Those points were not directed towards you, SaiyanGaming420; it was towards PresJPolk's comment on the previous page. I thought it was dropped as well.

I'm glad you were able to get in touch with him, I'm glad you were reasonable and left the run on the boards, and I'm glad you were able to fix the situation. I at least hope you can see where my point was coming from; even if that was not your intent that is rather common.

If you think me watching at double speed is going to mean I miss something in the game I moderate here then you're mistaken.

If you think not watching parts that are "pointless" then someone who wants to cheat is going to take advantage of that and get good parts that matter then splice at the "pointless" parts. And you'd be none the fucking wiser, where I would catch that because I'm still watching the run. Double speed or single speed I will still catch it because I am still watching the run. Unlike you.

Sorry we disagree on if a moderator should watch the whole run or not. I am firmly for it and acknowledge there are tools to make doing so less tedious. I want any run I have verified to stand to people as a sign that that run is very much so legitimate and was not cheated or spliced. I take my online name seriously and want the name Habreno to actually mean something to people. When you verify something that turns out to be illegitimate that is just as much a stain on you as a moderator as it is on the runner. You, the moderator, become less trustworthy, because something you said was good is not. I'm going to do everything I can to keep my name in a good light online, because I take my online name seriously and want it to be a symbol of someone trustworthy and respected. That is why I believe you should watch the run in its entirety, and use the tools at my disposal to do so efficiently.

I am not high and mighty. I believe that lazy moderation (which is to not watch the whole run) is a blight on the site and needs to be cut out as much as possible. If you want to come at me further that's on you. I've said my piece; I'm done here. Good luck.

There's a massive difference here. Basically all he's saying is "there's no way you can do X strategy therefore your run is obviously cheated" without doing any investigation of it. I find this very similar to the one we had a few weeks (maybe slightly longer) where a guy's run was accused of being cheated since it beat a known-to-be-suboptimal TAS and Kirkq had to get involved in that one because there's just no proof.

Note I'm saying no proof, not not enough proof. You're saying that all it would take is for a moderator to think a run is cheated to remove it, which is not how this site works. And besides, as Komrade said, there was zero video proof of Todd's 5.51 (it was accepted basically on Todd's word) and Mitchell's video was part of what was used to show it was done on MAME and not "console". The fact that Twin Galaxies took ages to act isn't relevant since that site operates differently, and once a score or run is up there it takes a hell of a lot more to show it's bad, since their verification level is intended to be far higher than here.

And finally: If the mod can show some proof on it I'll be more accepting of their judgment. But as the situation stands now all it is is someone who just got mod trying to throw out the old mod's run because he (the new mod) basically says so. I'm sure you can see why I'm far more skeptical on this than normal.

Thank you for the clarification. I've added that to the compilation post.

As long as moderators don't watch the full run it's going to be far easier to pass shit off. As Kirkq said in the OP, fake submissions will cause the account to be banned. The site can't do that if you don't find it, and if you're not watching the full run then it's a hell of a lot easier to miss it.

At the end of the day I think we're just going to go around in a circle on this point. You don't feel you should have to watch the whole run to verify it, I argue that this lets more fake runs through going against the point of this thread, you say that doing so is unreasonable and that it makes moderation a burden discouraging new runners which is bad for the community, I say that if it's unreasonable then you should reconsider being a moderator since I feel that's part of what the duty is, you disagree and feel that you don't have to watch the whole run to verify it, etc...

We're going in circles here and neither you nor I are going to convince each other otherwise.

I do in fact encourage that for a long, multi-hour run. If you have a lot of moving from point A to point B you don't need to watch that at single-speed. In fact doing so would be tedious. Part of watching at double-speed is actually watching the run, and knowing when you should slow the video down when necessary (Which I mention doing so in my post, btw).

For something fifteen minutes? Not really necessary. For something six hours? Helps a ton.

You can call me crazy for doing it, but if you actually know what the hell you're doing (which, you're a mod for a game, you kinda should) it's not that outlandish. It's far better than not watching the runs at all, or snipping through them.

If you're getting overloaded, you should add more moderators. Or verifiers. I don't care how many submissions you're getting, you should always be watching the full run, regardless of place.

