Forums  /  Speedrunning  /  questions on WR
  LOLMAN-0027LOLMAN-0027

I have some questions, the answer will be more your opinion.

1. If I play for fun and beat the WR. (Playing for fun means I did not record). So I have no proof. Should I forget my achievement and hope to succeed again with video evidence ?

2. If I do a speedrun. (I record). And I spray the old record by establishing a new WR, but in video, not live. Example: the record is 1:09:42 and I do 1:04:18, knowing that the top 10 times are very tight, could people believe I'm cheating ?

 
  DrakodanDrakodan

1. Yes, if you have no video evidence then you have no business claiming a WR.

2. Doing runs offline is commonplace, and the fact that a run was not livestreamed is not grounds to call its legitimacy into question. Let people question it all they want, if the recording is genuine, that evidence will bear itself out.

Cryf4lixCryf4lix, chryoyochryoyo and 8 others like this. 
  ZenicReverieZenicReverie

1. A little difficult. Without video you'll be called out on it for proof. If you want to claim it, "I have WR!" it'd be best to have video proof. If you don't care to claim it, or don't have the means to prove it, you could make a forum post on the game page comparing your run to the WR and how you improved the time. Maybe that'll inspire someone to improve the WR further.

2. People will believe whatever they want. Don't think about controlling people's perception of the situation. If all you can do is upload videos, then do that.

 
  MitsuneeMitsunee

1.) Imo you need at least the kind of proof accepted by the community to be able claim WR. Example being Pokémon who allow some emulator runs, but state that they still have no right claimed the official WR, just the "best known time".

2.) In my opinon video proof is worth the same, no matter if livestreamed or not. Heck speedrunning started off with VHS recordings at a time where livestreaming wasn't even possible at all (and video looked way worse than the VHS tapes). If they really are that sceptical and the game has a moderator with the skills required to do so, you can always send them your original recording as a file (so it doesn't get re-encoded again at all) and let them analyze the frickin' noise patterns in audio and video (even with placebo tier bitrate, the noise pattern will be these, caused by electric currents in traces on the PCB near the soundchip). But that should never be required and after all excluding people who can't stream for whatever reason (most commonly the lack of a stable and fast connection), is just a giant waste.

 
  HakoHako

"If there's no proof, then it's never WR"

-Drakodan, 2016

emeraldalyemeraldaly and MASHMASH like this. 
  ZachoholicZachoholic

That makes sense to me SpiderSponge.

1. Recordings should always be commonplace, unless the game specifically says it doesn't need to be recorded (if that's the case it's probably a meme game).
2. If the case happens that the top 10 times are all 1:10:xx and you get a 1:04 not streamed, your run will be under more scrutiny than the others. But normally this is not the case, and runs should not need to be streamed to be legitimate.

 
  DrakodanDrakodan

@Zachoholic

That's as may be for games that don't require video evidence, but a "World Record" by definition must be recorded. If there's no RECORD of it, then it's simply unverifiable whether the run exists at all.

Konato_KKonato_K and ZachoholicZachoholic like this. 
  ZachoholicZachoholic

I was more thinking of pictures ffzThinkingFaceO

HowDenKingHowDenKing likes this. 
  emeraldalyemeraldaly

Some very popular games might accept a screenshot of IGT for a 217th place run. Top runs will always need some form of video evidence.

 
  RandomnoRandomno

Quote

a "World Record" by definition must be recorded

By definition? The "record" in "world record" refers to the definition "set down in writing or some other permanent form for later reference"

 
  MitsuneeMitsunee

Quote

other permanent form

as in a video recording.

 
  drgrumbledrgrumble

The standard of proof is dictated by the mods who hopefully try and get a consensus from the community for the game. If the community are happy with "I got x:xx" as proof, then that's the required standard. If the community consensus is that a run must be performed and recorded in front of a live studio audience and blessed by a catholic priest to be official, that's the required standard.

If you beat the top time but haven't complied with the proof requirements, then what you have is an unofficial WR which means nothing to anyone that didn't see it with their own eyes.

HowDenKingHowDenKing likes this. 
  NihilistComedyHourNihilistComedyHour

With the exception of pictures of in-game timers, no one is going to take any claimed record without video seriously, regardless if it's accepted or not.

 
  LivLiv

SMB1 WRs don't need to be streamed live, they're just brought more into question if not streamed live.

That said, that kinda request as a rule is probably up there as one of the dumbest rules on this site.

 
  emeraldalyemeraldaly

That must be a recent change. I definitely recall when those rules said "Times below 5:21 need a video, times below 5:00 need to be streamed."

 
  LivLiv

It's been that way for a little while, If I remember right. With the clause being "to increase chance of verification we recommend you stream". At one point it did say they need to be streamed though.

 
  LOLMAN-0027LOLMAN-0027

I don't streaming, only video via youtube.

 
  chryoyochryoyo

Well, you can stream and have fun playing a game. So I disagree with that. Though, if this were to happen. You could obviously pull it off again. So ya go for it!

As for your second question, no. They would just look into it and see if they could find any evidence of cheating. There is no reason to assume. I've had a couple people surprise me with their runs and swore it was impossible. ¤cough cough¤ crafterdarker and thereverman! Turned out to clearly be legit.

Drakodan summed up my thoughts pretty nicely. 🙂