Two people get together, two coins are inserted and a single button representing the games built-in "2 players" mode is used to start the game: the intention is achieving the highest combined score on the game they can muster.

Many game shows are designed in this way to test the individuals of the team in isolation: this is just an extension of that idea as a way to use an arcade machine that doesn't automatically combine the players with the team of two being tested as isolated components.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I agree that would be an optimal baton pass, however I am unsure if the rules require the simultaneous effort. My understanding of the rules is that the first runner could come to a complete stop, hand the baton to the second runner (who is also stationary), and then the 2nd runner can begin to run and complete the race. Again, it would not be optimal but the participants would not be disqualified, as taking turns in this manner is not against the rules.

Your description of the suboptimal baton pass encompasses description of simultaneous effort. The baton receiver has taken up position for the pass, and presumably is prepared to run, once the pass is complete. That is effort. Since said effort is being put forth, whilst the baton giver is en route to the receiver's position (also effort), it is simultaneous with the giver's effort. Simultaneous effort. Not required by rules, but necessary for teamwork.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

This statement may be inconsistent with rules that define teammates as a cumulative turn based effort of two distinct participants - which this track may seem to be doing.

Yes, this track's rules are indeed doing that. What I am saying is that it is a stupid idea. The 'two player' mode of classic arcade games was designed to provide players an opportunity to go head to head. Most of this competition would be friendly, of course, but competition, nonetheless. Not teamwork.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I would think that this definition would be purely defined by the rules of a competition in any particular context.
For example, if I have 2 Pac Man Arcade machines and 4 participants:
1.) I could assign player 1 and 2 to be "team A " and place them in front of Pac Man machine #1 - and assign player 3 and 4 to be "team B" and place them in front of Pac Man machine #2
2.) I can then have both teams simultaneously start a 2 player game on each pac man machine and tell them that each team's total combined score of both players is their final score, and that the team with the higher total score wins.
In this context, the 'two player" games are in effect just two distinct parts of a measured total effort. It is irrelevant that the players take turns in this context.
Given the above, I may not be fully understanding your statement on how 'two player' games can not be team games. I may be missing something. Apologies if I am.

Players 1 and 2 make a team. Players 3 and 4 make a different team. If these two teams start up a 'two player' game of Pac Man, they will produce two separate team scores. If you were to say that both teams could combine their scores, essentially saying the one score could come from the combined effort of all four players, that would be stupid.

Sorry Barthax, I meant to quote AD, not you. The location of the quote buttons here often trips me up.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Should the above viewpoint become the overriding position that TG takes on the subject, effectively restricting the ways that people may want to set up their track rule sets to create competitive scenarios that they feel would be fun to participate in?

That's a mischaracterisation of the viewpoint. It is not about spoiling anyone's fun, it is about keeping nonsense tracks out of TG's database. Anyone, whether admin or member, could set up a track which allows 'two player' games. The track could be exclusively for 'two player' game scores, or it could also accept solo scores; it could be for the higher score only, or it could be for both scores. What the track should not be for is legitimising the dumb notion that two players, who are competing against one another, are actually acting as a team.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

This track's rules seem to be set up in a manner in which that is contrary what you personally believe is worthy of recognition. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the track and score be removed entirely based on that opinion. Further you have suggested that TG remove any other similar track and score from its database. Is that correct?

Among other factors, 'two player' games give players breaks unavailable to solo players, so the scores they yield are not directly comparable to 'one player' games. I am not offering an opinion on whether 'one player' or 'two player' games deserve higher recognition. And, while I am recommending the removal of both score and track, I am not saying that the player's accomplishments ought to be discarded. Their scores could easily be ascertained from the INP replay, and entered onto the appropriate rungs of a 'two player' scoreboard.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

In the past, my impression is that TG took a similar viewpoint of glitch-based speedrunning and effectively shut down that kind of ruleset and participation on the near identical opinion of that activity not being within the designed intention of the game and therefore not worthy of recognition.

I don't know anything about that, as I have little interest in "speedrunning".

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Am I reasonable in perhaps perceiving somewhat of a parallel here? If so, are you essentially suggesting a similar approach to this track? Please allow me some leeway in my communication here, I haven't had much sleep and could be totally missing something on this, so apologies if I am not making any sense.

The track could be modified, along the lines of what I suggested above. But, the record definitely has to go.

Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

it is about keeping nonsense tracks out of TG's database.

That's where you are wrong. Jace has pretty much said you make a track for whatever you want and it is fine. So what you find "nonsense" might be a fun competition for other players. If I wanted to make a track that said "player can pause the game and go take a nap for an hour", that would be acceptable given my understanding of Jace's track guidelines.

It really has nothing to do with the intent of two players competing together is not allowed to combine scores. That is just one interpretation of how the game can be played. One player having a break while the other takes a turn has no meaning either - anyone who competes on the track has the same advantage.

Originally Posted by HAL-LOZ

Two-player game = two-player co-op. Not their solo performances

It is more subtle than "two solo performances". Both players have to bring their "best performance" at the same machine at the same time with the same credits. They do not play days apart and just add the scores together. If one player has a bad performance: the team has a bad-average performance.