Thank you Spider-Waffle for at least paying attention to what I had to say. I do, in fact, disagree with most of your comments, but I appreciate that you took what I had to say seriously. I say that because, well, yes you have been just a tad dismissive of some other people on here. Anyway, thanks.
I believe you ARE mistaken, and quite a big mistake if I must say so, in fact this seems to be the crux of all your arguments. I think they all fail at this first assumption. How is the current SDA stance of allowing scripted and non-scripted categories a compromised solution? You really need to make a good argument for this first to have a foundation for your other arguments. The way I see it, it is a PERFECT solution, and in no way a compromise. Why is the issue having a permanently divisive status in the community a problem? And if it is why is the only way to deal with it to come to a universal resolution?
Well, actually my main point of my post wasn't that the current SDA stance was a compromise; my main point was that the issue was itself becoming
permanently divisive. The reason I said it was a compromise was because there is a compromise between all-scripts and no-scripts currently at SDA. If there wasn't, well, either all of them for every game would be accepted, or there wouldn't be any scripts of any kind for any game. I didn't mean to suggest that 'compromise', in this context, meant 'half-ass' or anything like that. I was just saying it was a middle road solution between the two opposing alternatives. Now, I don't understand you're second-to-last question. I have to feel that permanently divisive issues, in an ideal world, are resolved. Can we pragmatically resolve this one? Well, I'm not saying we can with absolute confidence, but my post was about reaching what I thought would achieve the next best thing. The universal resolution, I thought, would be helpful since it would eliminate the eccentricities of the problem (such as inconsistency between which games are allowed scripts, which scripts are allowed in any situation, which scripts are allowed in specific situations, etc.) by establishing a completely consistent standard.
>>> A script's popularity at SDA seems to be inversely proportional to the amount it accomplishes on the player's behalf.<<<
I wouldn’t agree, I’ve had tons runners interested in my jumping or 180 scripts, but none in my weapon change scripts. Maybe your statement is true for people who know nothing about scripts, but for people who play games in which they were intended to be used are used by the majority of players this is far from the truth.
Well, what you're saying may or may not be true. I'm not arguing that, really. What I am saying, though, is that the current
SDA climate seems thoroughly unsettled about the matter, and I think it is worse now than it used to be. That is to say, more people seem to be complaining about scripts than at least when I joined the site three to four years ago. It was just an observation.
Fortunately, this inherent problem can easily be solved by regulating scripts, not the community its self hasn’t ALWAYS done an adequate job of this anyway.
I don't understand this comment as it relates to the portion of my post to which it was responding. Basically, what I was saying was that scripts seem to be causing more stress in the SDA community, again by an observation of complaint, and I think the reason for that is because scripts are becoming so excellently used that people are becoming uncomfortable with what they are allowing to be done in the published runs. Not all people, of course, but the ones I am talking about. And if the scripts are causing more dissatisfaction from those members when they are being used more efficiently, that sounds like a problem to me. Usually, it's when something is used inappropriately, corruptly, or inefficiently that they become rejected, but in this case it seems to be the other way around. That's what I mean by that. I hope that makes sense.
1. I think this is mainly because the pro-scripters are sensible enough and nice enough not to try to unnecessarily impose their dogma onto people who side differently. I wish the same could be said about the non-scripters. If you really want me to could I make a good argument as why games which were designed to be played with scripts shouldn’t have non-scripted categories. I’m nice enough to let you have your own category I don’t agree with because it does little to no harm to me.
Fair enough. I allow that the scripters being more passive about the argument is entirely possible. Truthfully, I don't really believe that, but I doubt I could disprove it. As for the second part, well, I'm sure you could, but I don't think SDA would ever accept that argument into changing its mission. If you produced such an argument, that is, chances are despite any amount of quality it is not going to be enough to provoke SDA into such an arguably radical change, so I don't believe that kind of argument is necessary for our discussion.
2. Even if scripts weren’t allowed it wouldn’t be hard to make an agreement as to why they should be. Look at death warping or “mysterious teleportation”, these weren’t allowed but were successfully argued into SDA. Mainly because these are a regular part of playing the games. Scripts are the same way. The games were designed to be played with scripts, from the first day of their release players were writing and using scripts in regular game play. This is how the games were supposed to be played and are played by the majority of none-noob players. Take TFC for example, I guarantee you that at least 95% if not 100% of the high level players use multiple scripts at least 20 times a minute during their regular game play. To not allow something this highly used and accepted by the community that plays the game because people who know little nothing about it and never play the game have a contradictory dogma is simple outrageous. It would be very easy to argue scripts in if they weren’t all ready.
