Forum posts

Forum: RogueJack: Roguelike Blackjack

Thread: How do you get the moon to appear?

Started by: JackythejackJackythejack

Interesting -- if you record a run, we can adjust the timing rules to fit it. Are you on ios or android?


Forum: The Site

Thread: The % categories

Started by: Bob-chickenBob-chicken

I don't prefer it, but if it's there, I read it as "The percentage it takes to complete (a tangible achievement) and optionally finish the game." If it couldn't easily fit into this sentence, then it should be renamed.

For instance, Softlock% makes sense to me.
Dual Lasers Radio in Hole%, without judging the merit of the category, also makes sense. It's the percentage of the game completed to get the radio in the hole.

Singleplayer Noclip% does not make sense because there is no tangible achievement aside from completing regular Any% with the "noclip" command.

QuivicoQuivico likes this. 

Forum: Tiny Tomb

Thread: Resurrection Rules

Started by: OxkniferOxknifer

Currently, the rules state that resurrects are not allowed. However, I'd consider changing the rules to accept a fair number of resurrects. In other games, such as Drop Wizard Tower, I've done 3 resurrects as the maximum. In all fairness, the game is pretty difficult and you can die from silly mistakes while going fast. However, it's possible to resurrect yourself over 10 times (I've done it just to test it out).

If anyone is interested in the 3 resurrects rule, let me know. Or, challenge yourself to not die lol


Forum: Frozen Free Fall: Icy Shot

Thread: Game Update and Possible Timing Issue

Started by: OxkniferOxknifer

Update, looks like the game is available again on Android. Disney must've renewed a contract or something.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

@Oreo321Oreo321 Great ideas, I also asked for those in December of 2017 and August of 2018


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

@XeroGoFastXeroGoFast, nice idea, though isn't a stickied forum post enough?
@rmrm, also an interesting idea. Though I think credit can be seen on the statistics page WR graph pretty easily, wouldn't you say?


Forum: The Site

Thread: Is this forum searchable?

Started by: fufu

If searching forum posts were possible, they would be able to see if the question had already been asked. Otherwise, they have no quick way of knowing.

One quick fix for this particular issue is to change the "etc" to make it clear what can be searched for.

"Search for series, games, users, and marathons"


vardemirvardemir, goadirothgoadiroth and ckellyeditsckellyedits like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: API Problems

Started by: dadinfinitumdadinfinitum

Here's the use case, for more info:

In the Mobile Speedrunning Discord, we use this bot to update us on any mobile run verified. The bot has its own dedicated channel so everyone can be featured :))


Forum: Golf Zero

Thread: Wheres Octopus?

Started by: KkntucaraKkntucara

@KkntucaraKkntucara suggested this game in the mobile speedrunning discord so I'm here :))
This game rocks. Also I agree that runs without video should be banned, but that would throw some WRs out (like octo's Speedrun 5)


Forum: Mutiny

Thread: Software for Recording and Timing

Started by: OxkniferOxknifer

Okay thank you for posting, I'll retime it this week!


Forum: Drop Wizard Tower

Thread: Any% Rules

Started by: OxkniferOxknifer

Current Any% allows any character, any amount of gem resurrections, and any amount of umbrellas to be used in a run.

If this game becomes more popular, it might be worth it to discuss subcats for some of those.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

Originally posted by shikennuggetsthe moderator next pretty much has free reign to do whatever the heck they want with the leaderboard (at least until if/when someone else comes along).

That's a good point. I understand your thoughts behind it :))
In the mean time, we can be certain that auto-removing mods from games is (most likely) acceptable if:
- They are 3 months inactive
- There is at least one other active mod on the board

Originally posted by shikennuggetsLast I checked you are not a new user

Okay, scratch "new." All users should be respected.

Originally posted by shikennuggetsseveral years after the fact

The earliest was from November 2018, not several years ago. And it was to make a point about the general acceptance of coarse fallacies as responses. It happens all over the site forum, not just here. But yes, perhaps I didn't need to quote them directly, as that could be considered cherry-picking and could stir up negativity between myself and those users. There are plenty of people here who do contribute to a positive environment, including you, Shiken :)) My apologies.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

Originally posted by shikennuggetsNot sure why you put all that as an edit instead of a new post

I like keeping things in one place sometimes :))

Originally posted by shikennuggetsAdding some rando who knows absolutely nothing about the game or community in question as a temporary moderator is not substantially better than having no moderator

The goal, of course, would be to find someone within the community to mod. But what about all those leaderboards with no active community at all? An engaging, preselected mod could feasibly help grow that community.

Originally posted by shikennuggetsparticularly vulnerable leaderboards

Wondering what you mean by that ^

Originally posted by shikennuggetsI don't feel the need to sugar coat

Then ...just don't say anything. "Yeah, no" is like "screw what you just said," which provides no constructive argument and comes off as rude. Perhaps a new user posting here just had their first idea they'd like to share and want to see what people think. If you explain kindly and logically why it is a bad idea, then you are promoting a warm culture that is open to ideas.

