Guild Wars 2

Exactly my point.

PS. It was necessary to debate that one because of molten facility.

Enko.6123:

Well a lot of this is stemming from the fact that we don’t have an overall framework to describe what Restricted vs Unrestricted is supposed to mean. This is what I was discussing a few weeks ago when you basically told me that I was full of hot air and my arguments were incomprehensible to you.

As it stands now with Restricted being “whatever you want”, there’s no reason to have what seems like random rules. With things going the way they are, we probably do just need to have a voice comms meeting to get this hashed out and resolved before we go any further.

I still don’t understand how that would prevent people voting from what they want.

NoTrigger.8396:

why do you feel like the voting is necessary? a meeting was held to decide stuff. a meeting was held so you dont have to vote every single week.
i think its pretty clear what should be allowed and what shouldnt.

apart from that, when HoT is released people will either quit the game or will be busy with the new challenging group content.
so why do you make it more complicated instead of leaving it the way it was decided in the meeting?

Enko.6123:

With things going the way they are, we probably do just need to have a voice comms meeting to get this hashed out and resolved before we go any further.

there were multiple meetings in the past. someone will always come up with the most kittened excuses to change the rules for no reason.

then you will have a meeting and the majority will vote against your ideas. its a waste of time, just like the weekly voting.

Instead of voting, I can dictate the rules too. That would be much simpler for me, and the rules would actually be as I wanted.

Relying on meetings had caused a backlog of issues, which is pretty much the reason we have been voting so much. In my opinion it tells something about the state of rules if no one else but Nike know what they mean.

Also it’s important to keep in mind how messed up the dungeons are. If we had someone to patch in the exploits, we wouldn’t have to discuss/decide so much.

I really doubt you see my point then. Let me try again.

1. The application of the rule is as important as the drafting.

2. Whoever is making rulings on particular records needs to be very careful in the application of the rules.

3. “Don’t go out of bounds” should be very clear and easy to apply

4. Who was it that approved the molten facility record?

Like we said before. We can go and reject every new record for the last few months. But the record scene would be even more dead than it is now. People clearly dont want as many rules as they think they do. Its only when certain rules effect them do they actually care.

Besides that was an issue in itself simply because the record posters thought it was fine and within the rules.

“Don’t go out of bounds” is clear and easy to apply, as long as there is one person dictating the rules. If that’s what you guys want, I don’t mind.

By the way, is there something wrong with the current rules? At least from my perspective it’s more clear than what we had, and gameplay is about same.

i sure do love having long boring pointless debates because people like to rp bureaucrats rather than just sticking to the way things used to be

Note: Im typing on a mobile keyboard so there may be some grammatical errors.

Ive been pretty quiet towards these threads as I dont really like the direction they take but I have some issues I’d like to address.

I understand the intentions and ideas behind the concept of weekly voting, but I feel like we are nitpicking on every tiny item. Isolating miniscule issues creates a lot of unneccesary debate and personally for me, lots of confusion in terms of what is now deemed acceptable and not acceptable.

It seems like new material needs to be found for these discussions each week and that should not be the structure behind them. In my opinion, these threads should only appear when a huge issue arises. Our record approvers should do the rest in terms of figuring out the minor issues which may or may not pass our standards.

On that note, I think we should revert our rulesets into the standard:

(Rules adapted from dtguilds.com tournament thread)

1.) No use of hacks or 3rd party software that allows players to perform acts that would be impossible without said means. This includes but is not limited to speed hacks, fly hacks, no-clip, teleporting.

2.) The records timer starts when any party member activates a skill or moves their model. This includes but is not limited to: taking a step, turning, jumping, etc. Using emotes will not result in the timer starting.

3.) The timer stops when the final boss of the dungeon has been killed.

4.) All pathways that are designed to block progress through the path must be opened. You may not have any party member(s) get past blocked passages until the required sequence/dialogue has been completed. Pathways that are open temporarily may be bypassed before they become sealed, i.e. Arah Path 3 door and Ascalonian Catacombs Story Mode gate.

5.) Consumables (excluding food/nourishment) and costume brawl items are banned. Use of any of these will result in your disqualification.

5a.) Event items such as the birthday blaster and other items are banned out of fairness of availability.

6.) If any party member(s) at any point enter ‘out of bounds’ on a dungeon map, the time will be void.

7.) If it is evident that your party has deliberately (or otherwise) abused positioning to disable a boss, your time will be void. This means safe spotting a boss, or bugging its AI to disable it.

8.) Deliberate abuse of event scripts is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, manipulating event spawns, disabling event mechanics, etc. All cutscenes within a dungeon that are relevant to the path must be triggered. NPC dialogue can be skipped or bypassed.