I'm actually glad you mentioned this, since I had neglected to do so. You see, the reason I think scripts would be difficult to argue in is not because arguing-in-things is more difficult than arguing-them-out, abstractly. I'm saying that scripts are difficult to argue into the site because they are a larger step, being that they are not part of the standard game, than glitches or death abuse, although before I continue it should be noted that certain glitches and death abuse faced, in my opinion, quite a lot of turmoil while making their way into the mainstay of SDA. I'm not denying that much at all. And, that fact does support my point that arguing scripts into the site, where they weren't allowed initially for example, would be difficult,
just as it was difficult for those other two categories. Now, back to the main point here. I
know you disagree that scripts are a larger step. The reason I feel this way is because glitches, death abuse, and other things can occur completely by accident while playing game, or that is to say without any intentions by the player. Scripts, on the other hand,
must be activated by the player and therefore are more synthetic or are less a natural part of the game. I'm not saying that makes them worse or anything like that... just a bigger step away from the package that is just the game itself. I know you feel that scripts are every bit a part of the game as the rest. However, I think this is the reason that death abuse and warping glitches were eventually accepted by the majority of the community, whereas scripts are now being contested more than I think they have been in the recent past. (I say recent because I'd like to address SDA's infancy, which you commented on, later in this post)
3. I’m very curious as to where you got your stats from. These numbers seem to be manifested simply through your own arbitration and judgment. I really don’t think there is any proof for this key premise to your argument. Again it’d be easy for pro-scripters to go from 10-90 to 50-50 as demonstrated in 2. I think you see less pro-scripters arguing because scripts are already widely accepted and they have no reason or desire to impose their dogma onto a community they know little to nothing about. Unfortunately for SDA and the speedrunning community, anti-scripters are a little different.
That's exactly where they originated... I just made them up. I was using 50/50 just
for the sake of argument and to be fair to both sides of the issue. However, I must disagree that this was a key premise. Anything less landslided than 90/10 or 10/90 would have worked for what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if that was misleading.
4. This isn’t true in any sense. Scripts were let in after Nolan, the creator and owner of the site, gathered the opinion of the community and researched what other speedrunning communities and sites did with scripts. After serious contemplation, he made intelligent, just decision as to the policy of scripts with the betterment and best interests of his site in mind.
Why do you not you not think scripts have been a part of the vision of SDA past it’s infancy? It’s kind strange you use infancy here as scripts weren’t even introduced to SDA until after it had been established for about 2 years. New runs come out that use scripts all the time, runners in the community have been sharing and cherishing scripts all this time. To say that SDA is losing support of scripts is completely arbitrary and I would say fallacious as well.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that I did not know that. I honestly thought that, with Quake SDA being the way it is, that scripts had to have been allowed since SDA's infancy. And just so you know, I was here long before Radix left, so I'm not completely assuming everything about where SDA came from. However, I certainly could have been mistaken about it's first couple years. If I was incorrect, I'd appreciate it if others could verify this. I am willing to rescind the argument, as I once said.
I don’t think anyone is making arguments which attempt to plead an audience to accept scripts, when scripts are already widely accepted. Nice try at a straw man though.
That was probably the one comment that angered me slightly. I'd appreciate it if you do not start speaking of me like I'm a philosophical charlatan.
I don't believe making that argument was erecting a straw man, because when I said that pro-scripters seem to be making arguments to plead an audience to accept scripts, all I meant by that was that they were
opposing people who wanted them removed. So, they have to make cases for the allowance of scripts at this site in order to defeat their opponents. I wasn't trying to say that pro-scripters were 'begging' or anything loaded like that. As well, it is just not my opinion that scripts are widely accepted (if widely accepted means what I tend to think it means... accepted by a clear majority of people at SDA, for instance).
1. You don’t seem to counter this argument but merely say it’s weak. I agree, it isn’t the best. I think to make it better you need to bring in the entertainment aspect of the argument and the fact that speedrunning and its popularity are highly based off entertainment value. This agreement doesn’t claim there’s nothing wrong with scripts but merely points out their big plus side to speedrunning.
