Like spike said, hobbies cost money. And as someone who has sunk hundreds of dollars in my streaming gear/setup, Spending $8 dollars for a capture card, or pointing your laptop camera at your screen like MySora does isn't too much to ask for. And if the person isn't willing to do that, then fuck their run, cause they clearly don't care about speed running enough to make any kind of effort.

streaming on my connection is okay-ish, but uploading takes a really long time. Just as a segway/response/etc. Towards what Hobz was saying about how providers don't enforce a hard cap on upload and how people stream on poor connections and shit like that. Maybe it works that way in America, and maybe it works that way in Australia as well but the infrastructure just isn't set up for good upload speeds, but most if not all Australian connections look something like this:

There are cases like liquid who have what's called the NBN or whatever else where they have amazing speed, but most Aussies are stuck with something in the range of that link (that's my connection, also note that it says faster than 50% of Au), we don't get good upload speeds here.

That being said, streaming is still fine, it's just a pain in the ass uploading runs. Uploading a 10 minute video to youtube takes me 25 minutes, so uploading a 4-5 hour run of a KH game or.. whatever, would take hours.

I should also mention that I'm not saying this to say that myself, or people like me should be exempt from the video rules, as I said, streaming is fine/easy, I wholeheartedly agree with the decision that's been made, I'm just posting my connection etc. For clarification on the internet situation that a lot of people have to deal with.

Heres my question: How many runs are actually submitted without proof?

Well it's been over 2 weeks since the last reply and the overwhelming majority of responses are in favor of video proof, so I'm calling it official. We officially require video proof now, which also means no PBs should be submitted manually by leaderboard mods without first receiving a video link.

I'm open to an exception for DDD, but a separate thread should probably be started on that.

I suppose it's a bit late but I'd like to cast my vote and say that I don't agree that all future runs will require video proof. I do believe there should be a cut-off time before we start requiring video proof, and that cut-off time should be decided upon by runners of said game and category.

If you want my reasoning for why, it's mostly because of the MANY comments I get during streams of people that are interested in speedrunning, but don't have any clue where to start. My personal response to these people is literally "get your video game and your phone and time your casual playthrough", and I respond like this because

1. It's the way I personally started and I think it worked out okay
2. The last thing I want to do to someone interested in a new hobby is to over complicate things for them.

I understand a lot of people think that if you're investing in a hobby, the $9 EasyCap isn't really that big of a deal. But along with the EasyCap and the AV cables that come along with it, there's also the editing, rendering, and uploading the video onto YouTube or some other video sharing site. I mean, a lot of people aspiring to be runners already see getting the console, learning the route/strats, and doing runs as a big enough barrier-to-entry. If you add on requiring video proof, I could see how this would turn away a lot of potential runners.

When I think about this issue, I think back to when I used to play Yu-Gi-Oh! as a hobby. Now the people I saw at my local card place that were already serious about the game were decked out with their playing card mats, card sleeves, deck holders, MONSTER card binders, etc. However, the new kids who were just getting into the game usually didn't have any of these things. They'd probably just have their cards without sleeves, they wouldn't have a playing mat, they maybe had a card deck, and if they had a trading card binder, it was probably just a stock baseball card binder you'd find at Walmart. Now my point here is, these new kids who were just getting into the hobby (and the parents that most likely bought them all of their stuff) were probably just testing the waters and trying out the hobby for a bit before they decided they wanted to get serious or not, and I personally think this is fair. If you're interested in a new hobby, I don't think you should feel forced to go "all in" on the hobby, you should be able to try it out and find out of it's fun and something you want to continue perusing, and I think that applies here. When people want to get serious about speedrunning and have been working on it for a few months, they are WAY MORE INCLINED to buy a video capture device and go through the process of recording, putting it on YouTube, and submitting than someone who is just starting out.