If you're watching six hour runs that doesn't mean it needs to take you six hours to watch it. YT and Twitch innately support double speed playback, which means a 6 hour run is 3 hours to watch. You can slow down to normal speed or slower if you spot something that might be off. Or if you download the recording you can go even faster with most video players. And you can take more than one day to watch a run, too, if need be.

That said, I would like a third possibility where a run can show up without being explicitly verified. This can be used for many reasons, but while I recommend it not be used for your point, Alayan, it could be used for that too.

This is all getting away from the point of the thread, which was that fake submissions are going to result in site bans. Which I always have supported.

Because the site demands a set quality for the games it adds now and the game doesn't reach it. Kirkq already said so, there's nothing you can do to really change that and it's annoying to see this topic keep coming up despite the fact that the rejection reason is very clear.

That's because as far as the comparison goes, they are tied for 1st. With a 38.

And my point was that a moderator should watch the run, all the way through, before verifying it.

You can't just pull a run because you think it's cheated. You gotta prove it's cheated. Not think, prove. Ask him how he did it, see if you can possibly duplicate it or if even he can duplicate it in some fashion (not necessarily the whole fight but even a stun-lock or whatever he did in some lesser form).

I'm rather annoyed that you get into mod and start tearing down what was there and are pulling a run because you think it's cheated. Not exactly a way to make a good first impression.

Um... so basically all the time then?

I read this title, I instantly said "No".

I read this post, I thought "Okay, that's a bit different than what I expected. That's actually not a terrible idea."

The page being blank is due to a bug recently (semi-recently? scroll back a few pages in here) where forum posts weren't showing up. Since they're not deleted, they're still part of the forum post count for the thread, but since they're not there, they're just not there. In other words, the post count on threads appears to be off from the actual number of posts on the thread.

Going to provide another bump to this. The compilation post at the top of this page should still be accurate, with the possible exception of TG-16 CD if it's different enough ((I do not know))

WAI, you can only verify other's runs. https://www.speedrun.com/The_Site/thread/ukcev

Absolutely agreed Kirkq. There are many ways to encourage moderators to verify runs better. Fake runs are not the way to go about it.

For the record, I at least consider a "fake run" to be ANYTHING that fits the following criteria:

• A run the user knows with absolute certainty is illegitimate per the ruleset being submitted to and is submitted regardless.
• A run done using cheats or hacks unless said cheats or hacks are explicitly allowed.
• A run that is spliced (via video editing) or segmented, unless explicitly described as such and submitted to a segmented leaderboard. Note that this does not include a run split into multiple videos, as that may be necessary for various reasons, though such runs should ultimately fall under more stringent scrutiny as a result of the video split(s).
• Any run that abuses emulator functions, including slowdown, savestates, and TAS input panels. Runs done on emulator should be identified as such when a community accepts runs on emulator.
• A run performed by someone other than the submitter whose name the run would appear under; i.e. submitting a run by someone else as your own. This does NOT include a moderator submitting a run for someone else when that someone else made the run. This DOES include a user making a second account and submitting a run (that is theirs) under their secondary account rather than their main account. In the case of a run done by multiple people (e.g. co-op or multiplayer runs) when allowed, all runners should be accredited with the run, though names can be in any order.

I don't particularly like the concept of having scores and times mixed. As @AstralHoatzin suggested, I think scorerun.com is the best URL that still ties into the established brand. That said, having tie-ins where a game with speedruns and scoreruns has a link to the other on each page would be an intelligent thing to do. That as well as a unified member list (an account on one is good for both) I feel would help get a new site running.

As highscore.com isn't interested in selling for an amount you clearly felt was at least worthy of consideration, that isn't an option. I don't know what amount you're talking about there, but I can imagine it's up there. With highscore.com not being a consideration, that also eliminates highscores.com. And since you want to have control, that also eliminates a collaboration wth highscore.com.

So my preference would be for 4, and you can invite on some of cyberscore's team to help. The only concern I have is with you personally being spread too thin by doing this.

Excellent choices. I look forward to seeing how the site progresses with its fresh blood on staff.

^ invite expired (not interested in running, was simply looking for the general speedrunning discord)