9.) No use of gem store boosters/items. This includes, but is not limited to, Strength boosters and Armour Boosters or Costume Brawl items.

10.) Party members may not switch character once the timer has begun. If a player disconnects, he may rejoin the run in progress however he must rejoin on the same character.

11.) Any disputes will be handled at the record staffs’ discretion. Staff decisions are final.

12.) Compression of AoE hitboxes by moving, blinking and/or dodging is banned.

If any particular issues or scenarios pop up, the record staff are more than happy to address them. After all, by dealing with things in a case by case mindset we have created various path specific rules.

Once again, I am not saying that I disagree with refining the wording of our rules. I personally believe reverting back to our previous ways will clear up confusion and stop the need for weekly debates.

The very point of voting is to figure what things are acceptable. Instead of voting, I can decide it on my own too. But so far people have pretty adamantly avoided any option with “Let Wethospu decide”.

Ironically I didn’t have any polls for the next week (just like the last two weeks until new issues came up) but looks like we need yet another poll on how to refine this decision making.

But no matter how things are decided, there will never be a ruleset which would make everyone happy. Only way to guarantee a good ruleset is to dictate it on your own (which lots of people seem to try), but it won’t necessarily be good for the community.

At this point, why not just use the Unrestricted rule set with the addition of rules 5, 7, and 12 from the current Restricted set?

This basically means that any interesting tactics you can come up with are usable, no consumables beyond food and utility, no breaking out of map or through geometry, and all relevant cutscenes need to be triggered (ie progress blocking content isn’t just being bypassed).

The rest of this stuff we’ve been arguing would all pretty much be allowed because we’re capable of pulling it off and that’s pretty much what a speed record is.

Rules 8 and 10 were still around when Restricted still meant we were avoiding things we thought Anet woud consider exploits so why are those still here since that’s not what Restricted means anymore?

Wethospu.6437:

I still don’t understand how that would prevent people voting from what they want.

I don’t understand how you don’t see why there should be a general statement on wtf Restricted is supposed to mean. One of the biggest reasons why people are having problems with how you’re running things is that you dismiss pretty much what other people say.

If Restricted ruleset just means whatever we want, then that just equal what the Unrestricted set is.

If we have a simple statement that says “X” ruleset is how fast we can do dungeons with everything and anything available in the game, then that means one thing and people understand the context of the rules they’re voting on.

If we have a simple statement tat says “Y” ruleset is how fast we can do dungeons with avoiding exploits, then that means something different and people understand the context of the rules they’re voting on.

Leaving it as you want where Restricted is just “whatever you want it to be” is why there’s so much confusion about what the rules are trying to do.

The reason why people are voting with however they want is because we don’t have any kind of context on what the rules are supposed to be. When these were hosted on gwscr.com, there was a context to why there was a Restricted vs Unrestricted ruleset and why we had two separate ones. With what’s going on now, Restricted means nothing because you have made it just mean whatever.

So what are records supposed to present?

If we had something like a simple statement like this then we all at least have a contextual understanding of what the rules are supposed to go for:
Showcases excellent gameplay, ability, and getting best times possible.

If we had a statement then when we’re deciding on rules, then we can see if it lines up with that or not.
Consumables makes a lot of game mechanics moot such as stealth kits, etc which is mainly why they are banned.
Bypassing content through goating or breaking out of maps doesn’t show your ability beyond jumping which is why it is banned.
Safespotting a boss so their AI breaks and they just end up standing there while you beat on them doesn’t showcase gameplay which is why it was banned.
Using gemstore or time exclusive items aren’t available to everyone for fairness reasons which is why they are banned.

See my point yet? We don’t have any contextual understanding of what the rules are supposed to be because there is none beyond whatever you want.

Saix.4126:

Our record approvers should do the rest in terms of figuring out the minor issues which may or may not pass our standards.

Not to belittle your wall of text, but this is an important point I want to drive in on.

I am totally okay if record approvers can dictate what is and isn’t okay without a vote, but the problem is that when we’ve done this, non-approvers have argued with us and made big deals out of it. If you, the voters, want to give us, the approvers, the flexibility and ability to simply make decisions like this on our own then that’s great and we’ll happily do that. That would resolve almost all of the votes and we won’t need weekly polls. But what that does mean, however, is that we will be able to simply tell off people who disagree with us because you’ve given us the authority to have the final say. Is that what you, the voters, want? If not, then these polls are useful because they give you all the ability to decide what flies.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Saix.4126:

Our record approvers should do the rest in terms of figuring out the minor issues which may or may not pass our standards.

Not to belittle your wall of text, but this is an important point I want to drive in on.