Now I understand how people can still do that under these circumstances, the difference being their times wouldn't be on the leaderboards until they decided to buy video recording equipment. The problem though is we're alienating people who are most likely going to get an 80th place or higher time (using 1.5 as the example because it's the most popular entry level KH speedgame), and I find that unnecessary. I understand how we want the leaderboard to look as "valid" as possible and uphold a sort standard for people to follow, but for the kid who just wants to record his fastest casual playthrough and see his name on the leaderboard with everyone else, I think it goes too far. When the runner decides to get serious about their time and they see that there is a cut-off time requiring video proof, they'll be more inclined to buy video equipment and go through the motions, like I mentioned before. I can hardly think of an instance where someone immediately got a 3:10 or lower time in 1.5 within their first few runs and didn't have already have recording equipment, and I hardly think someone will do that out of spite or for whatever reason.

I suppose I just see it differently. If I wanted to talk about the 1.5 leaderboard and how impressive it was, I'd probably want to mention "we have 200 times submitted on the 1.5 leaderboard" more than "we have 170 video validated runs submitted on the 1.5 leaderboard". I won't deny that getting video equipment is pretty cheap and getting your recordings set up and put on YouTube is also not very difficult, but for the dude getting 108th place who just wants his time on the leaderboard so he can feel proud he did a run, I wouldn't want to drive him away just because of a video proof requirement.

Let me know if I missed anything.

Requiring video proof doesn't stop cheating btw. I could do like 3 runs offline and split my recording at 3 different points (After TT2, After TT3, end game) and then piece the three best segments together, time it and boom I have a fake time. I am willing to bet the leader board mods right now don't watch full vods when they are submitted. (If you do good lord you deserve a cookie) So using the fact that it stops people from cheating is somewhat dumb tbh. Can someone end up watching your full pb and notice it's different or some shit? Yeah probably but it would show that the mods aren't watching full vods and are only watch a couple minutes out of the run. I'm also willing to bet some mods don't watch any parts of the video, they probably see the time and the video and they just approve it. This isn't meant to attack the mods... I have nothing against the mods and what they are doing. All I'm trying to say is that people can still cheat and not get caught even if they provide video proof.

Sleepy... will respond when I remember

As someone who's learned and done runs of several games without submitting my times to the leaderboards, personally I find knowing my rank on the leaderboards and seeing my name to not be much different. That being said, I've obviously been running for a while now and that's probably affected my attitude.

I'd like to bring up the example of Zetris. Zetris did offline runs of 1.5 for over a year (IIRC) before he ever started streaming his runs. He never submitted his times, but he said he knew about the leaderboards and would check them regularly. Imagine if he submitted one of his PBs back then around 3:02, which would've been top 15 at the time I think. It would be very hard to believe it was a real time from a completely unknown runner. To me, that would be far more discouraging than if I had a 4 hour first run get rejected. And having an arbitrary cut-off time wouldn't help that. Suddenly someone's taking this run that I've poured my blood and sweat into for a year and calling it less valid than someone who did one blind run. Having video proof be a requirement for everyone puts everyone on the same playing field.

And flipping the scenario could still have the same effect. I've given this example before in this thread but I'll repeat it here. When you start running a game, every improvement feels great. You know your time isn't the best, but there are segments you feel really good about and eventually PBs that you feel will be tough to beat. Having an arbitrary cut-off line for video proof implicitly calls all runs below that time "good" and all runs above it "bad." So now my 3:10 I've worked at for a few weeks (or months) is still so bad that I don't even need video proof, even though I felt really good about it and thought it would be hard to beat. This could discourage me from continuing at all. At least if video proof is required for all, I know that's a requirement going in and everyone is on the same playing field.

As for the "greater barrier to entry" point, I hardly see it as such. When you already have the console and the game, buying an EZCap and playing off your capture feed is like walking the last 10 feet of a marathon. Not to mention you can simply point a webcam at your TV if you already own one. Nobody's requiring you to buy splitters or extra cables; I played off my capture feed for months. If $9 is really what's deterring someone from running the game, then like Timmi said, they probably wouldn't have stuck around anyways and we'd just have 40 more one-off 5 hour times.

