Guild Wars 2

Page and its progress can be previewed here.

Introduction
As most of you may already know, GWSCR.com has stopped working so record runs haven’t been updated for a while. DnT took the initiative to resurrect the project and after some discussion we decided it would be the best to host in on neutral site like gw2dungeons.net.

Goal of this topic is to discuss how this should be implemented and to voice any concerns.

My role
To keep things as neutral as possible and to avoid any drama/suspicion I have left rT. Also I won’t take part in any decisions about rules or records. What I do is run the site, update stuff, make sure everyone does their job properly and try to solve drama stuff.

Other roles
To keep rules updated we need someone to call meetings to decide and write updated rules.

As far as organizing rules updates, Debby and Menno from iV have been doing a good job with it. they have far more contacts than I do, especially with the smaller EU guilds who I have probably never interacted with.

Then we also need people to approve record runs (preferably not the guy who writes rules). I have no idea how many people are sufficient so suggestions are welcome. Also how record approval should work is up to debate. I would prefer approvers to have direct access to the record table so they can update it on their own. But gw2dungeons is static content so they would at least have to know how to use ftp and svn. Not a rocket science but if you have any trouble with microwaves… Another option is to for example entirely rely on me updating the site.

Suggested people: Ravi [DnT], Spoj [rT], Iris [Noob], Rising Dusk [VZ]

Record posting
I think the official forums should be used for record posting and any announcements. This means that there would be no separate forum for records. gw2dungeons would still be used to show the records.

gw2dungeons could have a record-applying form to inform us about a new record. I’m not sure if this is really needed though if approvers regularly use the official forums.

Other stuff
I will later make another topic to discuss about categories and what the site should actually have. I know you guys probably have all kind of ideas but please try to hold on them until we get basics settled.

Please discuss and ask any questions!

Thank you for stepping in for the community Wethospu!

I have poor skills in ftp and svn but I can deal with microwaves just fine, so I would be glad to help updating the records.

Edit:
In addition, in light of what Zui says further down, I should clarify that I wish to help updating record tables, but I am not applying to be part of the approvers since I could be perceived as partial by other guilds.

I guess for validating records, we should either have people from guilds not involved in the speedclear scene but known in the dungeon community, or get representatives from each guild involved in the scene.

In the case of approvers we may have to compromise and allow even people who are involved in records to do the job. Obviously they shouldnt approve records for their own guild if it can be avoided.

Im happy to help with approving. But i have no experience using svn. Is it fairly easy to grasp?

Who can approve records?

Anyone with a familiarity of the paths and with the time and interest. The more important question is who should? I propose the following.

1) Guilds with previous record involvement nominate members who are actually interested and (in the eyes of the nominating guild) capable.

2) Those nominated must have a reputation of acting like levelheaded, rational adults who can remain objective, and who don’t have a grudge against other guilds or members of the speed clear community (no matter how right/wrong they may be). This is to avoid any potential appearance of impropriety should any record ever not be approved for failing to conform to the rules. Certainly, determining actual impropriety (or lack of) in this case is simple, but it’s also simple if DnT were hosting the records, and it seems the whole purpose of moving hosts is to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even if virtually no one fears actual impropriety.

3) A person may not approve a record they are a part of, or the record of a guild for which they are a member (or have recently been a member). Again, this avoids any appearance of impropriety.

Who can edit the records table?

It doesn’t matter that much. I’d say let everyone who is approving records and who is also technically capable do it, while also occasionally doing it yourself for those who aren’t capable of doing it. This keeps the group of people small and exclusive enough to limit potential issues, but also large enough to not put the burden entirely on you.

Record posting

Having a forum or other similar medium specifically for this (without other topics cluttering it up) would be extremely useful. This allows which records still need approval to easily be determined, along with when they were submitted. Especially if all of my suggestions to avoid the appearance of impropriety are used (and I’d be somewhat puzzled if they’re not, if the whole motivation of this thing is to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety), it’s quite likely that records may be approved in a slightly different order than they are submitted. Even if those suggestions are not taken, it’s probable records will be approved in a different order than they’re submitted, just due to path length. In a new meta, if various different people submit a 33-minute Arah story record, alongside a few 3 minute CM records and records for other very quick paths like SE p1,/p3 AC story / AC p1, I’d imagine even if that Arah story was posted first, several of those ~3-4 minute records are going to be approved first, just due to time constraints of the people approving records. I wouldn’t even be surprised if on this forum, that Arah story record gets buried rather quickly and mostly forgotten about if it’s during the holidays or some other time of the year where those approving records are pressed for time.

