Discussion: Removing Runs from Boards by User Request
6 years ago
United States

#1: If the runner added the time themselves, then if they wish it to be removed the time should be readded as an anonymous run, without any identifiers as to who the run was by. If the game has multiple categories, the mods can track runs that were made anonymous by giving them "Anonymous 1" "Anonymous 2" etc... if need be. The time should remain as it was at one point a run submitted to the boards of the runner's own will. The mods should know who the run was by, though that information should not be available by looking at the time on speedrun.com

#2: If the run was added by someone else and the runner never was involved in it, the run and time should be completely wiped. The runner never put it up, they don't want it up then they should be able to say "no". The mods should know what the time was and who it was by for tracking purposes, but it should not be on the leaderboards at all.

#3: If the run was added by someone else but the runner expressed that this was okay, see #1.

In summation: if the runner was okay with the time being up at some point in the past, leave the time up but remove the identifying information and anonymize it. If the runner never was okay with it (or never expressed being okay with it) pull the whole thing.

PrettzL likes this
California, USA

[quote=Ihavenoname248]Full run removal: absolutely not Removal of everything but the time: sure. The time is what's important.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with this.

New York, USA

I'm curious to hear if anyone's heard a decent reason for removing a run in the first place. Most of my experiences have been people not wanting their runs to be on a board simply because they either don't like the moderator or they don't like the site. Not super solid IMO.

United States

So what are you "preserve the run" people going to do if the person moves the video? Hound the person tracking it down over and over again?

At what point do you mind your business?

Edited by the author 6 years ago
Habreno and Timmiluvs like this
New York, USA

Personally I feel people should just submit their own runs. I've never liked the concept of people submitting others' runs, simply because it ironically opens up a window to inaccuracy in the pursuit of "accurate leaderboards", particularly if you're posting times that came from say SRL (which may not be accurate due to .done delay or older RaceBot issues from years back) or otherwise don't have an actual video since they came from years ago, and can't even verify the platform that was used to perform the run in a multiplatform game, for example (which has happened at least once on a mod submitted run in personal experience).

I generally feel that if you want to submit on behalf of others, either get their permission before submitting or ask them to do so themselves. I really doubt anyone that doesn't want a run up really cares about being 26th, 76th, 166th, or whatever on a leaderboard that they have no business being on because they raced the game once or twice. In cases of WR, if the person doesn't want it, then there's no reason to hold anything about the instance if people are just going to look at it later and not regard it because they don't get to see the evidence. Then it just relies on mod say, and mods change from time to time as well, and words are often about just as valuable as a time without evidence (i.e. not at all to an average person).

I view people submitting on the behalf of others as a motive to artificially expand leaderboards and blur actual activity on a given game/leaderboard more than I value its actual use. So, I do believe people should have the right to remove a run submitted on their behalf sitewide. I'd even go so far to say that people who don't have an account here at this point shouldn't have other people submitting for them, either - if they haven't joined by now, they might not ever do so.

so tl;dr Ideally people should only be submitting their own runs, but if there is a need to keep people submitting on the behalf of others, I feel there needs to be appropriate evidence that the run exists (video only, no exceptions, also sitewide), and the owner of said run reserves the ability to remove the run(s) on the basis that they did not submit the run themselves, at any time. I also feel -everyone- adding runs on the behalf of others should ideally exercise some courtesy and ask people before adding runs, but obviously that's not enforceable.

PrettzL and Timmiluvs like this

The rule looks so far good, but i can already see that much users/communites gonna have their problems with that, since some of them taking speedrunning very serious, including to keep the Leaderboards up to date.

The best solution would probably be to use the concept "Ihavenoname248" explained. Everything that could identify the runowner should be "removed", the time should be kept in the list entered as "Anonymous" or "Removed". As well it can't damage to show a questionmark-icon "?" behind the name which redirects to a thread/FAQ entry which explains that and how a person can "remove" a run.

"remove" basically means that the regular user can no longer see anything but the time. Moderators of the community-part are still able to that to verify the runs.

Best example would be what recently happend to the "Karamari Hospital MISC"-Kategory in "Spooky's Jumpscare Mansion HD Renovation". The developer of the game changed several things on the game, including that "sprints" are now disabled for staircases, making several uploaded runs impossible. If the informations about a run expect of time would be completely removed even for Mods, the moderators would not be able to check which runs apply to the changes and which not.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
New Brunswick, Canada

Regarding runners who choose to submit and then redact their runs at a later date, specifically would-be records:

I've dealt with in the past regarding this issue, and it lies in the authority the submitter has over the submissions themselves. In most boards, moderator verification is required; this is a standard thing. If the submitter edits his comment or changes some detail, this also requires verification. Again, nothing strange here. How, then, is it reasonable to give people who submit runs (esp. record runs) the authority to remove their runs without some sort of verification? I'll use Limbo as an example.