Well, I guess we have a tenuous agreement here, then. I'm not currently getting into the entertainment="good" or entertainment="not what counts" debate, so I have no further comment here.
2. “is 'making it easier on yourself' possible without scripts?” Yes, yes it is. Take for example a turbo joystick, this makes things much easier on you and it isn’t a script. Take for example wiring a key on your keyboard to give two inputs. These accomplish the same things scripts do, people prefer scripts instead because they’re much easier and logical to use and there’s no good reason not to. Yes a human can’t assist oneself in this sense, but hardware can. So certain scripts really do allow for what is possible by a human and common/easily modified hardware (I don’t know why I need to repeat this so many times, I must be doing a terrible job at explaining it), and I feel any scripts external to the game should fit this bill, as they do.
I have to agree with ShadowWraith on most of your points. I am not a fan of turbo-anythings, nor of wiring a key.
But, those things are incidental. My biggest issue with this comment is: "Yes a human can't assist one's self in this sense, but hardware can. So certain scripts really do allow for what is possible by a human and common/easily modified hardware." The first ten words of this sentence really close the book for people who take the less compromising rule of, "No scripts." Now, I know it does
not close the book for you, but my third paragraph's argument is that the pro-script argument is more compromising in its philosophy than "No scripts." The entire sentence I've quoted from your post seems to really reflect that. I'm not saying you have to accept the third major point I made about the compromising nature of pro-scripting arguments. I'm hoping, though, for the sake of non-scripters like myself, that it is persuasive to others, and that's all. And yeah, as Shadow said, comparing scripts with modified hardware is probably not an association I'd want to make around here, either. Either 1) the cleave between your side and my side will grow even further [yes, I know it may be too late for a remedy for this] and/or 2) The more doctrinated rules (such as no hardware modification) will become less associated or reconcilable with your stance, which will hurt your arguments.
3. Yes you have a resolve a negative to get a positive, unless you argue that this is not worth the positive this premise serves no purpose.
The purpose is only one: to establish that the pro-script stance begs for a compromise between a negative and positive, whereas the "No scripts" side does not. This makes "No scripts" stronger because it must account for less loss in attaining its benefit. Now, before someone says it, I am not considering "Losing scripts on SDA," or "Losing speedrunners who use scripts," or "Losing any and all scripts entirely from SDA" a
negative against the benefit of "Rule simplicity." The reason for this is because, first of all, a similar negative could arguably still occur in the "Allow Scripts" scenario, but also because the negative, in this case, is a bystander. When I am using negative in regard to pro-scripting arguments, I mean a negative-against-the-suggested-benefit... for example, in order to allow some scripts, we have to disallow others. To allow scripts for some games, we may or may not have to disallow them in others, or disallow them if they come from the wrong party. On the other hand, the negatives with losing scripts are usually not aimed at the very agenda of the "No Scripts" rule, but are rather aimed at the SDA demographic, the SDA accessibility, or even the SDA popularity, or some other thing which is not conflicting with the rule,
itself. If I said, "No scripts," and suddenly a problem came up like, "But every single game already has scripts and we can't get rid of them all and still be able to play the games," that would be a negative. Of course, I made that problem up as it doesn't exist, but it stands as an example for the sake of illustration.
4. You say the argument presents several compromises. You list one saying when you first install the game it doesn’t come with the scripts already. The other ones you must have hidden somewhere as they’re not jumping out at me.
To address the one that’s spelled out clearly allow me to make an analogous argument. Suppose I wanted to argue that using non-default configs should be banned. I could point out just as you did that it’s possible for someone to own the game and not have non-default configs, thus by allowing non-default configs you have made a minor compromise. And I actually have seen someone post on SDA who had this firm belief. It’s clear some compromises are worth it. The .01% of people it compromises probably couldn’t make a good enough speedrun to compete anyway. It’s really a non-issue.
Agreed, which is why I said it was very minor. However, my point isn't that this problem 'exists' therefore it can't be overcome, but rather it 'exists' therefore it at least creates more of hole in the stance (as infinitesimal as it may be) than in the alternative, "No scripts," which has none whatsoever. Does .01% win the battle? No, I don't think so either. I was just pointing out the mere fact that it existed, basically.
5. “hazard suit powers” “the difference between actual in-game abilities and external ones” Do you even know what you’re talking about? Scripts are a set of input, they can offer nothing external to the game.