As for editing/uploading being complex, Timmi covered my thoughts. I NEVER edit any of the videos I upload to YouTube as I don't own any video-editing software. The most I'll ever do is use YouTube's built-in editor, and even that's very rare. I simply start my local recording when I want to start the video and stop it when I'm done. And uploading is literally just a drag-and-drop.

As for white's point about how it doesn't eliminate cheating, Timmi covered most of my feelings on it; it's not to eliminate cheating, it's to deter it. Additionally though, requiring video proof isn't just for the immediate verification, it's also for later investigations. If someone submits a run with a video that a mod verifies and then is later suspected of cheating, we can go watch the full video and make an informed decision and potentially remove it. If a run is submitted without a video and gets verified, we have no way to check on it later. For the record, I personally check the start and end times and click a few random spots in the video for every run I verify. It would of course be absurd to expect every mod to watch the entire multi-hour video for every submitted run, but they should all at least make sure the timer is started and stopped correctly and get a rough idea of the runner's skill.

As an anecdote, I've personally had to reject about 5 runs with no video proof due to not being able to verify their times which were submitted as believable-enough times, but were claiming to be WRs.

Oh also, on the demotivating part, I always try to leave an encouraging note whenever I have to reject the time of a new runner, rather than just rejecting it with "no video" or anything like that.

@BB I can relate to what your saying about your yugioh comparison, as i was really into yugioh as a kid and would attend meetups at local card shops. But with that being said, though i didnt spend my money on the fancy card sleeves, binders, mats, etc...i still had to have a deck...which cost me quite a bit of money buying packs, starter decks, etc to build an actual deck. So it's not like i could just walk in to the place and play with no deck, i HAD to have one. And they ofcourse had rules: banned cards, limited cards, and no fake cards. Rules I had to follow if i wanted to participate.

It's no different here. You need to spend money to get your equipment in order to participate on a public level. Like hobz said, you can still just point a webcam at your screen. No one is saying you have to go all in with fancy equipment, but just follow basic rules.

@Timmi: So the first thing that caught my attention in your argument is mentioning how the bottom half of our leaderboards not having video proof is "not a good look" or "doesn't do us any good." I honestly do not understand this line of reasoning at all. You make it sound as if we're trying to impress someone with how well verified our leaderboards are. Who would we be impressing exactly? Ourselves? Friends and family we talk to about our hobby? (I already mentioned quantity would be impressive here but that's a personal thing.) Other speedrunning communities? I don't really get what the huge benefit is to forcing people with 3:20ish and higher times to have video verification other than "it would just look better for us." If I'm missing something with this argument let me know who we're trying to impress and maybe I'd change my mind.

It's been so long since I started recording videos, I was probably 14 when I started making stuff for YouTube. I do, however, remember recording and putting stuff on YouTube was a pain in the ass back then. Now obviously times have changed and local recordings via OBS or XSplit seem to make the process easier, but then people get into how to set up local recordings, what should my video settings be, what happens if all of my VOD's desync, etc. We've been doing it for so long and to us it doesn't seem like a big deal, but I can see how it can be an ordeal for some people who are just starting out with the hobby.

I also really think you and a lot of other people are ignoring how big a deal it is for some people to want their times seen on the leaderboards. I think most of you remember how the original leaderboards started out. Toji just wanted to see his time on a leaderboard, so he made a google doc, put his time on it, and bam, there it was, and that's how it started. I mean it's a pretty campy example but I truly think it just has merit, people just want their times on the leaderboards. Heck, I didn't know that you guys enforced this rule until someone in my chat had to tell me his time got rejected because he didn't have video proof. The dude clearly just wanted to see his first or second or whatever time on the leaderboards and it was rejected because of needing video proof. I think you guys are overlooking these people. Getting into speedrunning just to see your time on a leaderboard I think is a VERY valid reason to be motivated about getting into this hobby.

