United States@Oxknifer You at least help as much as possible (to which I give you credit for, that's a lot more than most people who put those restrictions on do) but it still does not change the base issue at hand, namely, that neither a timer onscreen or internal capture should be mandatory, and I know that many people share that opinion.
I like those ideas but I absolutely hate that you require a timer onscreen for the run, and that you require it to be captured internally - neither of these things are necessary in the least and neither is very welcoming to newer runners. I at least for one would never submit a run for those two reasons alone, assuming I ever ran the game.
Note about the above user: https://www.speedrun.com/Speedrunning/thread/db8o5 this thread had a reply in it by someone else, so it might need to be handled manually.
Would normally say 3 weeks but he's been off almost 18 months... Should be taken care of when the thread is next checked.
Check and make sure you have those settings properly applied to the game, they're not automatically applied when you edit them in general.
Best of luck and thank you for all you have done for the site.
Best of luck and thank you for all you have done for the site.
Is% there% a% problem% with% having% a% percent% symbol% after% each% category's% name% ?% Because% if% there% is% ,% then% we% might% have% a% problem% ,% buddy% .% The% percent% symbol% deserves% to% be% prominently% displayed% as% it% is% now% !%
It does work. Someone submits a run, mods are inactive, they request mod, get it. If nobody's submitted a run then there's no reason for the inactive mods to go away, because there's nobody to take their place.
The big point that I don't think you get is that inactive moderators, by themselves, are not a problem. Inactive moderators are only an issue when someone submits a run and cannot get it verified as a result, and there is a very easy solution already in place for this, namely, the thread already linked here.
You've also failed to answer this question so far.
"Tell me, then. What is your automated system going to do that does what the thread does better without being overly broad and nailing just everyone?"
Regarding year-long plus inactive moderators: Because when someone does submit a run and they can't get it verified, they get on the thread, request mod, and generally get it. There's no need to remove a moderator for inactivity when there's nobody to take their place and no runs that get submitted, and I think this point is one you don't exactly understand or agree with.
Regarding your other points, let's take them in the order you numbered them. 1: Most people don't care and will speak out, so that's not true for everyone. It may be true for some people but those are definitely the minority and not the majority. 2: No, but the forum thread gives definitions of what is considered "inactive", and those definitions are very fair and reasonable. 3: What? If you mean runners that submit and don't get runs verified that are "scared" or " don't care" to post in that forum, that's far from true (and coupled with what you said below shows you really haven't read that thread much) 4: If it's objective now, how is automating it going to help? Automation does not make things more objective, only far less objective.
"Also, a vast majority of that thread appears to be people applying to be moderators, not reporting inactivity": Because that's exactly what the thread is for, applying for moderator based on current moderator inactivity. Its not to report people who are inactive alone. It's to get moderator because the current one is inactive (plus a few other exceptional cases). And regarding your statement in parenthesis there, very few are frivolous compared to how many are legitimate, and Kirkq does weed those out anyway.
The current definition of an inactive moderator is one that has not logged in in three weeks with a run pending for that long or one that has not logged in for three months, and you have a run submitted and pending for a few (generally 3+) days. Has zero to do with runs verified in the past, zero to do with forum posts, etc. Purely "is there a run that needs verification" and "has the moderator logged on in a reasonable timeframe compared to the run needing verification".
The thread linked is a solution to the problem that, while not automated, is far more effective, because it's not an en-masse thing either. Pac doesn't handle that aspect of the site, Kirkq does, and he usually checks that thread and handles it once a week. That's why Pac wasn't thinking about that (because that's not his realm of admin, it's Kirkq's).
The problem with making an automated system for doing what you want to do is not with the concept of removing inactive mods. It is with the fact that the system does not distinguish enough and is not specifically targeted enough (nor do I believe it ever can be) to be effective without overbearing. Removing a person from moderator status if they have not verified a run in six months is not something I believe can be easily tracked in the first place. Even if we ignore the problem of no submissions in six months (which is very doable for an inactive game), what if there's less submissions than moderators? Only one mod can verify one submission, the others would get axed because there wasn't a submission to be verified, since another moderator handled it. So this, in general, cannot be seen as a valid solution, due to this flaw alone.
What if, say, we remove a person from moderator status if they have not logged on in six months? On one hand, this is very easily tracked, therefore, a lot easier to accomplish than your initial suggestion. On the other hand, that has the problem of, if you remove everyone, there's no moderator there at all. And this ignores the users that moderate highly inactive games and don't bother logging on because they have email notifications setup for if a new run is submitted (though to be fair you should probably log on at least every six months just to be sure nothing slipped through the cracks anyway).
The thread in place now is a non-automated method for handling inactive moderators that's far more targeted than any automated system can ever be, since you only get removed if you either let a run go unverified (without logging on) for three plus weeks or haven't logged on in three plus months and there's a run submitted that's sat for a few days (and you still didn't log on after the submission). There are a handful of exceptions, but there is no way an automated method could catch those exceptions (actively hostile moderators, cheating/unfair moderators, etc. ... all of which you need a site admin to intervene in regardless), so for this topic's purposes those exceptions can be ignored.
Tell me, then. What is your automated system going to do that does what the thread does better without being overly broad and nailing just everyone?
And because what @PresJPolk said is true is why people don't have to log in to see nothing new.
The other issue is if nobody submits a run in a half year, that mod gets considered inactive and removed by your suggestion. Which is definitely not something you'd want.
Incredibly valuable to leave runs regardless of place.
TG-16 exists, is there a difference that the CD is also needed?
((Show Obscure, right column, 7th from the bottom))
