someone is doing something)
-
What if I were to let's say get a UWR and I recorded with webcam. I bring the webcam closer to the TV so the proof moderators can see the time clearly and I show that there are no modifications to the N64/controller used for the run. The sound in the run is decent. Would that count?
-
No
Deal with it. Its 2012
-
I thought this was an interesting article in light of recent discussion on how to detect fakes:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/12/12/1331243/engineers-use-electrical-hum-to-fight-crime
So now we need an Elite Forensics team as well as the council ;)
-
Though I am curious what exactly happens when this occurs on a new file. Will it go on to the next level and have a completion sign for the specific level, but when you enter that level again and quit out, there is no Best Time?
I looked into this and here's exactly what happens when the TNS bug occurs:
If you beat Facility on a new file with TNS bug, you will get the option to proceed to Runway. However, if you press B and go back to level selection screen, Runway will NOT be unlocked. And Facility will NOT have a completion sign nor best time. If you instead chose to proceed to Runway and beat the level, then Runway WILL be unlocked in the level selection menu and have the regular completion sign. You can also proceed to Surface. However, Facility still won't have a completion sign nor a best time (it never will unless you beat it again without the bug).
This brings up an interresting question, which i don't have the answer to since i don't want to play through entire game on emulator: What happens if you play through entire game with 1 or more level completed only with TNS bug? Will Cradle/Aztec/Egypt unlock? (I'm not sure if Cradle is dependent on the other levels being completed though) My guess is that they don't unlock since the game doesn't register a TNS'd level as completed. But if someone can confirm this then that'd be great.
-
So if you play Runway but then quit out and go to the selection screen, presumably Runway will no longer be available.
My opinion (FWIW) is that a TNS isn't really a completion then and shouldn't count.
-
Yeah the whole TNS thing is weird really (it's also worth noting that it never happens on PAL). I would totally give it a no but the fact that it says "Mission Completed" does sort of imply that you completed the whole level in that amount of time. Henrik I'll try to finish an Agent run later with a TNS on Facility and see if Cradle gets unlocked.
Edit - Actually I'm pretty sure it will so there's no point. To my knowledge if you finish Runway with a TNS on Facility the game will count Facility as completed.
-
Another interresting scenario: What if you get TNS on both Facility and Runway in a row? Will Runway not be available when you beat Surface and therefor give a gap in the level selection screen? I'm gonna test this now...
Edit: Appareantly yes:
(https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi795.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy235%2FWyster%2FTNSglitch.png&hash=41e0b50ab7eb4bec3781817228aa001b6bb4aee1)
So if you play Runway but then quit out and go to the selection screen, presumably Runway will no longer be available.
Yes. It's pretty funny.
-
Thanks for looking into TNS and answering my question Henrik!
Some really interesting info :)
Maybe someone could make some small videos about any findings such as these, would be interesting but also serve as documentation of knowledge.
-
I ran through the game once and indeed Aztec/Egypt does NOT unlock. At least not in the above case with 2 levels in a row TNS'd. However, i suspect this is true for single level TNS as well. Cradle does unlock like normal though which confirms that it's not dependent on the other levels being completed.
-
Thanks Henrik!
-
I'm not part of the council. I saw the board and posted on it. I was then blocked from the board without even a message.
I've been here for 13 years and I'm disapointed I would be treated this way. At this point I hardly give a fuck about the elite anymore because of all this bullshit.
Well done, you've pushed another long time member away.
-
That was entirely the doing of one of the admin (Ngamer, Scott, Clark, Come.) I would love to have had you as a member in the council.
And the funny thing is, it was the admin's fault for not setting up that forum properly since apparently the entire public were able to see it and post in it for a few weeks. So they punished you for something they did wrong. Sounds typical of those with authority.
-
Really interesting Henrik, thanks for checking that out. I'd personally be for the banning of TNS by now only cause it's never happened to me on a PR :P Nah, that's not the truth. It's pretty gay though considering everything but I guess we have to accept it as it is. It would be interesting however to see exactly what people would be for and against TNS by a poll or something. Maybe people who have had TNS happening on a PR would be against it from now on only if their earlier TNS-times weren't backrolled :P
--------------------------------------------------------
What now follows is an edited and elaborated post of one of my posts from the Elite Council. I've left out some of it and I've tried to keep it as short as possible. Since no one replied to my comments and arguments over there, and the fact that everyone now seems fine with this "perfect policy" or whatever, I'll post them again here (along with a few extra things) since I believe people have overlooked some things and/or things that I think we should be more specific about in the policy.
"It is up to the proof moderator to determine what is a decent time, but a good guideline would be anything over 90 points"
why is 90+ pointers suddenly a good guideline? Why not 85 or 88? Just wondering...
2) All legitimate records submitted are property of the-elite.net
i) When a record is found to be completely legitimate, it will stay on the rankings forever. No exceptions. These are the world rankings and as such, all the times of the world are ranked here. No one is able to remove their times.
I agree 110% with this (at Softman: you can still edit your times yourself). The superfluous and completely unnecessary parenthesis regarding sections 3ii and 3iii shouldn't be there though.
