[Parax]

I don't think you can really discount the setup time as part of obtaining the stat, either. If it takes a long time to set up for a stat, and you just savestate after the setup, how is that not an advantage over console players? If you couldn't reset as easily, there's a higher chance you would decide the time you're putting in isn't worth it and accept a worse stat. You could probably make the argument that the setup time is part of the run, too, albeit a lengthy and easy part.

[SpinDashMaster]

Then how about we ban level select too, then? Since that's basically a cheat code, and all it does is save time before a level begins.

No, that's absurd. There is no competitive skill involved in setting up a run. Just tediousness. That's not a factor in competition so much as what takes place in the actual level.

How can one seriously say they'd rather spend 40 minutes between attempts when it can be an instant retry? We all know it's possible to setup on console and do so in that amount of time, and sure one could take pride in doing so on console that way, but all emulation does is let these stats be acquired sooner rather than later. The same in-level skill is required regardless of setup time. I can spend that 40 minutes of setup, pause, come back in the morning and start up again with a fresh set of eyes. There's literally no -competitive- difference between the two setups, ceteris paribus.

[TimpZ]

Just putting this out there, we should ban checkpoint abuse.




Seriously though I'm 100% with SDM on this one. I'm not sure what games other than S3K this is applicable for, but I think allowing such savestates and even allowing starting a stage from the transition at all increases the competitiveness of the stats. Not to mention, how unfair would it be to grandfather old stats for which using savestates was allowed? There'd be stats that would be practically impossible to beat.

[Don]

You know, there are stat that are impossible to beat.

Because they're maxed.

To go back on the topic: I don't think lazyness should be rewarded with easier obtainable stats, if we're gonna talk banning emulators because they're inaccurate, untrustworthy, occasionally hiccup, or any other actual issues, the reason that "I don't want to have to set up anything else than a savestate" is... not very logical.

Given that you would only take 5 more seconds to set up a savestate with SMC+, anyway.
I mean if you're not even willing to take these 5 more seconds in order to assure proper and fair competition, then I don't know what the heck you're doing on this site, because I couldn't even consider you a "serious" competitor. That is, if 5 seconds is the thing that would keep you from competing.

That is if we're planning to make this site more serious about it's competition, because either way.
Also if we're gonna talk about how 'unfair' it would be to keep emulator stats with savestates: We'll have to keep them, without proof, even if we accept this rule. So either way, I already brought up competetive distortion in the last discussion about this and nobody cared. You can't just bring something up that was an argument in the last topic and expect that it will work this time, because in both cases, the competition of old will have an advantage over the new rules.

EDIT: Also, if something was possible on JUST emulator, then why wasn't it banned in the first place? I thought this is what originated this discussion?

[TimpZ]

You know, there are stat that are impossible to beat.

Because they're maxed.

Semantics >_>. Obviously I meant beating or tying. It does not change the fact that the stat you're trying to achive might have been achieved by someone else, only you might have to do an hour of setup while they didn't.

Also, Don, please... This is why we would demand videos for unofficial emulators. To promote more serious and fair competition in the event that you would use one of them. Ugh...

If something like a glitch or strat is only possible on emulator then obviously it would be banned. Savestates doesn't affect the game itself, it's a function outside it (and for competition irrelevant as long as you don't use them while attaining the stat).

[Don]

Are you just straight up ignoring the fact that there's official emulators with savestate functions, or how many damn times to I have to say that they exist?

It's just stupid trying to argue with convenience when there's a clear, official alternative, if you absolutely  HAVE to rely on savestates in order to be competetive. Also if there was anything wrong with that it would just be seen as a version difference, because it still is official.

Also what could possibly promote fair competition more than banning unofficial emulators?

[Starlight_Glimmer]

The problem I see with this topic derailing agian, and talking about banning all unofficial emulators cuz we have smc with savestates so problem solved, as don mentioned is~

Yah sure we could, but I mean we dont have to. This rule provides us with all the checks and balances we need to combat the problem

dare I say with this rule allowing unofficial emulators still could be helpful? Remember we are granfathering stats in, if we allow people to keep playing on emulators they could potentially figure out enough information to ultimately conclude one of the grandfathered stats is in no way possible on console; in a sense helping with clean up.