Allowing emulator is not at all a good comparison. The difference here is emulator actually affects you speedrunning the game, it affects the process of getting better and slowly seeing your time go down. I don't agree with allowing something that affects you "playing the actual video game." I'm ignoring the boatload of other issues about how emulator is not comparable to console times or even to itself, so allowing emulator on the leaderboard is already an awful idea. The difference here I'm trying to make is recording yourself and having video proof I feel is seperate from the whole speedrunning process. If you take away the console and force them to play on emulator, they aren't really truly playing the game anymore. If you take away video proof, that person can still speedrun, they'll only be missing validation which has never been a huge issue until your time hits a certain point. I see video proof as there simply for validation that you did indeed get a certain time in a certain game.

@Hobz: I don't really understand your first argument using Zetris. If he did indeed do runs of 1.5 for over a year, then that changes things. That means that he had been following the community for over a year and been working on his time, bringing it lower and lower for over a year. By that token, he's very invested in the hobby and would also probably totally understand that his 3:02 time would need verification because it would be one of the best runs on the leaderboards. I can't imagine someone who's put that much time and effort into the hobby to get angry and not understand why his run needed video proof at that point. I also don't think that person would get angry that someone who did a blind run with video proof is "more valid" than their non-recorded run. The video proof is there to show that you didn't cheat, so if you're someone with a non-recorded 3:02 and you know yourself that you got that 3:02 without cheating, then there should be no problem or butthurt. That person, like I mentioned before, should also feel like "well I've been running this game for a year and I have a pretty good time, it's probably about time I got a capture card to verify it." It just seems like the natural progression of things for someone with that time. I don't really understand how someone would get butthurt over how someones run is more "verified" or "valid" than someone elses run. That seems like an odd situation and I'd probably would want more of an explanation to understand why that person is angry over that.

Now this next argument I have NEVER understood. Dividing runs into "good" and "bad" because of a video proof cut-off time does not make sense to me AT ALL. If you truly are improving and having a good time with the hobby, and then you approach the "cut off line", I would never understand people thinking, "oh my time is okay, but until it gets past the video proof line it's still a shit run." If you do feel that way, then it's a motivating factor more than anything. I don't see how people would start discriminating against each other in the community because someone called someones time shit because it didn't have to be video verified yet. If you truly do feel that way and it's more discouraging than encouraging, I would suggest you take a step back from the whole process and remember a few things. This is just a hobby about playing video games fast, always remember that. If an arbitrary cut-off time is making you feel super discouraged and makes you think your run is shit, just remember all the work you put into the hobby and be proud of that. You worked hard and improved your time all the way to this point, that alone is an accomplishment to be proud of. This also isn't the nicest thing to say but, honestly, get over it if it's bothering you. Use it as motivation if you really do care that much.

I already responded to Timmi's post for this argument, but I really do have something to say about one line here. You mentioned how people who would be angry about required video verification

"...probably wouldn't have stuck around anyways and we'd just have 40 more one-off 5 hour times."

This very seriously bothers me. You're boiling down all of the new runners who thought the hobby was cool and just wanted to give it a go into a statistic. This community has always been about being open to the public and inclusive, promoting the idea that anyone can speedrun. But now when I see this quote, I think you care more about a more verified leaderboard than being more inclusive about your hobby. And for what? Honestly are we going to get a grant or scholarship or some shit for having a fully verified leaderboard? What is the huge benefit of forcing newer runners who are just getting interested in the hobby to fully verify their runs?

@BranToast: To your first point, yes, you did have to have a deck to play, but at the bare minimum all you needed was to buy a structure deck to play, which is probably less than $20 nowadays. I'm talking about the people that have spent literally hundreds or thousands of dollars on this hobby. The barrier to entry to just play the game is really nothing. Now lets say 14-year old you wants to enter the weekly tournament and the dude tells you "sorry dude, all of your cards need to be sleeved up." Obviously you want to enforce card sleeves so that people don't mark their cards and cheat, but the kid literally just bought his structure deck and wants to feel good about participating in the tournament. Is there really such a harm in allowing him to do so? That's the general point I'm trying to make here.

