One of the big problems with the moderation in this game is that the only Supermod (i.e. me) has nothing to do with the game on this site. I used to do lots of races on SRL a while back, but now, I don't speedrun it seriously (maybe the odd joke race here and there), I've never submitted a run, I've never asked to be involved in the game on this site... and didn't even know I was a mod at all for the longest time. I am currently #1 on SRL, and have been for a long time, so I am wondering if someone saw that and put me as the Supermod without asking me or telling me anything at all.

If a moderation change is going to happen, I'd recommend removing me from the mod list, because I'm probably not going to pay a lot of attention to this game (as I said, I don't know why I was a mod to begin with). I'm not against being a mod in the future if I am actively running the game, or if I have a connection to the community, but at the moment I am neither, so I probably shouldn't be a mod atm. I've already asked a long time ago to be removed from the mod list of melee, but that hasn't happened.

I am willing to help with rules/decisions/etc and things like that if important situations come up (like emu/version differences), but full time moderation... someone else would be a better person.

I'm not trying to abandon the game or anything... I was never really in the game to begin with. Regardless of what happens, I hope it's the best for the game. Sorry for any inconveniences.

I'm not really a fan of saying "no failed stages" for multiple reasons.

The biggest reason is accessibility to lower level runners. Say some newer casual players who aren't really good at the game decide to try out adventure very hard mode 5 stocks for a challenge (SRL race, for example). Allowing game overs allows them to possibly actually complete the mode, even if it were done in over 40 minutes (if they game over on a hard stage having started with 2 stocks, they restart the stage with 5 fresh stocks). Preventing game overs, however, means that they will probably not complete the run. Sure the newer player's time may not be anywhere close to the top times, but allowing them to actually complete the mode will more likely attract them to running the game and improving.

Another equally large reason (I'll use all events as an example) is if you are one of the top runners in the category, you've got a god run going, 2 minutes ahead of your PB (or WR), had perfect RNG, and on a later stage, you make a critical mistake early which would cost you a lot of time, due to a fast strat no longer being possible. A normal runner would reset the stage (Start, Z), and take the 5-10 second time loss for failing, and try the fast strat again. Not allowing resetting will force this runner to use less optimal strats (assuming their failed strat does not end up with them suiciding and failing the stage). On top of that, forcing people to not be allowed to fail a stage means that these runners are now under even more pressure that any wrong move will cost them the run, meaning safer slower strats may or will be used to ensure that the stage gets completed. Slower strats on later event modes is obviously not something that should be 'forced', but when someone is scared to lose a run, safer strats are often used.

On a slightly related note, the smash 64 community allows game overs in runs. It makes it more accessible to runners trying categories a little out of their skill level or comfort zone. Being lenient with the rulings has actually made more people interested in speedrunning the game.

.

All that said, although I do believe a "no failed stage" rule is not the best thing for this game, it's not a bad rule to implement. It does have its advantages, like forcing people to take their stock count into account when doing their run so as to not game over (meaning planning out the run to figure out which stages to do risky strats, and which stages to do safer strats), and force people to do the full mode instead of skip a part of it (e.g. classic mode and Crazy Hand). So although I am currently not entirely in favour with having a "no failed stages" rule, it's something that still in my opinion should be debated and discussed, and maybe after seeing other people's opinions and reasonings, I might change my mind as well :p.

That said, you don't have to have the same ruling for every category. You could, for example, allow failures for some categories (e.g. all events), and ban it for other categories (e.g. classic/adventure etc). Keep in mind that depending on what ruling you decide to use for each category, you could significantly alter the strats used in a run. So be careful when deciding.

Sorry for the long post, just thought I'd put in my opinion on this.

I just realized I had this post written out about 2 hours ago and forgot to press post. oops :p

Pokemonmaster found me on someone's stream, and mentioned IGT, and I thought I'd give my opinion on this for a few things.

First, I was told there was no actual method/rule of including things like Game Overs in Classic/Adventure/All-Star, and similarly for failing an event in all events (and similar situations for other categories).

I do believe that failed attempts should be added as well, if possible. Some categories, namely Classic mode for difficulties normal and higher, actually are faster if you game over during the run (Game overing makes Crazy Hand not appear, and it is faster to game over and fight only Master Hand than it is to not game over and fight Crazy Hand as well). Similarly, for all events, for example, it is common for someone to fail on certain stages unintentionally (e.g. Time For A Checkup).

If you do not include times for failed stages or failed events, it gives the incentive to repeatedly do an event or stage over and over until you get a near TAS time on that stage. Obviously this is something we hope nobody does, but if the option is available, someone will do it.

Also, unlike other games, namely smash 64, I actually think IGT is a good way to calculate time for this game. The time is to the hundredth of a second, so it is accurate basically to the frame, and the time is easily shown, so it can be calculated easily.

Pokemonmaster told me that there was no real rule or method for these, and reading this thread, I found no discussion on this, so I thought I'd post my opinions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this.

Emulators give a massive advantage. In a classic very easy 5 stock run that takes me about 3 minutes average with Ganondorf, I calculated that emulators get about a 33 second advantage from loading times alone (that is more than 1/6th of my time). I avoid doing races on SRL with people who use emulators because it's not even fair.

Edit: most people who use an emulator should have a copy of this game normally to begin with, so they can just use that to run this game instead. Just using an emulator for the sole reason of having an advantage over others isn't really fair imo.