thegamer1185's Feed

thegamer1185
01-11-2020 at 05:58 PM
163 Comments
Rate this Entry

Pausing - Is it allowed?

So it has been brought to the attention of some of us adjudicators that a run has been accepted into the TG database that has several pauses in it longer than 15 seconds. While I have always been told that pausing for any reason is not allowed, (except for recording purposes...which isn't written anywhere either) there is now a submitter who is using this already accepted submission that has pausing in it to pass there own. Rightfully so, equal across the board and I have no issue with them using that as reason to allow the submission to clear through adjudication.

Here is the issue. There is literally nothing in any TG policy about pausing.....except when it comes to tracks specifically labeled as "Marathon" which rule 3.0.B says pausing is not permitted. That is it. Nothing anywhere says you can't pause for any reason. While you could use the "spirit of the game" argument, which is a completely unclear discussion of it's own based on the individual/game/other circumstance, technically pausing is allowed then right? If the rules don't say anything about it, it's not against them.

@Jace Hall , @RTM "> @GibGirl "> @starsoldier1 "> @MyOwnWorstEnemy "> @timmell "> @RaGe , @Desidious , @Marcade , @starcrytas , @Barthax . Tag anyone else who used to be a ref or has any experience with this the more thoughts the better.

It's been brought up about 6 times over the last 3 years that the policies are out of date for what is allowed in this day and age of TG. I really think these rules and others need updating sooner than later. For example...pretty much all of my submissions should be rejected because I use Everdrive cartridges, AKA NOT ORIGINAL HARDWARE. I break rule 1 right out of the gate. Yep, can't call me a hypocrite because I just called myself out. However, Everdrives ARE accepted. Lots to discuss here.

This is rule 1 for reference. What needs changing? Mods are allowed, Everdrives, non original controllers, I can't comment on Arcade stuff but I know things have been changed a little on some of them parts wise.

"Unless otherwise specified in a game leaderboard variation rule set, the general rule is that all games are to be played with original controllers, on original hardware, with original game software. "

ThanksRagequit thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
Comments
  1. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by SallowDay

    Is this thread the official discussion for whether or not pausing should be permitted?

    It's more the thread that it should have been retained as a rule from the prior generations of TG but something went amiss & the rule got mislaid. ;) All opinions welcome, none-the-less. :)

  2. SallowDay's Avatar

    Thank you for the clarification.


    Haha, I can see that I'm unquestionably in hostile territory. Intimidating though that is, I will put forth a short argument to the contrary.


    1. I see a lot of posts along the lines of "this is how it's always been," "we've never allowed it in the past as far as I can recall," and "it's in the Bible." That last one may be made up for comedic effect. However, I would like to state that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. "It's always been that way" isn't valid reason for why something is good or just. It may be personally appealing, yes, but it's place in logical discourse is just as tenuous as stating it as a reason why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    2. Along that same sentiment being most vehemently expressed is the strong emotional argument that it would render former work meaningless. That simply isn't true. There's no reason your work in a specific facet of a game is now meaningless; someone provided the great example of a "dog in lap% speedrun." Pause and pauseless are not mutually exclusive, even if pausing permitted is taken to be the default ruleset as opposed to the exception.

    3. The GRE permits participants breaks. The SAT permits participants breaks. The ACT permits participants breaks. Are the accomplishments in getting a perfect score on these tests diminished by that fact? Moreover, do we mean to be more strident than the highest and most generalized academic testing standards in the Western world? I ask that sincerely. I'm -not- arguing that just because these exams permit pausing that we should, but raising that question.

    Those exams are also, perhaps, good indications that permitting pausing at least once every two hours is humane, by the way.


    4. If the answer is yes to the previous question precisely what are you gaining in terms of reputability for a participant's accomplishment, and what are you losing with regards to the player's health? In example Y, the professional gaming community gained the knowledge that Participant X was able to set his Puyo Puyo world record across 16 hours with no insidious 10-minute break, but he had to suffer the early effects of dehydration or water poisoning to bring that minor amount of added satisfaction to the community. How do you balance that scale?



