I'm going to call it like I see it. I don't know why Jaypin88 has all his other runs even up. If he was confirmed to steal 4 runs in one game, who's to say he didn't steal more? Was there a full audit? With 1673 runs on the site, it's EXTREMELY unlikely there weren't any other temptations. EVERY run should be rechecked, and if there's even ONE more run stolen, regardless of game, Jaypin should be rebanned, and straight up permanently this time. You want to ask for an unban that soon and somehow have it get through because someone on site staff was caught sleeping? Get intensely scrutinized, because it's what you deserve for getting unbanned without any conditions for unbanning after such a short period of time.

If Jaypin wants to be serious about being on the site, the LEAST he can do is voluntarily resign from EVERY mod position he has. Jaypin shouldn't be anywhere NEAR other people's runs as a confirmed stealer.

I'd also go so far as to say that Jaypin should have to go through the whole process of resubmitting every run that he has, so that he has to forcibly check every run he's ever submitted again, but clearly that's not going to happen.

I'm all for second chances if the person has genuinely learned from their mistake, there's been enough time, and there are conditions for unbanning. None of these clearly occurred if people are already calling out his apology for being incorrect regarding certain facts (I didn't watch the video, it shouldn't even take 30 minutes to admit your damn faults, straight up). People are out here on SRC probably getting banned for longer over lesser offenses, and a guy that has stolen runs (as in MORE THAN ONE) goes free without condition or even notice for such a high profile case after not even 6 months? Nah, that's entirely unacceptable. I just hope this isn't some kind of norm on the site I'm just now hearing about, because that is a horrible look for the site in general.

I suppose I asked for this by not nipping that in the bud...

I'm going to say no, all runs should be done on V1.1. I'll put this in the rules.

I thought I might have missed one, it's been added now.

As for the other thing, I'm going to err on the side of allowing it on the basis that it's not part of the run, as long as the start or anything else isn't altered by debug within the level being run as a result of skipping into said level.

A full set of ILs have now arrived! Note the rules (I believe I have covered everything) and good luck out there!

If something's wrong regarding the new charts, post here.

I can work on this in the coming days, and if memory serves the ruleset should be similar to BtS. If any extra particulars arise I suppose they can be discussed at that point.

I have made boards for the new demo as well as the IL table. The old board will be removed on October 5th.

If the Alpha Release had some true historical merit, I would agree with you. Since it's two levels (and future releases will have these levels ingame), though...I'm inclined to think that it isn't worth keeping.

I'd rather not cause too much confusion with ILs as well.

With a new demo releasing soon (trailer below), the boards will be reset once this new demo releases, due to the old version likely no longer being widely available past that point, and generally the aim to is eventually track the final release, and only the final release, whenever that may come out.

That, and the person who originally made these boards likely assumed that the Alpha Release was the last, due to the project being abandoned at one point, which was fair enough at that time.

You should be able to just post the link, make sure there is no text right around it (preferably with no other things such as timestamps, they will not be recognized) and the video should be embedded automatically when the guide is saved.

Doing too many in the same guide will result in not all being embedded, so keep that in mind.

Personally I feel people should just submit their own runs. I've never liked the concept of people submitting others' runs, simply because it ironically opens up a window to inaccuracy in the pursuit of "accurate leaderboards", particularly if you're posting times that came from say SRL (which may not be accurate due to .done delay or older RaceBot issues from years back) or otherwise don't have an actual video since they came from years ago, and can't even verify the platform that was used to perform the run in a multiplatform game, for example (which has happened at least once on a mod submitted run in personal experience).

I generally feel that if you want to submit on behalf of others, either get their permission before submitting or ask them to do so themselves. I really doubt anyone that doesn't want a run up really cares about being 26th, 76th, 166th, or whatever on a leaderboard that they have no business being on because they raced the game once or twice. In cases of WR, if the person doesn't want it, then there's no reason to hold anything about the instance if people are just going to look at it later and not regard it because they don't get to see the evidence. Then it just relies on mod say, and mods change from time to time as well, and words are often about just as valuable as a time without evidence (i.e. not at all to an average person).

I view people submitting on the behalf of others as a motive to artificially expand leaderboards and blur actual activity on a given game/leaderboard more than I value its actual use. So, I do believe people should have the right to remove a run submitted on their behalf sitewide. I'd even go so far to say that people who don't have an account here at this point shouldn't have other people submitting for them, either - if they haven't joined by now, they might not ever do so.

so tl;dr Ideally people should only be submitting their own runs, but if there is a need to keep people submitting on the behalf of others, I feel there needs to be appropriate evidence that the run exists (video only, no exceptions, also sitewide), and the owner of said run reserves the ability to remove the run(s) on the basis that they did not submit the run themselves, at any time. I also feel -everyone- adding runs on the behalf of others should ideally exercise some courtesy and ask people before adding runs, but obviously that's not enforceable.

I have added ILs to the game, but full game will remain the default view. I believe I have covered all the rules necessary, but if I missed something, I can always fix it later.

Some other notable changes are:

• Super Sonic (including S boxes) is now permitted, with an option to indicate whether Super has been used or not. In BTS 2012 runs, this option excludes the second Death Egg boss in consideration.

