"I've stopped using it because of how easy it is to submit fake scores with no proof."

Hi DarQ. Nice to see you around :)

If you think any scores on Cyberscore are fake, you are perfectly welcome to report them using the site's report system! That's exactly what it's there for! We take reported scores very seriously and handle our investigations promptly, so you should see a resolution very quickly. Are there any specific scores or users that are egregiously fake that we haven't noticed? The NES Remix boards actually get scoured fairly regularly because Prenz is a very astute fake-spotter, so I'd be surprised if any had slipped through. Let us know!

I think the worst game on Cyberscore is probably https://cyberscore.me.uk/game/2048 this one, which is a mobile phone game in which you throw various items down the pants of a working plumber (using the same action as throwing a pokeball in pokemon go).

"More towards your point, I think there are things we could definitely do better to isolate the search bar and the front page from putting things in everyone's face. For example, what if a game existed that was better deprioritized in the search bar and not on the front page? In my mind some of the site limitations are imposing on this at least a little bit. Along these lines though, I definitely do not want the million quiz games."

I think this idea is great on paper, but my intuition leads me to think it probably wouldn't work all that well in practice. Can't hide these things completely, can you?

Anyway, I'm done raising issues, I thought it might be interesting to weigh in and provide another viewpoint on this situation.

That's true DarQ. It's also no different to speedrun.com, with the only point of difference being that verification is decided on a game by game basis here. It's likely that the same would occur on whatever solution Pac decides to run with for this website.

I have no vested interest in this game being added, nor really in speedrun.com's game adding policies. Further, I spend time on sr.com sparingly and am usually here for grand-scale discussions on things that I have some insight in, so I'm not necessarily the most informed person on the inner workings of the sr.com community. I found this an interesting read, however, and decided to necro a 9-days-inactive thread to be annoying, mostly because I find the handling of games like this as puzzling on sr.com

"It is my perception that most people on the site would prefer we add less stuff like this to this site, not more of it."

It is my perception (and my experience elsewhere) that leads me to suggest that adding games of this ilk to the site would have somewhere between zero and no impact on the general userbase. Sure, the occasional user will be momentarily annoyed by having their frontpage affected by a single run every now and then. That's if they even notice. Oh no!

In my opinion, it's generally not a good idea to shape policy and handle fringe cases based on the opinions of people who stand to gain or lose effectively nothing from the inclusion of said fringe cases. That said, you have a community that wants to use your framework, and you are telling them no, because you THINK that all of the other users that won't be affected by this might not like it. Seems like a backwards justification to me.

"What would happen, if it was allowed?"

Essentially what would happen if this was allowed is that you would have a community for a game be catered for - a community that has requested the game on your site "10+ times" and is now being involved in speedrunning marathons and community events. You have a very robust system here on sr.com that is very effective for precisely the reason that adding gray cases does not cause issues to the system. Effectively I'm trying to conclude that you could add this game with no logistical issues. I think that's a sound conclusion to make.

"Everyone would cite this example as the reason we should add even grayer cases."

I question if this is actually an issue. It's a browser game. It's not that there's some extenuating factors involved in the breakdown of why this game isn't suited to sr.com, it's literally a browser game. Sure, you've already argued that it's using the google maps API to fetch data for the game, but is that really an issue? Why, of all things, would API usage be a logical place to draw the line?

Even then, lets say you were inundated with another few "grayer cases" in the coming months, again, is that an issue? In my eyes, no. In the wholly unlikely event that you received hundreds of similar game requests with equally as justifiably discussable factors, I again think they should be added - if for no reason other than to provide a well-structured and robust system for those hundreds of competitive communities. At the end of the day, it's literally not going to negatively impact you beyond the few minutes required from an administrator to add the game into the database and handle the game moderators. Chances are that you'll forget they even exist until you're chatting in discord and someone asks "what's the wierdest game you track".

"I don't really like throwing any last semblance of game list quality control down the drain."

I think this is a pretty subjective thing, and either way, you're assuming that the game is low quality, or i'm misunderstanding why you've made this point. Nonetheless, it strikes me that you're protecting a "game list quality control" which is both unnecessarily prohibitive (and for no reason) to absolutely valuable game communities, but also already beaten well past the point of respect (which you addressed).

"What would you propose the line should be for what should and shouldn't be added to the site?"

This is going to sound directed at you kirk, and it's not intended that way. I think administrators who are not specifically informed on the games in question should continue overseeing the process, but otherwise not be making these decisions without specific knowledge. We have an overarching policy on CS which is essentially "If people want to compete in something and our system can facilitate that, we should facilitate them".