The main reason why I simply can't allow myself to approve of this policy is because of section 3, and especially 3iii. Section 3ii is however agreeable but also ridiculously strict. If I get the policy right, if Henning, on a Swedish meeting in the future, gets a PR, the time wouldn't count if it wasn't achieved LIVE on stream? It wouldn't count either if he later captured it with his DVD recorder? Surely getting a time at the meet is at least as good as getting it on stream, especially if he later captures it (no risk of having frames dropping). At least we should make an exception when it comes to meeting PRs: Henning gets a PR on a meeting and "all" he has to do is to capture the video later. I'm aware that the number of people at meets can vary from 2 to like 30 eliters, but a run that is achieved through a stream can also have 0 viewers. Why is this so overlooked and why is the legitimacy of streaming so simplified?
Regarding section 3iii: seriously. Hope that never happens. Probably the most absurd subsection in the entire policy (not to mention how contradictory it is to the 2i section). It's discriminating, not only to the cheater but also to all the other (top) players as they now will have to deal with a completely inaccurate ranking. It's the worst possible kind of punishment for a faker if it there ever was one and should be removed instantly. For me personally it's extremely annoying how I'm suddenly the 2nd ranked Swede in the game when I know for a fact I'm clearly not (I'm using Henning's temporary ban as an example of a permanently ban here). I do not support cheaters, but I will always support accurate rankings (in connection to proof calls/policies that actually support accurate rankings) before anything else.
Generally speaking, people now have the rather absurd argument or theory that with this policy and beyond, no person will ever cheat again. There will always be cheaters and immature people around so just face it. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to completely ban a player even if he's literally the most foolish person in the world. Cheating on Frigate shouldn't affect your times on the 19 other levels as long as they have video proof. Naturally every cheater from now on would have to provide proof of times that otherwise wouldn't had been proofcalled and provide extra decent quality of their gameplay etc.
When Henning gets re-added I suggest he'll be frozen for a while so that he can't post new times on the ranks himself and all his times must have video proof before a mod can add them to the ranks. Though in all honesty, I doubt he ever cheats again but we never can't be completely sure. And also, I don't really care if he get's frozen or not as it's his legit times I want up and nothing else. I'd support this before having him stream all his future PRs (of course it's even better if he do stream them too, especially the way he simultaneously records his runs to DVD).
4 viii) Music videos are fine to make for recreational purposes but do not count as proof for world records. There MUST be an in game sound version of the video for it to be acceptable proof.
What if the video and audio become out of sync? Would it still be acceptable proof? Now I know this can be edited afterwards but still. Example: one of Jimbo's recent Control vids and pretty much every video from Rafael Lanfredi are out of sync. Would the times have counted or not? Are they "more legit" than digcam vids or not?
also I'm missing this very good sentence from Third's proof policy that I think should be included:
"The video must be of the level being fully played through, as well as show the endscreen with the time gotten and the level completed".
Anyone seriously against in having this sentence implemented?
There is one problem though, regarding this otherwise perfect sentence. What if this happens like it did Henning on his Depot 00A 47? I honestly don't know what to think about it (this also happened to Trent on his B1 17), as it's obviously very unfortunate and can accidentally happen to anyone. I'd be OK with it but hate it at the same time. These kind of rare occurrences can never be truly fully proven and we pretty much have to go by trust here. I think if this or something similar happens again we should just deal with it case by case.
OK, a serious question: Jimbo's Control 00A 416 had one part that had missing frames (as he's about to shoot the screen). Is this acceptable proof? Assuming it is, where do you draw the line for runs with missing frames? Imagine Patrik's recent B2 SA 59 being a 49. Now 49 would require proof or otherwise it would be backrolled. The 59 video miss like the entire ending and shouldn't and cannot be accapted as proof these days. I'm not saying neither the 416 or 59 is fake, I am just using them as examples here.
Lanfredi's vids are captured, albeit out of sync. Are they better proof than say Monteith's digcam vids? In my opinion, no. You even mention Chuya's AS 206 as an example of a badly captured vid. In general, I think people should stop dividing captured vids into one category and digcam vids into another category (and streaming vids in another) since there will always be poorly made vids whether it's captured, digcam'd or streamed, and those poorly made vids are the ones we have to keep to a minimum and will obv not be tolerated as proof; good digcam vids like Monteith's are not really our main concern here.
I find it hilarious that people are so pro-streaming yet they overlook that most of the time streamed videos have missing frames whereas captured or digcam'd vids DO NOT. An incomplete run shouldn't be accepted as proof in the first place. Personally, I'd rather count a good digcam vid than a lame streaming vid. It really is a paradox that people are so pro-streaming (I assume it's only for legitimacy reasons, it certainly can't be for quality reasons) but at the same time so concerned about b/w videos, solid digcam vids or vids with no sound. I do think streaming is awesome, but it's not always equivalent to good proof.
btw, regarding section 4vii: "Untied World Records for which there are only black and white videos available can still count as proof if they were streamed live".
So it's OK if one of Marc's run had frame drops in it?
Some people actually record on DVD simultaneously while streaming and, if anything, this is what EVERY streamer within the-elite should do. Or else you are more or less just supporting PRs/WRs that have missing frames.
