I don't think cutscenes should be cut out purely because they're cutscenes, or purely because they're "too long". If the cutscene is a mid-level cutscene, I think it should be included in the time for the IL. So in the case you mentioned with A Warm Welcome in All Quests/Glitchless, the 28-second cutscene should be included in the IL time.

The Clouds Burst is in an interesting place in regards to IL timing. I guess we've been using the barrel timing for that because that's where we consider the full-game run to be over, but that's probably not the best way to determine.

A Warm Welcome isn't the best level to compare to The Clouds Burst anyway. Yes, there's an unskippable cutscene near the end - but you also have to move more after that cutscene in order to actually finish the level, as you mentioned above. I guess The Clouds Burst is kind of the odd-one-out in this situation, and I wouldn't mind leaving the timing the way it is for that.

As for your point about black-screen timing, you're right in pointing out that it can be as unclear as timing the bookpage if the cutscene is skipped fast enough. So that probably isn't the best option outside of Dream World (which I'd still be in support of timing Dream World to the load screen, even if other levels aren't timed that same way). Although, as you said above, we could potentially use audio to solve that - to an extent. If I recall correctly, Dream World triggers the quest-book sound effect when completed, so maybe we could use that? I'm not sure how many levels use that same sound effect, though, but again, Dream World is inevitably going to be an odd-one-out because of the lack of a puase summary/vendor at the end.

One more thing to note: One of the reasons that's been brought up to change IL timing is that the vendor and pause summary don't really feel like you're "in the level" anymore. As Promageddon said, it feels more like an intermission.

That being said, switching to bookpage for timing wouldn't help with that at all, since the bookpage still comes after the pause summary and vendor. So while I don't think it's necessarily a bad option, it may not be the best option to consider.

Regarding Bilbo being frozen at the start of the level, it's also important to note that this doesn't only happen at the start of a level. It also happens: -Every time a save is loaded -Every time a room fades in (specifically in A Warm Welcome) -Every time a room fades out (specifically in A Warm Welcome) (watch a console All Quests run to see why this loses time) Unless we want to remove all of these instances from timing as well, I'd say to just leave the frozen Bilbo as part of the final IL timing.

We should probably also take note of the differences between Console Any% and PC Any%. As far as I can tell, all of the above still applies to console, with a slight exception: Every level ends on a black screen. For example, in Troll Hole, there's about 1.5 seconds of complete black screen before actually moving to the pause summary screen. If timing were to end on pause summary appearance on PC, would it end the same on console, or end on black screen?

So I'm not going to mention any names, or the name of the game I'm talking about, as I don't want to make it sound like I'm targeting the individual in question.

I moderate a certain game, and for that game we have several IL categories. A certain runner uploaded an IL a few weeks ago, but the video doesn't show the very end of the run according to our timing rules. I rejected the run, explaining that the run was incomplete according to the rules.

A few days passed, he submitted the same run again, with the same video, with a few seconds added to the total time. I once again rejected it, explaining that adding a few seconds still can't get the run verified, since it still is not completed in the video according to the rules.

He submitted the run again today, with the same video, with a few more seconds added to the time, with a long paragraph in the run description basically stating that the rules should be bent for him because "all he had left to do was X" and "he's the only person running that specific category for that specific level".

At this point I'm at a loss. One part of me knows it would be wrong to verify the run knowing that it's incomplete by our rules, as this opens up the vortex of "He got his run verified even though <grey area> so <even greyer area> should be allowed. Another part of me wants to verify the run just to create peace, even if it's just for the moment.

What would you do in this situation? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hey all,

From this point, could moderators adding "mod notes" to any run description please label which mod is adding the note? This way, if a runner has a question/concern about why the run was rejected/timing was changed/etc. they know exactly which mod left the note.

I'll be looking through any runs I've left notes on and adjusting the title to "Mod note (Chrixiam98):" If you leave notes in the future, I'd advise doing something similar.

Thanks.

I know this is a super old thread, but I think I'm gonna pin this so that any newbies who have the same question will see it right away. Thanks again for throwing your solution here!

Hey Mishigan!

Sorry for the late reply, I keep forgetting to turn notifications for speedrun.com on.

Anyway, since I used to be a PC runner I think I can help you with this issue.

Basically, you have to be both mostly perpendicular to the ledge you're long-jumping into, as well as be standing almost right next to it. If one or both of these isn't the case, you may need to adjust accordingly.

Hope this helps!

So I'm not sure if this has been brought up by anyone in the past, but I'm working on an external website for my speedgame. I'd like to have the leaderboards from speedrun.com show up on that site. I don't just want to provide a link to the leaderboards.

The site uses HTML. I've figured out how to embed YouTube videos (very easy). Is there a way to embed the leaderboards?

Thanks in advance.