A forum would also allow the multiple people approving records to communicate if they’re already working on approving a certain record, or whatnot. This forum could serve the same purpose, but I’m not sure everyone here would appreciate a topic being bumped with something that they might consider trivial/unimportant to them.

Furthermore, it allows anyone who wants to see past records to at least browse and find those records easily; this forum gets cluttered with other topics, and lacks a functional search feature (and will probably never have said feature). This could be addressed with website design elements though (like a separate by-path historical records table, which I think would be a fantastic idea).

I dont think having an approval forum is necessary. This subforum isnt exactly bursting with new topics everyday. Assuming we have sufficient helpers records should get approved quite quickly. If a guilds record gets overlooked and forgotten im sure they can bump the thread or contact someone directly to get it sorted. Its also good to have them posted here as its a good place to show off each record and get exposure.

Everything else i agree with. But rather than nomination i think people should just volunteer and then the community can post if they have an objection. Because i really wouldnt have the first clue who to nominate even from my own guild.

Generally speaking things should go fine as long as people aren’t approving their own records. But what is important how we avoid drama and bias calling when something gets rejected. I don’t think the individuals matter that much as long as the whole community is represented. Like one approver from rT, DnT, SC, etc.

So everyone could approve and reject non-related stuff on their own but if their decision gets contested then additional approvers would be used. This could be handled for example by a vote from all non-related approvers.

It would be helpful to know if majors guild have interest of having one approver because if all have one it should be more than enough for our needs.

After that we can see if we need extra persons to manage the record table.

Sounds good. Obviously we should start by moving the current records over. Do you have any idea when you would have the table done? Do you need any help with it or copying entries over?

I will be at work for like 3 more hours, after that I will start working on this. Entries will probably be on a plain text file for easy editing. Once I figure out the format you can fill rest of the entries. Perhaps tomorrow or the day after that.

Nice.

I just had a thought regarding approval forums. As i said i dont think its necessary it can be done in this subforum. But I believe you have a comment section on the about page of your site. Would it be possible to do the same for the records page or maybe even a separate page? Just so we have a place to post a comment directly to the site incase it gets missed here. Im unsure if that would be favourable though. It might make the page look a bit cluttered.

Generally speaking, though, things were fine with the GWSCR solution (before those involved stopped participating), which is currently functionally identical to the [DnT] records system in every respect other than it being on the [DnT] website. The only reason to change the system from what’s already in place on the [DnT] forums is to avoid appearance of impropriety, even in this case where no impropriety has occurred and if any does it’s transparently obvious (and easy to sort out, in the worst and very unlikely scenario, by moving to a different website). And yes, impropriety here is definitely easy to recognize, because video is objective and easy to analyze, as well as the fact the rules are also clear and objective.

If you’re going to re-do the system due to appearance of impropriety, I think you should re-do it not with a system that can redress errors in it after the fact, but which actively seeks to eliminate those errors before they occur. At the very least, if a record is to be rejected, a majority of approvers should second the rejection (which isn’t even onerous, because the first person to review it must have a reason why, and can simply say something like “check 4:38 and you’ll notice the thief uses a hylek pot for swiftness” or whatever), and thus, when actually rejected you can say something like “a majority of our approvers are rejecting this for X”, instead of something like “[possible person you’ve got a long standing, ugly, and public grudge with] has rejected your record because X”.

I’m one of the people who thought this would have gone better on gw2dungeons, before [DnT] (possible bias warning: my current guild) took it over from GWSCR. I’d like to see whatever system of hosting records there is be successful (which is why I’m posting here), but at the same time, I’m not really convinced it’s worth the effort to move from the current hosting setup to gw2dungeons.

Under the assumption that you’ve spoken to the people in [DnT] hosting records and they’ve agreed to let you take over, given the reason changing hosts, I can’t see any reason not to try and create a slightly better system, even if at the core, there probably won’t be any difference, and in any event, I’d be happy to support the system in whatever way I can (even though I really shouldn’t be doing anything, as there are certainly better people than me to fill each role). If you haven’t and plan to set up a competing record site, I have to say that I think that’s a bad idea for the community. Having multiple records websites will possibly divide the community (especially if the rulesets don’t remain unified), and I’m not sure I can really support that.

Maybe this post has veered “off topic” a bit, but I kind of feel like it’s all on the broader topic of a speed clear records solution. Meh.

