Agreed, in general no one should reject a run because of some comfort level thing, I have no idea where that idea came from.

Conversely, a mod's discretion to reject a run that shows a clear lack of effort is unequivocally called for.

...By the sitewide moderation rules.

...Twice.

The rules I'm familiar with give game moderators the option of rejecting runs that show lack of effort but I wouldn't go so far as to say those rules necessarily call for it.

"Runs that are clearly not making an effort to beat the game's category quickly may be rejected." - This rule that we're all familiar with says that a run may be rejected, sure. A reasonable person would infer that this also means that it may not be rejected. It's up to the game moderator. As far as I know, Speedrun.com staff aren't in the business of forcing us to reject runs. In this case, the rejection is not "called for."

"A minimum effort requirement is reasonable. It is recommended to at a minimum accept a first playthrough done in one sitting with an intention of playing the category quickly." - The other rule that mentions effort also mentions accepting first playthroughs. There's no standard set here for what constitutes "minimum effort" or any guidelines for determining how one would assess a runner's "intention" regarding how quickly they want to beat the game. Again, this is all left up to the game moderator and isn't "called for" by Speedrun.com.

You as a game moderator are empowered to reject runs on the basis that you're not personally satisfied with the effort put into them, but let's not pretend it's mandated by SR. The decision rests solely on your shoulders and you must bear the responsibility of that decision and answer to the community for it if it turns out they're unhappy with the board being run that way.

I think my use of the word gatekeep turned this more into a debate than the discussion I was intending. If so, I apologise for using that word as I think my meaning got lost somewhere.

The opening post quoted two reasons for potentially rejecting the run - 1) that it was 3 hours longer than average and 2) that it was a full game playthrough rather than a "speedrun".

Yes, I have focused mostly on the first part, but again that was one of the reasons stated in the opening post that the OP wanted opinions on. If you re-read my first post I stated that I think it would be in the best interests of all if the runner submitted his playthrough as a resource, and tried again as a speedrun. But in a broad sense, I did not think being 3 hours longer than average is a factor that should be considered when rejecting a run.

In terms of the second factor, I have zero issue with the OP moderator rejecting the run on the basis of this. However, I do think consideration should be given as to whether the full game playthrough constitutes this person's fastest time completing the game. To quote the relevant rules:

"A minimum effort requirement is reasonable. It is recommended to at a minimum accept a first playthrough done in one sitting with an intention of playing the category quickly."

"Runs that are clearly not making an effort to beat the game's category quickly may be rejected."

So, the run MAY be rejected if an effort isn't being made. Not will, not should, just may. So I think consideration should be given as to whether this full game playthrough is this person's attempt or not, ie by contacting the runner directly.

So, in the interests of not causing any ill will towards anyone in this topic, I'll reiterate:

• I think Hako did the right thing in gauging how other communities would handle this issue as per another rule discussing what should be considered in complex issues.
• I think if Hako doesn't believe that the runner was making a genuine effort, that they are fine to reject it. Their perogative.
• However, I think if this is going to be their community's stance, then adding something to the game specific rules might be beneficial for future disputes.
• I don't think being 3 hours slower than average should be a factor at all.

I hope that helps expand on what I've been trying to say :) I apologise if any of my wording has come across as harsher than I intended. I do not however think that it is as binary a situation as you think it is - that's not to say I am right or that you are right - but I don't think it is often very simple to say which runs show clear lack of effort, and more so the rules don't actually unequivocally call for the run to be rejected anyway, just that it may be a reason for rejection. I personally would err on the side of accepting it, but it is at the verifier's discretion and I am not the verifier in this situation.

While "3 hours longer than average" might not be a factor, it does matter what this average is, relatively to the 3 hours difference. In VERY slow runs, the time alone can indicate a total lack of effort, without even watching the video of the run (that time depends on the game, of course).

For example, most of the games I moderate are very short, and can be complete in 1-5 minutes. If someone will submit a 3-hour run for those games (Hey, that's only 3 hours more than the average!), yeah, that won't be accepted for obvious reasons.

I won't say that for each game I will set a minimum time threshold where below that I won't accept any runs, but I can declare a certain time frame that minimum-effort runs will probably get into (again, it varies per game, and the "difference from the average" also varies per game). In one of the (very short) games I can even say with complete confidence that a 3 minute run shows a complete lack of effort.

For the moderation rule: "Runs that are clearly not making an effort to beat the game's category quickly may be rejected." I think you think too much about the semantics of the word MAY. Yes, it might or night not be rejected - we as the game moderators can use our judgement, and it can be different from case to case.

@ckellyedits [quote]I don't think being 3 hours slower than average should be a factor at all.[/quote] Why not? At some point, the time itself will indicate that no attempt was made to beat the game quickly. If someone submits a 20 hour run for a game most people can beat in under 30 minutes glitchless, it's almost certain there was no genuine effort to speedrun the game. For a shorter game, a 3 hour difference would often be well past the cutoff point where real effort is unlikely.

My understanding was that part of the reason mods are granted discretion to reject such runs is to discourage the people who like to spam leaderboards with "anti-WR" runs. The length of the run is always going to be a factor in identifying those.

Edit: Clearly my forum posting is suboptimal relative to Oreo321.

For the visual ppl out there.

Hope this helps :)

I don't think everyone has been on the same page, myself included.

Maybe there was some confusion on my part due to the use of the word "gatekeeping" and the focus of the discussion on time as the main element that would determine a lack of clear effort. I agree with the conclusion of this thread though. Thank you everyone above for making things clearer.