I support good quality but I have the feeling this has become more of a quality policy than a proof policy as softman stated. It's pretty unfair to alienate skilled players for being ranked just because they don't capture their runs. Currently, David Clemens is the only one in my opinion that TRULY need to make his PRs in better quality. It used to be Marc, but at least I'm OK with his vids as they are now. Perhaps Pettit should find out a way to add sound to his otherwise more-than-acceptable vids as well.
---------------------------------------------------------
On a sidenote, someone need to do something about PD proof calls (Third you there?) since they occur too seldom.
also, we should decide rules for LTK/DLTK as well and treat them just the same, even though they are only side leagues. Should low quality vids be accapted for LTK/DLTK untieds or not etc and that sort of things. If a player fakes or cheats his way up the LTK ranks, we need to enforce some kind of punishment. This policy does however not even mention LTK/DLTK (neither did Third's for that matter).
-
*talking to me regarding editing of times*
I don't disagree and I know how it works, but it's not what I read out of it - and that's where I have problems. If I don't how the Elite runs and I read that when I give my times to the elite for ranking - I give up all the rights to those times - that would certainly dissuade me from even joining.
Hell - even a proof policy from 2005 which I found (http://the-elite.net/proofpolicy.html (http://the-elite.net/proofpolicy.html)) talks about joint property! (Last section)
And yes - I'm a law student (completed Year 12 and going into uni next year) so that's why I'm all antsy about this kind of thing.
-
Are there any rules regarding TNS bug for full game runs? For SA/00A runs the bug obviously screws up the run since Aztec/Egypt doesn't unlock. So the bug kinda bans itself in those cases.
But what about Agent runs and 100%? Let's say you did a 100% run and got the bug when going for one of the cheats, the cheat wouldn't unlock, and therefor, the run wouldn't be 100%. For Agent runs you could finish the game, but one level wouldn't be registered as completed. Those cases might not even be noticable unless you go through every level and check for the completion sign or show the endscreen for each level. Therefor a similar rule to LTK/DLTK runs probably should be applied here that by the end Agent run videos, every level needs to be checked for completion signs, and additionally on 100% the cheat menu must be shown to be complete.
Also, it'd be pretty wierd to have diffrent rules for single stage runs and full game runs regarding this bug. So since it clearly can't be allowed for full game runs, it probably shouldn't be allowed for single stage either. But that's just my opinion of course.
-
What about the "all WRs must be proven within 48 hours" rule that Cara brought up in that petition in general chat? I thought that was a good idea.
-
Axel, almost every single one of your questions is a ridiculous "what if" scenario. And they can all be answered with this;
4) v) Just because a video is captured does not mean it is acceptable quality. Chuya’s Attack Ship Agent 2:06 for instance is no longer acceptable quality. In game sound and clean bitrates are necessary. The community’s public opinion as well as the elite council’s decision will determine whether or not a video of an untied world record is acceptable quality.
That obviously applies to all videos. And that's sort of the point of the elite council in itself. The proof policy should be a set of guidelines. For any more specific event, the council will have to make a determination. That's generally how real life works.
Why is the policy so strict against cheaters? Because otherwise we're always going to have cheaters and fakers. Maybe with a lifetime ban, that will stop. Maybe. Again, it is up to the council to decide if a video faker gets permabanned or backrolled + only streamed proof acceptable.
Why is the policy so strict against bad quality videos? Because otherwise we're never going to see the top players get good quality videos, which has always been a problem in the elite.
Why is the policy so pro streaming? Because streaming is fucking awesome and it's the same difference between watching a sporting event LIVE and the same event taped. And it really is difficult to make a fake video while streaming. We know how to do it, but it is difficult. The little black and white tidbit is only in there because it would be retarded if Marc got an untied live on stream, made B&W video, and we still didn't count it on the rankings because it was B&W. It's pretty much a Marc-only caveat. And your rant about videos dropping frames... IF IT DROPS TOO MANY FRAMES TO MAKE IT NOT LEGIT, THEN IT'S NOT LEGIT! LOL. Look at Marc's original Egypt 46. Anyone who knows the game can tell if a run is acceptable quality or not.
Full runs obviously have the same proof rules. So do DLTK and LTK. But obviously less people care about those so there is a natural order of events that follow. A 100% run needs to unlock all cheats, so TNS you'd have do redo a level there. Agent runs you just beat Cradle so TNS doesn't matter. Most any% runs (which Agent, SA, 00A runs are... they are "beat the final level on this difficulty as fast as you can doing whatever you can without cheating) in other games skip a hell of a lot of things. So beating facility but it not "counting" is obviously fine here. On 100% it's different since there is a specification that you need to unlock all the cheats.
Jimmy - the 48 hour untied rule was fully in response to Trent's gayness, which I covered in the "new strat" section. You can't claim Train SA 1:19 with a new strat anymore and have it ranked until there is a video made public. Obviously in this day and age we want untieds up as soon as possible. There are times when Clemens or Ace might take a day or two to make a video, but that's really it. If there are problems, the council will deal with them.
Anyways, I hope that answers all your questions.
-
Goose - clearly you are in favor of having good quality videos on the site. I'm not saying there's a problem with that - but you're going way too hard down the line. You're pushing way too hard - and telling me that I can't be considered good without a capture card - if you know what I'm saying.