After re-reading my point about 40 one-off 5 hour times, I agree with you bl00dy, there's no harm in having that and we should definitely be inclusive to those people. I never meant to belittle or insult anyone with that statement, it was simply written at 5:30 in the morning and probably should've been thought out more.

I do think you're being quick to reject the "cut-off line proposes good/bad times" point though. I've had tons of people tell me they felt their time was bad and thus didn't submit it to the leaderboards and my response is always, "You should anyways! Completing a run at all is something to be very proud of!" If people are already feeling like that now, having a cut-off line would only exacerbate the situation. For people like you and me who have been running for a bit now (you much longer than me of course), seeing our time as "bad" is a big motivator to improve. For someone who's new to speedrunning, it can be a daunting mountain that seems insurmountable. When I first started running, I never got the impression that there was a line between "good" and "bad" times. Eventually after doing several runs I started to learn about some common goals like "sub 3" and whatnot, but there was nothing calling my times bad. A defining line of skill on the leaderboards BY DEFINITION does exactly that. It calls some runs good and lots of others bad.

I'm also curious as to your thoughts on the various other points I've brought up about arbitrary cut-off lines in this thread. Things like how do we decide? Is it rank-based or time-based? When do we deem it necessary to change it? How often? How do we enforce this on the leaderboards (there's no technical way to do it within the site)? What about edge cases? I can say with a fair amount of certainty that I will never be in favor of an arbitrary cut-off line.

As for your point on recording, I haven't been doing this since I was 14. I've been doing it for a year and a half. I can clearly remember doing my first run, and it wasn't all that hard to set up. I downloaded OBS the day before, added the game feed, and put in my stream info and did a 5 minute test stream. Then the next day I did my run. Hell, I even recently described how to setup video capture to someone over Twitch chat. Thinking it's some long complicated process honestly puts a bad statement on what we think of the intelligence of the average runner. We've all seen how terrible Spike is with computers. If he can do it, anyone can. ;)

Without video proof, it's also impossible to enforce if the run was done segmented or RTA. My first attempt to go somewhat fast in 1.5 was not knowing strats, using an online stopwatch, and pausing the timer to cook dinner like 2 hours in. I didn't expect anyone to just believe my time on faith, so I made sure I had some cheap recording equipment before I wanted to do my first run that I would care about. To re-iterate, there is NOTHING stopping people from doing offline runs and comparing their times to the leaderboard, even segmented! I think it's a completely fair request to require a recording for their name to show up.

I'd like to know if these people that are submitting runs with no video have ever even tried recording. I've stated it elsewhere before, but I am more than happy to help anyone who has difficulty setting it up, which I doubt there is much given its simplicity. My guess would be that the more likely scenario is people are just being lazy. Who's to say they followed any other rules on the leaderboards? Maybe they didn't even start their timer in the correct spot, or used a save file. Just because they have a higher time shouldn't mean we hold them to different standards; it's insulting.

Finally, to go to your rebuttal to Bran, you said "at the bare minimum all you needed was to buy a structure deck to play, which is probably less than $20 nowadays." All we're asking is that someone points a webcam they already have at their screen (free) or buys an EZCap (less than $10). It's not that hard and if people really have an issue with that then they should honestly, to use your terminology, "get over it if it's bothering [them]." I have yet to hear from a single person who has brought up a legitimate reason for why they can't record.

All that being said, I do very much genuinely appreciate you following up on the discussion, as almost nobody else has so far once opposing points have been made.

yall people type too damn much. I need a text to speech to read all this. But its cool that people are coming back to this. I had a pretty lengthy discussion with BB and White last night about this. Like Btrue said early, I also am on the fence about the whole thing. Ive been flip flopping my stance on the matter for a while now. In the end, As of now, I am for video proof. But I will try to give reasons why I am on the fence about it.

