Have people just forgotten that speedrunning has existed for a much longer time than programs like Livesplit?? Having an onscreen display of your progress is a relatively new phenomenon, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with people not being keen on it. I agree that it's generally a good thing to have splits onscreen for general benefit, but enforcing it as a rule just seems unnecessarily draconian. The splits are NOT an integral part of the speedrun. What if someone did a run way back when, before split programs were even commonplace? They can't submit under these rules without adding splits in post-production

"but we've got mods who won't do the work because they just want to do runs - especially when I heard from BTrue that the job of reviewing runs REALLY isn't that taxing"

Just to kind of addendum this, I moderate Resident Evil 7 (literally the most active game on the entire website), the entire Silent Hill series and a reasonably active IL game and between all of that crap I very much understand what it's like to have a lot on your plate. But how long it actually takes to do and the burden of run verification is IMO kind of greatly exaggerated. I mod all that junk and still find plenty of time to do runs of stuff and I don't really feel stressed or overwhelmed at all. I think part of the issue with that is only having mods for every game and not compartmentalizing a little bit and having some game-specific mods. A bit more delegation would probably go a long way with more comfortably splitting the work of run verification, instead of making rules like the timer rule that make it easier on global mods but kind of annoying for everyone else.

First off, it ain't a big deal either way. If ya'll want timers, people will figure out a way to get a timer on their run. However I don't see the reason for runs to be rejected over a lack of timer especially if splits are submitted. Especially with most of the speedruns being on PS4, many new runners could join the community by using PS4 share. I've seen people who stream from PS4 and don't even have a computer or a computer capable of streaming. If the start and end time of the video make sense with the splits as well as the splits in between, I'm not really sure of what the problem with verifying that would be.

I kind of get the "it's easier for people to cheat" thing, but also not really. Has there been a lot of instances of people cheating? Would it be impossible to cheat in the same ways with a timer on screen? Especially if you're saying you'll accept broken up runs as long as a timer is there. That seems like a fine way to cheat as well.

So yeah I am for getting rid of the rule, but at the end of the day I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.

Yeah, I reckon it'd be easier to cheat under the current ruleset than it'd be without the rule since the rule exists to allow runs with chunks of game missing which is way easier to cheat with. I don't think anyone's actually ever done it mind you, but I don't see how it stops cheating at all.

What are we even "discussing" anymore.

Requiring a VOD without any drops or hiccups is no less of a burden than asking for a timer on the screen.

We argue that having at timer for someone who streams directly from the PS4 is a burden but at the same time we try to argue people should just local record if their internet is a risk. And I would assume, that if they are streaming directly from the PS4, they do not have a capture card to enable them to locally record in the first place.

We argue that some people don't like having a timer on screen but a lot of speedrunners stream/record with the timer already.

We argue that its hard to learn off a WR VOD that is missing parts is a burden, but is asking another runner for help or watching other PBs or live streams really so unacceptable?

We argue that requiring a timer puts burden on the runners but is it correct to put more burden on the mods?

For every situation there is a counter situation that can have a valid argument. So where will the debate end?

As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter what's right or wrong because nothing will ever please everyone. Does having to retime a 4 hour pb suck? Yes. Does not being able to submit a run because your stream cut out for 30 seconds out of 4 hours suck? Yes. What do both result in? 4 hours of extra invested time to retime the video or get a new pb with a full vod.

This isn't even delving into the idea that most people don't even submit every pb and generally wait until they reach a specific goal. Learderboards do not demand you submit every PB nor should they but they should reflect someone's best time as a form of competition. It is someone's choice to retime a pb for submission because they didn't originally have a timer on screen or they can choose to attempt another run to get a even better time and then submit that PB.

I'm tired of the simple argument that "required timers are stupid". We can sit here countering each others arguments all day but that isn't getting us anywhere. I believe the timer rule is fair and I see no problems with keeping the rule. And that's the last I'll say about this topic.

Many of you seem to be contradicting yourselves. The following two cannot happen at the same time:

1. No timer on screen.
2. Validate timing by checking VOD timestamps at beginning and end, spot check a few places.

If you allow runs without a timer, then the moderator HAS to sit and watch the entire run, start to finish, paying close attention the entire time. Otherwise, the run may have had skips in it somewhere, skewing the time based on timestamps. Spot-checking it might catch a skip, but it might not. Sonic has displayed several times that this is an issue caused by streaming directly from PS4.

So either we allow runs with no timer, meaning we have to sit through 10+ runs of length ranging from 45min to 11hr each day, or we have to require the timer. If one of you wants to watch the entirety of every single PB every day, be my guest.

All of the above is even still if we assumed the timer rule was simply to make mods lives easier which I've stated previously that it is not; it is simply a benefit. Without a timer we would have to reject any run that is missing any amount of time. It's not a big deal to need to reset a 34 minute run because your internet died, but it really is for multi-hour runs.

