Guild Wars Speed Clear Records

"little deviations"? What about big deviations? Some of the really old records have like one screenshot and in some cases those screens can no longer be found because they were hosted on a shit website. The records were approved, though. Changing the rules for what we accept in the future has nothing to do with the legitimacy of records in the past, because they played by the only rules they knew about.

I guess one could remove that "little".
The more I think about it we can probably just not have those questions voted on - but I didnt want people claim manipulation from my side, so it is good we re talking about it.

Flo wrote:2. I agree with the first part (that the video stuff might be better before the other things) but absolutely not with the second. Thats just your opinion and you re free to vote for whatever you like, but thats not necessarily how others feel. Also, reasonable doubt.
3. This will just result in manipulation. Having "at least 3 months and at least 5 posts in the last 2 years" as a requirement will pretty much exclude nobody while cutting down on manipulation a lot. I am not saying these should definitely be the thresholds, but we need some (either those are others).

(5.) Regarding that old-current-meta-record thread you made: I see absolutely no problem with emplementing that, but one would have to go through every single old record, figure out in which meta they belong, list them and make absolutely no mistake in the process since noone is going to double-check. If you wanna go for that, why not - I am not going to and considering there are still some dungeon/mission records unapproved from two months ago, you shouldnt have your hopes too high that another mod is going to assist you with that.

2. My primary issue is if videos aren't required and at least one of hotkeys/macros/minimap/etc. are not allowed. This is because you'd need a video from the accused person in order to prove that they used some of the latter, which means you'd end up in some perverse scenarios where people can use the latter but not upload a video. In fact, any kind of available proof would be self-incriminating.

Regarding 'reasonable doubt' - you'll need to clarify what you mean by this. Are you saying that 'reasonable doubt' with no proof is sufficient to deny a record? Or that a higher standard of proof is required for players that have used certain third-party tools in the past, so that they are required to post a video for any future records? If the answer is no to both of these, then 'reasonable doubt' is meaningless.

3. "3 months and 5 posts in the last 2 years" excludes some notable players like http://gwscr.fbgmguild.com/memberlist.php?m ... ile&u=1339, as well as people that are on record teams but don't necessarily post much on this site (or similarly, people that push for records but don't post much).

(5.) I was mainly suggesting it for the future if anet makes any further changes requiring a meta reset. It's probably too much effort to implement this for the past, unless someone really wants to do it.

I do not think that video proof and banning hotkeys/macros go hand in hand. - trust system


Reasonable doubt exists when you see something that could be suspicious on a video or screen someone else made.

You can have the registration for the vote like right now, and block any new gwscr.com accounts made after 21.05.2017 and can do a background check on everyone.

Nika wrote:You can have the registration for the vote like right now, and block any new gwscr.com accounts made after 21.05.2017 and can do a background check on everyone.

That would mean ISIS could vote, and it disenfranchises a bunch of people who don't have accounts right now but would make one just to vote. Maybe there are some such people who lurk on GWSCR and are very interested in records, but have not yet needed to say anything.

@Unreal
2. Yeah, you see it that way and I do too. Thats why I ld vote for that everyone needs to have a video. But that doesnt mean other people view it the same way. See Nikas post for example.
3. We need thresholds, else this is going to be just a battle of who can ask the most people that have gone afk for years to support him in a vote that they dont have to deal with the results. The nature of those thresholds is debatable, the existence is not.

@Misty
I think the catch is that "active members of the community" should vote and not "potential active members of the community".

Flo wrote:We need thresholds, else this is going to be just a battle of who can ask the most people that have gone afk for years to support him in a vote that they dont have to deal with the results. The nature of those thresholds is debatable, the existence is not.

@Misty
I think the catch is that "active members of the community" should vote and not "potential active members of the community".

Okay but maybe extend it to at least include people who are current record holders. For example, some of the people on the 8-man UW pre-Dhuum record probably haven't since long after that, but a change in the rules would still impact them. Even now there are quite possibly people taking part in record runs who just don't have an account of their own yet because they've always left it to someone else to post the thread.

Sure, why not, that sounds reasonable.

[(Be registered for 3 months) and (have written 5 posts in the last two years)] or (hold a record).

So @Unreal, that would include "people that push for records" as well (well, at least the moderately successful ones).

Flo wrote:(hold a record).

Step 1. Create new account
Step 2. Post Fronis tie
Granted that may be enough to scare trolls

[(Be registered for 3 months) and (have written 5 posts in the last two years)] or [(hold a record) and (be registered since 20.05.2017)]

fixd