My biggest complaint with the people that dont want to spend the extra money to buy an EZcap is that you already bought, or been given, a TV, a console, and the game. At that point, what is an extra 9 dollars. Hell, I dont have a job at all and probably wont be able to get one for quite some time, yet I could still find a way to make 9 dollars to buy an EZcap. Any hobby that you partake in will cost some money. This hobby actually being one of the cheaper ones if you already have the ability to play the game.

The one argument I can think of that might benefit both sides would basically be what some people are wanting now. Require video proof if a person's time is better than a certain. The only difference is not let that time be something like 3:10 or 3:20, using 1.5 as an example. Let it be something around the 3:45 or the 4:00 mark. I choose this time range for a few reasons. 1) Now a days, most people dont get a first time like this. This will let them do a run or two to see if they like the game or the run. 2) I dont know many people who think a 3:45 or lower is a good time. Grant it, we are wanting to discourage people from thinking a certain time is bad, but with the bar being set this low, many people will see after a run that they time is actually bad. Now to rebut this, what about the people who get sub 3:45 with there first run? Well to them I say congratulations and, with their next run, try to record. In this day and age, recording is no longer a big deal.

So. to restate the main question I have here, what do you think about not having video proof for times that are at the 3:45 or 4:00 range instead of having no video proof until you get a time that is actually considered decent by most people (3:10 or even 3:20)?

Just to correct one of the points you made Timmi in the olden days of SDA there were lots of comments of people just posting their splits with no video proofs what so ever and we'd just cheer them on and tell them to keep improving and how they could improve their runs etc since streaming was barely a thing and youtube was kind of a pain when you were playing 9+ hour games (Hell SDA didn't even accept games larger than 4 hours for years). There were obviously speedrun videos etc when it came to WR and new glitches being found but back then it was more about getting your run verified on SDA than it was to get WR or be competitive.

Also if you want a laugh you should have seen all the hoops we had to go through to get a DS game submitted to SDA before the DS capture card came about. The DS forums in general are kind of a good example of what I mean when I say people just posted strats and their times.

Personally I'll always be on the side that gets me more Days / CoM runners because lets face it I'd whore myself out for more runners if needed. However I also understand that the leaderboards need to be something official for people who see this as something that is competitive rather than just self improvement / going for "The perfect run".

Edit: A final point I want to make is that a year or two or fourty when KH3 and 2.8 come out they will be able to be streamed without the use of a capture card. I honestly can't see why we'd ever accept a run for those without video proof but I will still defend DDD runs without video proof due to how expensive / difficult it is to stream that game. There is no golden rule we can apply to the whole leaderboards it needs to be done on a case by case basis for the most part.

You guys both mention a lot of the same points so I'm just going to try and consolidate what you're both saying to save some time.

"I do think you're being quick to reject the "cut-off line proposes good/bad times" point though. I've had tons of people tell me they felt their time was bad and thus didn't submit it to the leaderboards and my response is always, "You should anyways! Completing a run at all is something to be very proud of!" If people are already feeling like that now, having a cut-off line would only exacerbate the situation."

See it's at this point where people think their time is awful from the get go where I'd say that speedrunning is not for them. Your time is always going to be awful at the start, there's no shame in it and people should be proud to just finish runs and put them on the leaderboard. I think we all can agree on this. I don't think adding a cut-off time exacerbates the problem, I think if you're already down about your times from the get go, you either really need to rethink things or speedrunning just isn't for you. If you've already been running for awhile and are right around "sub 3 level" (I'm using this because it's the closest thing to a cut off time the community has), then it should be motivating to achieve that goal, not discouraging because you think your run sucks. Speedrunning with a leaderboard does inherently create a sense of competition when you climb up the ranks. If a new runner is super discouraged that their first run was a 4:30 in 1.5, then I honestly think this isn't a good hobby for them.

"I'm also curious as to your thoughts on the various other points I've brought up about arbitrary cut-off lines in this thread."

