I apologize in advance if this isnt the correct section to point out something like this, but I just noticed something a little odd to me, and I'm hoping for some clarification.

In watching one of the runs on the site, I noticed a glaring problem right at the start of said run, something that would shorten the length by some 20-30 seconds. It seems an entire cutscene that would need to be skipped never even started to play. The game just starts right at the action lol. I thought hmm maybe the person who verified it just missed this? And then I look and the runner who submitted the video is also the one who verified it lol. Something about that just seems fishy as Hell. Im not looking to call this person out, Im just wondering how a run can be a WR run if the only person looking it over for problems is the person who made it?

It was my understanding that since our videos are the only means of verification that if anything (no matter how small it is) is wrong/suspicious about it, then thats a major problem. This video has an entire section missing that afaIk cant just NOT happen lol.

Take it up with them.

Some people time things differently. Some time it when you gain control of a character after skipping a cutscene, some right as you skip the cutscene, some start time on start up of the game.

It really doesn't matter too much, it's the game play that does, but like I said, talk to them, not us.

This is why I've been pushing for the longest time to have self-verification removed. Glad it's finally making progress.

@Drakodan: this will never happen, because it makes it impossible for people that are the only current runner of a game to have a leaderboard set up in case anyone else is interested in the game. Or do you suggest site admins have to verify runs in that case? Because that will slow down any changes and development on this site to a halt.

@Drakodan

It's not making progress cause it's a dumb idea. Some games only have one runner. What then?

I think the idea was to implement it in games that have more than 1 mod.

If you guys kept up to date with site development, you'd know this has already been partially implemented in the form of regular moderators having the "Automatically verify run" checkbox unticked by default, preventing accidental self-verification.

Self-verification IS a problem whether you see it as such or not, and it is being addressed.

[quote]Mon, 16 Oct 2017 Changed: Auto-approve unchecked for regular moderators by default. They can still self-approve their own submissions by checking the box manually.[/quote] ^ that's changing the default input for a form on the site. Not a ban on self-verification and not an answer to how you suggest runs should get verified if the current only moderator is the ONLY runner of a game.

1. The majority of cases in which a game has a single moderator is when a user requests a game board. In this case, the user becomes a Super Mod by default, and Super Mods are not affected by the site change.

2. Obviously if it is the case that a board only has one moderator and it absolutely cannot have more moderators, then that mod will have no choice but to verify their own runs. My point, and the sentiment I've expressed for a long time, is that self-verification should be avoided when possible as it is generally a bad practice that leads to cases such as the one this thread is talking about. I would rather that self-verification was not possible at all but you're right that in certain cases there is currently no good alternative. Ideally game boards should just have more than one moderator so as to avoid this problem; there is at least one board I've requested on which I've ensured that another moderator was added so that I didn't have to verify my own runs, as I'm not above the standard I expect from everyone else.

@Komrade, I see what you're saying, but as I said this wasn't really to call the person out, as I'm new to the game I was viewing and could easily be uninformed on how it's timed. I'm not trying to openly accuse thix person of cheating :/

This was more in line with what Drakodan is saying. Idk if having self-verification on a run that's for the WORLD RECORD is such a great idea. I can understand up until that point, bc anything less than the WR has very little prestige attached. I just found it odd that the one time I notice something fishy it's in a WR run, and was both submitted and verified by the individual claiming the record.

Didn't mean to stir up any drama, I've said before in my posts that even if I disagree personally with a rule/standard on the site that I'll always support what the masses want as long as it's within reason. I was just curious if there was any kind of additional screening done when a run claims a WR. Seems like at the very least that's a situation that would merit it.

Edit: also @ Komrade...wait...how does only gameplay matter and not when we choose to start timing something?! Lol. Thats the whole point of this site and activity we engage in. If I start timing my run at the second I hit Start and so does this other person yet their video doesnt have 2 loading screens with 2 cutscenes that you have to view 2-3 seconds of before you can skip it how is that fair? Gameplay matters but stuff like that matters just as much when time is a major factor.

Don't know about the specifics of the game as it wasn't name, but generally a timer starts as soon as the player has control over something. If you push "start new game" and the first thing that happens is a cutscene before you ever get a chance to push anything, then it doesn't really make much sense to start the timer at "start new game."

Yeah 'turning off self verification' is dumb and won't prevent fraud. It just makes fraud harder to detect.

In fact is there even any fraud in this case? Since when is skipping a cutscene fraud? I thought that was called speed running.

I'm not going to name the game as I feel it would being unnecessary drama into the mix, but I can tell you that in this game the timer starts from the moment we hit start, not when the beginning cutscenes end. The cutscenes and their skipping are included in the times. Also, as I stated above, there's a big chance that maybe I'm missing something and perhaps there are variations between the different regions of this game, and maybe they can skip the cutscenes straight up with no loads? Idk haha. The point of this wasn't really to accuse anyone, it was to ask is there a criteria for verifying runs for a WR bc it seems odd that someone gets to verify their own WR. Seems very odd to me.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You got beat so you imply dishonesty.

What do the rules say in the game?

PresJPolk, I think you're looking a little too deep here lol. I have no way of ever beating this person's time, we run two variants (like region-wise) of the same game, and the one I run is inherently slower. As the leaderboards make no distinction between the region difference, I don't realistically have a way to beat them, even with flawless play. Couple that with the fact they're infinitely more experienced with the game than me? Lol. My time isn't even in the top 10. Idc about claiming a WR. I do this for fun. :)

And yes you can skip cutscenes, we all know this. I think I need to specify a thing or 2 for clarity. The game starts, timer begins. Now, normally 2 cutscenes will play, they start up but you can't skip them for about 2-3 seconds, maybe more. So I was just noticing that this run went straight from hitting start to the action without all the loading and having to skip in between (which as I said DOES count towards the time in this game, afaIk).

Anyways, this is already starting to breed drama and ridiculousness, which I don't care to entertain. Bygones = bygones :)

Well, hard to say much without being able to see relevant details... without that, the most appropriate thing to do would be to ask the person who submitted the run and/or bring up in the forum relevant to the game so the discrepancy can be addressed (instead of just sitting there)...

Again, the point I was making and question I was asking is being glossed over in favor of starting something with somebody lol :/

I wanted to know is there additional criteria for verifying a WR beyond having someone verify their OWN WR (just bc it seems kinda weird to me, and from some of the responses above, I'm not the only one). I think I've gotten my answer though, so consider my inquiry closed :) honestly if I could just delete the thread myself I would, as this escalated to a degree I didn't intend. I won't be asking a question such as this again.

With regard to some of the discussion within the thread:

We're still looking at some minor changes regarding this. I don't personally think the default state of the checkbox actually does that much in practice, and I'm advocating for changing that back to not be inconsistent between regular moderators and super moderators, which in my opinion just creates more confusion about how the site actually works. "Why is my checkbox unchecked and his checked? What is the point of that if I can just click it?"

1: We're trying to add a "verifier" position for boards. 2: I'd like to add a setting that lets boards self-impose "no self-verifying"

I don't personally think it's practical to impose self-verification on most boards, but if boards want to self-impose it I think that's fine.

I think the mentioned issue of general quality of data is still an issue regardless of people self-verifying or not. Preventing self-verification sitewide incentivizes people adding friends to verify their runs, not to mention that a lot of boards only have one moderator as it is. In my opinion, if the moderation is so bad that you can't moderate your own run objectively, you probably shouldn't be moderating other people's runs either.

Sounds like a very reasonable middle ground to me, will look forward to the upcoming changes