Just within the past few months, a previous multiple-record holder for every category deleted his entire history of runs and records, invalidating over a year's worth of world record progression in the statistics section of the leaderboard. Of course, everyone has been upset by this, and there's no known way to retrieve these record statistics. Anyone who might be searching for the progression of said categories, and the game as a whole, will now and in the future be unable to know what actually happened in the past. No sensible person would erase or burn away a history book of facts, would they?

I'll refer back to what previous posts have been saying. If this website is to retain any credibility as far as accurate record progression is concerned, a few people's feelings are going to be hurt. The runners in question who chose to put in the time to climb to the top of the boards, however, will have to "face the consequences" of having their runs on the boards permanently - if not in one state or another. Just as any sort of credible real-life records cannot be erased because "I don't want to be attached to this anymore," so the same standard should be set here.

It's one of those things that needs to have an immediate change in guidelines. If a slow transition to whatever future rules lies ahead is to take place, there might as well not be any change. Exceptions to these rules lead to complete disintegration of integrity.

-GG

IdahoJacket, SpeedRon, and Rookus like this
Washington, USA
EmeraldAly
She/Her, They/Them
6 years ago

[QUOTE]I can't think of an exception to this, unless the content is released without any rights (very unlikely if the video is published on twitch or youtube). The content that a runner submits is his or her property, and these rights aren't compromised by submitting content to the site. They are allowed to be used here because the copyright holder allows it. Therefore, it follows that if copyrighted content continues to be used by the site against the copyright holder's wish, it is a violation of that material's copyright. [/QUOTE]

Copyright would belong to the rights-holder(s) for the game in question, not the speedrunner.

Washington, USA
EmeraldAly
She/Her, They/Them
6 years ago

General endorsement of Ihavenoname248's statement on page 1. If a runner wants their name removed from a leaderboard, remove it and any personally identifiable information along with it (i.e. video link). But the time should stay, particularly if it's a high-level time. I for one would not want a WR displayed on my profile if I knew I was genuinely in 2nd place. The moderator, when removing the video link, should state the run was initially verified on such-and-such date with satisfactory proof but the runner has since requested their name be removed from the leaderboard. I think that is perfectly reasonable. But removing the run altogether, no, not in favour.

United States

I've noticed a couple people say that runs should only be able to be submitted by the runner- I see three issues with this.

  1. Someone like SSBMstuff who doesn't want to directly submit to leaderboards to avoid the personal drive of "this isn't record I can get record" but would still like his times there.
  2. Importing times from offsite leaderboards, especially when the runner was the person who originally submitted. Should those runs be ignored by the site just because the runner is no longer active to submit on their own?
  3. Co-op runs. Would those only need to be submitted by one person on the team, regardless of the other runners? Would all runners need to submit? Co-op runs raise another interesting point about what to do if one person no longer wants the run up but the remaining runners do- which side do you go with? To everyone who said "just remove the run if the runner wants it gone"- how do you handle this instance?
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

The best solution to this is that just ask the person who did the run but doesn't have an account on the site for permission to submit their run yourself. If they allow it, then submit it without missing a single detail. If they don't allow it, then still submit the run's time but do not put name or video proof and tell the reason in the description of the run. Put "Private Name" as the runner's name. (Or another thing if you have a better name idea.)

Edited by the author 6 years ago
Antarctica

[QUOTE]best to do if a runner ask for their run to be removed? IP ban em, not speedrunners in my mind. You should be honored to be spotlighted and for your progress, if not, either you are a cheater, or you aren't a speedrunner.[/QUOTE] Nice low quality bait or just a sad attempt at trolling.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
HowDenKing likes this
Canada

Aside from having a run submitted in your name without your permission, I'm having trouble coming up with a good reason as to why someone would want to remove a legitimate run, especially a world record. If you're just going to remove it when you get bored of speedrunning then I'm not sure why you would bother submitting it in the first place.

I think the suggested "Anonymous run" is probably the best option, as it preserves the accuracy of the leaderboards while still allowing people to drop out of them (for whatever reason). That being said, I don't really think it's a big deal if a non world record/top 3 run is completely removed.

Though, considering the vastly different opinions on the issue I don't think a site wide rule is a good idea.

United States

Just some opinions of mine; still looking for feedback from additional users.

A: Should moderators be allowed to track runs of people who don't use the site? There's some discussion around this in the previous posts

  • If the site is "opt-in only", the records will be further from accurate than if it is not. "Best attempt at accurate representation of times" is already lost. The holder of the best time may not use the site.