[SpinDashMaster]

Bear in mind, the potential for banning emulation outright would not be off the table entirely should we implement this rule: we wanted to try to do this before banning emulation outright.

Can we not just implement this last line of defense before shutting down the whole damn thing? If we -still- have trouble after that then I would be okay with banning emulation. But for now, I'd like to at least see how this rule pans out for us.

There's really no reason not to try the lighter household hammer first before whupping out the fucking battery ram.

[Don]

You're a little late on that, we've been talking about grandfathering stats in ever since the start of the conversation. Either way, the old stats will have an advantage no matter WHAT rule we come up with, and I keep saying that over and over again.

Saying that keeping emulators because old stats might have had an advantage there is like admitting to stats only being competable on emulator, which is a moot point because you are not supposed to have an competetive edge on emulator.

[Starlight_Glimmer]

Can we not just implement this last line of defense before shutting down the whole damn thing? If we -still- have trouble after that then I would be okay with banning emulation. But for now, I'd like to at least see how this rule pans out for us.

yes, hit the button, do it.

[SpinDashMaster]

Back up. I just established there's no competitive differences in setting up a run.

As i said earlier:

To drive the point home, pre-level saves are not a competitive advantage of any sort. They are a time-saver outside of the domain of competition. One way or another, I'm gonna start the level I want to start with the setup I need. It either takes me 40 minutes to do that or 0.5 seconds to do that. Neither method has any impact on the outcome of my performance once the run begins, so why would I choose the 40-minute option?

Honestly, who's going to enjoy competition when they can't freely enjoy the benefit of harmless timesavers such as this, instead having to spend more time setting up than actually competing?

This isn't laziness moreso than it is common sense.

[Don]

Common sense that gives you an edge competetively, because setting up a run is preparation, which is part of competing.

Or are you going to argue that preparing to have 99 lives in say, unleashed, in order to get a series of attempts through, is not a competetive edge that everybody can work for? I know people that dont even save their stat, they record it and then reset their console in order not to lose that edge/preparation time. If there was a way to savestate for that game or emulate it, it would give you a competetive edge in terms of preparation.

I've already stated that for Sonic Advance in one of my prior posts where emulators get the edge for not having to reset the game and wait 20 seconds.



The only difference is that you don't have to work for it and take it for granted, SDM. It IS a competetive edge, you just don't see it or argue with it because you want to protect your convenience. And yes, it is lazyness, because you can't be arsed to either savestate with an official emulator or use level select.

[Starlight_Glimmer]

oh come on now, attacking convenience is kind of silly. maybe we should all turn off our A/C's because our Uganda buddy timpz mentioned plays without A/C and that gives us a competitive edge because we are comfortable while we play. Which is part of competing. Lets not go there.

[Don]

You could also argue that defending convenience is kind of silly. People go out of their way to compete on consoles. If we're talking about "fair and serious competetion", then it's not fair for someone like FF or SDM to use savestates in order not to have to set up a run on an official version of the game. It basically discourages console usage, as far as convenience goes and that is a part of competing, whether you like it or not. I've tried to defend the convenience of half-casual competitors and was chewed out for it. It's not going to work that way, flimsy.

[Starlight_Glimmer]

don I'll be honest. I have to drink heavily to become competitive, for me it seems to slow down the game and gives me more reaction time. that is a convenience for me, that others don't get to share. we should ban beer would be your argument. (which I really would leave then lol)

There is no such way to implement a 1:1 be all fairness, and what your arguing isn't a problem because as slim as a chance it may be, lets take sdm's record with the 40 min setup time... its still POSSIBLE, possible, that is the key word.

I know your going to keep posting your soliloquy, but you can make more threads for these if it seems like a huge problem.

