Guild Wars 2

Description

Simple voting system has been added to http://gw2dungeons.net/Voting. Each week I will create a discussion topic on forums and add relevant polls there, if needed. Guild leaders are given an account which can be used to vote. Polls stay up for one week.

Guild leaders can apply for a vote by sending me your preferred login name and reason why you should have a vote (was in previous rule meetings, have records, etc.) via in-game, forums or email. Optionally you can also give me your email so I can send a reminder about new polls if there hasn’t been any for a while.

Current vote holders:

• Daemoniic [HeX]
• Enko [LOD]
• Deathly [qT]
• Skywalker [TDN]
• Der/p/y Moa [vC]
• Ashlee [geek]
• Jerem [SC]
• Nikephoros [DnT]
• Sanderinoa [rT]
• Veckna [QQ]
• Senior Magic [iG]

Keep in mind that anyone is free to give their opinion and ideas on this topic!

Results of week 24 voting

Since any exceptions were voted against (and because of last week’s discussion) I checked current exception list. I reverted two path specific bans because they aren’t based on rules. This will probably be changed next week so I wouldn’t base your runs on this.

So now:

• CMP3: Using the air guns against bosses is allowed.
• Arah: Using reflects on Lupicus’ wall in phase 2 is allowed.

90% agreed to allow abuse of path selection so ArahP3 door trick (and AC exp burrow) remain allowed. A rule has been added to allow this.

67% agreed to allow being past blockades if you get there before they close and 70% agreed that blockades don’t have to be opened. These slightly contradict each other but as mentioned last week, the former will overrule the latter. Rules have been modified to clarify this.

Definition: A pathway is open if it can be passed without jumping or using skills. A pathway is blocked if it’s not open but can be opened.

Technically this means that jumping on the CoE gate is allowed but you can’t jump down before the gate opens. If this feels problematic please let me know.

100% agreed to require path completion on unrestricted ruleset. This requirement has been added to all rulesets for symmetry.

I was also requested to give a broad statement about the restricted rule set to make sure every voter is on the same page. I have chosen “Restricted ruleset is what you want it to be.” because that’s the only one I can realistically enforce. If anyone is found voting “not how he wants”, his/her voting rights will be revoked. You have been warned.

Issue1: NPC manipulation

People have figured out that they can manipulate NPC behavior by waypointing or by killing the NPC. In some cases this can be used to skip NPC dialogue to speed up the run. Currently abusing of event scripting is banned which can be understood both ways.

A) Allow NPC manipulation to break/skip dialogue

• Also makes triggering dialogue not mandatory
• Less restrictive

B) Don’t allow

• Also makes triggering dialogue mandatory (this can be refined later if needed)
• More restrictive

I’m not aware that NPC manipulation would have been used to break cutscenes, yet. So a similar question about cutscenes. Currently rules state that “All cutscenes within a dungeon that are relevant to the path must be triggered.”

A) Allow NPC manipulation to break/skip cutscenes

• Also makes triggering cutscenes not mandatory
• Less restrictive

B) Don’t allow.

• Keeps triggering cutscenes mandatory (this can be refined later if needed)
• More restrictive (keeps the current rule)

Issue2: Banning behavior

Currently there are two kind of bans. Either a specific player action or a specific result is banned. For example entering inside a geometry is banned even if you didn’t gain any advantage. Similarly bugging bosses is banned regardless the way you do it.

But there is one more kind. Banning a specific action with a specific result. For example abuse of path selection. Currently it affects both ArahP3 gate and Arah exp burrow. But if it only affected “mandatory events” it could be made only affect ArahP3 gate.

A) Allow banning a specific action with a specific result

• Allows fine tuning the rules (which may slow down the process)
• Complicates rules

B) Keep actions and results separated on the rules

• Keeps rules simple

Issue3: Exceptions

Reopened from week 22 with a good reason (see replies below). So what to do with encounter specific rules (exceptions)?

A) Decide case by case with voting. Allows exceptions.

• Exceptions may override main rules

B) Wethospu decides based on rules.

