No issue whatsoever as long as at least one runner is interested in running it.

I believe the cursor appears at the end of each IL (when you lose control). Which levels are you not seeing that on?

That is what the category rules currently list for timing.

Hey there! This board will absolutely support the early access release, I just have been holding off on adding categories for it until I'm able to play it myself and see how the categories should work.

Assuming the EA version runs are substantially different from the older demo (which I definitely expect they will be), they will go on a separate board and will not be scored against runs on the older demo.

Current rules are just to submit IGT (good point though, I will more clearly define them).

Demos would be optional, but videos required.

The most appropriate way to handle categories and version differences is a current topic of conversation on the Discord ( https://discord.gg/KeuAPnQ ). We're trying to figure out the best approach - if you're interested in joining that conversation, I'd encourage you to drop by :)

Hi there, there is already an NMG (No Major Glitches) category, which is as of now empty, but for which the rules forbid the most impactful glitch in the run (prop flying). I'm not sure the value of a glitchless category, especially given the NMG category is empty as of now.

What is the value that you would see in a glitchless category that isn't already present in NMG, if I could ask?

Also, I'd invite you to join the Discord for the game if you feel so inclined (Discord link is at the top of the page). That's where rules and such for the game are generally discussed - would be great to have your voice in the conversation! :)

Would be entirely left to the judgement of the involved individual board(s) and their moderators. I have no idea what game(s) you're talking about, but I'd suggest asking the moderators for those boards directly.

Just wanted to reiterate how nice the popover feature is, and also bump this thread to once again the most recently active thread in this forum.

I will also agree with VyPr's comment though that some of the new graphical elements, while they're very nice eye candy, do appear to make the site's performance sluggish at times. An option to turn off animated effects (or swap them to only activate on mouseover) would be fantastic.

I've not experienced this, but moderators can decide to allow run submissions that don't have videos - the fact that you said one run you viewed did have a video, makes me wonder if you were simply looking at other runs that had no video submitted.

Perhaps you could cite some of the runs you viewed where you expected to see a video but didn't find one?

Signal boosting and building on ShikenNuggets' suggestion in the public feedback thread - I'd suggest adding an autolock feature for all forums, that automatically locks a thread that hasn't had a reply for a specified period of time.

I'd suggest 6 months for threads on the main parts of the site, and as ShikenNuggets suggested, allowing moderators (probably super moderators would make the most sense) to configure the value for each game independently based on the needs of that community. I'd suggest a default autolock timeframe of 1 year for game forums, with configurable options for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or disabled (ie. current behaviour).

I'd also suggest improving the message displayed to a user in a locked thread to be more helpful. Currently, it just says "Thread has been locked", which could lead to a user with a legitimate question thinking that they have no available method to get an answer. I would suggest instead, something like "This thread has been locked. To start a new discussion, click here" (with "here" as a hyperlink to the new thread page in that forum).

I still strongly believe that the reCaptcha implementation I suggested in the post above would in a practical sense completely solve the forum spam/bot issue, but an autolock feature like this would help solve the issue of well-meaning users necroing threads.

As far as i can tell, they are supposed to be the visual hint that the User is a Supporter and therefore the popover is available on that particular user.

I'm under the impression that they are entirely separate - supporters get circles, but also supporters (currently) can see popovers for any user.

My feedback: It simply doesn't work. Clicking on the name brings me to the profile.

If that is the intended functionality for non-supporters then that has not been communicated at all.

Quoting from the announcement post:

Let's discuss the new User Profile Popover, a new cosmetic feature in temporary beta for SRC Supporters

The feature is currently only available for supporters (to beta test), which would be, I think, why the feedback thread is specific to supporters right now (and why it isn't working for you currently). Based on the wording of the announcement post, I get the impression that the idea is to roll it out to all users eventually. Having said that, it's just my impression - I'm not on the Elo team, so of course I wouldn't be able to speak with any sort of authority on their future plans.

