United StatesMost console releases and Steam games are accepted. Flash and freeware have a really gray line. Competitiveness isn't really a direct criteria. Basically "merits of the game" is a better way to think about it. "Is this flash/freeware/fangame game so bad it just clutters the games list and the search bar?" is my loose description of the criteria. I really need to write up something more formal.
Mega Man, Donkey Kong Country, Halo, and Super Metroid are the boards I can recall that fall into this discussion. I'll speak generically for all of these cases. I'm typing a bit quickly, so some wording might have better choices.
A couple of these cases have goes something like this: Speedrun.com user who runs the game wants a board and requests it. Community complains that guy outside of community is moderating the board. Community offers to moderate board; community is given moderation of board. Months pass, community decides they don't want the board. Community deletes all the existing runs and links to their board. We could just delete the games instead of leaving the shell board, but that puts us again back at square one.
Now, that being said, copying someone else's aggregation of runs without permission is pretty lame. Also the communities seem to be displeased when boards aren't up to date. Community doesn't want to list runs here, then if abiding by that, the board isn't up to date, therefore community would rather board not exist. I think having an external site's moderators squat on the empty board is total trash. I am fine with links to the external boards if people can still submit runs here.
There was API synchronization discussion with admins of a couple of these sites a long time ago, but the code and implementation never came to fruition. It still isn't out of the question, but it's not happening any time soon.
In my view, I still don't see a course of action that doesn't create a bitter divide somewhere. Speedrun.com users want to post runs for all games, the external communities fight against what they see as duplicated boards and rules deviations. Some of the precedent is very legacy from the early days of the site, these are the leftover cases that were never solved.
Patrick: It looks like you were added.
Skaleks: Without rereading all the discussion, I think the argument has essentially been "I said he was toxic, why didn't you remove him.", by which my position basically has to be "I can't remove people based off claims one person made with no further information given" Life's not black and white. Regarding the post following that, I absolutely don't support dialogue like that, but I personally don't see it as our position to ban people (or to this lesser extent, heavily police game moderation) based on offensive/detrimental things said in Twitch chat (or on Twitter). Doing so would probably warrant removing at least 50 users for similar instances of bad things said on the internet for consistency sake. The counterargument is essentially "No one who says stuff like that should be moderating anything", which is unfortunately not consistent with the current state of people moderating games and would be a major change. Token's posts and my previous posts express similar concerns.
Beardy: I made the series mod a supermod, and then added you cause he said so.
DunkelGotik: It looks like you were added.
Mchan338: Please discuss it with the current game moderators, they are active.
GhillieGuide: I'll delete it since due time was given.
RejectedLink: The first point, I marked the game as "mobile", which makes it abide by the series setting to show unofficial games. This is probably close to what you wanted there. Regarding the second point, this is the classic "We mod the series and play the series but not the game, but he mods and plays the game." It's essentially a no-win situation. Ideally this would be resolved with discussion without having to involve site staff.
NehkRohw: Added.
Cyberdemon531: Looks like he added you.
Ewil: Could you add more moderators prior to us making any changes. Since he only runs one game, it may make since to move things around a bit, but then the series and most games have few moderators.
JandriMC: The user was on recently. If it happens again, we can look at adding you.
Switch_Z: The game has active moderators, you can request through them.
kobepilgrim: 100 pages of something.
Death_Devil: It looks like he added you.
Exelency: I'm putting a bit of faith in you by adding you under these cirumstances, please do sensible things. ^_^;
Personal Note: Still working on transitioning some responsibilities. I've been very busy with work the last couple weeks.
I handled it. Site staff need to be involved if it's able to be banned. Game moderators can reject the run though.
battleonfan1: I'm not totally against alt accounts for tracking of different runs. I can't guarantee this is going to be the policy forever, but we won't retroactively ban people for it or anything. This has been precedent until now at least. If people are doing really stupid stuff, they may get banned. (I don't know that a rule against alts prevents it that much, it just raises the punishment essentially.)
"Also, there doesn't seem to be a list of site rules out in the open."
- There's not one in private either. It's mostly precedent and discussion. We are aware that the lack of this is a major issue.
FurryWulfz: I generally handle e-mail changes via my Twitch PMs currently. It's not ideal obviously.
I can't discern anything more than you guys can. Odds are one or both of the accounts are fake, but I have no idea which.
All we can really do is reserve usernames by registering them as site staff, which we've done in the past in a few specific cases. (Ideally we could reserve names without signing up, but that would require more code.)
PreFiXAUT: I'd guess it's because the category name matches the game name, but that's certainly not intended behavior.
tocaloni1: They show up for me, not sure if it got fixed or if it's a browser or adblock type issue.
Jumpyluff: The "Webgame" tag is directly tied to the "Show unofficial games by default" setting. I don't know exactly what these games are, so I just removed thje tag for now to be consistent with the rest. Added to the game due to inactivity.