As far as organizing rules updates, Debby and Menno from iV have been doing a good job with it. they have far more contacts than I do, especially with the smaller EU guilds who I have probably never interacted with.

We have the current rules per the last community meeting on our site and you can feel free to copy paste them. Whenever there is a change to the rules I would have no problem writing them since legal writing is my forte.

I think most minor things like sigil of paralyzation can be resolved with a quick thread here without invoking a major guild summit. Out of regard for people’s time and schedules we can reserve those for perhaps a once a year refresher and/or whenever there is a major change.

The last topic is meta resets. I think that meta resets are likely to be a less and less barring a major balance change. The only thing I could think of that would necessitate a meta reset at this point is ice bow being completely eradicated and/or the game mechanic of dodging being changed or some other major thing like crit damage being removed from the game. In the case of meta resets it should probably be something that the administrator (weth) proposes and the voting is left to guild leaders. In the past the consensus for meta resets has been universal so I don’t really anticipate this being a divisive issue in the future, but I could see how the concept of a meta reset could be manipulated to benefit or hurt particular guilds. So it is something we should be somewhat careful of.

That sounds good for me.

Zui.9245:

—

If you’re going to re-do the system due to appearance of impropriety, I think you should re-do it not with a system that can redress errors in it after the fact, but which actively seeks to eliminate those errors before they occur. At the very least, if a record is to be rejected, a majority of approvers should second the rejection (which isn’t even onerous, because the first person to review it must have a reason why, and can simply say something like “check 4:38 and you’ll notice the thief uses a hylek pot for swiftness” or whatever), and thus, when actually rejected you can say something like “a majority of our approvers are rejecting this for X”, instead of something like “[possible person you’ve got a long standing, ugly, and public grudge with] has rejected your record because X”.
—

If rejection is based on a clear rule break why would you need more than one person? If any approver feels uncertain about any decision they could call in a voting.

And yes, DnT approves this.

I would be more than happy to help with record approving. If it helps, I’ve never been a member of a proper speedclearing guild, although my participation in the first DnT tourney should hopefully show that I at least know what I’m doing. Additionally, I’d like to think I’ve contributed enough over the years to at least be recognized by the dungeon community.

It’s awesome how this community can come together and do something like this. Fractals and dungeons best subforum, keep it up!

Stompy.1387:

It’s awesome how this community can come together and do something like this. Fractals and dungeons best subforum, keep it up!

I completely agree! It is amazing how ideas are like cream: the good one always come on top, once you have stirred enough

Why don’t you use the peer-review system of scientific journals? Let’s say one neutral “editor” receives the record application, stamps time on it, then sends it to three credited anonymous “reviewer” from different guilds to approve it. If the record passes the majority of votes, it will be approved. The record can be posted in public venue even before official approval.

To protect the originality of the record, any subsequent submission from different groups with 80% or more identical tactics will not be accepted within 7 days of the first record.

Well thats kind of a waste of time. As has been said its really only a matter of checking no rules are broken. If something is missed then it can be disputed and then multiple should check. But for standard entries 1 person approving should be enough.

And as lame as copying tactics with no new innovations is. Its completely fair. I dont think we should say you cant take a record by a few seconds just from doing a slightly smoother run.

Interpreting what is and isnt an identical tactic is a recipe for a nuclear bomb of drama.

If a rule is broken it’d be pretty obvious right? I mean “he used a hylek pot” “there’s a minipet” ""He double walled" “Lupi has defiance stacks” whatever the rules are it should be black and white right? Are there any grey area rules?

Shouldn’t it just take someone watching it through once, not seeing anything “ok approved” If someone comes along 2 days later and goes “Hey they broke ruleX at 4:05” it shouldn’t be disputable should it? Maybe i’m just far too nonchalant about it but it doesn’t seem like it should require all this talk.

It’s not about the people who don’t know the rules. It’s about the people who break them on purpose. Unless we enforce each party member to record their view there will be some blind spots. Camera turns left, people drink stuff on right. Or something else subtle like trait manipulation to change utilities.

I’m not saying these things will happen but it’s good to be prepared so everyone knows what to expect.

I would gladly help out with record approving.
I’ve never yet been a part of any record run but I like to think myself capable. I hope that the community deems me impartial and cool headed enough. Although I’m more of a lurker than an active talker here, I can say that I visit this forum daily. I also have a short history of using ftp.

I would not mind helping out as well. I watch all the records anyway, so it’s not like it’s going to be that much extra work for me.
I don’t have much experience in coding (only some very basic stuff), but you said that it’s not really that hard anyway.