I love the popovers in general - they work well (at least on desktop) and look really nice.

I have two suggestions:

• It feels a little tedious at times to have 2 clicks to get to a user's full profile, personally. I'd rather if the popover happened on hover and clicking the name still went to the full profile, but I totally understand that not everyone would feel the same way on this. My preferred solution to this would be to give users the option to customize the popover function - either the current way (click to bring up popover, click again to visit full profile), OR an alternative "hover" approach (hover on a name for 3 seconds to bring up popover, click the name to visit full profile).

• As far as customizing the popover itself is concerned, perhaps consider the ability to customize the header (something like Discord offers for Nitro users), and the ability to add a "badge" for a single "featured run" or "featured board" to the popover (under where the "Supporter" badge is currently, perhaps)

Great work on the feature in general though, I love it!

Out of curiosity, why do you want to follow so many games? I'm wondering if there's an alternate solution that might be more appropriate.

Camcorder: I'll add another two cents to this because my specific use for the follow function I don't see mentioned above - I use it essentially to "pin" games, so I can quickly access them just by clicking the "Games" button at the top of the page. I don't care as much personally about getting notifications for them, so much as I like having them so easy to access. Sure, I could just use bookmarks to serve the same function, but I like having the game cover art as the clickable link, and keeping everything on the site itself.

I'm wondering if there are more people who use the follow function the same way I do. If so, perhaps you could consider having a "pin" function for games which would only make the games appear when you hit the "Games" button up top. I'm guessing that would avoid some (if not all) of the technical limitations associated with increasing the allowable count of followed games?

Just an idea.

https://www.speedrun.com/support/learn/requesting-a-game

"Each game is generally limited to one board. A "Category Extensions" board may be allowed to popular games to accommodate additional category sections on a case by case basis. Category extension boards must be requested by moderators of the existing game through the Support Hub."

tl;dr: Submit a request for it if you think it makes sense (assuming you're a moderator for that game), but it'll probably only be accepted if there is a clear need and the game is very popular.

The only people who can answer the question of whether a run is acceptable are the moderators for the associated board. You should ask your question to them (for example, via the specific forums for that board).

As a general matter, I would say that what you described probably wouldn't in isolation affect whether your run is acceptable - but circumstances vary, and some games do things differently than others. I can't give you a firm answer either way, the only way to get an answer you can actually rely on is to ask the moderators of that board themselves.

If you hit the "Settings" button on a series, then select "Games" from the left hand sidebar, you can hit the 3-dots icon in the top right hand corner of the games list (to the right) and add it there.

You're going to have to provide some more context on this one - what do you mean by "nonstop rules for speedruns"? Are you reading this term posted somewhere?

If your question pertains to a specific game, you should ask the moderators for that game, in the forums for that game rather than the general speedrunning forum.

This is a question that could only be answered by the moderators for the board(s) affected by this.

You should post your question instead in the forum corresponding to those board(s). For example, the forums for Java Edition are here: https://www.speedrun.com/mc/forums

As a general matter, no.

That said, if you have any questions about recording standards or rules for a specific game you're considering running, you should always check with the moderator(s) of that game's board for confirmation. They would be the ones ultimately approving (or rejecting) your run, so they would be in the best position to give you an accurate answer.

Just a suggestion that might help combat the seemingly never-ending stream of spam accounts (which must be getting tiring for site staff to have to deal with daily) - have you considered implementing Google's reCaptcha solution (or a similar service) on the sign up page? A site I'm involved in operating had a very similar issue for a long time, and it was fully resolved by implementing reCaptcha.

For reference, here is the sign-up page for our website, if you're curious what the end user experience would look like: https://www.factionfiles.com/ff.php?action=register

reCaptcha info/docs: https://www.google.com/recaptcha/about/

It likely wouldn't fully resolve the issue on SR.C (still have to worry about compromised accounts and the like), but it in theory should go a long way in helping reduce the spam (and therefore, the staff workload to have to deal with it).