[Staf]

I have no problem with banning emulators completely and only allowing official releases. Even if the official release is a Game Gear game played on a 3DS using the save state to begin the level over and over again without getting to the level each time.

[Don]

I'm just going to answer this once and then hopefully be done with it, because I myself get tired of having to repeat this over and over and over again:

Emulators are not supposed to give you an edge over consoles, even if it's just convenience.

You can drink all you want if you think it enhances your skills in competing, as long as you do it on console, as it's not going to give you an edge that emulation could bring. And that is the actual issue here, not the fact that you're a drunk playing video games. Also as Staf stated, there are viable official alternatives to doing that, so... try convincing me again, pal. Better yet, don't.

[Starlight_Glimmer]

Im up for the complete ban, I just mentioned we don't need to do it~ one day we were all about protecting the precious casuals and now we are not.

if official and unofficial emulators both have save states what is the convenience issue that is being argued?

[Staf]

The convenience is being argued on games that don't support it, I believe. To do the Sonic Advance 2 special stages would take a lot of effort right now on console, but if it were to be released on the Wii U Virtual Console then it would give us save states making it much easier.

[TimpZ]

Being drunk while doing runs is a form of doping. I propose we hereby require a blood sample sent to Parax personally for analysis in conjunction with every submitted stat to prevent this.

Don is arguing that the lack of setup time is an advantage for emulators. This is true. However, the number of stats this is important for is negligible afaik (where setting up again takes at least a minute) and I don't think it's a valid enough concern to take such a drastic step at this time by banning all emulators.

And again, I think banning all unofficial emulators, but not official ones, is silly if adequate proof is given. Just create a list of emulators that are "approved" like Fusion and Regen and then require an input file from savestate if it's on Gens (to take the example with Genesis).

[SpinDashMaster]

Emulators are not supposed to give you an edge over consoles, even if it's just convenience.

What edge? What fucking edge? The achieved stat, ceteris paribus, is no different. We are strictly talking about time-saving methods outside of the level.

To say that saving time between attempts is a competitive advantage is complete and total bull. This is becoming simply a matter of punishing honorable players because people want to whine for whatever reason they can.

You cast aside this kind of methodology as if convenience is something you want to ban because "heaven forbid we used an emulator!"

News flash: an emulator ban will stop nothing. Neither will this ruling. What we are aiming to do with the video proof rule is to give emulation one more fair shot for the honorable players who still use it.

To outright immediately ban all emulation instead of trying the rule first is presumptuous and downright bitchy.

I mean, more power to you if you use a console and want to spend the extra time between attempts. That's awesome. But don't impose your beliefs on everyone else just because "Oh I want to use consoles, so EVERYONE has to!"

[SpinDashMaster]

Anyway that about wraps it up for the gripefest regarding banning emulation and Top X%. Can we move along with the initial ruling, please?

[Gpro]

Welp, SDM. All I have to say is from what I've noticed, in your posts you've made a lot of usage of "me" and "I" and maybe "us", leaning towards yourself, but a strange lack of betterment of all competition and competitors, in a way seemingly like putting yourself on a pedestal. A lot of points I've seen you make disregard the competition as a whole, and I highly disagree

Don has made points that go as "this rule isn't affecting many, but rather the few". The convenience topic is irrelevant in itself except for the fact that it wouldn't hurt the competition overall in terms of convenience, not holding it as even a main argument, yet you have persisted an argument towards it and taking it more personally than you should have allowed.

Why would I post this? I find your opinions extremely subjective as aimed at yourself rather than competition and competitors as a whole. You seem to disregard them. That is not how rules should be made. They should be for everyone, not just for ONE person, or a FEW people, unless only those people apply (which, btw, they do not apply for the few, as a large portion of people use emulators, as far as I am concerned)

[SpinDashMaster]

Sounds like you skimmed over page 6 and made a quick reply.

Here's the skinny:

The majority of the usage of "I" was used in the subject and not the predicate. And the usages of "we" and "us" refer to most of TSC. And there's not a whole lot of "me." Translation: That was a rash assumption you made.

