I'm fairly sure that's not how it works, or at least it shouldn't display like that. Example given below:

As you can see, "Played on" is a different value to "Submitted by". It may be that if one value is missing stuff goes wrong, but I'm not sure.

On the actual topic at hand, I'm inclined to agree that the moderation of a game should not be left solely in the hands of someone who has no practical involvement in it, if there's an active community waiting in the wings. Could have been handled a good deal better though.

I don't agree with emulator runs being hidden by default myself but it's a different question that doesn't fall within the purview of this one.

Your run being hidden on a leaderboard doesn't preclude you from still running it for fun.

I already responded to your Gen V enquiry with an answer taken directly from the rules, and the same can be done here. The rulesets state specifically what is permitted for runs and what isn't, for pretty much every game.

Please start reading the rules before asking these basic questions. If your desired version or interface isn't specified, then the answer is no.

"You don't need to PB to submit"

Why would I spend the time to highlight a run that isn't a PB for the sole purpose of submitting, though?

Moderators have enough on their hands verifying PBs, let alone obsolete runs.

Personally I would prefer for the criteria to be changed, as this does not take into account runners who are actively grinding a game and just cannot PB, which is the case in many optimised games.

In an ideal world I believe that the active runner stats should be taken from the Streams page (Assuming all registered users are indeed appearing on it) and that if your account is detected to be playing a given game, you are considered an active runner of that game.

From the rules:

"All emulators are hidden for this game by default, as all emulators play this game faster than any console can, and therefore do not produce accurate results, or provide fair competition.

Accepted emulator is DeSmuME 0.9.11. All other emulators are banned."

Ascending Timer has a perfectly legitimate use for runs/stages that start from a specific time value and count down, however.

I seriously don't know how this can be explained in plainer terms than already has been. European_Union's explanation thus far has been as clear and non-ambiguous as one could be, like, so that a child could understand it.

Yes, the first frame is the frame that the run begins on, whatever that point is for a given game. Yes, the final frame is the frame that the run ends on, in your case the final boss hit. No, the first frame is not when the video file begins. No, the final frame is not when the video file ends.

And it's more accurate because you're not going to be able to accurately split on an RTA timer like Livesplit with frame-perfect accuracy. The only way that can be achieved with such a program is by using an autosplitter, and those only exist for certain games.

I understand my tone here could be nicer but this is actually frustrating.

You're not really giving people much to work with here.

If your video editing program advances frame by frame, then you can use it to framecount. It's as simple as that.

If it will advance a frame at a time it'll almost certainly feature a way to display which frame is currently highlighted.

I don't doubt that there will be at least some times on the Odyssey board that are not legitimate, but you have to consider the flipside based on how damn active that game is:

The situation would not be significantly improved by requiring video evidence for all submissions.

Consider how many submissions that game receives based on how many players there are. Video evidence being required for verification only has merit if that video evidence is actually being watched (verified) by a moderator. It would be logistically impossible for the moderation team to watch all submitted footage for the purpose of verification, and so it's only natural to establish a cutoff point for when it is reasonable to believe someone could achieve a given time without demonstrating it. These times should preferably be quite generous, or 'free', and different games have different thresholds for it.

I agree with the thresholds provided in some games and disagree with others, but in this instance it's up to the game's moderators to decide what this cutoff point should be. It's absolutely a good pragmatic decision when dealing with massive quantities of submitted runs, as the alternative is moderators just not watching the videos and auto-verifying, which defeats the purpose of requiring video evidence altogether.

Some games have autosplitters that will do the work for you, and other games are timed by IGT in which you just add up the level times you get throughout the run. Simple mathematics.

For other games that are timed RTA, the majority of them are not optimised enough to warrant timing to the frame and are simply timed to the second. These ones are easy to do just by looking at the run, even via timestamps.

For the games that really do require framecounting, you'll often end up doing it the 'hard way'; download the video of the run, stick it in a video editor and do it yourself. It's not too tricky to isolate the frame the run starts on and the frame where the run ends, then count the frames between those two points. You'd then convert it into a timing format, assuming the framerate of the video matches the framerate of the game.

On top of what's already been said I'd hazard a guess at saying at this point I don't think the site staff want you anywhere near being in charge of the boards when they're up.

This has already been discussed in the community Discord and the consensus was that there is insufficient interest to warrant making something like this.

There's little point in creating a leaderboard for one or two people who want to try something like this.

There are more rules that need updating than just that.

The point is that most games don't use a percentage counter.

Even if this were both possible and legal I don't think there's a guarantee for the DVs you'd get on an ingame trade, which would still have significant importance even with a couple of extra levels.

Ah that is true, presumably for that sort of reason.

EDIT: I have the Delete Game option for every game I'm a Super Mod in, but I've never tried it for obvious reasons.

Adding Super Mods to a game willy-nilly is an INCREDIBLY fucking stupid thing to do as they have the power to delete the game if they so desire.

"Why were you given super mod when you have not only NO runs in that game, but no games on the site at all."

She said she submitted the game she's on about, and game submitters are made Super Mod by default.

I'm an Undertale moderator and even I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have an issue with using JP version? Don't know how to get it?