Should speedruns without video proof require splits?
5 years ago
New Jersey, USA

Most of our opinions will be the same as far as video proof goes but I'm curious on what everyone thinks about splits being required if the run doesn't have any video proof.

Hako, blueYOSHI, and paintophobia like this
Alberta, Canada

For games that don't require video, I think a lot of games have in game timers and just a screenshot is enough, don't really see any point in screenshotting splits? Could be wrong but that seems a bit pointless?

Switzerland

If the game has some sort of in-game timer or anything like that, picture proof should be required alongside splits, else just splits picture proof without in game timer is kinda useless

CarkInTheDark likes this
European Union

splits are essentially the same as no proof. they can give additional info on a run, but if there's no base info to go off of they're useless and can be ignored.

proof/evidence has to be from the game material. having an image/split file of livesplit means nothing - they can be fabricated way easier than photoshopping image proof or splicing videos.

rent, EmeraldAly and 5 others like this
United States

the idea here is that splits are better than nothing. Considering a ton of runs have no video at all, requiring splits is a step up

IlluminaTea and blueYOSHI like this
West Sussex, England

Splits are better than nothing, but they can still be fabricated very easily. This is an issue that requires quite a bit of caution.

CarkInTheDark likes this
European Union

splits aren't a step up considering they proof nothing. they could've just as well have the timer run in the background and hit split at times. or heck, just edit the splits to display what they want

New Jersey, USA

The idea is that people would be less inclined to put in that level of effort over doing nothing at all. Agree or disagree?

IlluminaTea, blueYOSHI and 2 others like this
West Sussex, England

I'd personally just record a vid straight off a webcam pointed at the TV.

I mean I made a run of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and can remember the time off the top of my head, but didn't record it so I never submitted it. I can improve it though.

Edited by the author 5 years ago
United Kingdom

I would treat a run without video evidence that has splits submitted, the exact same as no video evidence and no splits submitted, personally.

Pac, Alayan and 6 others like this
Antarctica

Splits aren’t better than nothing, splits are the same as nothing. Splits don’t add any proof to you doing a run, all they show is that you left a timer running for x amount of time and hit a key to split every now and then while you did who knows what.

Alberta, Canada

Sure, I can agree that people would be less likely to put up splits. Still not good proof though

Edited by the author 5 years ago
New Jersey, USA

I guess I'll provide more context.

I say this as a way to provide proof if the game does not require video proof. For example, only runs 30 minutes or lower need video proof. Now, for the runs above 30 minutes, do you not make any proof required, require splits to be shown, or does it not matter?

It's more likely for the run to be genuine, since most people don't want to go through the effort of having to fake realistic splits in order to cheat in a video game. Some people will, yes, but it'll cut down on those who beforehand just entered a time and pressed "submit" and do not feel like having to actually put in effort.

I don't say this as a way to provide proof, more so as a way to cut down on fake runs.

As a wise person once said, why make it easy for them?

I dunno. That's my opinion on that particular situation. That's why I made this thread though. There's so many potential situations that can occur that something as broad as this doesn't exactly fit into one thing. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

Alberta, Canada

Splits are better than nothing, and I wouldn't want the site to require video proof of every run. There must be some middle ground.

This could be useful, but it's not perfect, people will still try to fake splits, and the question then would be what to do about that.

On one hand, this is a good idea, but on the other, it has faults, so maybe there is a solution without faults. No idea what...

For the meantime though, this is a good idea

IlluminaTea and Artemis like this
United Kingdom

Requiring splits would cut down on the number of people who will potentially submit fake runs, but I would say splits don't exactly increase the quality of those submissions to begin with any moreso than if they just didn't have splits.

Edited by the author 5 years ago
Alayan, MASH and 3 others like this
Canada

It's worth noting that submitting splits can literally just mean making a split file with a single split for the end of the game and sticking your end time in it (which takes about 15 seconds to do and provides no extra value to your submission).

I feel like all this would do is create a random extra barrier that doesn't really do anything. I don't think fake submissions are that much of a problem, and if they are then the real solution is to just require video proof across the board.

EmeraldAly and HowDenKing like this
Valhalla

You've already waived video proof, the best possible form of proof for speedrunning, something that isn't that hard to accomplish, so why require something as useless as splits?

EmeraldAly, Alayan and 4 others like this
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Splits are nothing but a decoration below your run. They have no meaning unless you have a video proof

Edited by the author 5 years ago
EmeraldAly, MASH and 2 others like this
Scotland

I normally don't run with splits because they really mess me up mentally but that is my 2 cents :)

Edited by the author 5 years ago
New Jersey, USA

I appreciate all the feedback and opinions so far by the way guys, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Keep 'em comin

blueYOSHI, Hako and 2 others like this