General LRL Stream Feedback

[empath]

At best, Twitch has moved all the videos they're archiving for their streamers, and we have to go through a different path to get to them...which is the case, a channel's profile page still has access to the 'Past Broadcasts', but the actual stream page no longer has ANY link to a channel's full archives; if they're offline, you can get to those 'YouTube-esque highlights' and that's it.

I'm in the middle of watching all the Magic Online Community Cup highlights. I'm not logged in, and I was able to click on the Profile for the Magic channel and access the Past Broadcasts. That's how I've always been able to access them, so it doesn't seem like there's much of a change for me. Same thing for the LRR channel.

Yeah, that's how I always did it, too. Where was the link that you were talking about, because I never saw/noticed it?

On the active stream page for twitch, in the chat box at the right, there used to be three tabs: a 'lines of text' icon that brings up a dialogue window for 'All chat rooms', the second is the name of the stream's chat room, and the third was "videos" which would switch the chat pane to show a list of what's on "highlights" (and would have a link at the bottom, "more videos", that would move the whole page to the "past broadcasts" list of archived videos.

Now YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, I happened in on CaffinatedLemur's stream, and he still had that 'videos' tab above the chat on the stream page...and today he doesn't. Seems that they're phasing that out gradually.

I think maybe you never noticed this, because you never used twitch's own chat client on the page itself, but a 3rd party IRC?


And as for 'why not monetize the VOD?' - twitch's replays ... well, they're not exactly the greatest of quality (see above ), and there's already bigger and better sources for streaming prerecorded video on the internet, and I doubt that ad revenue could cover the costs incurred with just storing all these vids (even with the limiting restrictions they've been putting in).


...oh, and there's another benefit to not archiving any streams on their own servers, DMCA actions and threats of lawsuits become a thing of the past; as for the same for live streams that don't get stored anywhere on the company's servers, it's a lot harder to prove it. /cynic

[Master Gunner]

And let's not forget its occasional tendency to SKIP TO A COMPLETELY RANDOM lrrEFFING TIMESTAMP after buffering at the half-hour mark. Related: Why do replays only buffer in half-hour chunks?

Presumably because the actual files are stored in 30 minute chunks.

[ritchards]

Half hour chunks is how Twitch stores it.

[Mono_Snorsh]

And let's not forget its occasional tendency to SKIP TO A COMPLETELY RANDOM lrrEFFING TIMESTAMP after buffering at the half-hour mark. Related: Why do replays only buffer in half-hour chunks?

Oh man, how could I forget that. It's not like I ever know where I am in the video when it happens, I sure don't keep the time I've been watching a video for visible the whole length of a three hour video.

I think maybe you never noticed this, because you never used twitch's own chat client on the page itself, but a 3rd party IRC?


And as for 'why not monetize the VOD?' - twitch's replays ... well, they're not exactly the greatest of quality (see above ), and there's already bigger and better sources for streaming prerecorded video on the internet, and I doubt that ad revenue could cover the costs incurred with just storing all these vids (even with the limiting restrictions they've been putting in).


...oh, and there's another benefit to not archiving any streams on their own servers, DMCA actions and threats of lawsuits become a thing of the past; as for the same for live streams that don't get stored anywhere on the company's servers, it's a lot harder to prove it. /cynic

Oh, I see. I just keep the chat minimized. How tricky of them.

I can't argue against the legal advantages but I do think they are making a mistake with their VOD strategy. I'm sure a lot of people get into Twitch through archived videos instead of jumping straight in to watching stuff live. Archives are also useful to maintain viewing habits when someone has to miss a number of streams. If they improved the VOD experience they could leverage the convenience of being on the same site as the live videos while if they continue reducing their VOD presence I'd feel a strong pull to just watching replays on other sites if I wasn't watching a channel with such a prodigious amount of content generated. For that matter series like Graham's RE6 playthrough might have their beginings cut off before they finish and they don't really work well to jump in the middle of.

[the amativeness]

And let's not forget its occasional tendency to SKIP TO A COMPLETELY RANDOM lrrEFFING TIMESTAMP after buffering at the half-hour mark. Related: Why do replays only buffer in half-hour chunks?

Presumably because the actual files are stored in 30 minute chunks.

Oh no no... they are stored in (and buffer at) TWENTY EIGHT MINUTE THIRTY SECOND chunks. Makes it really hard to anticipate when the buffer is going to happen, especially after the second hour.

[phlip]

They switched from 30 minute chunks to 28:30 at about the same time they started muting vods with copyrighted music... I'm not sure why. Maybe they thought muting 30 whole minutes of video because of one song was a bit much, so they reduced it to a much more reasonable amount?

[the amativeness]

I'm betting they slightly changed their storage format or something, and wanted an easy way to determine whether an existing set of file footage is from before or after that point. Pre-change videos are about 820 MB in size, and post-change videos are about 770 MB.

[Yaxley]

So I seem to recall the LRR account tweeting that there would be a way to have your auto-resub trigger the sub notifier without having to unsubscribe and sign up again. Has then been implemented yet?

[AdmiralMemo]

I would like to know when that becomes available, too.

[empath]

Don't know, but...

Twitch grabbed the sub fee outta my paypal account on sunday night...of course I didn't watch the CP+ aftershow the next day...anyone remember if the notifier mentioned me? ("I hope Notifier-sempai notices me" )

[phlip]

I'm pretty sure it's not a thing yet. I think it was mentioned in the context of "this is an idea we are looking into maybe doing at some point"... not "this is a thing we have done and will be available soon".