B: I'm not a fan of the sentiment of "having opted in means you can't ever opt out" It may persuade people to stop submitting because they don't want to abide by a future circumstance where they now can't opt out. Right now the existing worst case circumstance is "If you didn't opt in, you still can't opt out."

C: Not having a site-wide rule (or even guidelines) on this actually makes the boards less consistent on this matter. Half the boards might have forced accuracy, and the other half are not forcing that accuracy. The users and runners get confused because it varies so much game to game and the expectation is scattered. Why should someone be allowed to remove their run from one game but not another just based on the moderator's preference?

D : If the time is anonymously there but the video isn't shown anywhere, site users don't get any significant level of confidence that the run is legitimate. They can never see it and it's only known behind closed doors, so to speak. It may be accurate to the people that run the boards, but it's not perceivable as accurate to the people that view the boards. There's significant value in having a publicly available video for viewers to scrutinize.

E: For those who aren't aware: Copyright basically says don't upload someone else's video without their permission. Anyone can link to a thing on the Internet, but the subject here is more of "should we be doing that"

Edited by the author 6 years ago
European Union

[quote=kirkq]A: Should moderators be allowed to track runs of people who don't use the site? There's some discussion around this in the previous posts

  • If the site is "opt-in only", the records will be further from accurate than if it is not. "Best attempt at accurate representation of times" is already lost. The holder of the best time may not use the site. [/quote] I'd say "Best attempt at accurate representation" is what we should strive for - even tho it's almost impossible to.

[quote=kirkq]B: I'm not a fan of the sentiment of "having opted in means you can't ever opt out" It may persuade people to stop submitting because they don't want to abide by a future circumstance where they now can't opt out. Right now the existing worst case circumstance is "If you didn't opt in, you still can't opt out." [/quote] I agree, if you can't opt out it makes it seem like we're some kind of sect who will do terrible things to you if you don't agree with us.

[quote=kirkq]C: Not having a site-wide rule (or even guidelines) on this actually makes the boards less consistent on this matter. Half the boards might have forced accuracy, and the other half are not forcing that accuracy. The users and runners get confused because it varies so much game to game and the expectation is scattered. Why should someone be allowed to remove their run from one game but not another just based on the moderator's preference? [/quote] I hope you guys still work on the Content Moderator thingy - the guidelines established there could be somewhat applicable to the whole site.

[quote=kirkq]D : If the time is anonymously there but the video isn't shown anywhere, site users don't get any significant level of confidence that the run is legitimate. They can never see it and it's only known behind closed doors, so to speak. It may be accurate to the people that run the boards, but it's not perceivable as accurate to the people that view the boards. There's significant value in having a publicly available video for viewers to scrutinize. authenticity I don't see a problem with the video/proof not being available - if other times are legitimate it confirms the authenticity of the moderator and thus shouldn't raise suspicion.

~HDK

Timmiluvs likes this
United States

The ultimate conclusion of this policy of insisting on leaving up a time, is that you'll have a time with no video on it. If I see a time with no video, how do I know it's legitimate?

HyperSonic7701 and PrettzL like this
Antarctica

Yeah I agree that a time with no video is pointless. To a new runner, it's gonna lead to doubt and confusion (and possibly frustration if it's a long standing record and I can't view it).

The general feeling a lot of people have on this site is "No WR without proof" and I feel like by extension of that sentiment, a time should not be re-added if the person deletes it and has the video is removed. I can understand the point of "it was verified at one point" as a way to keep the mods honest and trusting, but that still seems like a really lame way of adding a time to a board since it'll have no information. While it might add accuracy in the wider scope of tracking WRs/PBs in a game, it only hinders the board by providing a (high level) run that isn't viewable. If a person removes their video and removes their time, adding it back with just a time and no video is pointless since it adds no value to the board. Obviously if they remove it all, they clearly don't care about holding WR or anything like that, so let them be and don't add the time they clearly don't care about back.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
PrettzL likes this
New York, USA

@HowDenKing SR.com is a sect who will do terrible things to you if you don't agree. Look how I was treated over X3 and Lament. Smear campaign for days.

Edit: Speaking of X3, you might ask some of those guys how they feel. The majority of them removed their top times from the leaderboards during my stint as moderator; a solid seven or eight out of fifty.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
New York, USA

SR.com's About section says "We welcome all speedrunners to join us in helping this site grow to become the one-stop shop for speedrunning leaderboards." If you want to be the one-stop shop, you're going to have to keep these VODs up 'cause otherwise we'll need to stop somewhere else.

Valhalla

lol if someone doesn't want their run on the site then they don't want their run on the site.

IlluminaTea and PresJPolk like this