    At the end of the day, as mentioned by myself and others, pause and pauseless runs aren't mutually exclusive. I do think "if no indication is given otherwise" than the global rule should -permit- pausing because there is no reason to foster unhealthiness in participants by default.

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy, The Evener thanked this post
  3. GibGirl's Avatar

    You know, I think I might be willing to adjust the rules a bit and allow some sort of pause schedule for longer runs.

    What are we afraid of? People using pauses to gain in-game advantages? Well, let's look and see if there are restrictions we can put on things that make sense. For example, as a starting idea - what about a single 10 minute break allowed every two hours? With a requirement that some sort of camera footage existing during the break to both show it's *actually* only 10 minutes (no splicing or the like)?

    ThanksSallowDay thanked this post
    LikesSallowDay liked this post
  4. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by SallowDay

    Thank you for the clarification.


    Haha, I can see that I'm unquestionably in hostile territory. Intimidating though that is, I will put forth a short argument to the contrary.


    1. I see a lot of posts along the lines of "this is how it's always been," "we've never allowed it in the past as far as I can recall," and "it's in the Bible." That last one may be made up for comedic effect. However, I would like to state that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. "It's always been that way" isn't valid reason for why something is good or just. It may be personally appealing, yes, but it's place in logical discourse is just as tenuous as stating it as a reason why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    2. Along that same sentiment being most vehemently expressed is the strong emotional argument that it would render former work meaningless. That simply isn't true. There's no reason your work in a specific facet of a game is now meaningless; someone provided the great example of a "dog in lap% speedrun." Pause and pauseless are not mutually exclusive, even if pausing permitted is taken to be the default ruleset as opposed to the exception.

    3. The GRE permits participants breaks. The SAT permits participants breaks. The ACT permits participants breaks. Are the accomplishments in getting a perfect score on these tests diminished by that fact? Moreover, do we mean to be more strident than the highest and most generalized academic testing standards in the Western world? I ask that sincerely. I'm -not- arguing that just because these exams permit pausing that we should, but raising that question.

    Those exams are also, perhaps, good indications that permitting pausing at least once every two hours is humane, by the way.


    4. If the answer is yes to the previous question precisely what are you gaining in terms of reputability for a participant's accomplishment, and what are you losing with regards to the player's health? In example Y, the professional gaming community gained the knowledge that Participant X was able to set his Puyo Puyo world record across 16 hours with no insidious 10-minute break, but he had to suffer the early effects of dehydration or water poisoning to bring that minor amount of added satisfaction to the community. How do you balance that scale?



    At the end of the day, as mentioned by myself and others, pause and pauseless runs aren't mutually exclusive. I do think "if no indication is given otherwise" than the global rule should -permit- pausing because there is no reason to foster unhealthiness in participants by default.

    You aren't in hostile territory. You are in fact the main reason this is being discussed because of your submissions. The rules that are "known" because we have been around longer but not written have now been exposed. And you are correct as well IMO. So the reasoning for "Its always been that way" is to keep an even playing field. Pausing has NEVER, since TG was established, been allowed under normal circumstances. To change that for any reason now, while it might make sense, actually makes it easier for some of those incredible scores to now be beaten. Stamina/endurance/Will power are huge impacts when it comes to achieving some of these scores. That can't be over stated. That is what makes some of those records so incredible and difficult to beat.

    While I agree the health reasons is a great argument, if you really want to beat a score, you should not be allowed to have it any easier than the other person. Pausing would allow that. The player who did the Puyo Puyo score could have done things differently as well. You can walk around when you play if you choose to for circulation. You can use the restroom while you play....while some may think it disgusting you can use bottles or bed pans. There are ways of doing it IF you really want to achieve that record. Would you do what he did to beat that Puyo Puyo record? That is the point of the record. The record is only as extreme as the player who set the score wants it to be. If they are willing to risk bodily harm, I'm pretty sure that record is going to stand longer. That takes endurance, that takes will power to know your limits.

    I'm not criticizing you or saying you are right/wrong, but you may be overlooking some of the reasons why things where/are done how they have been. When you actually think about "that's how it's always been" over the entire TG lifespan, it makes it more imperative to keep things exactly the same. The failure in your situation is that these long established and enforced rules aren't actually written somewhere. I hope I didn't come of as negative towards you, this is actually all a positive thing.

