I think there's a point where someone very obviously isn't trying to speedrun and is just playing the game. I'm a verifier for SM63, a game where the Any% WR is 6:34. Anyone who knows about the two major (intended) skips for the game can very reasonably get a time under 15 minutes. We had a run submitted (and accepted) recently that was over 2 hours. The guy didn't know about these, repeatedly went AFK, had no real route planned for himself, and watched the WR during the run after completing about 75% of the "normal" progression of the game to figure out how it was so fast, then finally used one of the skips. This is not necessarily to say that these kinds of runs shouldn't be accepted, but I think it definitely shows a lack of both preparation and dedication.

@Laxxus If you really believe verifying a slow run is a waste of your time, don't do it. Nobody's asking you to do something that makes you uncomfortable or irritated. There's no shortage of people on this site who are willing to take on the role of moderator in your place and you could always ask any of them to help you verify a run if you feel it's too much for one man. That's one avenue I feel isn't explored often enough: assisted verification. Split a three-hour run into thirds and have three people watch an hour each. Cut the work and you should theoretically no longer have a problem with the run in question, unless of course you were gatekeeping for gatekeeping's sake.

I'd suggest not going so far as to claim that it's a waste of every moderator's time; not all of us might share your outlook on the process. Some people enjoy watching runs, others like the idea of helping people discover the joys of our shared hobby by getting their first attempt verified in an expedient manner without complaining and making it seem like it pains us to do it. Personally, I like to be encouraging towards others and I'll occasionally message new runners to the games I moderate in DMs and express my pleasure at seeing them join me on the board. That's just me though. You'll do what you want and although I might disagree with it, I'm not in the mood to judge you for it. Do only what you're comfortable with and feel free to opt-out any time.

you clearly did not understand what I said. I very much enjoy watching and verifying RUNS (yes, even slow runs). casual playthroughs with no intent of speedrunning are just not that, so it does not belong on this site. I can watch a letsplay if I wanna do that.

A moderator of a game is one of the most qualified people to tell whether a submission is made as a speedrun attempt in good faith, or a video in which no reasonable effort is made to go fast.

In cases where you can't tell the difference, (some games may be less obvious, like racing games e.g.), then give submission the benefit of the doubt and reach out to the runner to welcome them and show them the resources available to help them improve their time if that's their plan.

If someone wishes to argue that no distinction should ever be made, then I invite that person to go seek out lets-plays on YouTube and add any that are verifiable to their moderated boards as guest "runs" if they wish to back up such an argument.

@6oliath you misunderstand, if your post was directed at me - a distinction shouldn't be made SPECIFICALLY when a run is submitted to SR.C

We're not some internet-trawling machine that categorically states the "record" on this site is the fastest run in the world. Of course there is a difference between a speedrun, a high score run, a lets play, etc out in the wild.

We are however a site that at its core logs any run submitted to it. That is where I personally don't think a distinction should be made. If somebody submits a 'lets play' style video as THEIR personal fastest time of a game, then why should we gatekeep that they have to be faster than they currently are.

In principle, I understand why you would want to gatekeep that, however it begins a slippery slope.... if 3 hours is too slow, is 2.5 hours to slow? 2 hours? Do we then begin saying you can only submit a run if you beat the World Record? And what about PBs.

I personally don't like submitting every single PB I ever do, but the ethos of SR.C in general, as far as I can tell, encourages people who want to log every single PB for posterity's sake. So isn't somebody who submits four 30 minute PBs every week "wasting" just as much time as one person submitting a 2 hour 'lets play' run?

I don't think it's logical to verify a """run""" that's not even trying to be fast. If someone takes 24 hours and calls it their genuine attempt on a speedrun, then I'll go ahead and verify after reviewing it. If they submit something that says "full game", "walkthrough" or anything that indicates a casual playthrough, then that's getting rejected by me.

Verifying runs doesn't mean you actually watch every single parts of the run. You just look at the key parts such as transition between levels, ensuring the key objectives of the run are done, and checking (or correcting) the timing. If you're worried about cheating, watching the full run will make you less likely to notice splices compared to simply looking at key parts of the game.

Verifying a non-serious "speedrun" wouldn't take a lot longer than a regular speedrun, and it's obvious that the submitter didn't try to cheat in these attempts.

@6oliath Let's plays normally wouldn't qualify cause it's spliced, not done in a single sitting. If someone managed to do a playthrough in one sitting, that still requires a lot of effort, and it doesn't break any rules for a speedrun leaderboard.

I mean, it might be different for each game, but for some of the games I moderate, I kind of have to watch the run in full.

To go more into the specifics, there has been a time where I've caught a runner using hacks to clip into objects. So if I didn't watch any run in full, there would probably be more hacked runs on the leaderboards for that game.

