@IlluminaTea They really aren't though. Without any context splits are just meaningless numbers. How do you know where exactly the runner splits? How do you know the runner split at the right time? How do you know the splits are real at all? You don't. It's just as useless for verification as the run time on its own (which, if the splits are just a single split for the end of the game, it literally will just be the run time on its own).
I don't see the point in requiring any proof other than full proof. If you can't even prove that the run happened at all then what's the point of creating an arbitrary barrier that doesn't prove anything and takes 15 seconds to overcome?
It takes more effort than that to create splits that are convincing, which is the point. It doesn't prove anything, but it does help a little bit with fake runs by either catching people who make obviously fake splits, or preventing people from submitting a fake time at all because it isn't worth it. I know it's not likely for either of those things to stop a fake time from being verified, but if video proof isn't required to begin with, it's better to have that than to have nothing.
@IlluminaTea "It takes more effort than that to create splits that are convincing"
It really doesn't. Having a split file that's just a single end time split is perfectly valid (plenty of beginners don't split yet, and plenty of runs don't make sense to have splits in), and that takes absolutely no effort to make.
"I know it's not likely for either of those things to stop a fake time from being verified"
Which is precisely why this would be completely pointless. It's just an unnecessary barrier that accomplishes nothing and has no purpose. If you really want to stop fake times from being submitted just require video proof across the board, since that'll actually solve the problem.
Proof-wise: yes, splits are pretty much useless. They add absolutely nothing to proof at all. Please don't interpret the following as me trying to defend splits as a proof method in any way.
However, splits are better than no splits - they are still usefull, in other ways. Competitors can get an idea of how good they are on certain areas compared to other runners, and documentation-wise it helps add more detail to the leaderboards.
That second part is true when splits are presented in conjunction with a video. Splits without a video are still useless in that regard - they add no reference points for comparison when you can’t see what a runner did to achieve that segment time.
Still, having the collection of milestones that the splits would provide is better than nothing. Sometimes even small things like that can help you improve.
For personal gain yes, of course having splits helps in that aspect.
For submission or sharing purposes, my previous point stands - sharing splits with others without a video is pointless because you’re providing no context, strats, split start/stop points, etc. They help nobody but yourself without a video.
And because of that, requiring splits at all is kind of ridiculous. If you have video, then you can get the information from the video itself, and if you don't have the video then the information is meaningless. It's potentially useful information for other runners (and as such I always include mine), but no matter how you look at it, requiring them just makes no sense.
I think splits are just a secondary need if not merely a useful tool for measuring time, but you can literally just watch a video with a duration timer on it, and check the time off the play. I'm still having trouble with LiveSplit but I'm currently trying to record runs by literally pointing the webcam at the TV, calcing the time off and nothing else.
No one is arguing against the usefulness of splits as far as tracking your progress goes, but it's completely meaningless as far as proof of a speedrun goes.
Can depend entirely on the game. Many PC games use autosplitters that directly read the game's memory values to output information on the LiveSplit window.
Whilst this is possible to fabricate through a convoluted Photoshop job, it's a hell of a lot more effort than it's worth, especially if the run in question is just a run-of-the-mill speedrun and not a WR. In these instances I would be quite happy to accept splits as evidence that a run happened, but if there was a video evidence threshold in place I would not accept it as a substitute for video evidence.
Do those PC games ONLY use autosplitters though? Seems like forgery is still on the table and takes 1 minute to edit.
I think you're missing the part where I specify "It should never overrule an existing video evidence requirement."
Riiiiiight in the case of video evidence being required splits don't matter. We agree. Am I missing something still?
I don't understand the argument here. In no way do splits with no other information (In game timer, video proof, etc.) provide any type of verification for completing a run. If a person knows how to use Livesplit in the first place, then they inherently know how to misuse it.
A skeptic like myself would in fact be more suspicious of a person saying "I just got WR/great time, and I've got this split picture as proof!", than I would somebody just saying "I got WR/great time but unfortunately wasn't recording:("
As previously stated, splits indicate nothing. Some people don't use splits anyways when they just want to finish runs or just don't care about them. The time you claim in itself is a split anyways, so if you believe that splits demonstrate some sort of authenticity from a submission then you should also believe that the time claimed itself is a demonstration of authenticity.
Think it like this:
You = the run Sport = the splits
Doing sports a lot makes you a sportive person. But sports only have a meaning when you exists. If you die, the sport is already dead to have no one to do it.
Long story short: No video, no excuse