I think it depends on how reasonable the time claimed is. Like, if somebody says they have a time that puts them in like 300th place or something, but they don't have any video, then it'll probably be accepted. But if somebody tried to claim they had a really good time, like top 10 or even top 25, then it probably wouldn't be accepted without video. Plus, if somebody can at least provide splits to go with their time, then it's more likely to be accepted.
Although that's true spennicus, I don't like how runs can be verified without some sort of evidence, despite the position on leaderboard. It defeats some of the principles of having a leaderboard, if some have proof and others do not. Sure, there is a difference between Top 25 and 300th place, but at what number does it all of a sudden become "important"? I mean, 'average' players could be battling between 300th to 150th place, and I could essentially put a false claim in, have it verified by making it appear real, and then pushing everyone down.
Basically, I don't think the position on the leaderboard should determine whether you need a video or not, on a verified-required leaderboard.
but ... ok , if i submit a run and i say : i have 14 min in16 and i dont have video?
I'm not accusing, I have just curious about why this is allowed. image is over 16 category in Japanese version emulator, not many play that version but 16 place is a good place.
just throwing in my opinion as a triple z-list runner, i don't see the harm in allowing no video for lower-rank runs
i got an 18:46 recently, for which i wasn't recording video because my capture card's cable splitter hadn't come in yet. however, i submitted the time anyway, just to have my profile up to date, but it was rejected.
i don't think anyone has to worry about cheating past like, 16 minutes, maybe 17. if you lie about like, 100th place, you're a fucking loser.