    LikesSallowDay, MyOwnWorstEnemy, Barthax liked this post
  5. Intellivision Master's Avatar
    If someone's camera falls off the table and he pauses the game to reset the camera; that may be ok.


    But to pause a game to take deep breaths, stretch your legs, gain your composure. Etc.... circumvents what we do here.


    It's not a matter of “let's progress with the times”.... that's a cop-out response.


    It's like saying “let's keep up with the times, and allow corked bats and steroids in MLB”.


    The only people who would vote in favour of blatant advantages are those who want to use said advantages.


    If pausing is allowed, certain members would crush the entire database of records in certain consoles. Then an ascetic would have to be used next to those scores as such:


    * Pausing was allowed on this score.


    I don't want any asterixes. Neither does Garrett or Greg.


    I'm ok if any new tracks have it in the rules: pausing is allowed on this track as follows .... with specific conditions. I'm ok with that.


    If someone gets half my score on Tron Deadly Discs and paused the console four times.... the score is meaningless to me. Achieving a score without pausing is part of the accomplishment. Sometimes it's a major part of the accomplishment.
  6. Desidious's Avatar

    I love how we wouldn't even be here if people didn't just blindly vote in a score with pauses in it. I'm really not wanting to discourage any newcomers because I love seeing new members but I really think allowing pausing is a horrible precedent unless it is specifically stated in the rules. I mean, even when I first joined this site I never once thought that pausing run was a good thing. You can only imagine the runs I've reset because of it.

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy, Barthax liked this post
  7. thegamer1185's Avatar

    The point is still that many rules aren't written. I don't like it, you don't like it, but there is a score in the database with pauses, and Sean's score followed that score. We can beat this dead horse all we want about pausing, but there IS nothing saying you can't. Which is why we are here. We can fix it, or at least put it in the rules (I hope much sooner than later).

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy, Barthax liked this post
  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    I think theres a problem with taking alot of your examples from real life and applying it to competion. in competion the most important thing is a level playing field. its better for 2 players to have the same awful rules, than for one player to have one good rule but the other player even better rule

    obviously in real life if a dirty cop screws over my friend i dont think he should screw me over too. but in competition if a judge makes a crap rule for my friend then it should apply to me too.


    so for me, consistency is important on a track and rules shouldnt change -- verification method can change. you know, at one point photo was allowed now its not, that doesnt truly put a player at a disadvantage cause its verification method not gameplay, and as technology and cheating hcanges verification has to also change to match it

    now we can make new better tracks of course. but i am opposed to changing old tracks. also the "global rules" i think were dumb and never should've been made, but yes now that they're here it would make an uneven playing field to change them.

    we can get both ways of course. we can adhere to a fair playing field leaving rules unchanged while simultaneously evolving. how do we reach these seemingly mutually exclusive goals? with new tracks.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    to further elaborate on competitoin, competition by its nature makes it so theres only one winner but many losers, and everyone has to push super hard to win. any change to make competition easier never truly makes it easier since it affets anyone. any humane argument for breaks doesnt make things any easier since all opponents will have the same options and they will then push the game even further. no matter what rules you make, the top competitors will always have to push things to the very edge of what humans can do. the only way around that is to do something where humans cant push it hard. for example, if you're only allowed run for 3 seconds, no matter how hard you push you arent capable of exhausting youserlf. so you can try to do some things, but in this case a break does the opposite. a break allows further play and further exhaustion -- not that i'm opposed to that, just pointing out that making things safer isnt really so simple.


    oh and as others have echoed dont take this as forbidden territory. argumentation is needed for things. it doenst indicate agression or that anyone is unwelcome, it just indicates that rules are serious business and while arguments might indicate hostility in other areas, here the argument just means its something we all really wanna get right.

    fyi, i was the one that created the track where you have to hold a rescure a pomeranian in your lap, so despite my insistence on not changing rules for existing tracks, i really am very on board with all sorts of new tracks with new rules.