It would be a cut-off time, not a ranking-based cut-off. I think it would be really easy to get a large group of runners together who have that good of a time to vote on what the cut-off time should be. I also think it would be really easy to track when new strats/optimizations are found and decide when it's a good time to lower that cut-off time. I imagine every 6 months or even every year is a good time to decide if the cut-off time needs changing.

"In regards to your video comments, I still think you're making it way more complicated than it has to be."

You guys both make this point multiple times and I agree with you, it's a weak point in my argument. It really isn't that hard or expensive to get video proof going. The point I really want to make though is, when is video proof absolutely necessary? I'll say it again because I really want it to be emphasized.

When is video proof absolutely necessary?

In the 3 years I've been in this community and speedrunning, I've been in a lot of conversations with people discussing peoples times, video proof, instance where people forge splits and people claiming to have certain times with no video proof. The general consensus I got from most people is that it's ABSOLUTELY necessary when it's World Record. The first time I noticed people very seriously talking about a certain time on the leaderboards and whether it should be official is when I got 3:49 offline at ESA in the practice room. I didn't like people saying my time wasn't official at the time because fuck, I just did the run a few days ago. But after a few days I realized that a World Record time like that needed to have video proof, I shouldn't have been allowed any special treatment just because of my time.

Continuing on from that, my own personal thoughts and maybe the thoughts of other runners (I don't want to put words in peoples mouths but I feel like people have mentioned this) have led me to think it's also absolutely necessary for top times to have video proof for it to be legitimate. In this case, it's not fair for World Record holder to be the only one required for video proof, this is unfair. It would also be absolute anarchy. Anybody with general knowledge of how good certain segments should be could easily put together splits for a 2:51 in 1.5 and say they did it for it to be on the leaderboards. It would be insane, so top times really do need to have video proof.

So now we have all the top times absolutely requiring video proof which leads us to around the 3:00-3:10 mark in 1.5. (still using 1.5 as an example because it seems to be the game most everyone in the community has a time in so everyone can relate to the example). This is where I start to get a bit more lenient. It's at this point where people have definitely put time into the category and learned most/all the strats and have put plenty of practice into the category. This encompasses a LOT of runners who I feel have dedicated their time and effort into the hobby. I still feel it is absolutely necessary for these runners to have video proof, just simply as respect to one another in that group that you've put lots of time into the hobby and the game, so proving that you've come this far shouldn't be hard and should definitely be necessary for validation among everyone.

Finally, we reach around the 3:10 mark and up. It's at this point where I start to find it's not absolutely necessary for there to be video proof. Once again, this is not a knock on people who don't have sub 3:10, this is not me saying your run is awful or bad. It's just at this point around the 3:10-3:25 mark you see a lot of runners who put a decent amount of time into the category, but they either just stopped because of lack of interest, or they just haven't gotten there yet and it probably won't take much time for them to get to that point.

You could make the point that you could not follow the official rules or even cheat your way up to 3:10 without video proof, which is entirely true. In regards to people who aren't doing their runs in RTA fashion, I don't see this as a HUGE offense. Yes this person is breaking the rules, but it's at the 3:10 mark where I would be seriously concerned that someone isn't doing their runs RTA and should no longer be allowed on the leaderboards. Cheating obviously is a major offense and disrespectful to every single runner on the leaderboards, but with the amount of work you put into cheating/forging your way to the 3:10 mark, you probably could've spent all of that time getting sub 3:10 instead of cheating. Using emulator is also obviously breaking the rules and should never be allowed, but if people are using emulator to get 4:20 or so in KH2, they probably have at least learned a good deal about the game and it won't take them that much longer to get 4:20 itself on an actual console.