Edit: Basically what I'm trying to say is, just searching for key parts of the run doesn't necessarily cut it for all games.

@Walgrey it's true that there are games where it's possible to mod in everything. But a non-competitive time wouldn't have these hacks.

If, there's a very unusual case where someone submitted a bad time with very small cheating in the middle of the game, and it got accepted cause the verifier won't check every single parts, then will anyone got hurt from it?

so a little bit cheating is ok? very strange view of things.

Yes. It's a bad thing if it gets accepted. Why would a cheated run be acceptable on the leaderboards regardless of what place it's in?

Although it may be fair to assume that a non-competitive, low-placement time wouldn't have any cheats, I still wouldn't want to take any chances.

[quote]But a non-competitive time wouldn't have these hacks[/quote]

This has been discussed several times in the forums (about cheating in general and why would people cheat in the first place), but this claim is not true. For example, the Super Mario 64 community found cheated/spliced runs even in 200+ places.

In the end I guess the threads main question is one of the reasons why we have game specific rulesets. It also depends on the specific case of the run imo. Like a lot of people already said: if it looks like the player is trying to finish the game fast it's fine to accept. I don't think that you can judge that objectively though. So some mods will judge it one way, others the other way.

Also another thought that came to my mind: Consider a game that has 1 mod which is currently the only runner and then someone wants to submit a run that seems slow not like a speedrun of the game. If the rules are obeyed I'd accept that run and maybe give some hints how to be faster to try to build a community. On the other side if you have already couple hundred runners... then why bother with such a run? You can still tell how to improve the run though ;-)

@ckellyedits I think you're still misunderstanding the point. I'd hope nobody is arguing for a gatekeeping of runs purely based on their time and that isn't what I've seen in this thread. There's a very binary distinction between whether or not someone is making an attempt to speedrun a game. No slippery slope is involved. It's simply that some moderators choose to accept all submissions which are legitimate, and some may reject submissions which are clearly not speedruns.

You might disagree with this approach, but I think it's unfair to misrepresent this as gatekeeping. And even more unfair to claim a slippery slope.

OK follow up to my previous point. I thought the 2 hour run for SM63 was pretty slow. We just had a run submitted that's over 4 hours. No vid, so I can't really say exactly what they were doing. But that's really pushing the limit of what I could believe is someone trying to go fast.

Allowing submissions without video is another thing I will never understand...

Allowing submissions without video when the runner is above certain high times is something I can understand. When it's not a particularly good time yet, it saves a runner trouble recording and a moderator time watching a run. I can see an argument for not allowing any times without recordings too, especially depending on the game, but generally I don't see much harm if your time is really slow anyway. And when you get better, you'll still have to show proof.

It becomes a problem when any time of run can be submitted without video. I've seen a leaderboard allow even world records without video, so there was no way of being able to watch what they did to get world record if they chose not to record the run. And, of course, there's no proof that they got the time they did.

If I recall, that board did change their rules, but they still left the old videoless records in.

Xero if you can explain exactly where the line is drawn between a speedrun and not a speedrun, then I'll say it's not going to lead to gatekeeping eventually. You claim it is binary, so explain it to me in binary terms then.

"Someone making an obvious attempt" is not binary, it is subjective and open to interpretation. Something binary would be to say "the run must be faster than the current slowest run".

To be clear - I absolutely DO NOT think this "walkthrough" run in question is an actual attempt at a speedrun and I absolutely can understand why anyone would feel it should be rejected. I on a basic level agree with that and am not in any way criticising Hako or challenging their wanting to reject the run. They are the mod, they can reject it.

What I am saying is in general terms, you would need to future-proof it by making it a part of the game specific rules, giving a specific reason why it is being rejected and why future walkthroughs will be rejected. Simply rejecting it because "it is too slow" or "because the mod decided you didn't make any attempt to go fast" absolutely is a slippery slope and not a binary thing. If that person claims their non-attempt walkthrough is their personal best time, then I don't see how you can objectively reject it without opening yourself up to the questions I am asking - what then is a fast enough time in future? what then defines "an honest attempt to go fast"? what parameters are you putting in place? what rule does this run break?

@ckellyedits You are arguing against stuff that you put in quotation marks, but those are your own words. Nobody here saying runs should be rejected because "it is too slow" as you put it.

In fact, throughout this topic you have kept pressing on the idea that runs might be rejected for being too slow, whereas others are trying to explain the standard set out in the site's moderation rules, which is about effort, not speed.

You've conflated the two, which perhaps why you've also incorrectly conflated a mod's job with gatekeeping.

There is either a clear lack of effort or there is not a clear lack of effort.

Rejecting a run because you're not comfortable with its speed or rejecting a run because you're not comfortable with the runner's intent; either way, I think it's uncalled for. Let people enjoy the site.