Don did a lot more than "make points" as you allege. Several of his posts launch personal attacks against others, myself being only one of the targets. So yeah, when the time comes you better believe this gets personal.

Don has been arguing to ban emulation based on an attack on convenience. Many (including you just now) have misread my counterpoints as a full on argument. I frankly couldn't care less about my stance on emulation.

So, whatever it is that makes you think I have my hand in the cookie jar, think twice. My stance is as follows:

There are currently two choices on the table, a light sanction and a really heavy sanction.

Why choose the heavier sanction first (banning emulation), when you can at least try life with the lighter sanction first (requiring video for emulation-acquired stats), and revisit the former topic if it remains an issue?

[Don]

Hold up.

I made a single personal attack on S&A for being banned because I didn't know better, since he was supposed to be banned and I didn't know about the situation. Things like that do not mean that I KEPT attacking people.

Also I have said a multitude of times that there's official emulators that bring barely any less convenience than your inofficial emulators.

Yes, I have given examples with you in it, but not as a personal attack. I did not once say something like "I CANT BELIEVE SDM WANTS THIS RULE, I CANT BELIEVE HE HAS MORE CONVENIENCE THAN ME, ETC."

I've been trying to keep as neutral as possible and will continue to do so.

P.S.: Don't call me bitchy. Neither of these rules even concern me as a competitor, it's just that banning emulators would be a purer step if you will, as it gets rid of all inofficial emulation, hiccups, TASability and what not, with a few exceptions for rare to obtain games.

[SpinDashMaster]

I don't know SDM, you clearly provide that your ~convenience~ is something you would want to keep.

Right.

And you're not the only person I'm calling bitchy from that line a few posts ago. Everyone who had the opinion of banning emulation also had witch hunt written all over their posts. They were being presumptuous.

All I really want to discuss at this point is why we can't do the lighter sanction before permanently laying down the heavier one. Then we can all be done here.

[Gpro]

@Don You speak as if I'm the only one affected by such a stance. FF, who has also been through several of my hellish RA's, immediately vouched for me when I said how majorly an emulation ban would affect that field in particular.

That said, convenience is just one reason not to ban emulation. It's not the only reason.

It seems to me like you're upset because you feel like I'm not being affected by the rule for some reason. Well, EXCUSE ME for actually upholding higher standards of integrity before they have become expected of us!

Whether that is the case or not, for the same reason you can't be pissed off about a ruling not forcing everyone to adjust their seating a bit or be less comfortable.

That's like saying "Oh adding a ban on pork isn't fair because people who don't eat pork aren't going to be affected. They should be punished somehow too. HEY I KNOW! Let's make them not eat chicken!"

Lemme get this straight... "My hellish RAs" isn't a personal thing?  "Well, EXCUSE ME for actually upholding higher standards of integrity before they have become expected of us!" Um... And the last comparison as well? How is this an argument for anything, or even any kind of comparison for anything at all? I'm just seeing some straying away from the initial topic.

I've seen both you AND Don firing shots, so whatever puts you in a better argument is beyond me.

Also insulting my intelligence is irrelevant to the topic as well, so your lesson is ignored.

[SpinDashMaster]

Now you've misread twice. I said I was being personal.

And to quote SprintGod: "If you don't want to be treated like you're stupid, the best defence is to not be stupid."

Also Don's and my posts going at each other go further back than that, so while I appreciate you went beyond page 6 this time, I'd appreciate it if you went to before page 5 also.

[flying fox]

Ok this topic has derailed so many times now especially with people arguing at each other, it's getting really stupid now. From now on post in here if you have something constructive to say about the rule, if I see any posts that don't do this I will remove them. 

[SpinDashMaster]

To reiterate, here's what I'd like for us to discuss:

Why choose the heavier sanction first (banning emulation), when you can at least try life with the lighter sanction first (requiring video for emulation-acquired stats), and revisit the former topic if it remains an issue?