I am totally okay if record approvers can dictate what is and isn’t okay without a vote, but the problem is that when we’ve done this, non-approvers have argued with us and made big deals out of it. If you, the voters, want to give us, the approvers, the flexibility and ability to simply make decisions like this on our own then that’s great and we’ll happily do that. That would resolve almost all of the votes and we won’t need weekly polls. But what that does mean, however, is that we will be able to simply tell off people who disagree with us because you’ve given us the authority to have the final say. Is that what you, the voters, want? If not, then these polls are useful because they give you all the ability to decide what flies.

I think this would have been fine except some records were approved that had rule violations in it so its more of a matter of the approvers going by the listed rules.

As for the discussion going on now, the stricter the rules get, the less creativity teams are allowed to employ which is going to lead to people not bothering.

Enko.6123:

I think this would have been fine except some records were approved that had rule violations in it so its more of a matter of the approvers going by the listed rules.

As for the discussion going on now, the stricter the rules get, the less creativity teams are allowed to employ which is going to lead to people not bothering.

I do agree with this. To be honest I couldn’t understand why there was even a need to vote on the Molten Facility Ride The Lightning thing as it was being used to get to an yet unacessible area and therefore is classified as “Out of bounds” or/and even “blockade bypassing”.
Two of the most fundamental rules of the “original” restricted ruleset.
The rules need to be what they are and people should just play accordingly rather than attempt to customize them everytime they find a new thing to show and that would require the rules being bent. I can understand the voters’ perspective as it’s a heavily timegated instance and anything to make it quicker probably feels like a good thing but it still doesn’t justify allowing it when it’s clearly disallowed by fundamental rules that have, for as long as I can remember, been a part of the restricted ruleset.

Point being, the poll system is a very nice concept but ultimately given how opinions differ between voters and how petty issues have been put under a microscope it has not been very successful.
I’d be more than okay with giving the power of decision to the approvers and attend meetings whenever there are significant issues that need to be discussed and agreed on.

Veckna.9621:

Enko.6123:

I think this would have been fine except some records were approved that had rule violations in it so its more of a matter of the approvers going by the listed rules.

As for the discussion going on now, the stricter the rules get, the less creativity teams are allowed to employ which is going to lead to people not bothering.

I do agree with this. To be honest I couldn’t understand why there was even a need to vote on the Molten Facility Ride The Lightning thing as it was being used to get to an yet unacessible area and therefore is classified as “Out of bounds” or/and even “blockade bypassing”.
Two of the most fundamental rules of the “original” restricted ruleset.
The rules need to be what they are and people should just play accordingly rather than attempt to customize them everytime they find a new thing to show and that would require the rules being bent. I can understand the voters’ perspective as it’s a heavily timegated instance and anything to make it quicker probably feels like a good thing but it still doesn’t justify allowing it when it’s clearly disallowed by fundamental rules that have, for as long as I can remember, been a part of the restricted ruleset.

This is exactly what ive been saying all along. People dont know what they want. They bend the rules when they come up with something new that they think is cool. But if its something old its “no, ban it”. Its a complete joke and i honestly cant take people seriously anymore.

The whole reason some of these old questionable tactics were banned in the first place was because restricted was supposed to be to play the dungeons as close to the way they were intended as possible. That idea for restricted stopped being the case a long time ago and now its just play whats fun (because noone gives a kitten what anet intended anymore). So theres not really any point in having restricted anymore. It should just be how it was before with the big issues covered.

A universal ruleset that bans the big 3 issues would give plenty of freedom and creativity but would also be quite restrictive towards major exploits. So; no gem store items, no consumables and no breaking out of the map or moving through geometry. If anything seriously major surfaces, like skipping half the dungeon without getting out of the map, then we can revisit.

If people are still insistant on the constant customised ruleset (no idea why they would be). Can we at least have unrestricted follow this ruleset? Or get a 3rd ruleset for it. Id actually just like to see an open poll for those 3 rulesets. Or a survey of what people dislike/like about each ruleset and why they will/wont compete with it.

I think people would be surprised at how popular a middle ground ruleset would be. I personally know a lot of people (and im not talking about rT members) who are silent on the issue but agree restricted goes a bit too far. And unrestricted is too open so it has very little competition and people worry about their rep by posting heavily exploited runs.

Kinda funny how we are all told to be proud of living in a democracy, and up till now mostly voted for more democracy in the ruledesigning. And then there are those who endlessly quarrel, because there is now democracy.
We voted about nearly every aspect of this process, so how about stopping and accepting it?
We are now mostly voting on problems that got discovered just last week, so i would say this is actually a lot faster then the old method of calling a meeting. Especially since we have a whole week to think about the problems and discuss possible further issues that may arise out of the proposed solutions.

Artemi.1437:

We are now mostly voting on problems that got discovered just last week

Taking this week as an example, I see three issues that are being voted on.

