Please take me off as leaderboard mod.

For the record, I have verified a handful of runs, but I rarely have time to do runs nowadays, let alone verify runs.

I wanted to be a mod in the first place to add a different opinion into the mix, but it felt like every idea I threw out there or side I took was immediately shot down. Maybe I just have bad opinions, totally possible, but it felt like I wasn't making a difference so naturally, I cared very little about being a mod. Doesn't excuse the laziness, but I thought I'd make that clear.

Hmm, I guess I can see re-purposing the HDD or straight up throwing it away as something most people would do. I'd still like to know exactly how much SSD would save before anything else.

"As a result of the fact that other communities allow it, so going against the grain could potentially, or no, not potentially, almost definitely will, lose us interest from prospective runners in the future."

I'd really like to know the reasoning behind how unscrewing the PS4, taking out the SSD, and using the HDD, will lose us potential runners.

If that sounds condescending I'm sorry, I just really want to know how this is such a hassle.

SSD's should be allowed, BUT they should be put in a completely separate leaderboard (potentially Misc. Categories) and we should have a disclaimer saying that HDD categories are the "main category." This would satisfy everyone who wants to be competitive or casual with any KH PS4 speedruns, and I'll explain why.

Before I get into the argument, I just want to point out how I stand when it comes to leaderboards and speedrunning.

I believe the #1 reason people are attracted to speedrunning a game and putting runs on the leaderboards is competition. You can argue with me about this, but that's just how I feel. Competition between runners leads to new strats and new routes being found, new breakthroughs, new runners popping up out of nowhere. Data Org I think is a great example. In the past 6 months or so when top runners were consistently active, new strats were being found constantly, runners were PB'ing on an almost weekly basis, and new runners started popping up out of nowhere, and it's been that way as long as I can remember with games like KH2, 1.5, KH2FM, BBSFM HD, and so on. I 100% acknowledge people mostly doing runs just for fun, but healthy competition between runners I feel is the biggest reason people get involved in speedrunning in general.

I've seen a lot of people making comparisons saying "HDD vs SSD is just like Super Slim PS3 vs Slim PS3" and other similar lines of thinking. SSD's are actually entirely different, because they are an ACCESSORY to the PS4, whereas Super Slims and Slims are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONSOLES.

Whether or not your PS4 has an SSD or not, EVERYONE has access to an HDD, the bare minimum requirement to run games on a PS4. That's the key difference here. Everyone who owns a PS4 has access to the HDD, meaning (hopefully) everyone already has a way to have directly comparable times. That's something that PS3's don't have. If you have a Super Slim PS3, you're PS3 just inherently runs faster than a Slim, and to have comparable times you'd have to buy a completely new console.

So in my mind, the argument for SSD's is really just "we should use SSD's because we're speedrunners and we should try to go as fast as possible" and I feel like that's a really weak argument. We should try to go as fast as possible within reason. If there is a fast option that lets as many people as possible have comparable times and it's convenient for everyone, including runners with SSD's, then in my mind, the option that includes as many people as possible, aka HDD's, should be the go-to option to generate as much healthy competition as possible.

Let's assume that SSD's and HDD's are on separate leaderboards and HDD's are the "main" category. The only thing runners with an SSD would have to do to do an HDD run is pop out their SSD from their console (which I've heard from others is relatively easy to do) and ta-da, they can do an HDD run. In this situation, everyone can be as competitive or casual about their runs as possible without having to do anything extra.

Now let's assume that SSD's and HDD's are both on the same leaderboard and naturally people who want the best times will want to use an SSD. In this situation, to be competitive you have to pay a price.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to having to pay extra to be competitive in my hobby, but this situation with SSD's is completely different than all the others we've dealt with, and I don't think people have taken that into enough consideration.

They never intended for it to be THAT broken lol. Either that or they're pretty shit developers.

Also for "a glitch is still a glitch" Can we get a new category for KH2 for "No Master Form Glitch" since the devs obviously didn't intend for you to get drive back that quickly? Can we also get a new category for LV1 CoR RTA for "Intended Route" since Master hoving up the middle room is a Sequence Break?

I personally don't think the final decision should be up to the people who actually run the category, so the most recent runners (Moon and Sonic) should be the ones who make the decision. I do want to point out a couple of things though.

@RebelDragon: "...I really do feel like this "glitch" is too major to mix in with the older runs."

I'd like to point to a similar situation we dealt with. When BBSFMHD runs were relatively new, Aqua Crit and Aqua LV1 Crit were 2 separate categories, and we had no clue how good the EXP Zero "glitch" was. When we found out how fast it was and how LV1 Crit COMPLETELY obsoleted regular Crit because of this "glitch", we did not make separate categories they were just morphed together under the assumption that no one would really want to run regular Crit anyway because of how obsolete it was. Since then, I don't think I've seen a single person do a run of Crit w/o EXP Zero nor have I seen anyone complain that there aren't multiple categories. So I guess the point I'm making is, just because a "glitch" causes a difference in the run, I don't think that's enough to warrant making separate categories, and there are a lot more variables that should be looked into.