I'm just very lax about the learning process in speedrunning. Obviously we would prefer everyone to do RTA's and not use emulator and CERTAINLY do not cheat under any circumstances, but if you are doing things segmented or using emulator, you are at least somewhat going through the learning process and I think that's what matters. I have no basis for this, but I feel if you asked someone who had a 3:15 in 1.5 if they'd be offended that someone with a 3:12 did their run segmented, I personally think they wouldn't be too offended. If you asked a sub 3:10 runner, I even think then they'd be lax about the issue, but they must certainly do their runs RTA from the 3:10 mark on.

"Part of growing as a community and making everything official is adopting official rules for runs. Which includes, unfortunately, proper verification for your times." "Again, I want as many people to take up this hobby as possible, just like we all do. But there comes a point where you have to enforce standardized rules. I know this hobby in general has never been a very strict one, but as its grown, everything about it has become more official in some way."

I don't agree. I don't really know what your line of reasoning for "because we are growing we should become more official" is, but I honestly do not agree with this quote. I don't see a reason for it. Is it just nicer if things are more organized and official? Yeah, I can see that. It's more convenient for us definitely. We don't have to worry about cheating as much because it would be way easier to catch people splicing and people wouldn't get away with forging splits either. But as I said earlier, is it absolutely necessary? I don't think so. I see it as a convenience for us and nothing more really, and in that case, I side way more with the new runner who just wants to see his time on the leaderboard than anything.

"And I completely understand wanting your time on an LB because yeah, it looks cool. But at the same time, just because you do a run that has a slow time shouldn't mean you can get auto-added to the LB."

Once again, I do not agree. The most important thing about speedrunning is literally DO A RUN. That's the other big piece of advice I give to new runners, just go for it. And I think they should be rewarded for that. Finishing a run is an accomplishment and I think people seeing their name on the leaderboard as a reward for actually trying it out is perfectly acceptable. Like I said, I see requiring video proof from everyone simply as a convenience, and I side with the runner who just wants to give it a shot in this case.

Just to revisit an idea I had earlier in the thread. What if we combined game time with split time for KH2 / Days / Coded / DDD / BBS? This helps the need for some sort of proof and allows new runners to get some sort of foothold into the game before they reach the point we'd require video proof.

For the record segmented runs are confirmed slower for Days since every time you save you lose ~30-40 seconds IGT and I wouldn't accept emulated runs not streamed but it would give someone an option to get themselves known to the community. Obviously I don't know shit about any of the other games so they'd need testing etc but even then if someone wants to do a segmented run for a low time then I'd really pity them for the huge amount of wasted effort.

I like Rebel's idea. I'd be open to have the cut-off time be a bit higher than 3:20, and it sounds like a decent compromise.

As many of you will know, im all for having video proof of some sort, be it capture card, webcam, or what ever.

I can agree with bb on certain aspects of making it as inclusive as possible. He doesent want to deny a person a spot on the LB just because they dont have the video recording hardware, etc, and encourage people to feel proud of what they accomplish.

But I feel it necessary, regardless of what your time is, to have proof of what you do. To take a quote from the movie Law abiding Citizen "its not about what you know, its about what you can prove.". So i whole heartely believe that proof is needed.

With that said, i want to propose a possible solution. ALL runs without video proof will require splits uploaded to splits.io and a picture of your timer next to the end game screen. Obviously this is not a full proof way of keeping people from cheating, but there has to be something.Then after a certain threshold video proof will be required, no questions asked.(clearly this can be tweaked or whatever)

Like bb said, it takes alot more effort to cheat your way through the leaderboards than it would to do it legit.

I just can not and will not ever get behind that, on a public level, a person can be on a LEADERBOARD with out proof of what they do. Its asanine to even think that is okay.

Hey you with the 4:23 in kh2 with proof, i got a 4:21, but i dont have anything to prove what i did, even though you do, but because i know its better, im going to be above you now.

Dont take that example literally, but i think its just not fair to anyone.

I dont know if what i proposed is a good idea, im not even for it, but ill leave it up for debate.

EDIT: after reading my post again, i really just hate the idea of not having a video attached to a run. Honnestly what is so hard about pointing your webcam at your tv. Mysora has been doing it for over 2 years