The first issue is regarding resetting for the 6/23 patch. This occurred more than two weeks ago, and we knew it was going to be a very large change well before the patch hit.

The second and third issues are about immobilizing or otherwise slowing down bosses that are attempting to reach a trigger point. People have known about these for well over a year (and I’m being conservative on the timescale here).

We aren’t “mostly voting on problems that got discovered just last week”. We are mostly voting on things that Weth feels are things that aren’t adequately indicated as either legal or illegal within the framework of the current ruleset; most of these things have been known about for a long time, but no one ever bothered to bring them up before.

Atleast tournament is with the “right” ruleset, before things got crazy. Everyone knew of those issues for such a long time. For example immo, traumanova ooze this is known for atleast half a year now, why do we discuss it then, since no one cared back then?

BlackDragon.3752:

Atleast tournament is with the “right” ruleset, before things got crazy. Everyone knew of those issues for such a long time. For example immo, traumanova ooze this is known for atleast half a year now, why do we discuss it then, since no one cared back then?

Because no one came up with a record in that particular fractal…
Since now vC came up with a great strategy on Fimbul it is an issue.

inb4 1shotting legendary imbued shaman gets banned. Btw, i am pretty sure that it wasn’t intended to phase-skip Lupicus.

What SeniorMagic says.
And with the reset: Just last week we decided we wanted to do a vote to see if the changes are significant enough. Meaning the current problem of reset or not to reset, got discovered last week, because of our decision

Veckna.9621:

—
Point being, the poll system is a very nice concept but ultimately given how opinions differ between voters and how petty issues have been put under a microscope it has not been very successful.
I’d be more than okay with giving the power of decision to the approvers and attend meetings whenever there are significant issues that need to be discussed and agreed on.

Petty or not, it’s still a matter of whether a record gets approved or not. I realize it’s annoying to get effort wasted but there is no guarantee that letting me or approvers decide would end up with a more favorable result.

I’m curious how do you define success? The rule set is about the same as before, few clarifications there and there so I know what they are supposed to mean. The failure (“endless quarrel”) is pretty much about people not getting exactly what they want. So every week we have people making long posts about the ultimate solution, “do as I say, it makes sense and works the best”.

BlackDragon.3752:

Atleast tournament is with the “right” ruleset, before things got crazy. Everyone knew of those issues for such a long time. For example immo, traumanova ooze this is known for atleast half a year now, why do we discuss it then, since no one cared back then?

Could you guys at least take the rule set prior this whole voting? Instead of cherrypicking decisions you agree with it?

Just reinforces what I have suspected. The issue isn’t about the voting, it’s about getting decisions people don’t like. As far as I know, there is no solution for that.

Yes, one “strength” of previous approach was that people didn’t really express their opinions, so everything felt nice and good. Now when more people show what they like, it should be pretty evident that choosing the best option has never been trivial.

• These rules are subject to change at any time so it is advised you brief yourself with them each time before you post a record. *

So are you guys also going to make your own record leaderboard?

I find this system really inconvenient because I have to worry about the rules changing every week, so I don’t feel like I know what is and what is allowed like I once did. My personal opinion is that the ruleset was fine before the weekly voting, and that it’s just getting worse and worse as the weeks go by because too many people don’t agree with the ruleset changes based off of the majority votes. I don’t think only Wethospu should decide on rules either.

I am in favor of just reverting to the rules decided from that last gwscr meeting.

I have to say I agree with spoj, as a spectator I want to see what people can do. I know DnT did a run where they finished Arah2 without actually “finishing” the dungeon, just killing Brie. It just seemed kinda lame to me, showing the flaws with the idea of the unrestricted ruleset. Now had they split up, had someone soloing or duoing Lupi while they completed the other bosses and got a fully complete run, well, that’d actually be pretty darn cool. Truly the full complete run as fast as possible.

As it is with restricted, things are a bit dull. Some paths have some cool tricks, others are just going really fast through a strait forward situation. It has it’s merits and I don’t want to detract from them, but every time someone does something neat it comes under question.

At this point I can’t help but think that there should be “tournament rules” reverted back to what they were before all this voting, pretty strait forward stuff. And a “speed run” ruleset of pretty much "must get the completion chest of the dungeon, timer ends on boss kill, last part to nullify those pesky delayed completion situations.

Lets see what you all can really do, and have a ruleset for competition that’s a bit more limited such that it doesn’t become “if you fail this jump you lose.” Of course hacking, glitching out of the map, and TP items become troublesome so I’d take those out of the full speed run ruleset.

But, that’s just my spectator wish.

Purple Miku.7032:

I find this system really inconvenient because I have to worry about the rules changing every week, so I don’t feel like I know what is and what is allowed like I once did. My personal opinion is that the ruleset was fine before the weekly voting, and that it’s just getting worse and worse as the weeks go by because too many people don’t agree with the ruleset changes based off of the majority votes. I don’t think only Wethospu should decide on rules either.