  9. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    While sometimes these arguments may seem like the cop out of "because it was always done this way", it really comes down to every player competing on an equal playing field. Since the database spans many decades, console generations, and game varieties, the 'advantages' from not applying the global rules will vary from minuscule to obvious.

    The real problem is the lack of global rule codification, transparency, and governance. I think the intent for the latest iteration of TG was driven by a motto similar to "for the community, built by the community". I can site a few examples of loosely based community governance mechanisms / features that were implemented with little to poor guidance. Needless to say these things failed and in my opinion, wasted time and resources. OK... now back to the point.

    Since NO PAUSING has long been considered a global rule, how can one gain an advantage by pausing in an older game that's been around several decades. As an example, let's take a game like Pitfall for the Atari 2600 played on an emulator. The tracks being completed on are both perfect scores and time remaining. Without using a pause button, a significant part of the competition is memorizing the optimal path to efficiently collect the treasures at fast as possible. If allowed to pause, a player doesn't need to memorize anything at all. Just print out a map and anytime you need to reference where you are or strategize your next move, pause during a mid-air leap, resume game play until you need to pause again. Players competing on the same game across time with different 'pause' restrictions creates an uneven playing field.

    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that before advocating to change any of these global rules, lets apply it to as many different platforms, games, tracks, etc... to fully understand the impacts to the 'equal playing field' considerations. But first thing first, let's get these rules clearly written and accessible to all that seek it or needs to read it.


  10. Ninglendo's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl

    You know, I think I might be willing to adjust the rules a bit and allow some sort of pause schedule for longer runs.

    What are we afraid of? People using pauses to gain in-game advantages? Well, let's look and see if there are restrictions we can put on things that make sense. For example, as a starting idea - what about a single 10 minute break allowed every two hours? With a requirement that some sort of camera footage existing during the break to both show it's *actually* only 10 minutes (no splicing or the like)?

    No.
    LikesEVN, thegamer1185 liked this post
  11. The Evener's Avatar

    SallowDay, your points about the shadow cast by tradition and the possibility of permitting a global default to use pausing is well taken; but that said, the tradition or practice is there, and certainly the custom here at TG was "no pausing allowed" and I think as MyOwnWorstEnemy and Snowflake pointed out, with already established titles, those scores were adjudicated and performed under the mantra of "no pausing." Now practically speaking, the "no pausing" rule is by and large moot with arcade games and classic consoles (the Atari 5200 might be an exception) until we hit the NES era since that functionality wasn't part of the software. I agree that on titles where we've had possibly years of submissions across time, we'd have to be careful about endorsing a change in rules for gamers competing in 2020 versus 2010.

    That said, on new or nascent tracks in the interim at least, I see no reason why track-specific rules can't be amended to explicitly permit it since the purpose of the rules as others have pointed out are to ensure that people are adhering to the same "game performance" parameters.

    I haven't scrutinized or researched the history of "global rules" and its impact in any meaningful way. Certainly I can see the appeal - have a commonly-understood set of rules about competition that apply across all platforms - a "read once, apply everywhere" approach so you don't have to reproduce the rule set for each and every track. But what began I think as an administrative convenience evolved into something more akin to a view/judgement on what constituted "true competition." Speedrun glitches, shmups autofire, there are probably others - different approaches to competing were generally blocked by "global rules." At least that's my superficial impression - it's fine for a community to say "this type of gamplay isn't permitted on this track according to the track rules," but I haven't uncovered too many historical examples where the TG follow-up was "but if you're interested in competing on this game on those terms, we'll create a new track for that." It was more a case of "sorry, we don't permit that - period." It seemed to morph into a gatekeeping thing on not just rules, but how one truly "competed" if you wanted to be seen as a serious gamer.

    I remember when I first got into Street Fighter II - during my time, the custom was NO THROWS. In SFII, it dealt a surprising amount of damage compared to other moves, so I wasn't completely surprised that this custom evolved. I guess it was "nerfing by player agreement." I played Chun Li, so no throws kind of sucked, but when I immersed myself into the scene, there was no way I was going to be able to play against other gamers without causing an opponent to go tick-throw crazy on me - or worse - if I wanted to ignore that custom. So if I accidentally threw someone, I'd stand there and let them throw me too, and then we'd separate, and start at it again. And they'd do the same for me if they were the offender.