Same with streaming - it's cool you're pro streaming - I'm pro streaming! But - you gotta back off a bit. This quality policy is going too far down those lines and swaying off the track of writing a proof policy.
I'd also appreciate your opinion on the joint property issue Goose. :)
P.S. Something I'll mention here that I forgot about earlier - dropped frames on stream are something that can be fixed easily. I personally have my XSplit always up - and if I see dropped frames - at the end of the run I drop the quality. I don't mean like...20 frames - but if it starts getting into the hundreds - then there's a problem. So dropped frames on stream aren't really the biggest issue.
At the same time with streaming - I don't disagree that there should be a caveat for Marc's B&W videos on stream - the fact you are writing in a caveat specifically for him is poor form. (No offense Marc) What if someone else comes along with another caveat? Will you write him/her in as well? If you're going to go hard on this quality thing - just think about it in full before you do it.
-
Taka's youtube-account is no more: http://elite.speedrunwiki.com/forum/index.php?topic=363.msg378891#msg378891
Pretty much all of his PD/GE vids are not available anymore. Something all pro-streamers should consider perhaps? I'm not sure if there's backup somewhere or if Taka himself removed his channel or not so no need to panic yet. Taka didn't stream those vids but he might as well could have with them being lost later. Videos losing their availability has happened before to Chuya and, to a far lesser extent, Trent, but they weren't backrolled or anything so it'll be biased to backroll Taka (also all his times were available for at least several months) and the rankings are far from being the (current) proven rankings anyway.
also:
2) All legitimate records submitted are property of the-elite.net
i) When a record is found to be completely legitimate, it will stay on the rankings forever. No exceptions. These are the world rankings and as such, all the times of the world are ranked here. No one is able to remove their times.
Again, this is all very solid, and it doesn't say anything about removing your videos, just your times.
In the proof policy, something needs to be added about having to make actual files of all your PRs (especially untieds) in case they ever are lost again and preventing mishaps like this occurring in the first place. Youtube and twitch videos don't last forever. This is also why streaming people (and players that only uploads their PRs to youtube) should record simultaneously to another source/send their files to others/uploading to thengamer.
at Goose: The community’s public opinion as well as the elite council’s decision will determine whether or not a video of an untied world record is acceptable quality.
I guess I'm fine with that. But as softman says, need to tone the quality policy down a bit in favour to the actual proof policy. I'm worried the competition will decrease (especially from low ranked players) if their digcam vids aren't allowed on the ranks. And how can we be so sure everyone will buy a capture card or a DVD recorder if their digcam PRs suddenly aren't considered legit anymore? I'd be very much for if "all people inside top 10 or 20 must capture their runs" or so.
My opinion about "joint property" or whatever (as if it isn't clear already): if the run once was proven, with acceptable quality and 100% legit, it will go down the history books i.e. the ranks. Why would giving up your times to the ranks dissuade you from joining? It's basically the same as not wanting to have your merits like your Olympic medal mentioned anymore (if you weren't using doping, but your name will still have an * behind it) in the athletics history books.
at the 48 hour rule: I'm not that impatient and could probably easily wait a month or two if necessary, but the sooner the better.
You can't claim Train SA 1:19 with a new strat anymore and have it ranked until there is a video made public
The 1:19 video was actually made public before I claimed it (as posting in the WR topic) but I assume this is just your regular trolling and therefore won't bother to further comment on it :)
-
Do you agree Taka's times should stay on the rankings? The videos were made public and seen by everyone. Everyone knows he got them... so should they stay or not? Think carefully about this.
Because if you think they should stay, then you agree that Marc's Surface 2 SA 0:55 should be on the rankings as well.
Trent's situation is entirely different because he has lied about times 100 times, posted fake WRs and PRs in the topics, posted PRs which he claimed to have gotten but then posted a fake video to go along with it (Train A 1:11 for instance) while still claiming he actually got the PR...
IMO a player's ranking DOES have a lot to do with what you do in these situations. Removing a 20th ranked player is like whatever, because he's a troll and deserves it. There's no harm in removing a player with no decent WRs or other good PRs. However removing a top 10 player is damaging to the integrity of the rankings. Maybe that's just me.
And stop this fucking nonsense "new players will be scared away since they can't record on webcam." WHERE *THE FUCK* DOES IT SAY THAT? IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS UNTIED WRS AND UNCOMMON WRS NEED CAPTURED. FOR ANYTHING ELSE, THE VIDEO JUST NEEDS TO BE *ACCEPTABLE* ENOUGH FOR THE PROOF MODERATOR AND COMMUNITY TO ACCEPT IT AS FUCKING PROOF. JESUS CHRIST. DO YOU THINK WE WILL ALL GET UP IN ARMS WHEN MIRRORMAGE POSTS A FUCKING ARCHIVES 57 IN QUESTIONABLE PROOF? FUCK OFF.
You've been proof mod for 3 fucking years. If you wanted the policy to be exactly the way you want it, you could have written it in that time. Instead, I come back to the elite for 4 months, popularize streaming, discover fake videos, and write a new policy. Get it together. And yes I am angry at you because you are trolling me with all these fucking retarded questions and it's not fair that I'm the one who has to do everything around here.