I am in favor of just reverting to the rules decided from that last gwscr meeting.

The only reason we have voted weekly is because rules were so subjective. If you think rules have changed much since then, that should tell something about the subjectivity.

When rules are subjective it’s easy to think you know what they mean. If that had truly been the case, why did I receive questions about “is this allowed?” and “why is that allowed?” on about weekly basis?

Do you think more people would agree with the decisions if we based it on a minority? Even with a clear result like 6-3 it’s quite normal to have lots of people complaining about the result. This is often called as a vocal minority. People tend to open their mouth when something is wrong instead of when something is right, so it’s easy to jump in conclusion that “no one likes the results”.

I think it’s a good time to review this voting process as most of the stuff has now been decided. And reverting the progress is definitely a worth-while option for that. Though I have to say I would resign in that case since I don’t want to go back to that kitten when spending so much effort to get rid of it.

Wethospu, whether people approve of the results of the voting or not, I think they provided a great service. It highlighted the issues with the whole system. How fickle and hypocritical it was/is. How split the community is on different rulings. I really hope you don’t resign if people want to just go back to the old ruleset, frankly it was more simple, open to interpretation but in that allowed some wiggle room. There is something to note there. You may not keep your record but you wouldn’t lose it for month because the discussion only happened rarely. I’m sure that was nice for people.

Personally as I said before, I wish people would drift to a more open ruleset where they could really showcase what is possible instead of confining themselves to setting records within a system of simply “doing it better” in a lot of cases. But as I said before, that’s my desire as a spectator and not a guy doing the work, so I understand if people don’t want that.

I agree to Miku we should just revert the rules to the last meeting and have a meeting every few months.

Jerus.4350:

Wethospu, whether people approve of the results of the voting or not, I think they provided a great service. It highlighted the issues with the whole system. How fickle and hypocritical it was/is. How split the community is on different rulings. I really hope you don’t resign if people want to just go back to the old ruleset, frankly it was more simple, open to interpretation but in that allowed some wiggle room. There is something to note there. You may not keep your record but you wouldn’t lose it for month because the discussion only happened rarely. I’m sure that was nice for people.

Personally as I said before, I wish people would drift to a more open ruleset where they could really showcase what is possible instead of confining themselves to setting records within a system of simply “doing it better” in a lot of cases. But as I said before, that’s my desire as a spectator and not a guy doing the work, so I understand if people don’t want that.

The only issue I see is people thinking that the system is broken because they can’t dictate the rules. And then somehow changing to something else would suddenly make everything better.

If you want a simple rule set with some wiggle room, I suggest the following:

1) Only legit stuff is allowed.

Sure, we can go back to the old but it would interpreted pretty much same as the current rule set.

No discussion doesn’t mean records couldn’t be lost. I could dictate that immobilize trick breaks the intention of rules. No discussion, a record lost.

I completely agree, thing is in the old ruleset and system, you’d lose your record every 6 months not every week when you stretch the rules

I honestly think you’re doing a great job, thing is people don’t seem to like the rules to be under such scrutiny. You’re clarifying it all to create a real ruleset, and people don’t seem to want that. They want the vagueness without having to admit to it being vague. People are kittening weird like that

ibf4 “the old ruleset was completely clear and not vague at all, that’s why we never questioned things that people are questioning now!”

When something comes up I don’t think there exists any kind of a “middle stage” where you could just let the thing be. It’s either allowed or not allowed. Similarly either the record gets approved or rejected.

I can make the decision instantly which may lose a record. Then my decision can be reverted on a meeting which either restores or loses records.

With current approach, within a week we have a decision which may lose a record.

For comparison: Within a week, a record may be lost in both cases. Within months, the former may lose multiple records.

Wethospu.6437:

Petty or not, it’s still a matter of whether a record gets approved or not. I realize it’s annoying to get effort wasted but there is no guarantee that letting me or approvers decide would end up with a more favorable result.

I’m curious how do you define success? The rule set is about the same as before, few clarifications there and there so I know what they are supposed to mean. The failure (“endless quarrel”) is pretty much about people not getting exactly what they want. So every week we have people making long posts about the ultimate solution, “do as I say, it makes sense and works the best”.

I never really claimed to have the perfect solution, nor is there one as far as I’m aware. It’s impossible to please everyone but as Miku mentioned above all these changes just create confusion. Most of the tweaks that have been made through weekly polls have either smothered people’s creativity and disallowed strategies that were never before questioned or flat out broke the principles of the ruleset to allow new ones.