• No exceptions. Encounter rules are just for clarifications.
• Allows “wall on wall” on Lupicus
• Allows using air guns against bosses in CMP3

C) Same as A) but exceptions can’t override general rules

• Exceptions may only take care of special cases.
• Rule changes may lead to conflicts with exceptions which have to be resolved

Can we vote on aoe manipulation in upcoming weeks? there wasn’t any other reason when we originally made that rule other than people felt it was cheesy or unintended.

For fractals on Urban Battlegrounds, you can get rid of the path specific content since the new definition for a barrier includes what the comment’s concern is.

For HotW P1 comment about standing behind the stairs so Aldus can’t hit you, can this be removed since rule 11 already covers that?

umm wtf?

So we had a community meeting that specifically banned wall sploiting Lupicus and now it’s unbanned? kitten that kitten. What the kitten is going on with this community? This is out of control.

The community voted to ban that, it should be banned. Understand that your job here is to follow the will of the community.

Its slower to wall sploit him so theres not really any point complaining about it or banning it.

spoj.9672:

Its slower to wall sploit him so theres not really any point complaining about it or banning it.

Is it slower to wallsploit him in trio tournaments? Or Duo Records?

Oh!

Maybe I thought about it a bit harder than you.

Yeah and with the air gun thing we allowed that in trio/duo/solo but not in full groups. We also allow things like consumables in trio/duo/solo. They are naturally a bit more cheesy due to their nature.

Weth gave a reason for removing it. People voted for him to decide exceptions based on rules. Im sure we can create a rule which covers stuff like this.

Besides it might get fixed next patch. :P

When did we vote again to allow wall exploit on lupi? How is this allowed now wtf.

It was clearly banned on the last ts meeting so keep it like that same with the gun on Cm P3 too , its allowed in solo/duo but banner in trio/quadro/5man.

I feel like making exceptions and inconsistencies across different party sizes makes it more difficult and confusing for people than it really needs to be.

Thats the whole restricted ruleset in a nutshell. Confusing and inconsistent. x)

spoj.9672:

Thats the whole restricted ruleset in a nutshell. Confusing and inconsistent. x)

Weirdly it was really clear and didnt require weekly tweakings before your guild took over managing it.

NikeEU.7690:

umm wtf?

So we had a community meeting that specifically banned wall sploiting Lupicus and now it’s unbanned? kitten that kitten. What the kitten is going on with this community? This is out of control.

The community voted to ban that, it should be banned. Understand that your job here is to follow the will of the community.

Umm well this was kind of the stuff I was trying to mitigate for future things last week because a lot of the stuff we had decided in previous meetings was getting thrown out the window.

Most of the stuff we had decided in previous TS meetings was predicated on the basis that we were trying to avoid most things people thought were exploits or unintended since what we as a community back then decided. We don’t have anything like that now.

Well, why should Lupi and CM P3 be allowed again?

If ppl want to change it do a vote on this topic aswell. Or keep it banned, imo.

Well, I sadly cannot participate in your next trio tournament Nike because I refuse to be seen on stream wallsploiting Lupicus. Sorry. :x

OT: I don’t understand why rules would be added or removed randomly like this if we all voted for them to be banned in the first place…? Surely they were banned to begin with because we did not want them to be done in group settings/record runs.

EDIT: Ah now I see.

Guys look at the old polls. There was this question:

“How to decide encounter specific rules? (expired 06/08/2015)
A) Decide case by case with voting. Allows exceptions.

B) Wethospu decides based on rules.

C) Either way is fine.

A: 4 (44%), B: 5 (56%), C: 0 (0%),"

So it is no wonder this happened. I wasn’t the one who voted on this poll otherwise I would have personally voted A.

R.I.P. my fault for not bothering to look at the poll. :/

Enko.6123:

NikeEU.7690:

umm wtf?

So we had a community meeting that specifically banned wall sploiting Lupicus and now it’s unbanned? kitten that kitten. What the kitten is going on with this community? This is out of control.

The community voted to ban that, it should be banned. Understand that your job here is to follow the will of the community.

Umm well this was kind of the stuff I was trying to mitigate for future things last week because a lot of the stuff we had decided in previous meetings was getting thrown out the window.

Most of the stuff we had decided in previous TS meetings was predicated on the basis that we were trying to avoid most things people thought were exploits or unintended since what we as a community back then decided. We don’t have anything like that now.