    Years later, I learned that this "custom" wasn't observed everywhere across the continent, and when new players who focused on SFIII dabbled with SFII, they threw like crazy. HEY! That was a meandering sidebar, except to say that I think TG is better when we look at gaming as a big umbrella - different communities will grow up around specific titles or platforms, and whatever rules they wish to codify, whether I agree with the "no throw" or not, TG can and should support that.

    Updated 01-13-2020 at 07:45 PM by The Evener
  12. lexmark's Avatar

    Pausing "for health reasons" is a bad argument!

    Just saying.


    john


    .

    LikesSnowflake, Barthax liked this post
  13. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninglendo

    No.

    I see we're looking at quality discussion of the idea here.

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  14. Snowflake's Avatar

    another reminder, TG creates VERY FEW new tracks. the vast majority of new tracks comes from users. Users are free to make all such new tracks with pausing allowed. i know the "users can create track" mantra has been heavily stated so i'm not trying to be a broken record, i'm just adding to that, that since pretty much all new tracks are user created and not tg created then theres need for global rules for any tracks going forward.

    LikesBarthax, MyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  15. Snowflake's Avatar

    oh and the few new tracks TG has made often come from reaching out to community members to write those tracks -- which again means those members can add pausing allowed.

  16. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl


    I see we're looking at quality discussion of the idea here.


    You basically suggested we make changes to a global rule that has existed forever because one submission that broke the rules got accepted and another one is in adjudication. What did you expect?

    The right way to handle this Puyo Puyo thing is to either reject them both or make a track that allows the pauses and move the scores.

    I'm legit surprised that nobody has disputed the Alvin Garcia submission with the pause. I guess nobody watched it and got burned with a credibility hit?

    LikesSnowflake, Barthax liked this post
  17. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    I kinda like my idea ... just amend the rule set to include "pausing allowed" on that one specific track. That way, no scores would have to moved or disputed. The 3rd place dude can submit the same performance on the newly created track which I will fully fund, and I predict the 4th place dude's sub will be rejected any day now due to his evidence being exclusively replay material, so his spot is irrelevant.

    Likesthegamer1185, Barthax liked this post
    Updated 01-13-2020 at 10:35 PM by Garrett Holland
  18. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett Holland

    I kinda like my idea ... just amend the rule set to include "pausing allowed" on that one specific track. That way, no scores would have to moved or disputed. The 3rd place dude can submit the same performance on the newly created track which I will fully fund, and I predict the 4th place dude's sub will be rejected any day now due to his evidence being exclusively replay material, so his spot is irrelevant.


    The problem I have with that on it's own is that the people who blind voted on the first sub aren't punished for blind voting. Someone should be taking a credibility hit for the Alvin Garcia, the guy literally pauses the game to play on his cell phone at one point.


    You can't stop the blind voting if you just change the rules and protect their credibility when they get it wrong.

    ThanksGarrett Holland thanked this post
  19. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EVN



    The problem I have with that on it's own is that the people who blind voted on the first sub aren't punished for blind voting. Someone should be taking a credibility hit for the Alvin Garcia, the guy literally pauses the game to play on his cell phone at one point.


    You can't stop the blind voting if you just change the rules and protect their credibility when they get it wrong.


    That's a great point that I didn't consider.

    Likeslexmark liked this post
  20. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EVN

    You basically suggested we make changes to a global rule that has existed forever because one submission that broke the rules got accepted and another one is in adjudication. What did you expect?

    The right way to handle this Puyo Puyo thing is to either reject them both or make a track that allows the pauses and move the scores.

    I'm legit surprised that nobody has disputed the Alvin Garcia submission with the pause. I guess nobody watched it and got burned with a credibility hit?

    I did NOT suggest we make changes to a rule. I simply tossed it out there as an idea. Sometimes it feels like merely the idea that maybe something could be changed is enough to get people to react negatively.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Join us