If I’m able to do a dynamic record page (as mentioned on the other topic) record data will be on a database. In that case ftp and svn become reluctant and approvers either have to know how to use the database or I make an interface for it (likely). Interface would be a website where you could add, remove and edit entries without any special expertise.

That would definitely be ideal. But we can probably work around it in the meantime.

Since DnT site is functional I don’t see any rush with this. I would say it takes me like two weekends to set this up. Improving current static site and setting up SVN/FTP for everyone (and teaching them to use) would probably take a weekend.

This weekend I will create the database, add some dummy data and create basic dynamic page (will only show current 5 man records). Next weekend I add some basic filters and create the database interface. Third weekend I will polish and fix bugs. I can probably do some stuff during the week too but not going to rely on it.

So current roles and responsibilities so far:

Head administrator
That’s me

• site management (adds features, updates rules when they are decided)
• staff management (appoints staff, manages permissions)
• problem solving (drama, staff issues, site issues)
• calls in rule meeting?
• calls in votes when an record attempt gets contested?
• resets records after balance changes?

Rule meetings
Debby [iV] and Menno [iV] (haven’t asked yet)

• Hosts rule meetings when requested (by head administrator?)
• Contacts people
• Ensures that the meeting goes properly
• Coordinates with the lawyer for updating the rules

Lawyer
Nike (I assume he is posting as hybrid, please correct if wrong)

• Updates the rule text
• Sues people

Approvers
Ravi [DnT], Spoj [rT], Iris [Noob], Rising Dusk [VZ], Snowball [KING], Mhenlo [SC] (amount seems fine for me at this point)

• Tags a record attempt with a post to reserve it (so people see it is being worked on)
• Approves or rejects the record attempt in a clear case
• Requests help in unclear cases (asks other opinions to prevent any conflicts)
• Votes when a case gets conflicted/contested (vote called by head administrator?)

Issues/unclear things:

• Who decides when a record attempt gets contested? Could approvers somehow do it? Should a vote always be done (allows trolling to increase workload)?
• When a rule meeting should be called? Every 4th month? Decided by someone?
• When to reset records after a balance change? Could this be done by approvers if their decision can be contested? How severe nerfs should cause a reset?

Record attempt process

• Make a post on official forums
• Attempt gets tagged by an approver within 48 hours.
• Record gets approved or rejected within a week.
• Anyone can contest the decision with a reason causing approvers to vote.
• Decision by a voting can’t be contested without a 100% proof.

Seems fair?

Yeah seems good to me.

With the unclear things.

• For deciding when something gets contested i think its really just up to the approvers to take notice of it. And obviously they might miss something so if someone else spots an issue they can bring it up in the thread or in private. I dont think we need to plan this particular issue in too much detail as i dont imagine it will happen often and it should be pretty clear what happens when it happens.

• For rule changes i think its probably best to just discuss rules when there has been significant changes. If there has been nothing for a long time. Then i think every 4-6 months should be sufficient. Obviously if there is sudden outcry for rule changes then a meeting should probably be held.

• I think for resets a small meeting should be held or simply a discussion on the forums might be enough. A meeting if its not clear what should be done in all cases. But i dont think this should be held exclusively to approvers. In terms of what demands resets i think the current idea of if it can still be beaten then there is not much need for a reset unless there was a major change to game balance.

Yep, this seems fair to me

Also, I approve Spoj’s opinion.

Hi,

first of all i want to thank you for putting your effort in this and i would also like to help out with record approving

Here is my opinion on some of the unclear things:

Wethospu.6437:

Issues/unclear things:

• Who decides when a record attempt gets contested? Could approvers somehow do it? Should a vote always be done (allows trolling to increase workload)?

I think the approver should be able to reject a record without having to call in a meeting before. A vote could still be called in if someone thinks that the approver made a wrong decision.

Wethospu.6437:

• When a rule meeting should be called? Every 4th month? Decided by someone?

Every 4th month should be fine. If you stick to the idea that every guild has a chance to have a representative in the staff, every member of the community would be able to make a suggestion for a change in the ruleset, which could then be passed on through the representative if the suggestion is well justified.

Wethospu.6437:

• When to reset records after a balance change? Could this be done by approvers if their decision can be contested? How severe nerfs should cause a reset?

Since there are not a lot of balance changes these days, this could be discussed after each patch individually.

The general process sounds pretty fair/well thought out.

I agree with Spoj’s ideas for the unclear/ issued points.