It’s one thing to do voting to resolve a new tactics / issue that has never risen before. But now we are in the realm of reversing on a whim things that were determined and voted on in community meetings. This is ridiculous.

I agree with Nike. Why is this even changed?

Of course it’s nice to have a ruleset that is consistent, but I’d rather have rules that are inconsistent if they are fun, fair and competitive opposed to consistency at all cost. I don’t know why people suddenly have a problem with things that have been like that since I started being interested in “hardcore” PvE, it’s fair to have a discussion about it as we progress in the game. But why would you change an entire ruleset or its point. (At least that’s how I understand this discussion)

As others before me said, allowing Lupi Wall is simply put a bad idea.
We voted on it previously and we agreed on banning it.
Allowing it again will just lower peoples interest in low man records and future trio tournaments.
There’s already not enough competition, making it worse isn’t gonna help anyone.

spoj.9672:

Yeah and with the air gun thing we allowed that in trio/duo/solo but not in full groups. We also allow things like consumables in trio/duo/solo. They are naturally a bit more cheesy due to their nature.

Yea air guns and comsumables shouldn’t be allowed in solo/duo/trio.
Although I doubt that anybody doing solos/duos actually cares about getting GWSCR’s stamp of approval.

NikeEU.7690:

spoj.9672:

Thats the whole restricted ruleset in a nutshell. Confusing and inconsistent. x)

Weirdly it was really clear and didnt require weekly tweakings before your guild took over managing it.

Yeah except its not my guild and i have pretty much no control over the rules. Im just vocal about my opinion and happen to be volunteering to help with records. Also my opinions dont necessarily represent the whole of rT or even the guild itself.

There are a lot of things in the rules i dont agree with. If I really had control over it you would see some pretty radical changes. :P

Besides people agreed to vote on issues. And when Weth brought up the proposal for weekly votes he recieved no feedback. It wasnt until the votes happened that people got involved. If you want to blame someone blame the communities lack of feedback.

I find no flaws in the logic of Wethospu.

What he presents here is simply the implications of the voting that took place in the weeks before. If anything, it is great that he points out so clearly the changes that our voting entails. He is provoking a reaction. Now it is only our responsibility to act if the implications of our voting do not match our conception of the rule set.

We can reopen our past votes, or we could vote on additional rules, that build upon what we already decided, in order to shape the scene to our liking. All we need to do is design a rule that bans wallsploits on Lupi.

I find this unfair to blame Weth for doing his job with such assiduity. Reshaping a constitution is a bumpy process but it is also a democratic process: we can only blame ourselves.

(also, Nike, rT is not managing anything here … * sigh *)

I agree with everyone else here. Wall reflect bashing GL is very cheesy and the only reason it hasn’t been fixed in-game is because it takes a much greater amount of development effort to fix than ANet can spare. No, it’s not as easy as moving his projectiles to flying out of somewhere else, nor is ANet okay with making his spells look like crap to fix the issue. They also, apparently, don’t want to make his projectiles unblockable. This should be banned in records.

I don’t really care too much about the Wahlen thing one way or the other, so I’d default to the guilds’ perspective. As far as I’m concerned, auto-killing GL is equivalent to intentionally bugging GL based on my understanding from ANet.

NikeEU.7690:

Weirdly it was really clear and didnt require weekly tweakings before your guild took over managing it.

I feel compelled to point out that Weth is not in [rT] any more. He left before taking up his current role of managing the records and takes their input no more or less seriously than that of other guilds.

I have opened the poll about exceptions if people feel like changing their mind.

Alternatively you guys can think of general rules to ban wall on wall. I personally won’t suggest anything which may mess up the rules too much.

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

I find no flaws in the logic of Wethospu.

What he presents here is simply the implications of the voting that took place in the weeks before. If anything, it is great that he points out so clearly the changes that our voting entails. He is provoking a reaction. Now it is only our responsibility to act if the implications of our voting do not match our conception of the rule set.

We can reopen our past votes, or we could vote on additional rules, that build upon what we already decided, in order to shape the scene to our liking. All we need to do is design a rule that bans wallsploits on Lupi.