Fuck.
-
Goose - calm the fuck down.
Stop writing the fucking Goose policy and start writing the Elite policy. If you think it's your opinion that "acceptable" can be webcam - then why the hell do you stress about capture for WRs. If the acceptability of a video does not require capture card - then why force it? I've said it again and again I know - but - this is just a proof policy.
And no - I am not trolling you at all - this is my serious opinion.
Just because you've stepped up to the plate on this proof policy thing doesn't make you right. I've said this before on many people's streams - I love this bloody policy - I just take serious issue with certain segments and that's why I'm posting.
I'll concede on the joint property. I still think it should be there considering that it was before - but eh - you're right Axel - I'd still prefer it's there. But the problem isn't what there is - it's what I read out of it. I read complete control from the Elite - and I have no control. I know that's not how it works - but still - that's what I read.
And your opinion on player's ranking being key in what to do in regards to removing people is bullshit. You've said it yourself many times. These are the WORLD rankings - not the rankings for the good players who get immunity from this kind of thing and the others can just piss off if they encounter technical issues. Unless it's huge amounts of troll and faking involved etc etc. :)
P.S. I dare anyone to call me out that my opinion is wrong simply because I'm not on the rankings. Just don't.
-
Calm down Ryan.
Taka's times should stay. Marc never provided actual video proof of his Surface 2 SA 0:55. The 55 was not seen by "everyone". There's a notable difference here.
Trent's Train A 1:11 was with the circuit board strat so it's definitely not a fake video, but, like all circuit board times, not legit. So I'm not sure why you bring the 1:11 up. As far as I know, Trent, unlike you and Henning, haven't lied about any time nor faked one (at least since I joined), just failed in providing proof of some of his runs. So there's no need for you to exaggerate in hoping to manipulate people in believing that Trent is our biggest liar/faker when he's clearly not.
Removing a 20th ranked player is like whatever, because he's a troll and deserves it. There's no harm in removing a player with no decent WRs or other good PRs. However removing a top 10 player is damaging to the integrity of the rankings. Maybe that's just me.
Correct. You might as well remove all players not ranked 1-19th in GE/PD then (except Cliff Hampton, BRIO, Denis Lucid). The rankings would be so much better.
I come back to the elite for 4 months, popularize streaming, discover fake videos, and write a new policy. Get it together. And yes I am angry at you because you are trolling me with all these fucking retarded questions and it's not fair that I'm the one who has to do everything around here.
No one asked you to. And I'm not trolling nor am I angry at you at all. My intentions are always for the benefit of an accurate rankings and even though, admittedly, many of my questions are "what if-scenarios", it's only because I don't want to see loopholes in the policy. A policy that looks too aggressive as of now and which needs to be elaborated and more specific in certain sections. Just because you have written a policy doesn't make you automatically right.
-
Trent posted a Silo SA 1:12 in the WR topic back in like 2006 which he never provided proof for. An obvious lie if you look at the ranks and see who is capable of such a time. Also, he claimed that he actually got Train A 1:11, though the "video" he used for it was faked. He said he did actually get the time but provided a fake video.
Fact of the matter Softman, is nobody gives a single fuck about the 30th ranked time on the ranks. So as long as you can tell they actually got it, good. It's proof. People DO however give a fuck about the 1st place WR or untied WR. That's why it should be held to the highest standard of proof... captured quality.
What do you think the world would be like if Siglemic's 120star runs were on a fucking WEBCAM ? I mean really. People who get 2:10 120star can use webcam, because again NOBODY GIVES A FUCK. But when you're the best, you need the best quality.
-
What do you think the world would be like if Siglemic's 120star runs were on a fucking WEBCAM ?
I wouldn't personally care.
As long as the webcam isn't 5m away from the screen and that I could actually see everything that's going on - that's all that matters. I'm there to watch Mario - and if I can - that's OK. But that's me. Other's may feel differently - but if any reasonable person can make out all the features in the game - boom.
I've never been talking about 30th rank times - I'm talking about proof for anything. If you can see everything clearly, then it should be fine. I'm not talking about the BS webcam crap where it's so far away from the screen you can see the kitchen sink in the shot. I'm talking about webcam stuff like...Clemens streaming. You can clearly see everything that is happening with no deformities due to the webcam camera. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a VCR or something keyed in as well. BUT - you can see everything - and that's my point entirely
-
What do you think the world would be like if Siglemic's 120star runs were on a fucking WEBCAM ?
I wouldn't care either. The run would just be less popular, that's all.
Trent posted a Silo SA 1:12 in the WR topic back in like 2006 which he never provided proof for. An obvious lie if you look at the ranks and see who is capable of such a time.
We can never be completely sure he didn't get it. You may call it a lie if you want to. But as there was no video, the 1:12 was obviously backrolled. And looking at his 1:14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Oxscsmr6M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Oxscsmr6M), which he got in like 2004, I'd say he is actually capable of 1:12 only by looking at his 2nd fuel room.
Fact of the matter Softman, is nobody gives a single fuck about the 30th ranked time on the ranks
Stop talking like you know everyone inside and out. Perhaps you don't care.