• BTS 2012 Beat the Game now has a Cutscene ON and Cutscene OFF subcategory.

• Boss Rush is no longer a misc. category.

The game name has been changed to Green Hill Paradise Act 2: Final Mix.

In addition, since the older version seems to no longer be widely available, I have chosen to reset the boards, since the new version also brought forth some layout/strat changes.

If there's anything I happen to be missing, do let me know so I can add/fix it.

I've fixed it.

The reason why I did include the mach speed ones is because besides the fact that you're going mach speed, the goal is still the same - reach the goal ring, which fits in line with the others.

That being said, if the strict definition is more likely to allow you to do runs, I don't mind dropping the mach speed missions if it means runners.

(Personally I can't even wrap my mind around Worst Cave, so I understand anyways lmao)

...I probably should have made a list of missions. I'll put that in the rules now.

Normal Run & Mach Speed missions will be included; everything else will not be.

As a follow-up, all times on the leaderboards have now been adjusted accordingly, if they needed to be adjusted (a few did not need adjustment). I will also make some additional notes in the rules about what to do when submitting.

Ok, I have fully figured out what's going on after some personal testing.

Typically, centiseconds are based out of 100 (00-99), and this game has centiseconds that only count up to 60 (00-59). The game is counting whole seconds right; else there would be further disparity from RTA than, for example, titoncio's 5.22 having roughly a 5.7x RTA.

So, the game "overcounts" centiseconds until there is 100, only then does the next second go forward. (Therefore, it goes from 00-59, back to 00, and then up to 39 again in the same second)

Therefore, the correct ruling is, when there is a centisecond "overcount" right at the end of the stage, instead of, say, 5.22, I will add 40 to the centisecond column, making 5.62, which is what the game would show if centiseconds were out of 100. (This is going to vary, however, I will have to adjust by either 20, 40, 60, 80, or nothing at all)

As a demonstration, the first second will end at a 40. Second 2 starts from there and ends at 20, second 3 will go back to 0, and so forth.

IGT is still a valid tracking method here, and ILs can go on as normal.

If anyone has any additional input, feel free to post, but I'm reasonably certain there's nothing actually wrong with the timer, thus, no need for RTA.

I had seen some timer oddity with at least one other submission, and it was my suspicion that an RTA slower time would be faster IGT.

However, I feel that in this case, it's possible (though to what extent I do not know) that RTA could also not be 100% accurate due to lag etc., so it's sorta a case of what's less bad.

As such, I wouldn't really mind tracking both RTA and IGT times (although I would have to manually time all of the submissions so far) due to this development.

As for what the boards should be ultimately sorted by, I'm assuming this means you would want it by RTA, and I would likely agree with you. I would like to hear what other submitters think before I switch priority though (in the meantime, I will be manually timing submissions and editing them in).

There are three ways to go about dealing with this issue, but first, a response to your post.

Firstly, just because "it's an option the devs made" means pretty much nothing. It is very clear that it was the kind of fix that was lazy on their part, because various things broke between the first build and the second. If anything, it relies on the person having the issue in the first place to fix it, but doesn't shut people out from playing the game if they can't/don't want to. Most official games would never have this kind of problem.

Second, I consider being able to play the game and being able to speedrun the game two different things. Just because the game is playable in a certain way, or on a certain system, whatever the case may be, doesn't necessarily mean it's a viable, preferred, or even an acceptable way of running the game. It makes sense to enforce beating the game in full when the category is Beat the Game, and when it is proven that the game includes an "extra" boss that is in fact given every time you play through the game, then it is considered to be part of the game.

That said, there are three ways I can deal with your case, although in my opinion I do feel this is the best way (and I do realize I potentially shut people out, I didn't like having to make that call, but there wasn't another way out without making what I feel is an unnecessary category or an unnecessary stipulation in terms of beating the game).

They are as follows:

1. As is (I've explained my general logic in making the decisions in the last two posts I've made)

2. I make an additional category for no cutscenes in the 2012 version (but this would definitely be a misc category, as this would be intended only for cases like yours), enforcing the endgame as when you beat the first death egg boss.

3. I change the ending of the game to the end of the first death egg boss (although this wouldn't help anyone, since as I mentioned before, that's not beating the game, which makes the category meaningless in and of itself).

This wasn't an easy decision to make in the first place, as I said, because most games would not have this particular problem.

Whether you choose one of the three options, or come up with another one, please do provide some reasoning. Thanks.

I'm not going to be able to accept such a run, because the game isn't complete. The game was intended to have two endings (but the 2012 version always defaults to the good one, because the time point feature was disabled in said version), both having one more boss than the no-cutscene route of the 2012 version, which was only meant as a "barely-get-it-working-but-not-full-experience" patch, if anything. The 2011 version, by comparison, does not have this problem (but also did not have the extra boss), so this was ultimately due to poor programming.

There's also the matter of Cloudy Crowd 3's cutscene, which is normally unskippable, and I won't allow the u cheat to skip that cutscene, as that opens both a no good can of worms and a run ender to people that accidentally press the u button too many times.

It's nothing against you or anything, it just makes more sense to enforce the whole game being completed in a way that will allow it, rather than both leaving out a boss fight and allowing the u cheat for that one instance in order to serve what I expect to be a minority need. It wouldn't be beating the game.