No one said his logic was wrong. The problem is the the micro-management is atrocious. We don’t need to re-write the rules. The rules have worked well for the last two years with one meeting every 6 months or so to iron out specific issues, somehow in the last 25 weeks we have managed to create a “logical” ruleset nobody is happy with that have completely muddled the goal here.

As cheezy said, we don’t need or even necessarily want 100% consistent rules across all paths. We just want a ruleset that everyone agrees upon, is competitive and is fair.

It stretches the imagination to believe that when people were voting last week that they understood that what they were really voting for was allowing the Lupicus wallsploit. This feels to most of us like a “gotcha” thing designed as some bizarre trap. And Weth can say, “you voted, I am just administering the rules pursuant to that” but the fact is that Weth set the agenda in the first place by bringing to a vote issues that people didn’t even necessarily want or need to address.

Wethospu.6437:

Alternatively you guys can think of general rules to ban wall on wall. I personally won’t suggest anything which may mess up the rules too much.

We already had the rule. Stop fiddling around with the rules.

It wasn’t a rule. It was an exception.

It was actually voted first week. My initial plan was to let them be but I was told to “Actually hold to the ruleset that’s decided.”.

NikeEU.7690:

It stretches the imagination to believe that when people were voting last week that they understood that what they were really voting for was allowing the Lupicus wallsploit. This feels to most of us like a “gotcha” thing designed as some bizarre trap. And Weth can say, “you voted, I am just administering the rules pursuant to that” but the fact is that Weth set the agenda in the first place by bringing to a vote issues that people didn’t even necessarily want or need to address.

I dont really feel like this is a bad thing. It brings to light the exact issue some of us tried to raise in the past. If you want complex rules but you also want us to stick to the ruleset then you are going to see things which dont work together consistently. Admittedly this is a rather forced example because its based on a standalone exception and not an exception to a specific rule.

spoj.9672:

—

Admittedly this is a rather forced example because its based on a standalone exception and not an exception to a specific rule.

I actually hadn’t thought about that. So a third option which would allow exceptions as long as they aren’t against main rules.

I added a third option to the exception poll.

NikeEU.7690:

No one said his logic was wrong. The problem is the the micro-management is atrocious.

That’s good because none of us is actually micro-managing: only Weth does that kind of work.

Don’t tell me it’s atrocious to click on a few buttons to vote once a week …

And look, Weth just suggested a rule change that solves everything. Where is your “this is out of control” now?

It resolves nothing. Why are we voting on things every week? Why did the rules only need occasional semi-annual meetings to keep running smoothly before but now need weekly updates that no one is happy with? Why is there an urge to create a ruleset without path specific clarifications when by all accounts the rules using them worked well? All of this reeks of too much meddling and trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Well it’s very close to breaking now after all the tampering.

Nah it was close to breaking when we didnt know whether to approve things or not because the rules didnt cover most of the stuff being used in recent records.

Im really greatful that Weth is putting so much work and effort into this. I know ive felt like abandoning ship a few times and i dont even do much at all. Praise is deserved for his efforts. Especially when hes so quick to resolve issues quickly without compromising and giving in.

I really do think discussing things and formalizing whether or not some things are okay is good. The killing NPCs thing is a good example. I always felt it was fair game, but some other approvers saw it as breaking events and so we discussed it and really made no headway. Having that be voted on would be great.

I also think formalizing whether that Molten Furnace leap was allowed was a good idea, although I totally would have just made it a path specific allowance instead of rework other rules to allow it.

In principle, Nike, I completely agree that once we get stuff that works to leave it alone. We don’t need a vote every week to refine something. I also don’t want to see that suddenly GL wall reflecting is allowed; that shows a serious disconnect with the voting body.

Purpose of voting is decide issues people have brought up. I’m not just deciding random issues just to mess everything up. During this year, I have got lots of feedback about different things, pretty much every rule has been questioned.

I know it’s always annoying when things don’t go as one would like but that’s something everyone (including me) has to deal with. If people were happy with how things are, then the voting result should reflect that.

Obviously there has to be some stability because if things go back and forth it’s pretty much same as having no rules at all. But I don’t see issue with voting about things which have been decided long time ago. Also I think it’s better that we do this now instead of over an year / after expansion.