Okay, maybe that one frustrated me a bit, too. Yes, I do. Not as much as you, I'm sure, but I know that scripts are a set of input. My point was that they are
different from something which is in the game as perhaps a hazard suit power (for instance) which is not a script. For instance, IF Half-Life came with the ability to bunnyhop
as a power of the hazard suit, or however Valve chose to explain it in the Half-Life universe, that would be one thing. But the fact that they didn't.. that a script was made for bunnyhop... means that there is a difference between the two.
6. “First of all, the very nature of this argument is to surrender to our incapacity to detect scripts, even if they are arguably wrong.” Remember the prohibition didn’t work, this is the exact same thing. “That's like saying we can't detect all crime, so we should ignore it.” Not ignore but legalize and accept. “But on top of that, if its influence is minimal, that's all the more reason to prohibit it since its benefits will hardly if at all outweigh its compromises.” I can assure you, an undetectable turbo script offers enormous benefits. “Thirdly, if a script is impossible to detect but greatly influences the run, then we may be helpless to fight this (though, I suppose we could demand a 5-10 minute video demonstration from the player to at least help verify authenticity if the verifiers are suspicious enough)” SDA already has this policy and fortunately script users are honest enough to submit to the scripting category. Should someone submit a similar run to the non-scripted category then we would need to use this policy. “but that doesn't mean we approve of it.” Your dogma might not, but SDA does.
“And fourthly, SDA claims to be a trusting website, so we still have the option to say 'No scripts!" and hope for the best.” I think the vast majority of us know that wouldn’t go over too well. Before I came along and forced radix to make a decision on scripts runners had already submitted runs using scripts without any mention. It’s simply bad policy to make rules you can’t or won’t enforce. This strictly rewards dishonesty.
Well, Shadow already mentioned one problem with this. I don't understand how legalizing and accepting can correct
crime if we are accepting that crime as a whole is indeed morally wrong. As for the prohibition: one of the reasons the prohibition didn't work is because
having alcohol probably should not be considered morally contemptible. Now, before any history buffs out there jump in, yes, I know that the
practical issues of the prohibition were really what destroyed it, but what I'm saying is that the reason the practical issues themselves existed at all was because most people did not concur with the belief that merely having alcohol was morally contemptible, or at least weren't confident that it was contemptible enough that it should be outlawed, which is why so many, many people working together, in secret, or whatever caused ubiquitous practical issues in the enforcement. Now, again, before any pro-scripters jump in to say that what I just said is
also the case for scripters, realize that I already understand the parallels. My whole point is that forfeiting to "Allow scripts" because of the practical difficulties of the alternative presents an inherently
weak moral argument, because it is asking the audience to accept a negative (having scripts when
for the sake of argument we don't want them) for a positive (...none really). Since the positive is all but absent in this scenario, we are in fact dealing with a forfeiture, which is not really an argument as much as an agreement to accept something we don't like as if we can do nothing about it. And while there are practical issues, many in fact, it is not true that we can do nothing about banning scripts (I'm not saying that we should, just saying that we could do at least a
few things about it).
When you said that an undetectable turbo script offers enormous benefit, that's fine, but it is not relevant to my proposition. I'm saying undetectable scripts which offer
minimal influence are such-and-such, so a turbo script which offers enormous benefit is not on topic.
As for your third point: I know, I was just saying.
As for your fourth point: No, I'm not saying SDA doesn't agree with it officially. I'm saying, again for the sake of argument, that the pro-script argument fails (that they are undetectable) because, IF we decided to ban scripts, it wouldn't matter that we might not be able to detect them, because in that case we
would still disagree with it in principle, which is all we need as a trusting site to proclaim, "No scripts." And carrying on this line of thought, to what you said next (that we shouldn't promote dishonesty by trusting people when we might not be able to always enforce the policy of 'No Scripts'), I partly agree with you, but it is not my decision to make this site "one that trusts." However, Mike and whoever else have been saying repeatedly that they try to be one, so the practicality of the issue (in between when there is no scripting at all and when it is so obvious that people demand video authentification) is not a closer.
While your arguments are vastly superior to the ones put up by 13 year-old kids knowing very little to nothing about scripts who think we need multiple reminders on every page of this thread that SDA isn’t TAS videos, they still seem to have very fatal flaws. If I were you I would just be thrilled to pieces I even get a non-scripted category.
Well, I appreciate that. I disagree with the last sentence, but I appreciate the good will.
