Argentina[quote=hahhah42]SMS is easily the weakest and should be avoided.[/quote]
@hahhah42 That link was a great read! Yeah, in that case I would stay clear from using SMS.
Having forum mods in different timezones certainly wouldn't hurt, so I don't see why not. They could even be volunteers like a few previous mods in the event Elo doesn't feel like opening up the piggybank.
[quote=hahhah42]Being able to post in the forums is something moderators should be able to do without having to jump through extra hoops[/quote]
Moderators already are required to have 2 factor authentication on, you could just include this as a 2FA method to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
[quote=hahhah42]...aside from that I don't trust the site's security enough to give them that sort of personal info.[/quote]
I'll concede that is a great point, but short of being able to identify new users somehow there's no way to tell them appart and thus any solutions we come up with will always work as a blanket restriction that would affect non-offending users as well (and most likely will always have a way around them).
Perhaps instead of SMS we could look elsewhere, but it'd need to be something that unequivocally identifies the user (ie. that isn't easily created in 2 minutes like a mail/google account) or else it'd serve no real purpose, and I suspect that anything that complies with that description would still raise this sort of concerns.
[quote=Reverse]Maybe new users with an account that is less than a week old should not be allowed to create more than one forum post per hour. That would force spammers to create a new account every time they wanted to post, which makes them more annoyed.[/quote]
Actually, there's nothing preventing a person from creating a bunch of accounts at the same time, so they could very well create a few sock accounts at once and just have to wait 7 days to have them enabled all together, effectively bringing us back to where we started.
It's certainly a start and it'd be better to what we currently have, but it's a bit of a band-aid restriction if you ask me.
[quote=KasumiGin]Perhaps locking someone's commenting rights behind a verification method like a cellphone number SMS message would be good since I suppose you can't easily get multiple phone numbers? I don't know how easy it is to fake that or how safe the method is, however.[/quote]
I think this is actually a much better approach to this issue. Of course it's not fool-proof and people could eventually find a way around it, but it's a pretty decent deterrent.
[quote=jackzfiml]This depends on who you add, of course, but you should still add someone as you can't just not verify runs. It's kinda against the site rules to do that.[/quote]
As long as he had in mind to resolve the issue within the following 3 weeks, that'd be perfectly fine.
[quote=Site Rules]Game moderators are generally provided 21 days to handle a run submission. If the game moderators have logged into the site recently, please do not ask site staff prior to this. It is not a requirement for moderators to verify all runs every time they visit the site, we understand people have lives.[/quote]
That being said, I agree that making a news post for each leaderboard instead of posting this here would be much more effective to reach their respective game's community.
[quote=Pear]Have you tried necromancy?[/quote]
Can confirm that sacrificing my first-born to Satan revived my PC after I accidentally hit it with a sledgehammer
Maybe it has a trailing/ending extra space and the system isn't trimming the URL correctly? Sure happens to me all the time when inputting data into fields
[quote=artman40]How can one abuse? To shield oneself from criticism.[/quote]
That is not an abuse, that's a personal choice.
...and even if you want to blast a person, the leaderboard's forums or the game's discord server would get you far more coverage than a run's comments, since noone is notified about them (not even the runner themselves).
[quote=StarcryCheater]Noted and thanks or the advice It says I cant contact him thru PM messege till 7 days after my account was made so I guess ill lay low till then[/quote]
- I highly doubt this new account of yours is going to live for more than a day (since as I mentioned above, you're currently ban evading), let alone an entire week.
- The DM system on this site is very noticeably bad, I doubt they'd even see it. Your best bet is to check their other social medias, which you can find linked in his profile (which is what I originally meant in my previous post).
[quote=StarcryCheater]MrMonsh I need to seek AmoebaUK and would ask him kindly to dig up the proof that starcrytas cheated[/quote]
You could contact him through his other contacts? You don't need to flood the forums to do that.
They're readily available on his profile should you need 'em. Though you should really, really, REALLY think about being more restrained.
@StarcryCheater That video you're showing only shows a post that was made on this very same thread and shows no additional proof that this guy is a cheater, so your contribution to this thread is essentially null.
Furthermore, spamming the same video over and over again achieves nothing. If anything, it makes it even less likely that people will join your cause.
If this guy is truly a cheater as you say, I can assure you'll never get the site to take action with your current strategy.
PS: Not to mention that you're ban evading, which is most likely enough to get you banned on its own.
I had a weird discovery regarding comments that I thought I'd share with you guys.
So I happened to check out this particular run made by a now deleted user: https://www.speedrun.com/pepsiman/run/7yljoekm
You'll notice this run has "comments disabled by the runner", and that's exactly what's weird about this, since I can 100% confirm the user in question existed on this site and was deleted waaay before comments were rolled out, meaning they never had the chance to disable comments for themselves.