I know some probably see this voting as a pretty slow and inefficient way to decide things. The main reason for that is that I have done this extremely slowly. I have expected people to vote carelessly without putting too much effort on thinking about the consequences. If you vote “consistency over gameplay” then that’s what you are going to get.

Wethospu.6437:

I know it’s always annoying when things don’t go as one would like but that’s something everyone (including me) has to deal with. If people were happy with how things are, then the voting result should reflect that.

Its another thing when the rule in question is innocuously worded, and then when it is approved you come out with “ok well as a result of last week’s vote wallsploit is legal.” Nobody wants wallploits to be legal. It’s a joke that you guys (and by “you guys” it’s rT just look at the cast of people defending this, or is that a coincidence?) don’t understand how mismanaged it is. You are introducing uncertainty into a system where there previously was none, and then use that uncertainty to justify further meddling.

But I don’t see issue with voting about things which have been decided long time ago.

Because there was no impetus to do so? No one was looking to revisit wallsploits in restricted runs. No one was looking to revisit consumables, jumping puzzles or any of the rest of the general rules that were brought up for votes. If there was some community outcry against these things (besides Spoj) it would make some sense, but basically no one else was interested in revisiting these.

I know some probably see this voting as a pretty slow and inefficient way to decide things.

No, it’s just tedious revisiting issues over and over again. Especially when no one in the community can understand why if we all hate the changes that the changes are happening.

NikeEU.7690:

It’s a joke that you guys (and by “you guys” it’s rT just look at the cast of people defending this, or is that a coincidence?) don’t understand how mismanaged it is.

Yes it is a coincidence. And 4 members of rT posted in this thread. Me and Zelyhn were just backing up the logic behind Weth’s decision. That had nothing to do with defending it. And the 3rd member was Miku who doesnt agree with it. And Element didnt comment on lupi.

You need to stop with the paranoid delusions. Or do you like conspiracy theories that much?

I know im not involved in this at all…but it just seems i dont know..wrong to allow exploits in speed runs with a restricted rule set..period..no matter what they are.. Outsider perspective for ya, do with it what you will.

“If there was some community outcry against these things (besides Spoj) it would make some sense, but basically no one else was interested in revisiting these.”

well actually i had someone /w me that he/she is not satisfied with how the rules are atm and that some changes have to be made and this person is from DnT aswell, so i dont think that the whole community thinks that the old ruleset is fine

just a sidenote dont mind me

This is the kind of stuff having a basic statement that said Restricted ruleset was for runs that complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended.

Wethospu and Nike both made it clear last week that they felt it was pointless to have a general framework to set the mindset of the rules.

Did not expect it to come to a head this quickly with things like Lupi wall one shotting and air guns being allowed but this is the kind of stuff I was trying to prevent.

NikeEU.7690:

Nobody wants wallploits to be legal.

Correct.

No one is arguing in favour of legalising wallspoits.

So you should thank Weth for pointing out the contradiction that resulted from a vote in which you took part. Now this contradiction has been identified, a possible solution has been presented, and we can move forward.

_

You took part in the votes. Everything that is happening is your responsibility as much as it is that of anyone else. I know that you have a tendency for autocracy, but this is a democratic process, so things will be subject to debate until they properly reflect the will of the community. In fact, I find that this very discussion is an evidence of the good health of our system.

As for your recurrent conspiracy theories, please have some dignity. This is no place for petty antagonism.

As for your recurrent conspiracy theories, please have some dignity. This is no place for petty antagonism.

oh

my

sides

Enko.6123:

This is the kind of stuff having a basic statement that said Restricted ruleset was for runs that complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended.

Wethospu and Nike both made it clear last week that they felt it was pointless to have a general framework to set the mindset of the rules.

Did not expect it to come to a head this quickly with things like Lupi wall one shotting and air guns being allowed but this is the kind of stuff I was trying to prevent.

You specifically wanted that poll reopened so you could vote against exceptions, which changed the outcome. And now you act surprised that exceptions were removed?

I kind of understand why you would need a guideline to tell how to vote.

Wethospu.6437:

Enko.6123:

This is the kind of stuff having a basic statement that said Restricted ruleset was for runs that complete most if not all of the dungeon as it was intended.