Originally posted by shikennuggets"well I wasn't actually suggesting anything", or whatever that was all about

I was opening up the topic for discussion instead of demanding the implementation of a certain solution. For instance, we might come to the conclusion that back-up mods are a bad idea and, through discussion, find a better solution.

Originally posted by shikennuggetsdid you dig through almost two years of this thread

It took three minutes to go back and find those. They tend to stick out.

Originally posted by shikennuggetsthis seems quite petty, and is an ironically terrible way to make a point about positive forum interactions.

I agree with the irony point haha.
However, I do not find it petty to call people out for making rude, unproductive fallacies in response to valid ideas. The first part of making a change is identifying a problem. But yes, perhaps I didn't need to quote them directly.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

Hey how do you respond to quotes from other users, I never figured that out.
> quote=NAMEHERE hi
This is a quote


Found this:


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

I agree with your points, Shiken. This was more of a "putting it out there" for discussion rather than a suggestion to implement, especially the comment about non-verifying mods. It is a really tough issue because, yes, many non-verifying mods contribute in other ways.

To clarify, back-up mods for zero-mod games would be a group of 25-50 exceptional srcom mods who are willing to mod any game, personally selected by site staff (or who have submitted an application). It would not be per game. More of a catch-all.

Edit: Yikes, it's not that bad of an idea. Imagine a web-game becomes zero-mod. Hey, @JumpyluffJumpyluff (theoretically) volunteered to step up for web games? Cool, he can mod in the interim and help look for an active player who might want to take his place.

Also, I'm going to make a point here. "Yeah, no" is not constructive criticism and does not invite conversation. This is a feedback forum, not a shut down feedback forum. It doesn't happen as often as it used to here, but when it does, it comes off as annoying, cold, and uninviting. Sending this sort of illogical fallacy or this one as a response to anything detracts from a positive forum environment and really reminds me of the old srcom days when nobody respected anybody on here. Remember that site mods set the tone for all users, so positive constructive criticism is always the way to go.

I'll just link some other examples of really bad responses I've seen on this thread:

Just a pet peeve of mine.


Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

Mods, mods, and more mods!

Let me speak to you a bit about moderation clutter.

Being a moderator is a volunteer responsibility on this website. I enjoyed taking on moderator for about 75 games, and when life changed a bit, I decided to cut it down to 25-ish and hand-picked moderators to carry on the job for me. Then, I stepped down as mod from those other 50 games.

When mods do not step down or are not automatically pulled from their position, it leads to moderation clutter. For instance, Super Mario Sunshine has 11 moderators, which might make sense for 58 active players, but I bet not all of those mods are active -- for instance, @zelpikukirbyzelpikukirby has not been online for 5 months. Another example is with Color Switch, which has 7 moderators. Only 3 of those mods have been online in the past 4 weeks, so naturally, the three who are active could keep being mods. However, the game only has 2 active players. Are three mods even necessary?

I'd like to suggest a better way to handle stepping down as a mod and mod transfering.

- At the very least, mods inactive for several weeks should be automatically stripped of moderatorship. Perhaps a notification could be sent before the final week as a warning: "Notice: Your moderator status on (name of game) will be removed if you remain inactive for one more week." The amount of weeks is up to the site mods to decide. I'd say 4-6 weeks is fair.
- If a mod loses their mod status and there are zero mods left on a game, let's not use this massive, unweildy thread to replace them. Perhaps we could make a "Back-up mod" bank of volunteer users willing to step into the roles of inactive mods.
- Beyond that, if a mod is active, but they do not actively verify runs and others seem to be doing all the work, they should not be a mod. This most likely happens on leaderboards with three or more moderators. It seems obvious to nix the role of the inactive mod, but in practice, this is not done and it leads to moderation clutter. Asking someone to step down is awkward, ya know? I have no suggestions on this particular point, but felt it should be brought up and maybe someone can suggest a change to how we currently do this (which you can refer to in the massive, unweildy thread)

The role of a mod is multi-faceted and, therefore, stripping anyone of the role can lead to some discontent. However, if it is made clear to moderators that they must remain active in order to keep their status as a mod, I believe implementing an automatic system for filtering out inactive mods is worth it. Imagine all the time you'll save site mods from that god-awful "moderation request" page...

Cheers! :))

XandoToasterXandoToaster and Th3on3CTh3on3C like this. 

Forum: The Site

Thread: Feedback thread

Started by: PacPac

@LivLiv Sorting by runs with video proof on leaderboards (not just profile) would be a nice feature.
It would be great to work on that feature alongside this feature:

A user submitting a run could then click a checkbox regarding whether the proof link is a video, image, or link to a non-embedding video.
Default checked would be video.

I think you ought to define proof a bit more. You just mean video proof, right?

QuivicoQuivico likes this. 

Forum: Freerice

Thread: iOS app stopped working

Started by: PearPear

Try messaging Freerice on Facebook, they are pretty responsive there!


Forum: Climb Higher

Thread: New categories + change any%

Started by: KkntucaraKkntucara

anyone gonna run these new categories or