I’d define success by returning to a situation where everyone was crystal clear as to what restricted meant and rather than even give people the chance to blur the lines between restricted and unrestricted by putting issues up for voting records that wouldn’t fit the bill would just be classified as unrestricted.

I’m all for striving towards perfecting the existing rules and fine tune them to cover every applicable situation but instead we’ve been adding to the existing rules and at this rate I fear things will just keep getting more confusing and with the ever increasing amount of tweaks and exceptions added to restricted it will just keep getting closer to unrestricted in some regards and become overly restrictive in others.

Could you mention a change which “flat out broke the principles of the ruleset”? And also elaborate what are these “principles”?

Most of the added rules have just clarified what the rules actually mean. Most (if not all) real changes are from issues before I had even mentioned voting. They would have been resolved in some way, even without voting.

I don’t know a better example of “I have an opinion” than mentioning both unrestricted and overly restrictive in the same sentence. Yes, some decisions have been bit silly but that’s how it works with opinions. Things which you consider silly and stupid make a perfect sense for someone else, and vice versa.

It’s more that there is no principle of the ruleset now.

i dont know where the problem is. just revert it to what it was prior to the weekly voting and tell the record approvers to do their job.

“rules werent clear” yes, indeed. if you want to promote unrestricted runs, suddenly the rules arent clear. kappa.

Wethospu.6437:

The only reason we have voted weekly is because rules were so subjective. If you think rules have changed much since then, that should tell something about the subjectivity.

When rules are subjective it’s easy to think you know what they mean. If that had truly been the case, why did I receive questions about “is this allowed?” and “why is that allowed?” on about weekly basis?

To be honest with you, I’ve had to ask that question more and more lately. Because of the fact that I constantly have to worry about whether or not something is allowed or disallowed due to the weekly rule changes, it’s no clearer to me what is allowed and what isn’t as the weeks pass. No offense to anyone here but I really don’t have the patience to read through all of these huge walls of text (I wouldn’t blame anyone for saying the same about mine here as well haha), be it on this thread or any others. I just want to know the rules and that’s it most of the time.

Wethospu.6437:

Do you think more people would agree with the decisions if we based it on a minority? Even with a clear result like 6-3 it’s quite normal to have lots of people complaining about the result. This is often called as a vocal minority. People tend to open their mouth when something is wrong instead of when something is right, so it’s easy to jump in conclusion that “no one likes the results”.

I think it’s a good time to review this voting process as most of the stuff has now been decided. And reverting the progress is definitely a worth-while option for that. Though I have to say I would resign in that case since I don’t want to go back to that kitten when spending so much effort to get rid of it.

I get your point and I agree with you that for the most part people will only post when they are displeased with the results. I’m an example of that right now, but somehow I can’t help but feel I’m not a minority.

Honestly there’s only 1 person from rT taking part in the weekly votes and no one else. I would be willing to bet that it’s probably the same thing for most of the, if not all of the guilds listed on page 1 of the thread. With that being the case, it doesn’t fully represent how everybody in the community feels but I understand that allowing everyone to vote would just be impractical. I bring this up only because minority vote in a group of a dozen people isn’t really that much smaller than the majority vote because of this.

How about:

GW2dungeons.net curates the records

The community curates the rules as it has always done

Why is this so hard? Why, specifically, does the website where records are posted and maintained ALSO set the agenda for re-drafting the rules? It doesn’t have to be this way. And before you say “I don’t vote ,the community votes” you must understand that it is completely your personal choice about which issues are voted on in the first place and how the voting options are presented. That is a lot of influence.

Also, if an approver cannot watch records and determine whether its Restricted or not, please feel free to resign your position and allow someone else to take over.

Purple Miku.7032:

Honestly there’s only 1 person from rT taking part in the weekly votes and no one else. I would be willing to bet that it’s probably the same thing for most of the, if not all of the guilds listed on page 1 of the thread. With that being the case, it doesn’t fully represent how everybody in the community feels but I understand that allowing everyone to vote would just be impractical. I bring this up only because minority vote in a group of a dozen people isn’t really that much smaller than the majority vote because of this.

Eh I ask the people in my guild who are doing records about how they want our vote to go.

Wethospu.6437:

Could you mention a change which “flat out broke the principles of the ruleset”? And also elaborate what are these “principles”?

We don’t have any principles of the ruleset at the moment because its been turned into whatever you want instead of being based off of a general statement before. This is kind of the point that I was trying to make a few weeks ago . ..

@Purple Miku:

Could you list any rules which you don’t find clear? I can try to word them better.

I understand lots of changes makes stuff confusing. But wouldn’t reverting kind of add even more confusion? Anyways, if you look at the current rule set, it was updated over two weeks ago. That should give some indication that things are going to stabilize.