Darazanjoll: It looks like this is already true. The site doesn't link downwards from games to rom hacks since the update 6+ months ago. Ideally that will be fixed at some point.
Death_Devil: Game requests go through the form Gyoo linked, category requests go through the moderators for that specific game.
You can request rom hacks and mods through the game request form, just leave a note of what it is. The rom hack/mod, etc flags are currently site staff only because they greatly affect how the game is listed on the site. If they need changed, you can request that here: http://www.speedrun.com/The_Site/thread/be179
The restructuring of series 6+ months ago made it difficult to maintain the behavior exactly as it was during that change. I'm not opposed to adding some of that functionality back eventually.
The only item pertaining to this that is fully broken right now is the ability to assign a "parent game" to a rom hack or mod.
Bazralian: The game has 8 moderators; I would hope they could come to a consensus on this. There's very little detail available here other than runs being rejected with ambiguous rejection comments, so I can't really come to an informed conclusion.
Regarding mods retiming, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Generally, retiming would be a courtesy, but if a user constantly submits times wrong, rejecting one and telling them to resubmit would be reasonable. At least put something in the rejection comments indicating that.
Xcvazer: Looks like you were added.
WhiteHat94: Added.
Jumpyluff: He had a request in for the game first. You already moderate multiple games together, and apparently talk to each other. I think the two of you are capable of sorting it out.
molluskmoth: Both points in your post are actually false, but admittedly you can't have known much of it. He has actually handled runs recently. We want to roll the board audit logs to board mods in the nearer future, but it's not fully ready yet. If the other mods want to chime in and use consensus to say he doesn't have a run and they want runners moderating, I'm not inherently opposed to the change.
havrd/Kotti: I reviewed the requests in queue pretty thoroughly. I'm almost positive a full game run was linked that looked like it was his, so maybe there was some ambiguity there I didn't catch. Since he doesn't have a run listed and the game and requests are very new, it probably doesn't really make sense to have him there. (Also those discord posts are pretty bad.) The concern is more with the board's accuracy and general community consensus than "who" in particular is moderating.
jimmeh13nitsaw: Added since you have a run and are requesting sensible changes via the forums.
EDIT: XerxesAsuras: (Post below, added)
authorblues: Added. AsP00n: Added. randomphoenix03: Added. howdenking: Added AndersonFerreira: Removed user, and then bumped all the others up to super mods. One of them is active still. 30Cents: I think you can submit guides if you have a run on the board if I'm recalling the criteria correctly. BrofessorScales: Ok, you have a run in queue
I'm trying to work with the others to transition some of the day to day site handling, but it may take a while to get there.
StarOfDoom: I've generally gone with "one year offline, a very small number of posts, and no runs"
I dislike requiring a timer for most games. Auto-splitters may be a necessary evil for some games, but local recording usually doesn't drop frames, and if it does, it can be somewhat adjusted for. A user could add a timer in the corner of a video after it had already been recorded. Am I now violating the rules by adding a timer after the run was recorded even though the run was totally legit anyway? It's rather arbitrary for most games.
Why would someone rely on a streaming site to record their runs? :)
Per the first post (which I edited to be even more explicit, these requests should all go through the game request form except Kaopoke's, which requires this thread. (I realize the topic title isn't as explciit, but is reading the first line of the first post asking too much?)
Leery: I don't really know what you want this series called. Jumpyluff: done Kaopoke: done Cappan1: done f1: done
For now I think double variables is the best that can be managed. Making platforms able to be subcategories but then allowing arbitrary groupings of them utilized as subcategories isn't a trivial amount of work.
Skaleks: Not totally opposed to the change, but would need consensus from other people related to the issue. The user currently moderates 3 similar games in the series, so changing just one doesn't really "fix" anything.
zergreenone: There still seems to be a problem with the audit logs for this case. I think it's like 95% likely what you're saying is true, so I'll go based on that in hopes of resolving the issue.
Toad22484: Added.
Burningsnake: One of the other site staff added you.
Scypher: Used just logged on yesterday, please try to sort it out with them. Also doing a run of some category is generally better precedent. (Admittedly that's a bit ambiguous if the categories aren't well defined.)
GhillieGuide: I think we should give this issue more time for discussion: http://www.speedrun.com/ssb64/thread/m9tow Right now me deleting it wipes the VC runs. (I tend to think you should probably still try to track VC somehow, but that's just a suggestion.)
Deuceler: I added you. Generally for small games, having a run of a similar game in the series is considered relatively sufficient, since not many people play the games in the first place.
Marxvile: I missed this post last time I went through the forums, sorry about that. Please use the game request form. I updated the original post to make it more clear that this is the intended course of action.
NightmareGameZ: You probably linked a longplay or a TAS. The leaderboards are intended to track serious attempts for games. A user is welcome to submit his own longplay, but we shouldn't track other people's longplays arbitrarily, because they generally aren't aimed at going as fast as possible.
Leery: Please use the game request form. I updated the original post to make it more clear that this is the intended course of action.