I've checked a few other runs by deleted/non-linked users and sure enough, comments are disabled on them, and since they are "disabled by the runner", you effectively can't and won't ever be able to comment on them at all.
Now, I find this to be a great thing (since those comment sections could get unruly without an actual runner to moderate 'em), but it really makes me wonder why ELO made this opt-out for all the currently registered users when they made it "opt-in" (ie. off by default) for deleted users.
That certainly sounds like an interesting concept, though you'd need a sample of runs with enough size to avoid getting skewed results; otherwise one failed attempt would make the program never recommend that strat ever again.
In fact, in cases where you have a safe strat vs a risky strat and the risky strat ends up going lower than the safe strat, it'd effectively stagnate there, since the safe strat would consistently yield the same average results and always be faster than the sub-par risky strat average (and you'd never have a chance to improve the risky strat's time/speed average since you'd never do it).
Now, you could argue this is a good thing, but then you'd never get practice for the risky strat since well, it'd never get recommended and you'd never do it. Of course, you could practice it outside of runs, but then you run into the following two situations: A. The information from practice sessions is not fed to the program/algorithm. In this case, the program would be unaware of any improvements you've made during your practice sessions, meaning that inevitably you'd have to "disobey" the algorithm at some point to start using the risky strat again (and once you've improved upon your PBs for long enough without changing strats, I guarantee you'll want to do so at some point), at which point the program would've been made redundant in a sense. B. You manage to input this practice info into the program for it to take into account and change the strat's "score" to reflect any improvements. This poses the question: is the information from practice sessions really comparable to real runs? Would there be some sort of penalty multiplier to make it less impactful?
I think that the notion of a program that can perfectly predict a strat's speed based just on your past runs is a bit flawed in the sense that it's working on a dynamic object of study which is, well... you.
We as humans don't have a fixed "skill level", but rather develop through (mostly) trial and error, and unless the program can factor in all (or most of) the variables that come into that process it'll most likely come short one way or another.
Are you then implying this algorithm you suggest would know about your consistency for each skip/glitch? How would you go about setting up the parameters for such a thing?
Livesplit doesn't tell you if you should go for a risky strat or not. Livesplit just gives you information about your performance in the current run, and then you process it and make a decision as to whether or not to go for it.
In that sense, I don't see Livesplit giving you an unfair advantage, but rather just providing you with info you could have tracked yourself, so I'd see no problem.
PS: Just to clarify, we all obviously still use Livesplit because it's terribly convenient, I'm just saying that you could track that info yourself if you really wanted to, so it's still fair game.
Unless the program has a way to automatically detect everything happening in the game (which would require quite the specific knowledge about each particular game), you'd need to input info into it somehow, which is going to lose you time over just processing and making the decision on your own.
The closest thing to this I can think of that works is something like the map layout viewer runners use for Digimon World 2. Dungeons have a set of static layouts it can choose from for each floor, but the chosen layout varies from run to run. The map viewer doesn't know which layout was chosen on your run, but by exploring a bit you can go ruling out other layouts until you narrow it down to one, at which point the map viewer then transposes into something akin to what the OP is mentioning.
Again, you do lose time inputting the info into the program (i.e. cycling through the different layouts in the program to find the one you need) when you could just memorize all the possible layouts and do all the guess-work mentally, so I personally do not see any issues with this idea.
[quote=I_PlayOsu]Hey, I am making a complaint, just because I am 14 and I play osu! doesn't mean my pfp should have been removed![/quote]
Neither you being 14 or you playing osu! have anything to do with your NSFW avatar getting removed.
[quote=Site Rules]Site posts should generally be kept PG-13.[/quote]
Having an avatar of that nature, it'd be very difficult to comply with that rule while making forum posts, so they removed it.
@I_PlayOsu You had a NSFW avatar (but I doubt you need me to tell you this anyways since you were quick to remove it).
Yeah, I also don't have a lot of DMs myself, and it still takes ages to load.
My guess is as good as any, but I think that:
- The reason that DMs still take so long even after the site improved dramatically in performance not long ago is because the DMs themselves are the root cause of the problem and they merely made them load separately from the rest of the site, isolating the issue.
- It's probably not because of a single user's DMs, but rather it's probably having issues reading the whole table of DMs for the entire site every time you load that particular page.
I can't imagine there'd be so many DMs for it to get this bad, but with a site with such a large audience such as this one having 1 or 2 DMs per user would really start to add up I guess. Then again, notifications and other user-specific functions work just fine, which would debunk this idea, so I don't know.
