I don't understand where all this aggression is coming from. All I did was make points about your arguments in a factual manner. Way to be able to discuss a topic like a grown-up >_>...
You also seem to completely miss my points so I'll try to reiterate them more clearly just one more time.
I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts.
All I did was list your statements in order to properly point out what I consider errors. If you read your previous post again, it's pretty obvious to see where the fallacy is. No, having more than 1 savestate doesn't mean you've been TASing pre-level, as little as it means you've been TASing with 1 savestate. When I do time-attacks I do a quick savestate right at the start of a level. If I was doing a setup for the next act, I'd do a 2nd when I'm doing the setup and then a 3rd when I'm done with it (or something to that effect). If you think no'one else does that then you're wrong. You "literally can't
discern who did and did not use" 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 savestates pre-level and that's why your logic doesn't work. Allowing 0 savestates would result in a lot of uncertainty regarding stats, which accoring to you is not an option. So then I don't consider 1 an option either because it would result in the exact same uncertainty for every stat that used savestates.
Logic isn't in play because the logical options are out of the equation.
There is a multitude of logical and possible solutions. I mentioned some of them in my last post. This isn't some kind of quantum physics-phenomenon we've discovered that completely defies logic and will allow us to teleport through time and space into Super Mario Galaxy. You're able to carry a few rings from the previous act, let's make logical rules about it.
If you don't think players aren't going to be motivated to TAS to maximize that ringcount you're way off.
I do think they would be motivated to TAS it if the rules allow. But I don't consider that a problem if we as a community don't consider getting those rings to follow you part of the run. If we do consider it part of the run, you couldn't TAS according to the rules anyway.
In fact, what makes a setup TAS-only and what doesn't is irrelevant. The idea is to block the usage of TASing or other banned activities pre-level (bar the one savestate we can't do anything about), whether they are TAS-only or not.
If you truly want 1 savestate to be allowed, isolating what isn't possible by humans should be a priority to find whoever that might try to cheat. With a video that should be somewhat doable, with an input file it should be much easier. With nothing but a count of the number of rings you carried, proofcalling is getting very, very complicated and probably no'one is going to ever have substantial evidence against them that the number of rings they carry is considered TASonly. Or the opposite might happen where we think that an amount of rings is unfeasible when it really isn't.
These things are not irrelevant, they are important to bring up when deciding on rules to avoid future drama and errors.
Was this just emotional banter?
Well I am stating the obvious but only to make my logic very clear. Having 1 savestate is not fairer than 2, or 3 or 4, or 100 or 35940 (which is the maximum in 9:59). Why? Because the arguments you make are mathematically recursive.
It's you who don't aknowledge 2 savestates as a middle ground. You don't aknowledge 3 or more either. So really it's you with the continuum fallacy. You are not consistent. If you consider 1 savestate an option, you'd be really hard pressed to scream "TAS!!!" at a run using 2 savestates when you yourself ask where that "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing would even apply to competitive play".
Who the fuck said I was judging anything?
You did. "We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands." Does that not imply you? Did I not say "you" in a way that could be interpreted as aimed at a group? Calm down...
You seem to think I'm on a personal vendetta on you with this. Don't flatter yourself, I'm not. You call me out on my attitude when I'm trying to stay factual. In fact, looking up the definition of "attitude" I found nothing that applies to my last post. You're the one with a demeaning attitude. If you genuinely think I'm being disrespectful of you in some way then I'm sorry because that was not my intention, but I do think you're seeing things that aren't there. I'm not trying to make this into the emulator discussion 2.0 and I don't disagree with what you're trying to acheive with the rule. I think it's as fair of an option as any, but I disagree with the way you're suggesting we should implement it.
But in the end, even if I was disrespectful of your opinions, you're no better. I don't have any interest trying to debate a topic with a belittling prick who counters arguments with profanity and statements like:
I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts. (Yes I listed your facts and pointed out the problems they'd cause which again are the same you're trying to avoid)
And for you to come at me like we've all been TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act) is also complete bullshit and hugely disrespectful (I didn't and I think it's pretty far fetched to interpret it like that)
Want to prune them yourself? Be my guest! Have fun and good luck with that research!
Have you been reading this thread? Or did you just come here to fuss at me randomly?
Who the fuck said I was judging anything? I brought this up to be open forum and you're coming out here not only guns-ablazin' but with homing rockets and nuclear bombs too!
But SDM, why should we allow savestates at all?
"The answer is obvious" SDM says, "because we want to start at the beginning of act 2 when doing ring attacks of act 2! This how we always handled savestates when dealing with ringboxes from act 1 bosses!"
Ah I can see that, that a legitimate reason to want to use a savestate. But now we're carrying rings to the second act in a way that is not easy, in fact it's very hard to do! But some doesn't want to allow savestates when you start carrying them. Some would even call it tool-assisted. Oh dear me, what could possibly be a compromise that allows savestating but not TASing when you start carrying the rings?
"We could only allow 1 savestate" SDM says, "that would make people more inclined to use it in the level transition or at least not be able to TAS act 1!"
Oh SDM that could be a solution. Unfortunately it also creates a few problems with it because we don't know how many savestates people have used in their past runs for example while finding a good global timer cycle. It would also let people save at times other than the level transition, do you want that?
"No! Yes!" SDM says. ("TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act)", "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing")
So what do you suggest we do?
"Maybe we could let people only savestate in the level transitions?" SDM said.