Wethospu and Nike both made it clear last week that they felt it was pointless to have a general framework to set the mindset of the rules.

Did not expect it to come to a head this quickly with things like Lupi wall one shotting and air guns being allowed but this is the kind of stuff I was trying to prevent.

You specifically wanted that poll reopened so you could vote against exceptions, which changed the outcome. And now you act surprised that exceptions were removed?

I kind of understand why you would need a guideline to tell how to vote.

You had the vote that we all were voting on everything without regards to the rules. It was basically throwing all the rules out. The only other option was for you to decide on rules. Your broad statements that are on opposite ends of the spectrum are part of the problem. You obviously didn’t read what I had posted on why I said we should have baseline rules and then people vote on the exceptions to those rules when they were needed.

The rules all created previously were predicated on a broad statement that the dungeons were to be done as intended which is the big thing that has been changed yet you all seem to think this is minor and didn’t matter. The Arah wall one shotting and the CM P3 air guns were both banned because people thought they were either cheesy and/or that was not intended. You guys got rid of that. Were there some exceptions that were still allowed like the Arah p3 door skip because during the TS meetings, the majority of people voted yes to it? Sure but generally everything was viewed through the lens of “should this be considered intended or not”.

I made very clear arguments last week which you obviously chose to not read them and then just claimed that nothing mattered. I was not asking for a guideline on how to vote. I was asking for a general statement that stated the intention of Restricted. You are the one who chose to toss that aside and you were the one who decided to turn Restricted into a Free For All. You are reaping what you have sown.

These keep getting better and better

Really though I think it is pretty conspiracy theory level to claim that [rT] is doing anything in any organized fashion to game rules. I’ve worked with Weth on this enough to know that it is literally just him doing this stuff. If you’ve got a problem with the system, that’s fine, but don’t make the mistake of convincing yourself it’s some plot to take over the ruleset.

Who knows?

Maybe we are powerful enough to bend the laws of logic!

Maybe we are planning a long term take over of all the records by introducing sneaky rules that will somehow advantage us only!

Fear us! We are everywhere and we are sooo powerful!

If you take the last letters of illuminati it’s a “t” and an “i”, and “i” is graphically very close to an “r”, so illuminati is very close to rT. Coincidence? I think not!

Also, this is the crucial point of the rule deciding, because it’s the apex of the problems around the rules/voting system.

On one side, we have voting, which is bypassing rules by voting exceptions, therefore saying we have no rules, but exceptions. The rules are what the majority thinks is convenient.

On another side, some ask for consistency. Consistency is following a set of rules, and we either have loose rules, like Enko said in the Week 24, or strict rules that bring out more and more exceptions.

Either choose between voting for exceptions and basically throwing away rules or defining what kind of rules you want for the community:

(1) Strict rules that create a need for exceptions but cover every single case
(2) Loose rules that create freedom, creativity and a bit of rage
(3) Restricted = Unrestricted (with votes!)

And follow them, or clusterkittens will repeat themselves.

As one of the most active members of rT I can reassure everyone that the majority of us were too lazy and distracted to even sit through the last meeting, let alone care about monopolizing the administration over records.

We’ve been labeled as inactive for a reason you know. Most of our players are just waiting on the expansion.

Wethospu immediately left rT when he took on his role that he has now and while he used to be a part of the guild it’s a thing of the past now. Please don’t make baseless claims about us trying to take over the records. We actually disagree with each other on quite a few of the rules.

Eh to be honest, I didn’t even remember that Wethospu was part of rT until Nike mentioned it in this thread.

You couldnt really consider him a member even before he left. He was just still on our guild roster.

Zelyhn Lekovitch.2867:

Who knows?

Maybe we are powerful enough to bend the laws of logic!

Maybe we are planning a long term take over of all the records by introducing sneaky rules that will somehow advantage us only!

Fear us! We are everywhere and we are sooo powerful!

If you take the last letters of illuminati it’s a “t” and an “i”, and “i” is graphically very close to an “r”, so illuminati is very close to rT. Coincidence? I think not!

Your guild also just made a record run. That can’t be a coincidence. How long have you been planning this? 6 months?