To the point of aesthetics: we don't require Livesplit specifically, or full splits, or anything like that. A simple small timer in the corner of the screen is incredibly non-intrusive to fullscreen gameplay. In fact, the only restriction around timers that we have is that it not be the PS4's built-in "elapsed time" feature, simply because it has been repeatedly proven to be inaccurate and inconsistent.

" The following two cannot happen at the same time: "

Yes they can. Most every other game in existence pulls this off,in fact? This is absurd to suggest and ignores every other leaderboard in existence that manages just that. I literally moderate boards that pull that off.

"If you allow runs without a timer, then the moderator HAS to sit and watch the entire run, start to finish, paying close attention the entire time."

No they don't. Download the VoD, trim to the start frame and the end frame. If you've got a decent download speed, this takes like 5-10 minutes. That's the most efficient way, but if you want to be more basic you can just do math on the start time and end time on the video player, but it's a little clunky.

Nevertheless, I'm absolutely not suggesting a moderator individually watch every single run and pay attention the entire length, because that's insane. Logistically impossible and absurdly unreasonable, but there are certainly more efficient methods to time runs that ya'll can use.

"Without a timer we would have to reject any run that is missing any amount of time"

Yep. Missing gameplay is kind of a big deal for a competitively focused leaderboard anyway, no? I've talked a lot before about why missing gameplay is bad from multiple angles so I don't see why this is being presented as a negative. It's ok to raise the proof standard.

I don't think there's anything contradictory about this at all.

Succinct, you're completely ignoring the fact that there can be skips in video. To give some hard numbers (these are real numbers, not made up for the sake of argument):

There is a run currently up for verification. By 30 seconds into the timestamp, the opening cutscene is already 20s ahead of the timestamp (it started at the same time). Without a timer, this would be a rejection; there is no way for us to verify the time. With a timer on screen, we could make sure the skips in the video are matching the skips in the timer.

I understand that you're proposing we reject any run that skips any amount of gameplay. I am informing you that this is not how we prefer to do things. Rejecting an 11 hour run due to a 10 second internet failure is incredibly harsh and is not welcoming at all to folks with worse internet connection speeds. Other communities are ok with rejecting and excluding runners with worse internet or computers. We are not. Period.

"Rejecting an 11 hour run due to a 10 second internet failure is incredibly harsh "

Runs of really really long lengths are kind of a different ballgame, but that being said, local recording would fix this problem in like, 99% of cases.

"Other communities are ok with rejecting and excluding runners with worse internet or computers. We are not. Period."

If you have a computer made after the turn of the decade you can probably manage local recording. Whether or not you can manage streaming at the same time is another thing, but you can almost certainly manage an unbroken raw video file. I cannot imagine this is asking too much, especially since these are all console games. I moderate modern PC games that are harder to stream and record at the same time with better proof standards, the "bad computer/connection" argument just doesn't hold water? I don't think it should be moderation's responsibility to concern themselves with other people's tech issues even if it were a major issue, which I really don't think it is at all. Local recording is an option and has been option for longer than streaming's been around.

The fact the entire proof standard for this series revolves around the inconsistencies of notoriously unreliable streaming and internet connections is really backwards. If you can stream, you can local record, your internet connection doesn't even enter the picture.

[quote]If you have a computer made after the turn of the decade you can probably manage local recording.[/quote]

The inaccuracy of this statement is absurd. My own roommate, as an example, owns a Surface Pro purchased last year that is not powerful enough to local record in any distinguishable quality, but CAN stream.

Additionally, recording locally is not even relevant because the majority of people who are direct streaming from PS4 do so specifically because they do not have a capture card. Thus, they have no way of recording locally anyways.

[quote]The fact the entire proof standard for this series revolves around the inconsistencies of notoriously unreliable streaming and internet connections is really backwards.[/quote]

This makes it sound like we're bending over backwards for people in huts trying to use a stick as a satellite to get internet. Internet drops are a very common issue, as are the several other reasons for allowing multi-part videos that I mentioned in my previous post that you seem to be ignoring. If you haven't experienced any of these issues, consider yourself one of the lucky ones, but you're coming from a very biased standpoint.

"If you haven't experienced any of these issues, consider yourself one of the lucky ones, but you're coming from a very biased standpoint."

No, my internet sucks huge balls and dies for hours at a time for seemingly no reason. I just local record stuff.

"Internet drops are a very common issue"

Yeah, if that is a common issue for you, maybe don't use streaming as your only means to archive your runs? Why is streaming the only way even being considered to record a run? If you can stream, you can local record, by definition. If you can't do both and your connection is dodgy, why is the person who /only streams/ the one the ruleset is being constructed around? Local recording is the more reliable option. It seems like an incredibly common sense thing to not use streaming as your only method if you're afflicted by these problems.