Check out my speedgame, The Hobbit. We have quite a bit of competition in the lower places, but the world records for mostly every category have been held by myself on Gamecube and another runner on PC pretty consistently over the last 2 years. As a matter of fact, until recently no one else was within 9 minutes of either of us.

@EmeraldAly I saw that, but in my opinion these are really two different questions. My favorite game, for example, is NOT the same as my favorite speedgame. My favorite game overall is Zelda: Twilight Princess. My favorite speedgame is my main game, The Hobbit. My favorite speedgame that I don't run is A Hat In Time. I intended this to be a different question, but I can see where the confusion comes from.

Funny story, actually, since my name has gone through quite a bit.

My first name is Christian, and originally I was on YouTube under my real first and last name. I later made a Twitch account under the name ChristianTheComposer, since I'm a composer as well as a gamer.

I played a lot on the Wii a few years back and was trying to type Chris and accidentally typed an X instead of S, thus Chrix was born. That evolved into ChrixTheGamer at some point. But when I started speedrunning, for some reason I decided to update to Kryx (still pronounced the same) and the name became KryxedOff (pronounced similarly to "pssd off).

Later I decided I didn't like that name anymore and went back to using ChrixTheGamer. I later renamed it ChrixIAm (Chrix-I-Am), which eventually evolved to Chrixiam (essentially Christian but with X instead of ST and M instead of N).

Just out of curiosity, what are your favorite games to watch speedruns of, but that you don't actually run yourself? Mine would be A Hat In Time.

@Timmiluvs As you stated above: "I think this thread deviated a bit from the original point of banning those users who splice to test moderators, not those who splice in general". I brought this up initially because I thought it was important to bring up. If we leave the repercussions of actually cheating up to the individual communities, why aren't we doing the same with "testing mods", which is something arguably less malicious? Why do those with arguably better intentions get banned from the site, but those with actual malicious intentions are handled according to the specific community?

Splicing and cheating in general are definitely bannable offenses, but my stance is this: Regardless of whether it's still wrong, doing something with the intent of "testing" or "helping" is LESS malicious than doing it simply to gain a better time. So why, then, is a more malicious action being treated with less severe repercussions (leaving the punishment up to the individual community, rather than banning them from the website entirely)?

I'm sorry if I come across as passive-aggressive. I'm trying to explain my perspective on this without sounding like I'm targeting anyone. I just think that an arguably stronger offense should be given an equal or arguably stronger repercussion, which doesn't seem to be the case currently.

So since this is all coming up right now, I'd like to bring up a few points that many seem to just gloss over. One of these is the whole "tell the mods about the problem and they'll fix it" approach. I've found that this doesn't work, whether approaching mods about the way runs are verified, or asking for further clarification on rules. The thing about this is, some mods are willing to listen and change things for the good of the community, but some mods think that they know best because they're mods.

Even bringing up a "Rules" page brought up this issue. I don't mean to hate on kirkq or anything, this is purely intended to be respectful and constructive: Exactly the same thing is happening here. You even stated that creating a "Rules" page would possibly help "clarify the expectations" but yet you still don't/haven't. I don't know if it's because you don't have time/effort right now, or whether it's because you think you shouldn't have to (in which case, again, mods know better because they're mods). I'm going to assume it's the former, since I myself am a mod and I know how time-consuming and frustrating these things can be, but hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make here.

Another thing to mention is this: Why are we banning these people? If it's because of their "fake runs" then the rules and expectations don't line up. Plenty of runners who submit fake runs hoping to actually achieve a higher place don't get banned, but instead get warnings or just get off scot-free. So unless we're punishing them for trying to make a point to the moderators (which is ridiculous) I think there needs to be a discussion about cheating in general. Why don't we, for example, leave the consequences up to the moderators of the specific games, the way we do with any other spliced/cheated runs? Testing mods is something I would consider much less "detrimental" than actually submitting a fake run with the intent of holding a time.

And that's another thing: You officially put the rule into effect after a certain individual had already taken back their actions, but yet you still decided to ban them for... what? If they'd already proven the point without breaking any of the rules of that time and have taken back their actions, what is the ban for? Even in most sports and other competitive activities, doing something questionable that doesn't quite break the rules doesn't get you any sort of repercussion. Sure, the rule-makers will probably add the rule in afterward, but that doesn't mean the individuals should be punished for breaking rules that didn't exist at the time (even if it was common sense. Maybe just a warning would suffice?)

Let me finish off by saying, I'm not necessarily in support of what any individuals have done. I think it's a pretty stupid idea to go about submitting fake runs with the intent of "testing the moderators". But, considering the conditions, I think this particular individual should be given a second chance, especially if other runners who have actually cheated are allowed to "run free".

Hey all, just got to this thread. After doing some searching, there are a few other domain names available, namely highscores.com (basically the same, but with an S). As far as I can tell, gamescores.com may also be available. I'm definitely in support of finding an alternate domain for the high scores, and I think getting highscores.com may be the best option at the moment.