Sure, we get some pretty shit games from time to time (and other sites like VGR get even worse games), but at the end of the day it isn't doing us any harm to provide a platform for those communities, and after several years of this policy, we're only better off for it.

Cyberscore admin here (Haruhi).

I don't have a lot to add before a formal discussion is had between us and the sr.com administration, but I'm just dropping in here to let those of you who are following this thread know that we're reading too, and receptive to any feedback/information you have regarding a potential collaboration/connection or even just the highscoring landscape in general. We're all well aware that it's imperfectly handled for a lot of scenes (largely due to the huge variety in formats required in the highscore/fastest time world) and even if your criticism is harsh, it's likely still valid, so let us know!

I fully intend on involving other key players in the high score website world in the discussions (VGR.com, Scorehero.com etc), as Pac is actually the latest to come to the table regarding a couple of discussions I've recently had about connecting the sites a bit more.

Cyberscore admin here. My minions found this topic and let me know!

While we don't have an issue with this in terms of affecting our site, we are now seeing cases of people copying times from our iL leaderboards to sr.com regularly, and we are also regularly having people complain about how their scores were copied without permission. In some cases, this is being done and even including their full names.

In my opinion, that is absolutely not acceptable (and I doubt that the administration here disagrees with me).

I recommend you use the CSMail system that we have to contact each individual player to request permission to copy their times, and if they don't respond, don't do it. It's safer that way. If they do respond and say it's fine, then it's fine by us as a whole too. I hope this clears things up a bit.

Noone should be throwing any shade at the admins of sr.com for this imo. The site is massive and there is so much stuff to keep track of, I don't know how they find the time to develop at all. They have my full support in that regard, especially after being involved with SGDQ this week.

Back on-topic, the proposed link b/w CS and SR.com was intended to be a fairly superficial link basically allowing CS to manage high-scores for a game and SR to manage speedruns, that way both sites share each other's traffic. We were going to propose that a variety of different levels of integration were options including full API linkage (as kirkq mentioned above) all the way down to literally just having a link to the relevant game on the other site on each side, which is extremely non-intrusive and easy, however Pac shut it down fairly early into the discussion and I elected to drop it there.

We also intended to offer to assist with the development and sharing of a fair few of our features including our fully-functional mail system and our score/IL system too. Like I said before. We are all users of SR.com too, and we want to help in a mutually beneficial manner. The offer on our behalf remains.

@SpiderSponge

"Timing" method is your issue. Score should be measured with a standard numbered integer like the games do, rather than relying on a workaround using h/m/s/ms format.

To use the OP's example of Flappy Bird:

SR.com: http://www.speedrun.com/flappybird uses timing method CS.com: https://cyberscore.me.uk/chart/168804 uses just a standard score display.

I can't think of any reason that SR.com has to enforce the same format across all of its leaderboards, especially as having a simple number format isn't particularly difficult. If there is a reason, that's cool too :) I just can't think of one.

Yo. One of the current admins/developers of Cyberscore here.

I contacted the SR.com admin team a few months ago about potentially having an affiliation and was basically dismissed by them at the time. Put plainly, it makes sense to me to have such a thing and it would be mutually beneficial for both sites. We're prepared to get involved in such an idea and as users of SR.com as well, we want to help out in the success of SR.com too.

We aren't exactly going to come in here throwing our weight around and trying to convince SR.com not to do scores, but just as us implementing speedrun competition isn't all that successful (people go to SR.com for that), you'll probably find that people who want to compete in score attacking are liable to use our already created charts for that, especially if the site forces them to use this silly method of "put your score in milliseconds".

Here's the way that I view this. Note that I have not much experience with SSBM; but rather with other games.

Use of external codes; be it action replay, cheat codes or whatever else; is considered flagrant cheating in all forms of competitive gaming. I have never heard of any similar situation in other games; where someone has manipulated the game using external tools and been caught, and then defended his position by saying that everyone else is in the wrong. This is also not the first time that Fuzzyness' has bent the rules intentionally to get records - I remember a situation about 18 months ago where he submitted an RTA-timed record to an IGT-timed category to get WR despite being slower. (Classic Very-easy any%)

In my mind, use of AR to manipulate RNG is a TOOL and therefore makes it a TOOL ASSISTED SPEEDRUN. Imagine if someone tried to use savestates in an RTA speedrun?!

There are far more hotly contested runs with significantly worse RNG spots (Dampe in OoT for example). Basically it boils down to (imo) - either get over it or don't run the category.