I’m sure majority are displeased about something, but I doubt many people are displeased about everything. Point is, rules have lots of options so it’s likely that everyone disagrees with something. But if you take a look at the suggestions. They range from left to right. I could pick one but how do I know people would dislike it even more?

Yes, it would be the best if somehow we could measure everyone’s opinion. But as you said, it’s not really practical. I kind of hoped guild leaders would discuss these things with their members but of course I can’t really enforce that.

NikeEU.7690:

How about:

GW2dungeons.net curates the records

The community curates the rules as it has always done

Why is this so hard? Why, specifically, does the website where records are posted and maintained ALSO set the agenda for re-drafting the rules? It doesn’t have to be this way. And before you say “I don’t vote ,the community votes” you must understand that it is completely your personal choice about which issues are voted on in the first place and how the voting options are presented. That is a lot of influence.

Also, if an approver cannot watch records and determine whether its Restricted or not, please feel free to resign your position and allow someone else to take over.

Could you then explain why I disagree with most decisions?

Honestly, if I have so huge influence why the rule set isn’t what I want?

Wethospu.6437:

Could you mention a change which “flat out broke the principles of the ruleset”? And also elaborate what are these “principles”?

Most of the added rules have just clarified what the rules actually mean. Most (if not all) real changes are from issues before I had even mentioned voting. They would have been resolved in some way, even without voting.

I don’t know a better example of “I have an opinion” than mentioning both unrestricted and overly restrictive in the same sentence. Yes, some decisions have been bit silly but that’s how it works with opinions. Things which you consider silly and stupid make a perfect sense for someone else, and vice versa.

An example of a decision through voting that flat out broke the principles of the original restricted ruleset was allowing to get over the fence in Molten Facility fractal which violates the “Bypassing blockades that have not yet been opened.” and/or “Any party member may not go out of bounds.” which are two fundamental rules that have always been a part of the restricted ruleset. The principles I referred to would be showcasing gameplay as close to non-exploitive as possible but that wouldn’t force people to discard strategies enabled by core game mechanics such as crowd control or conditions.

And yes, it is my opinion though one I feel is shared by many and I’m not attempting to shift blame onto you because in truth that lays in the fact that most people with the ability to vote currently never got the chance to know the basics and fundamentals of the original ruleset.

Oh Weth you misunderstood me, it’s not a matter of your wording of the rules that’s making it less clear for me it’s just the fact that the rules change on a weekly basis. Because of them changing, it’s no longer something that I can easily remember. For example I remember a few weeks ago you enabled Lupi wallsploiting, but I don’t remember if it was changed back to be disallowed after people whined about it. I would have to check the website again to see.

This is just one example, but it’s like that with basically all of the modified rules/added ones. Formerly, all I had to do was just remember all of the rules once and I was good to go. Now this isn’t the case.

I didn’t see much of a problem with the rules after the meeting was held. If you were being asked about whether or not things were allowed, couldn’t you just do a FAQ section for specific things you get asked?

Well, they no longer change on weekly basis. And when they do, it will be something minor like this immobilization. That Lupi thing was just a matter of me and others being inexperienced with this system. I wouldn’t put much weight on it.

The problem with rules was that I didn’t really know whether something should be allowed or not. Sure, I could have just decided something but I thought letting the community decide would be better.

Veckna.9621:

An example of a decision through voting that flat out broke the principles of the original restricted ruleset was allowing to get over the fence in Molten Facility fractal which violates the “Bypassing blockades that have not yet been opened.” and/or “Any party member may not go out of bounds.” which are two fundamental rules that have always been a part of the restricted ruleset. The principles I referred to would be showcasing gameplay as close to non-exploitive as possible but that wouldn’t force people to discard strategies enabled by core game mechanics such as crowd control or conditions.

And yes, it is my opinion though one I feel is shared by many and I’m not attempting to shift blame onto you because in truth that lays in the fact that most people with the ability to vote currently never got the chance to know the basics and fundamentals of the original ruleset.

Why wouldn’t a mobility (leap) be a core mechanic? If you can reach something middle of the play area by using legit mechanics, is it really out of bounds? Also technically they never bypassed a blockade since they just stood on it.

Yes, it stretches rules but is pretty harmless and not something I would consider a big issue. Kind of same as this immobilizing thing.

Unless you use a 3rd party tool everything is a legit game mechanic. Skipping to Brie from the start of Arah uses nothing but legit game mechanics. Jumping over the door in CoE uses nothing but game mechanics. Bugging the Wraithlord ritual in Arah p3 uses game mechanics.

Game mechanics aren’t something you can support your argument with.

Game mechanics is what unrestricted should be about.

Wethospu.6437:

Why wouldn’t a mobility (leap) be a core mechanic? If you can reach something middle of the play area by using legit mechanics, is it really out of bounds? Also technically they never bypassed a blockade since they just stood on it.