@Axends: "That's like saying the save corruption for Pokémon Gold should be merged with the regular Any% cause it's just another time saver." "And if it's just another timesaver then there's no need for CoR Skip for Gold Crown to be it's separate category cause it's just a major timesaver"

And this is one variable that I'm talking about. If this new find or new "glitch" makes a MAJOR difference in the route, then I believe there should be separate categories. So what is a "major difference" then? Save Corruption in Pokemon Gold is obviously a "major difference" because of the gigantic amount of differences in strats used, route used, time taken to complete the run. It is a completely unique run compared to glitchless. Same with CoR Skip in Gold Crown. A gigantic chunk of the run that required multiple different strategies is gone with the skip and it requires a completely different re-route to complete the run. LV99 Data Org vs. LV1 Data Org? LV99 Data Org completely glosses over an insane amount of strategies required in LV1 Data Org to go fast and shaves off 10 minutes based on stats. It's a completely different run than LV1 Data Org. So what about Save Corruption in RoD RTA? Well, you're using the same strats, they're just faster and more reliable. You don't have to worry so much about dying to Darkballs or to Dark Hide. Is that enough of a difference? I honestly don't think so, but that's just one man's opinion. You're using the same exact strategies and the same exact route. It's the same speedrun but faster. You may have reasons to think No Save Corruption and Save Corruption are different enough to be their own unique speedruns, but I don't think bringing up Gold Crown and Pokemon Gold were very good examples.

And the person saying that would be horribly wrong and missing the point.

So I'm seeing a lot of comparisons to LV1 Data Org vs LV99 Data Org as a reason to make them separate categories, the reasoning (if I'm not mistaken) is that Save Corruption makes the category way easier and thus way different than No Save Corruption. So the mindset here seems to be that RoD RTA NSC and RoD RTA SC is just like LV1 Data Org and LV99 Data Org.

My problem with this analogy is that LV1 Data Org is very technically demanding and difficult, while LV1 RoD RTA is not. As someone who has run RoD RTA before, it literally is just spamming Magnega next to the portals while spamming Mines or Thundaga. Darkballs can kill you but that's due to pure RNG whether or not they stay in the Magnet. I suppose the major difference is Dark Hide since you can tank his hits easier now, but that's the first actual change I've listed thus far. So in my eyes, what Save Corruption does is just speeds up the process of spamming Magnega+Mines/Thundaga to kill stuff. It doesn't take away technical skill and knowledge needed because it was never there in the first place. This is literally just another timesaver in any other speedrun.

I guess I could see the setup being a bit tedious to do the save corruption, but I think it should still stay 1 category. I like the Yes/No variable, sounds like a good idea.

I don't see a legitimate reason to separate categories. Although it is a major discovery in the category, it's just another time saver. The only changes to the category from what I understand is the battle level, making the mob fights faster/easier. If anything, it sounds like we would be making a new category just for the sake of making a new category. Personally, I'm not a big fan of that mindset, so I vote no.

"...you have to intentionally open the chest AND put it in your deck to use it"

We're on the same page here guys.

I know for 100% certainty that Re:CoM-J requires 2FM clear bonus and 1.5 Re:CoM requires the Days Movie, I have no clue about Re:CoM-NA.

But yeah Muffin summed it up pretty well. I don't really care what the category should be named, the important thing is that they should be separated. I also agree that you can play on a file w/ Clear Bonus, not get the Clear Bonuses, and it would still count as an any% run. You can't get the Clear Bonuses randomly, you have to intentionally open the chest and put it in your deck to use it, so as long as you don't do that you should be fine.

I would separate the categories as well.

If there are differences in the gameplay between playthroughs due to your save data unlocking something, that by definition sounds like NG+. You couldn't get those items before, but now because of the save data, you can. It doesn't really matter how minuscule the difference is, it does affect the gameplay in some way and has the potential to change up your playthrough.

Ander strikes again lmfao

I don't really have much left to say at this point, most everyone seems to have taken their stance and it certainly weighs in favor of standardized video proof. I don't have that much of a problem with this, you guys have made good points for it and if we do standardize video proof then I think the leaderboards will be okay. I'll always believe that video proof isn't absolutely necessary and a cut off would benefit the most amount of people to draw in the most amount of people.

I still have a couple of points to mention. First of all, since the beginning of the google doc and even as we've transitioned to the leaderboards, we've always used this arbitrary cut-off line as our rule. I can specifically remember conversations where people actually mentioned times such as 4:30-4:20 in KH2 and 3:20-3:10 as times where people should start recording runs. Maybe it wasn't official or a conscious decision, but most people seemed to agree that having a video proof wasn't that big of a deal until you started getting better, at which point you should definitely start recording runs for validation reasons. I guess I'm asking what caused the change in thought. Maybe I've been out of the loop or I haven't been listening well enough to conversations as of late, but I'd like to know when the change of thought came about.

Salad also brought up a good point. Not everyone can afford to local record, I distinctly remember my shitty ass laptop from 2 years ago would overheat just from me using a webcam and could barely handle local recordings. Which means a lot of people are going to have to rely on Twitch recordings, which can cut out due to internet issues or corrupt like in Salad's situation. How strict are we going to be on these Twitch recordings? What if Twitch cut out a 30 minute chunk of a sub 4:10 KH2 run? I would assume that since we've been pretty chill about people pointing webcams and phones at their TV for video proof, Twitch recordings cutting out should hopefully be no big deal.

I asked what the big reason for being more official was and I guess the answer was just the community being more well respected for taking it's leaderboard seriously, and I can accept that answer. I still don't find being official for the sake of being official as a good reason, but if new runners aren't deterred and there aren't that many complaints, then I think this will work out okay.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

I'd like to mention that I don't agree that submissions require video proof now. I think it's incredibly unnecessary.