Enko.6123:

You had the vote that we all were voting on everything without regards to the rules. It was basically throwing all the rules out. The only other option was for you to decide on rules. Your broad statements that are on opposite ends of the spectrum are part of the problem. You obviously didn’t read what I had posted on why I said we should have baseline rules and then people vote on the exceptions to those rules when they were needed.

The rules all created previously were predicated on a broad statement that the dungeons were to be done as intended which is the big thing that has been changed yet you all seem to think this is minor and didn’t matter. The Arah wall one shotting and the CM P3 air guns were both banned because people thought they were either cheesy and/or that was not intended. You guys got rid of that. Were there some exceptions that were still allowed like the Arah p3 door skip because during the TS meetings, the majority of people voted yes to it? Sure but generally everything was viewed through the lens of “should this be considered intended or not”.

I made very clear arguments last week which you obviously chose to not read them and then just claimed that nothing mattered. I was not asking for a guideline on how to vote. I was asking for a general statement that stated the intention of Restricted. You are the one who chose to toss that aside and you were the one who decided to turn Restricted into a Free For All.

There was no option to keep current rules. Why would we vote for changes if the point was to have no changes? If you don’t understand the options you should use the discussion topic and ask for a clarification.

Yes, if you keep making multiple lengthy posts it’s very easy to miss something. But that’s pretty much same as my approach. Instead of voting about a rule, you vote about some cases and then I deduce a rule from that.

Only reason why exceptions were removed was because you (and some other people complaining on this very topic) had voted against exceptions. That has nothing to do with the broad statement.

Yes, I read your arguments but did you read mine? Did you answer any of my concerns about how your idea would practically work? No, you kept posting the same thing over and over and then started complaining how no one reads your posts. Basic reddit level discussion.

You are reaping what you have sown.

That’s a quite interesting perspective considering you are doing these speedruns. You need this service, not me. You must be extremely confident that DnT can handle this better than I do when you are so openly against the system.

NikeEU.7690:

Its another thing when the rule in question is innocuously worded, and then when it is approved you come out with “ok well as a result of last week’s vote wallsploit is legal.” Nobody wants wallploits to be legal. It’s a joke that you guys (and by “you guys” it’s rT just look at the cast of people defending this, or is that a coincidence?) don’t understand how mismanaged it is. You are introducing uncertainty into a system where there previously was none, and then use that uncertainty to justify further meddling.

Only mismanaged thing I see is people (intentionally?) voting what they don’t actually like or taking discussion away from real stuff with conspiracy theories and other pointless stuff.

Because there was no impetus to do so? No one was looking to revisit wallsploits in restricted runs. No one was looking to revisit consumables, jumping puzzles or any of the rest of the general rules that were brought up for votes. If there was some community outcry against these things (besides Spoj) it would make some sense, but basically no one else was interested in revisiting these.

As I have mentioned before, I have got lots of feedback during this year. Almost every rule has been questioned. Also if no one wanted to revisit rules then the voting result should reflect that. rT has only one vote.

No, it’s just tedious revisiting issues over and over again. Especially when no one in the community can understand why if we all hate the changes that the changes are happening.

I would say tedious is me spending hours each week managing this stuff only to have some people trying to blow the whole thing up.

Wethospu.6437:

Yes, I read your arguments but did you read mine? Did you answer any of my concerns about how your idea would practically work? No, you kept posting the same thing over and over and then started complaining how no one reads your posts. Basic reddit level discussion.

Umm I actually replied to your posts when you said anything . .. I even gave examples of suggested wordings on rules, suggested restricted ruleset intent statements, etc. Again, I just get the feeling you didn’t read any of them if you’re making this statement.

Wethospu.6437:

That’s a quite interesting perspective considering you are doing these speedruns. You need this service, not me. You must be extremely confident that DnT can handle this better than I do when you are so openly against the system.

I don’t think anyone minded when gwscr.com was running it or when DnT was posting it on their forums.

I am not openly against the system. I am openly against approved records that aren’t held to the posted ruleset or everything else that I mentioned during the Week 24 discussion thread. Again, are you reading the posts at all or ignoring them?

i dont understand this drama. as soon as HoT is released nobody will care about dungeons or speedruns anymore.