Forums  /  The Site  /  Feedback thread

Thanks for passing that on, should be fixed.


Racingmonster, I sent you a Twitch PM.


I may or may not have encountered a problem. See, I have submitted two runs for Phoenotopia any%—a 59:22 on the English version, which I submitted when I created the leaderboard, and a 55:14 on the French version, which I submitted four hours ago. Even though the 55:14 clearly obsoletes the 59:22 (as is evident on my profile page), the 59:22 is the score that shows up on the leaderboard, and I am confused as to why.

55:14 run:
59:22 run:

Any sort of help would be appreciated.


psychonauter: Thanks, I've known about that bug for a while but haven't gotten around to fixing it yet.

VouivreCritique: You have set English to be the default value for the Language value, so by default the leaderboard shows only the English runs (making the 59:22 run the fastest - and only - run available).
Changing the selected value for Language to French or selecting no value will cause the 55:14 run to show up.

If you want the English and French version are sufficiently different, I would suggest enabling 'use as subcategory' for the language variable, if you do it will be obvious which run will show up where.
Alternatively if there is not much difference, not setting a default value will make runs on either version show up, where the 59:22 run will be obsoleted by the 55:14 run.

VouivreCritiqueVouivreCritique likes this. 

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I absolutely hate the way the marathons section currently looks. Would it be possible to clean it up by deleting marathons awhile after they finish? This would help greatly with seeing what marathons are upcoming. I don't see much point to having marathons that are long over stay up.


@Shaddex: The marathon boards are moved to the archive 4 weeks after their last post.

Trollbear666Trollbear666 likes this. 

Even with archiving it's probably not ideal IMO.


If marathons were actually archived it would probably be fine, I wouldn't say simply hiding the forum after 4 weeks of inactivity qualifies as archiving though.


Maybe if it was actual archiving, it would be better?


Not sure if this has been brought up before, but could you display the amount of runs someone has verified somewhere? Ideal spot I imagine would be on each persons Info page. It would help a lot to see which mods are actually doing things, at least in that regard

xDrHellxxDrHellx and zewingzewing like this. 

I want full moderator logs associated with each game (accessible only to moderators and staff) at some point, which I think more directly addresses the issue. This work isn't slated any time soon though.


I think that idea from Werster would be good if coupled with the ability to see how long ago they last verified a run.

xDrHellxxDrHellx likes this. 
  [user deleted]

On the whole mod issue, I would like to suggest that there should be a set of things (for a lack of better words) a person must do before becoming a mod. There's far too many instances that people come on the site, request a game and then leave with no reliable way to contact them (if they even submit a run for that game) which I feel shouldn't be allowed. I understand that people have RL obligations to uphold but if that's the case, let someone know about it so appropriate measures can be taken.

As for game request, I think that it should be limited to that specific person having a run of the game they're requesting. I just find it ridiculous that people can request a game that they DON'T run, then make rules for it so other runners have to follow it. A perfect example of this is Yakuza series, specifically Yakuza 0.

~ Token

Trollbear666Trollbear666, PackSciencesPackSciences and xDrHellxxDrHellx like this. 

It would open up a lot of questions. I'll comment on this in some detail for the sake of discussion, but I don't think we should make policy changes without substantial discussion and/or consensus. Since we don't have a detailed list of rules (which is a suboptimal circumstance itself), most of the site policy has been set by precedent which drives the expectations of the users, and major changes to this would need communicated and/or documented in detail.

In order for the proposed "user must have run" game request policy to have real effect, it would pretty much imply that you need video proof of your run, otherwise it encourages people to lie about having a time. Assuming that, if a user runs an obscure game with no video and wants to post a time, they have no way to do that. It also encourages doing a single playthrough for the sake of meeting a criteria for having a time, or lying that a youtube account is yours to make it look like you have a time.

I would point out that generally any time a user is terribly inactive and/or the board has no runs, we've most often allowed other users to have the board. Though now, the site has been around long enough that it's now easier to look at someone's profile and get a gauge of how involved they are with the site, but we still get a lot of new users requesting games. There are also some active users that moderate obscure boards they don't have runs in because they take interest in the game.

It's a difference between the current adding more games and having to make changes later and the proposed adding less games and making less changes later.

Trollbear666Trollbear666, PurpleSunPurpleSun and PackSciencesPackSciences like this. 
  [user deleted]

Yeah, no doubt for discussion purposes.

I believe (or like to believe) that we're at a point that video proof is the standard at this point. I think it should be changed to "user must have run" instead of having the option to submit another user's run. Even if it's submitting a single playthrough of said game, it shows effort that they considered running the game even if they chose to not do so later, especially for longer games in the 5hrs+ range. Just claiming a board without a run of your own is something I generally frown upon as it gives a user the ability to dictate rules and categories for a game they don't run which isn't fair to potential runner IMO. Sure, there are instances where a user takes over a board for a game they don't run due to the current mod being inactive to fix the board up but when a user approaches said mod with a few runs and wants to be mod, it shouldn't be an issue to do so (it is in certain situations).

I want to just put it out there that I don't have an issue of new games being added to the board. Sorry if I was all over the place on this, I tend to be like that.

~ Token

CrimssonCrimsson and Trollbear666Trollbear666 like this. 

"I think that idea from Werster would be good if coupled with the ability to see how long ago they last verified a run."

I don't know how much I like that as a metric, because it's incomplete data.

For example, I'm on here pretty regularly, but I think I've only verified one run that's not my own. In the case of Quest 64, we have enough moderators to verify runs within a few hours. In the case of Legaia, no one else runs the game, so I guess I could create dummy runs to verify them and make me look more active, but it's pointless.


My suggestion is a mix of the two submission approaches: allow established and active moderators of other games to set up boards without a run but require new/potentially inactive moderators to have one. This should make it less likely for mods to disappear after requesting a game while preserving the ability of reliable users to set up boards for games that might not otherwise be added.

It doesn't fix the issue of someone making their own rules for a game with an existing community, but I don't think requiring a run would help much with this problem. I think the only way to really solve that problem is for the global mods to spend a long time researching each game submission, which isn't really reasonable.

Something to think about, anyway.


There was a preliminary list of users by country like this on a page at one point. I'm not sure why that wasn't fully implemented, but it's probably something we can accommodate. The update schedule is a bit limiting right now because we're looking to update the site front-end soon, which could make it difficult to merge in other changes at the same time.


Here's what kirkq was talking about:
You have to use some trial and error to find the right initials for each country. China's is CN.