Yes, it stretches rules but is pretty harmless and not something I would consider a big issue. Kind of same as this immobilizing thing.

That minimal distance between being prevented to progress through the blockade and standing on it resulted in NPC manipulation making it revelant. Do I think it’s a big deal? No, as it’s something that’s available to everyone however it still goes against rules of greater importance and therefore should never have been allowed.

As you’ve said many times over by now, people will vote for what suits them best and that sort of audience can’t be counted on for consistency in their rulings or objectivity.

Wethospu.6437:

Could you then explain why I disagree with most decisions?

Honestly, if I have so huge influence why the rule set isn’t what I want?

I don’t particularly care if the outcomes of the votes are how you would vote yourself. The fact is that we have been voting on more or less unnecessary, pointless issues for weeks with no end in sight. You set the agenda, you propose what is or isn’t voted on.

For example, we don’t need a vote on Immobilizing bosses before they reach some scripted area they are trying to get to: that has always been legal and never been an issue before and there was no community outcry about it even after the hotw record that used the tactic on a new boss. The community as a whole was more or less OK with it. No vote was needed, no vote should have been proposed, time is wasted and polemic is being issued unnecessarily. Any record approver who can’t figure out whether its legal or not should resign because they are clearly not cut out for the job.

For record approvers: your job is to approve records. Make sure that none of the explicit rules are violated. If some new amazing tactic like Immobilizing Fimbul is used for the first time, it isn’t your job to question it unless it very clearly violates one of the already extant rules. If the community sees it and freaks out that it shouldn’t be allowed, then the community will decide it as a matter of a vote. If people look at it and say “cool tactic” and it doesn’t violate any pre-existing rules and no one is in an uproar about then… we don’t have anything to vote on.

How can it be pointless if it leads to a rule change? How can community be “more or less OK with it” when they decide to ban it?

Why would we have to wait an outcry (when things are seriously kittened) before dealing with any issues? Or sweep everything under the carper and hope no one notices?

Why do you refer yourself as “the community”?

If we revert the rules to pre-voting, then I will resign as an approver. Many of the polls have been done on topics that I have felt were “fine” and then voters in this thread attacked me over. As someone who has watched literally hundreds of record videos with great attention to detail, I can safely say that these rules clarifications have made my job easier. I sure as hell don’t do this for my well-being, so if we go back to a situation where I risk getting yelled at when anyone tries a new strategy because some guild leaders disapprove of my approving some other guild’s tactics, then I don’t want to be a part of it.

I appreciate that weekly votes can be a drain, but the rules are more clear now than ever before. If I can figure that out, then I’m sure any of the intelligent guilds participating in record runs can do so as well.

Wethospu.6437:

How can it be pointless if it leads to a rule change? How can community be “more or less OK with it” when they decide to ban it?

I still think it’s because people didn’t fully understand the vote/question and possibly thought they were voting for disallowing disabling a boss that hadn’t turned hostile yet. If still you want to do the votes, reset the votes, possibly make sure people actually understand what’s being votes for in the first place and make them write an actual reason as to why they think it should/shouldn’t be banned so they don’t just pick some random option without really knowing what it is.

It’s nonsense to vote that, just start a new record table post patch!

Bukkebruse.2810:

Wethospu.6437:

How can it be pointless if it leads to a rule change? How can community be “more or less OK with it” when they decide to ban it?

I still think it’s because people didn’t fully understand the vote/question and possibly thought they were voting for disallowing disabling a boss that hadn’t turned hostile yet. If still you want to do the votes, reset the votes, possibly make sure people actually understand what’s being votes for in the first place and make them write an actual reason as to why they think it should/shouldn’t be banned so they don’t just pick some random option without really knowing what it is.

I will make an exception and ensure that majority knows what they are voting before the decision is finalized.

If anyone wants make my job easier, please send mail in-game or forums that you know what you are doing, or add a comment to your vote.

Wethospu.6437:

How can it be pointless if it leads to a rule change? How can community be “more or less OK with it” when they decide to ban it?

Because you pick the agenda. You word the questions. The topic wasn’t even something that should have been voted on. The result of the vote is completely irrelevant. An unnecessary vote got the wrong result based on lazy voting. Congrats on creating a system that leads to that outcome.

Why would we have to wait an outcry (when things are seriously kittened) before dealing with any issues?

Because outcries are how you gauge whether something is worth voting on or whether you are just wasting peoples’ time.

Why do you refer yourself as “the community”?

I talk with many of the guilds in our community. When I say “the community” I am not referring to myself. I am referring to the half dozen or so guilds that think this state of affairs is intolerable. Perhaps instead of figuring out never clever word games to insult me you should take what I say seriously and think about what’s going on here.