So, there's this one guy in a leaderboard I moderate. He recently created his account and the first run he has ever submitted was to the game I moderate. The core of my confusion is that the "run" he submitted is 3 hours longer than the average time, and the video is supposedly a full game playthrough rather than an attempt to speedrun. Should I accept the submission?
I don't see the harm in accepting the run as long as it doesn't break any of the category's rules. Who would it hurt? Not any of the other runners, not the moderators, certainly not the people who have no idea what game you're talking about and won't ever see it. Keeping someone off the board because they're slow is silly. Better to let them participate and then encourage them to go faster rather than discourage them from the start with a rejection right off the bat. That's how you grow communities and make friends in my opinion.
@CriscoWild as I see it, there is a difference between doing a slow speedrun, and not even trying to speedrun in the first place. As Hako said, that submission was about 3 hours longer than average. That is one thing that could "hurt the moderators" - having to verify a long run for no reason.
There is no site-wide policy for it, so moderators can choose for themselves how to handle this. I still remember the existence of a ~12 hours run on SMB1 Any%.
I would personally not accept a run like that. While it doesn't "hurt" anyone as you said, it doesn't really help anyone either.
@Oreo321 I do think you're right about there being a difference between a slow speedrun and a casual run, but I don't believe that difference is relevant in terms of deciding whether or not the run in question merits inclusion on a board unless you're specifically looking at the site rule about giving game moderators the freedom to reject runs based how they personally felt about its speed.
Regarding your claim that having to verify a long run could potentially "hurt" one of the moderators, I'd suggest that if somebody feels hurt in any way from sitting on their butt and watching other people play video games, they might need to take a break, step aside, and let someone else moderate that board. Regarding the idea that there's "no reason" for the run's verification, I'd say that's patently false: this is a leaderboard site and the fact that the runner wants his/her run on the board is reason enough. That's why we're here. It's what we do.
Personally I would err on the side of Crisco here. Where do we draw the line if we start rejecting runs for being "too slow"?
I mean, a game that Hako runs (Detroit: Become Human) averages 3 hours yet has a 6 hour run on the board.
I play Puyo Puyo Tetris and the 100% category has 1 hour to 2 hour average yet has a 4.5 hour run on the board.
Razor Freestyle Scooter averages 9 to 15 minutes but has a nearly hour-long run on the board.
One of the most popular games, SMB3, Any% Warpless averages 1 to 2 hours with 215 runs in that timeframe. Yet they accepted the 9 runs in the 3 to 4 hour margin, four runs in that 4 to 5 hour mark and even a 19 hour "run"!
I would say the precedent has definitely been set across SR.C in general - if a user submits a run, and it doesn't break any game specific rules, the verifier should verify the run on that basis ONLY - the actual speed of the run is not for us to begin gatekeeping on.
What I personally think would be better for this person to do is submit their walkthrough as a resource and submit a faster PB to the board for their own benefit but that is not for us to decide. If their fastest time completing the game is 3 hours longer than the average for the game, that is not your place to reject their run on those grounds - only if they broke any game specific rules, or cheated to gain that time.
This is a site for ranking speedruns. A simple playthrough with no intent to go fast is not a speedrun and moderators shouldn't be obligated to accept it. I still think it's a good idea to accept that kind of run if it's not an unreasonable length, but it's up to your personal judgement.
A little bit off-topic, but what are people's opinions on anti-WRs (times that are purposefully attempting to get last place)? Should moderators accept them or not?
Well, they're not too common, and the only example I can think of right now is Dragster. I'm pretty sure there are many others though.
People even submit their blind playthroughs, stuff like that just has nothing to do with a speedrun and doesn't belong on speedrun leaderboards. It's of course not possible to draw a clear line what is just a slow speedrun or a casual playthrough, so it's more of a case by case decision for different games.
And Crisco, it's a SPEEDRUN leaderboard, not a casual walkthrough leaderboard. And yes, watching hours and hours of a playthrough that never intents to try going fast just to be displayed on a leaderboard here is a waste of time for every moderator that has to verify it. It's their free time, not their job to look through runs and verify them.
Again, if they are not cheating or breaking the game rules, then the verifier should only be verifying that it is indeed a run of that game and logging the time on the leaderboards. If someone purposefully wants last place, that's also not for us to gatekeep.
Literally the verifier's only job is to verify that a run does not break the rules. Any other opinions on the "speed" or lack thereof is superfluous to the verifier's role.
[quote]I mean, a game that Hako runs (Detroit: Become Human) averages 3 hours yet has a 6 hour run on the board.[/quote] The difference is, that 6 hour run is an attempt to play the game fast, not a casual playthrough. Besides, that run was made before we made a proper route of the game. I do get what you're trying to say, but I think it's an unfair comparison.
Also, that 6 hour run you're mentioning is the Survivors Trophy category, not Any%. That category's goal is to go through the game with all characters surviving, so of course it'll take longer than 3 hours.
If it shows a sincere attempt to complete the game as fast as possible, yes. Even if the time is horrific.
If it shows a lot of dicking around and talking to NPC's and doing side missions (in "any%") and stuff like that, probably not. It's still to your discretion as a moderator though.
[quote]
One of the most popular games, SMB3, Any% Warpless averages 1 to 2 hours with 215 runs in that timeframe. Yet they accepted the 9 runs in the 3 to 4 hour margin, four runs in that 4 to 5 hour mark and even a 19 hour "run"![/quote]
I've actually brought up SMB1 a number of times. There's a 15 minute any% run (WR is under 5), it's a really bad run with tons of mistakes and deaths, but it's obvious the runner is trying to finish as fast as possible. And then there's I believe a 6 hour run, which has obviously intentional deaths, the player trying to achieve pointless glitches, game over'ing a number of times (why wouldn't you just restart the timer?), stopping and backtracking to grab coins and powerups.....it's not a sincere speedrun. And if I moderated that board I would never accept such a run.
Thank you all for your inputs regarding this topic. After taking different points and perspectives into account, I have made the decision to reject the run as it is merely a casual playthrough and not an actual effort to beat the game as fast as possible.