What's unprofessional is not being able to exercise any discretion as a moderator. The only action here with "no good reason" is rejecting runs for having no timer onscreen. Unless there's a very specific game-related reason for the presence of a timer being a prerequisite, it has no bearing on a speedrun. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that if a ruleset contains the phrase "Start the timer" that it's a colloquial way to define when the timing for the run begins. Are you going to reject every speedrun that was performed before the advent of timing software became common? Maybe some benefit of the doubt can be given since you appear to be interpreting the rules in the most literal sense possible (Which still shows poor judgement, but whatever.) but to any other outside observer, it looks like you're rejecting runs because you can't be bothered to time it yourself, which is part of a moderator's duty. I don't blame the site staff for taking ownership of games away from you.

If your old splits are displayed in any of your existing VODs, just manually retype them from that. It takes nowhere close to an hour.

To think that Michael's great return only lasted a single day. Farewell, dear Michael!

Additionally, we really need each data point to be a clickable link that actually takes you to the run in question. Super valuable for research and whatnot.

^ You were told in the actual game forum not to bother the mods to verify your runs. They'll do it when they get round to it, and they're not under any obligation to conform to your timeframe.

100% yes. If you're a marathon organizer it's virtually a hard requirement, because you need to be able to communicate in realtime with everyone, and you need to have a record of all conversations. Discord is by far the best platform for that.

^ That's not a solution, and you know it. It's a poor excuse for a workaround, and should not be the norm.

Until you're into the final phase after the souls assist you, you can't do anything to speed up the fight. Once you're onto the final phase, the FIGHT button appears at specific intervals, so mashing it as fast as possible once again saves no time. The only elements of the Flowey fight are hitting the ACT button as soon as possible during the soul segments, then not missing any of the FIGHT actions in the final phase + hitting the final FIGHT prompt late to get double damage and save a cycle.

Late response but still:

1. Stop shouting.

2. The rules clearly state that time starts at character select and ends at the final ranking screen. If you're not going to time the run with splits yourself, don't argue with the mods retiming it. The timing is correct.

Pretty much the entire Sonic series, ILs are now supported and tracked on SRcom.

@zoNE Why are you asking to be a moderator if you're expecting other people to do the communicative legwork for you?? Just make a Twitter and contact her yourself, Twitter is the primary social media platform for most speedrunners so I have no idea why you expect to be able to be a moderator and be unable to be contacted via that platform.

This has been brought up tons of times by many people including myself and all we ever really get in response is that it's on the todo list. I've talked to Pac and KirkQ about this in person but to paraphrase it's just not a particularly high priority right now whilst they're working on other site-related stuff.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Obviously I understand the point you're driving at, but you can certainly still be aiming for a fast completion whilst playing the game blind. What if you're racing with someone? In a blind race you may not have any knowledge of the game mechanics or route, but your objective is still to finish before the other participant(s), and by extension, as fast as you can manage.

I don't subscribe to "The community is always right and it's your job to implement their will". What if the the community wants to implement policies that are just fundamentally opposed to universally accepted rules of speedrunning, such as using a password to skip to the final stage?

Moderators are trusted to be leaders as much as anything else, and sometimes leaders must make executive decisions. It's of course true that a mod shouldn't just be a tyrant running things as they see fit, and so the obvious problem comes with determining when is an appropriate time to exercise your power. In this specific instance, from what you've described you sound totally justified in shutting down a misguided direction that others want to go on, there's nothing wrong with veto'ing an idea when you have a solid basis for doing so.

I'd also like to add that prioritising the desires of the "community" is a fundamentally flawed concept because the people who constitute a "community" are in constant flux. If my game has 5 individual runners with their own opinions and I model the boards based on what they want, what happens in a couple of years' time when those 5 people have moved on, and have been replaced with 5 different people? Suddenly, the boards don't reflect what those people want and the cycle starts anew, with individuals wanting changes to meet their specific preferences.

My interest as a moderator is not to appease specific people, but to create the most fair, equitable and objective leaderboard for EVERYBODY who may use the board in the future, insofar as I'm able to achieve that.

"Obviously games with only one runner is an exception"

I reckon they know that's the exception, because this topic comes up quite frequently and it's the logical answer, but hey you've just gotta be obtuse for the sake of it sometimes right

Multi-client refers to having multiple instances of the game open. It's always been permitted to use multiple input sources, some runners used to opt to run with keyboard + controller.

In purely technical terms even a small board should ideally have at least two, because moderators shouldn't be verifying their own runs. Sometimes there just really isn't anyone else who plays a particular game though.

For larger games with a constant queue of runs, you just add as many moderators as is necessary to manage the volumes. Keeping a coherent, co-operative team where everyone is on the same page and equally invested becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of people increases though.

You can't "definitively prove" that.

Hard disagree on the above responses saying this is a negligible problem.

You're looking at framerate differences in specific instances, but it becomes a problem when you look at it for the entire run because you get huge runtime differences. If noticeable framerate differences are occurring enough to point out (laggy sections notwithstanding) then it should be assumed that it occurs very frequently throughout the game.

Sonic Adventure DX for a long time was a NIGHTMARE to standardise because the optimal platform to run on was the 2003 PC Disc release. This version of the game runs anywhere from 60-63FPS, and constantly fluctuates to minor degrees.

Now, this "doesn't matter" for any specific section of the game, but across an entire run you're looking at a potential five percent difference in run length. One runner's 30 minute run is another runner's 31.5 minute run. Nowadays this isn't a concern due to the game using Ingame Time, and this in my opinion is the best way to address variable framerate in regards to run timing; an internal timer will progress at the same rate regardless of visual framerate.

For the specific question at hand, abusing framerate difference to pull off certain tricks and whatnot, I don't think it's something you could easily enforce or really control. There will be many methods in a lot of games to deliberately introduce lag to slow the game down if you need to do something particularly precise, or otherwise just pause buffer it.

There is no v1.00-1.04 on Switch, so that's a placeholder time to make sure nobody can just try to claim a free WR and indicating people are not to submit there.