-
Goose makes a really good point in that Axel Z has been diligently performing a needed service for the-elite for a long time. I would much prefer that over someone coming back to the-elite after a long hiatus, and trying to frantically change everything up because they suddenly feel like it's necessary. I appreciate your efforts to expose streaming and bring Henning's fake videos to light, Goose, but you're not "the only one who does anything around here."
It's nice to see discussion over the particulars of the policy, but bear in mind that it mainly contains approximate guidelines which can be relaxed or enforced based on individual situations (exactly what has happened in the past). The main idea behind an elite council is to have more people than just me making decisions when sensitive situations come up. The policy is a framework from which to make those decisions, and making it available to the public helps reinforce the fairness of the decisions, and the thought process behind them.
I'd just like to re-emphasize how there are constantly things going to the courtroom in real life because the situation's particulars call for a close examination of them, to be individually defined and judged in such a way that cannot ever be automatically regulated by a policy. This case-by-case judgment is, in my opinion, the only way to do things.
-
When a random person types into google "Goldeneye world record" and they see webcam videos, that is a huge turn off. If it's a shitty 30th place time, then whatever, they only want to see the world record. If the WR is in great quality, that will attract and interest more people. If the WR is in shit quality, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS GOING ON, it's not as attractive.
Think about watching amateur webcam porn with poor lighting vs highly produced porn in 720p. Exact same thing.
-
Third, do you SERIOUSLY believe that a new proof policy wasn't necessary? Do you really believe after all we've seen the past month that this is all pointless? Get with the times.
Either make a proof call in PD or give up that job. I'll gladly be PD proof moderator if you are too busy with university to do it anymore.
-
This topic has made one thing clear though. There are only TWO people who care enough about the rankings to actually do something about making them better... Axel Z and myself.
It's pathetic that everyone in power, admins, mods, literally do not give a single fuck about the gaming aspect of the elite anymore.
Honestly I'm just going to hop on board with the ZSR and SRL guys and make a new site for GE/PD speedrunning. TTYN.
-
And yes I'm mad. Because look how much effort I've put into this place. It's been the same story since Day 1. I do so much work and nobody cares. The end. Get it fucking together people. I work SO HARD to make this a better place and everyone just runs in here to SHIT on me for no good reason.
-
Lol, not sure whether that's a bluff. I do apologize for falling behind on PD proof calls. I'm on break from school now, so I'll get something up by the first of the year to deal with all the PD action that I missed.
-
The Elite needs to ask itself what the point is with proving a time. Are you proving it just to each other, with the intention of making sure nothing fake is on the rankings? Or are you posting videos so that GE speedrunning and the Elite at large can look good to the online VG and speedrunning community?
If it's just the former, then I think good webcam quality should be fine for WRs. But I would argue that the second is also important and people who are looking to get good WRs should invest in very minimal capture equipment. It's never been easier or cheaper to do this, and the Elite looks bad when videos of our best times are poor.
Also, I was the one Goose quoted above when he said "why bother spending time getting good WRs if you aren't going to spend time making good quality vids of it", and I stand by that. The time and money investment is virtually negligible to do this. It's no longer rare or a luxury to be able to capture videos from a composite signal, and if you spend 100 hours getting a WR, it should be expected the quality matches the effort.
-
It's not a bluff.
Just because you spent a lot of time in chat, Jon randomly decided you would make a good moderator because you seemed like a reliable guy. You never wanted the job. You rarely post anymore. But you refuse to give up your "power" because it makes you feel good inside.
Do you enjoy being proof moderator? Do you like watching videos and analyzing them to make sure they're real? Hell, do you even DO that?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, how do you feel for banning Henning outright? Does it make you feel good? That you, who doesn't care at all about the elite rankings anymore, just removes someone who has spent their entire life playing GE & PD for amazing times. You just squash someone's dreams because you're in a position where you can.
It's extremely saddening to me. I thought the council and a new policy would bring a positive change to the elite, but obviously this old boys club is going to stay the same.
-
OK - let's make some things perfectly clear right now.
1) I like this policy on the whole.
2) The only part I currently take issue with is of quality.
3) I am not shitting on you Goose - I am merely attempting to state a case. When you go all uppity - I'm going to shoot you down and get all smartass because you can't claim high and mighty - noone can claim to know everything. I don't and am not - I'm stating my opinion in order to have a rational discussion.
4) You really are taking the whole "I'm the only one" too seriously. I mean dear god - you just made 4 posts in a row about being mad.
But on a more serious note.
When a random person types into google "Goldeneye world record" and they see webcam videos, that is a huge turn off. If it's a shitty 30th place time, then whatever, they only want to see the world record. If the WR is in great quality, that will attract and interest more people. If the WR is in shit quality, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS GOING ON, it's not as attractive.
I would like to re-iterate here. This is why I take issue with the quality section. You aren't writing the capture card business in because it's required proof - you're writing in to attract more people. I do not disagree - but this isn't a quality policy. It isn't - it is a proof policy - and it always will be a proof policy. You're not writing a quality policy. This quote says that you are - and that's not your job - not should the Elite turn away WR holders just because they don't have a bloody capture card. I looked around Ebay Australia - capture software is expensive unless I get this USB crap - where the cord is shorter than a gnat's dick. I'd need a laptop to use that. It's not as easy as you think to get a capture card without forking out $100+.