"because the majority of people who are direct streaming from PS4 do so specifically because they do not have a capture card."

Then it's a risk, because PS4 streaming is dodgier than ordinary streaming. One of the games I moderate is a PS4 game, we field this issue all the time. It's not a big deal.

Considering one of the arguments in favour of the timer comes from a place of "it's the runners responsibility to put a timer on", how is moving that responsibility from "place a timer" to "record your stuff in one piece" any practically different?

Because placing a timer is incredibly easy and is up to the runner. Recording your stuff in one piece may be out of your control.

Additionally, the former can't cause a reset hours into a run, but the latter can.

if you exclusively stream and do not use any other method to record

Local recording makes like 99% of that concern vanish. Capture card fails happen, but they're rare and unfortunate.

We're going in circles here because at this point I'm just going to bring up computer crashes, CPU encoding overloads, and the fact that PS4 direct streamers (the only people who have a legitimate concern with the timer rule) often don't have capture cards so they can't local record.

You seem to be caring about the case of someone with all the hardware capabilities able to add a timer but doesn't want to for aesthetic reasons and not about the case of those with limited capabilities. I've already stated that we find a minimal timer to be non-intrusive enough to the aesthetic for those users that we're ok with requiring it. If you don't agree, then sorry.

"If you don't agree, then sorry."

I mean it ain't just me considering like, three or four other people posted in agreement with me. I'm the loudest but they do exist.

"because at this point I'm just going to bring up computer crashes, CPU encoding overloads"

The former is rare enough that it can be discounted, the latter is caused by not getting your settings right. Neither of those are of enough concern that the moderation should bother themselves with it.

"You seem to be caring about the case of someone with all the hardware capabilities able to add a timer but doesn't want to for aesthetic reasons"

I'm also caring about the case of people who get offline PBs, and then have to restream their runs to add a timer, in the process introducing errors in the video from Twitch's unreliable streaming and downgrading the video quality. This results in strictly worse videos being uploaded onto the leaderboard than if you just took their raws and timed it. The rule actively lowers the quality of submissions and makes those people waste their time to make their runs look worse for submissions.

or adam who came up with his insane dual-stream to Beam + window capture set up to not do the process twice

"I've already stated that we find a minimal timer to be non-intrusive enough"

There is a post in this thread by someone who is not me who literally stated that he found it intrusive, so this clearly isn't a unanimous thought among the community.

[quote]I'm also caring about the case of people who get offline PBs, and then have to restream their runs to add a timer, in the process introducing errors in the video from Twitch's unreliable streaming and downgrading the video quality. This results in strictly worse videos being uploaded onto the leaderboard than if you just took their raws and timed it. The rule actively lowers the quality of submissions and makes those people waste their time to make their runs look worse for submissions.[/quote]

It is not a requirement at all that people stream their offline PBs. They can simply record their offline video with the timer on it initially, or add one in post via video editing software (many free versions of which are perfectly capable of doing so).

I've personally gotten several offline PBs that I simply uploaded to YouTube and submitted directly after, because I recorded them with a timer.

[quote]There is a post in this thread by someone who is not me who literally stated that he found it intrusive, so this clearly isn't a unanimous thought among the community.[/quote]

Can you please find that post and quote it directly? Every other one I read seemed to be talking about direct streaming from PS4.

I actually have no idea how to quote on speedrun.com but it's this post: http://www.speedrun.com/kh/thread/90qg3/1#g511h

"This is what first led me to think that the "timer being required" rule was being intrusive upon peoples enjoyment on speedrunning."

plus like, abandon and nanner outright saying they don't like the rule either for their own reasons (their posts do contain more than just PS4 streaming stuff and I'm getting the worrying sensation you're not actually /reading/ the posts from that)

I don't think you even read the one you linked. Rebel clearly said: [quote]I originally spoke to toji in regards to this because I saw a couple of people trying extremely specific and complicated stream setups to prevent having to restream every single run for PS4 streamed runs specifically, i.e. streaming to another stream service then capturing the stream feed to stream it to twitch so they can have a timer on screen.

This is what first led me to think that the "timer being required" rule was being intrusive upon peoples enjoyment on speedrunning.[/quote]

So he was definitely directly referencing direct PS4 streaming. Please don't accuse me of not reading the posts; I read every single post on every single KH forum, some multiple times to be sure I'm understanding the writer.

There's two more paragraphs in that post as he later expands his point to be more general.

Abandon's huge And Quite Good post also seems to have largely gone without comment.

Abandon in his post made the assumption that the only reason for the timer is to "make the mods' lives easier," as many others before him did. This is why I restated above and will do so again now:

Mod "ease of verification" is not a factor that was considered when adding ANY rule to the boards.