EDIT: Goose - I'm going to say this one last time just to get my point through. This time I'll admit - I'm totally trying to shit on you here because you're just pissing me off. Just because you came up and said "NEW PROOF POLICY AND ELITE COUNCIL" doesn't mean we all like it - and it doesn't mean you're right. You may have done this crap behind closed doors or whatever but none-the-less you are trying to create a new old boys club - whether you think so or not. You're also calling out a mod on "how he feels" for making an executive decision? Yes it came a little late but at least he did something! There was a clear issue and he resolved it.
Infil has the right idea - I agree that capture cards and all that should be used - I just don't believe it should be a requirement. (But I would point out it is easier and cheaper to get capture cards and all that in other parts of the world than Australia - at least in my local electronic stores. ;) )
-
I do care, I'm a good mod, and I've always made decisions with the-elite's interests in mind. I've tried to be as open and forthright regarding my decisions as I can be, and Axel and I have kept things pretty well in check for the past three years, while you were gone, not keeping the-elite running. I did want the job of mod and I was excited to get it.
-
It's not a bluff.
Just because you spent a lot of time in chat, Jon randomly decided you would make a good moderator because you seemed like a reliable guy. You never wanted the job. You rarely post anymore. But you refuse to give up your "power" because it makes you feel good inside.
Do you enjoy being proof moderator? Do you like watching videos and analyzing them to make sure they're real? Hell, do you even DO that?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, how do you feel for banning Henning outright? Does it make you feel good? That you, who doesn't care at all about the elite rankings anymore, just removes someone who has spent their entire life playing GE & PD for amazing times. You just squash someone's dreams because you're in a position where you can.
It's extremely saddening to me. I thought the council and a new policy would bring a positive change to the elite, but obviously this old boys club is going to stay the same.
One of the most insane things I've ever read.
Henning squashed his own dreams when he lied. And it sounds like his times will be back up sooner rather than later, making the whole thing moot anyway. You're being melodramatic for melodrama's sake, and people won't appreciate it.
-
People arguing that webcam quality is good enough for WRs....
:nesquik:
-
I wouldn't mind if Goose left to form another rankings, nothing agaist him personally. It's just that I think he's wrong on so many levels it's funny.
Wanting a job more than someone else isn't a good reason for you to have the job. The amount of effort you put in isn't a good reason either. Goose is emotionally unstable to the max. He has terrible judgement and over reacts to everything.
Tyler is super cool, I totes know cause I met him and can vouch for his epicness. <3 you Tyler :p
-
There's a lot of people who put a whole hell of a lot of hours into helping run the elite in a lot of different ways, and not for a single bit of compensation other than seeing other people reap the benefits of their work doing what they love to do. I'm extremely put-off by Goose's recent posts, whatever man.
It's a good policy and I do think every world record from here on out should be direct-captured, no more excuses. It was 40 damn dollars for me to get a powered splitter and Dazzle software! If this is a dealbreaker for Clemens, then maybe I'll help him buy it or something.
-
I gave dave $250. He should have bought a HD recorder. Bitch.
-
lol this topic just got so shitty in about 20 posts. Ill be happy to contribute some more to that :)
goose - dont be so hasty, the proof policy will be there eventually. its shitty that other people will take their time to agree wth the policy because you clearly invested a lot of time into it. Just have some patience for fucks sake?
tyler - Yes you are a great guy to talk and chat with but dont come here claiming that you are a good mod, because here it is: you are NOT a good mod. I actually had like 10 examples all written out but w/e I wont insult you or anything because I like you as a person. but yes as a mod you are grinding EVERYONES gears. oh yeah and cut the intellectual scholar english, not every post you write should be a fucking Shakespeare play.
every softman post: tl;dr
every karl post: troll, better all ignore for the better of this world
-
Axel Z:
TNS ... It's pretty gay though considering everything but I guess we have to accept it as it is.
Why? If it is so goddamn gay (which it is) then just ban it for future PRs. It would also remove one big question mark for amateur viewers and youtubers that read stuff like "2.4 CC Hori JAP TNS dot" below elite vids and in turn label them as a retarded glitchfest in their minds because it has nothing to do with the GE that they know.
Currently, David Clemens is the only one in my opinion that TRULY need to make his PRs in better quality.
Ranked 11 Gui Alberto wouldn't hurt either :)
good digcam vids like Monteith's
I would agree if he'd fixed the cam and not held it with his wobbly hands.
Goose:
Third, do you SERIOUSLY believe that a new proof policy wasn't necessary? Do you really believe after all we've seen the past month that this is all pointless? Get with the times.
So true, the Thiradell statement was quite pathetic.
It's extremely saddening to me. I thought the council and a new policy would bring a positive change to the elite, but obviously this old boys club is going to stay the same.
Did you miss that most of the posters like your policy and efforts and just gave positive feedback about some policy details? If you stopped being a fanatic drama queen for a second, you might notice :)
Softman:
not should the Elite turn away WR holders just because they don't have a bloody capture card.
In the long run, yes that should be the case.
capture software is expensive unless I get this USB crap - where the cord is shorter than a gnat's dick
5m composite cables did cost me ... like nothing.
-
Goose is clearly the most dedicated eliter and he is probably the reason that new life got blew into the elite when he came back in the first place. His posts might look like it's from a overdramatic teen girl having her period combined with some acting and trolling, but one thing is he cares. I agree with Goose that the mods just doesn't care enough for GE these days. They have done a tremendous job and we are forever thankful, but they are just not very present these days. Wouldn't even mind if Goose replaced the powers of the red beard.
Goose for 2013 summer contest champ! :nesquik:
-
Cara is the person who deserves credit for the elite being involved with Twitch.
http://elite.speedrunwiki.com/forum/index.php?topic=16951.0
-
^ He just claimed he popularized streaming, which is certainly true.
-
Cara, I'd love to hear some more specifics. If it's just being annoyed with my personality, maybe look past that, lol.
-
Banning Henning without consulting a single person; but not doing anything about Trent who wreaked havoc on the community for over a month with his "new strat" trolling, video faking and excessive lying, showing clear bias because you've met Trent and not Henning, is a good start as to why you're not a good mod.
-
Trent, in his own way, attempted to introduce a new strat into the-elite. He was genuinely interested in using the circuit board strat to cut down GE times (he'd done extensive research on all 20 levels), and it was something I had to consider. He certainly didn't deserve to be banned for it. I'm also not aware of any videos that he faked or any straight-up lies he told.
-
Train Agent 1:11
he posted this in the PR topic
posted a clearly edited video as "proof"
later on said "yes the video was fake, but the PR was real"
failed to provide a "real" video for that PR
nothing has been done about this
-
MIG144MFI (18:01:15): The video is not fake. I can understand why you (and everyone else) think it is, so I'm not questioning your decision. However, the video is completely unedited, and the time was achieved using standard N64 equipment and without the use of a gameshark or PBCs.
It was a circuit board vid bro
-
LOL do you remember watching the video? Because I do. He escaped the train and then there was a totally separate ending scene. As in he spliced two runs together, similar to Clemens' "frig 102" video. He exits the train and then it switches to a completely different run, different weapon, different angle of looking up, lol.
Okay I see Trent's time has been backrolled to 1:13 on Train Agent. That seems fine. However he deleted all of his videos so we don't know what's proven or not, and nothing has been done about THAT. Trent caused a lot more damage to the elite than Henning did but still no one cares because they've all met Trent and "he's a cool guy" or whatever.
-
Goose, do you understand what a circuit board vid is? It does things like that. Go back and read Trent's post, he describes similar effects on a lot of other levels.
-
I don't even know why we're having this discussion. Why has this devolved into such a ridiculous thread now? There is a new proof policy that most people, except for a select few who don't even care about the games, think is very solid in general. It's the new policy. End of story.
-
Noooooooooooooooooooope
-
"I don't know why we're having this discussion"
Because you said Third was a bad mod for a specific reason, which Third then explained his side of the story. That's why this discussion is taking place.
I don't know how Trent coming up with a new strategy and providing video (even though this strategy needs to be banned on further examination) can compare to Henning, a top 5 player, lying about some of his times for years.
-
Because Trent has also lied about some of his times for years. (Silo SA 1:12 for instance.)
-
:nesquik:Lol Trents 111 was legit , if you watch his and axels runs they all look like that
-
I'm posting this here since all other TNS-bug related facts are in this topic:
Not sure if this is old info or not, but the TNS bug doesn't just occur when objectives complete at the very last moment of fadeout. It also happens when an objective fails at the very last moment of fadeout. The result is exactly the same though, all objectives say completed but the time doesn't save.
I'm guessing this doesn't change anything regarding TNS legitimacy but it's still a good thing to know ^^
-
Interesting. I think that is a good thing to know and makes the TNS times even more sketchy.
-
That is probably more likely what has happened on Facility TNS times then?
-
Glad to know the tracking bug fell off the helicopter in the last frame of Marc's and my Frigate SA 1:02s :nesquik:
-
So the two first posts of this thread have been cleared, not by me.
Some sketchy stuff here.
-
I was wondering what happened there. Probably best just to move forward though.
-
Well what could be the point in removing the text in the first two posts? It was just the suggested proof policy so I dont see why anyone would think it had to be removed.
-
My posts about the proof policy in the elite council forum have been cleared as well...
Usually when a mod edits your post, it will say "last edited by (mod's name)" but none of these say that, so it has to have come from an admin... either Jon or Scott.
Really bizarre turn of events here.
-
Same thing happened to the current proof call topic, so this was probably just a mistake or technical problem. Or maybe the proof call incident is just a deception to make us believe it was a mistake --> tinfoil hat on.
-
There was an issue with certain characters in conversion to UTF-8 forum standard character set. I think it's taken care of for the most part but there are probably some issues remaining. Please send me a message if you find something.
The first post in the proof call topic was edited by someone else already so I couldn't recover that one.
I also discovered many posts mentioning 'Marc Rützou' had gone blank, but they seem to all be back now after the fix.
-
Who is this Marc character you mention? I don't believe he ever really existed.