[VmKid]

Mods, at some point can we instate a list of verboten topics of discussion? It seems like daily we're talking about the same things, and we frequently come to the conclusion "This isn't the right place to discuss this; bring it to the forums," before the conversation picks up again the next day, rinse and repeat.

To be honest, it's gotten to the point where you can fill a bingo board with these things.

[AdmiralMemo]

You say "topics" plural... Is there anything other than the "Is this a game?" discussion that you're referring to?

Because, to me, I have to blame Alex partially on that one. Not every time, because it's sometimes someone in chat that brings it up, but there are times when Alex starts talking about something, and then he makes an analogy "That's just as bad as the people who say 'Gone Home' isn't a game." And then, guess what? Chat starts talking about whether "Gone Home" is or is not a game.

Chat will twig on just about anything the streamer says, even if they don't realize they're saying it. Heck, we crowd-funded a dress based on a comment that Alex forgot he even made. Chew on that for a bit. So, if Alex keeps mentioning a thing, Chat will feed it back and discuss it.

Having said that, since we don't want to derail the chat over and over with this same discussion, I did make "!explain notagame" a command for mods to use, which has a link to the forum thread.

I don't believe any discussion should be absolutely forbidden in chat, as long as it's civil, but we can try to guide people into a more relevant medium to take that discussion.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I think VmKid is referring not only to the "Is this a game?" thing, but also to discussion of GamerGate. (But do correct me if I'm wrong, VmKid)

The latter came up in chat during Cam's stream last night, and it ended in "please take this to the forums."

Thing is, Memo, you're right - in both the "Is this a game?" discussion and the GamerGate discussion last night, the streamer was talking about it, and engaging with chat about it. So I don't think a blanket ban on certain topics is going to work - if the streamer wants to talk about something, they're going to. And it isn't up to anyone to tell them to knock it off. Their show, their rules, no?

That said, in both cases, the discussion went on long after the streamer had done with it, and in both cases they told chat to knock it off and take it to the forums. In both cases, chat didn't do that.

So. Proposal: instead of blanket bans on topics, institute a rule that, if a streamer says "this is enough, take it to the forums," further discussion of the topic is off-limits on pain of time-out. No matter what the specific topic may be.

Thoughts?

[empath]

In all honesty, the "This isn't a game!" topic gets brought up by some streamers, so that can make it seem that the topic is welcome in ALL streams.

But yeah, that PLUS Gamerwe'renotthebadguys,honestGate, AND the drama over whatever new AAA game has been released (iirc, it's Shadow of Mordor's turn at the moment?) has REALLY DRIVEN ME AWAY FROM WATCHING LRL.

I do concur that a rule of "The streamer - and HOST - decides what can and CANNOT be discussed in chat", enforceable by mod action.

And yes, it's not restricted to certain CURRENT topics. For example, I'm sure that Graham and/or Kathleen would REALLY not welcome speculation about any plans they do or do not have for a family...

[AdmiralMemo]

OK, I missed the whole GamerGate discussion, since I wasn't really following Cam's stream last night. Was it really that bad, empath?

And yes, Chat will be Chat and take a topic LONG and FAR past where it should go.

If it gets REALLY bad, then yes, maybe timeouts are called for.

[empath]

Oh no, Cam nipped that in the bud, and then ignored it when/if it continued (as did I), so it wasn't that bad.

But in the past I've gotten into a stream enjoyed the discussion and commentary and then it just take a turn I really don't like or care for and persist despite the streamer not wanting it either, and I just gave up.

[Can't Wear Hats]

Just to chime in, definitely agree that we shouldn't be handing out timeouts right off the bat but if the conversation won't die down, and the streamer has to tell chat to stop it, then that's when we take action.

During Alex's last stream I set up a !notagame LRRbot command (mod-only) that links to the "What Is A Videogames" forum thread, but other mods feel free to with that what you wish. It certainly was necessary at the time, rather than typing out the links and explanation whenever people brought it up. I'm not aware of a relevant thread for GamerGate, but then I don't know if we want to do that.

Anyway, that's my input for now. I definitely sympathise with empath, these conversations coming up again and again really can take away from the streams. Mainly because, particularly with "Not A Game" it's the same discussions repeated ad nauseum, so I hope we can sufficiently deal with them.

[AdmiralMemo]

I set up !explain notagame so I guess we ended up with nearly-duplicate commands.

Also, why the discussion gets repeated ad nauseum is easy to explain: you have the same people in chat, in general. However, you get one person who wasn't in the group any of the previous discussions, and they'll want to say their piece about it. Of course, they don't know that their opinion is 90% to 100% the same as some opinion that has already been stated. So, most of the people who are tired of it are like "THIS FUPPING DISCUSSION AGAIN..." while the person who brought it up feels that their opinion has the right to be heard as much as anyone else's.

And technically, they're correct: Their opinion does have the right to be heard, as much as anyone else's. However, they're ignorant of the fact that their opinion = other opinions that we've already heard.

[Can't Wear Hats]

I set up !explain notagame so I guess we ended up with nearly-duplicate commands.

Welp! Didn't think of making it an !explain command so I must have missed it? Anyway, opinions on which one we should keep? Also, personally I don't think being antagonistic by calling people "turkey-carvers" (a reference they probably won't get) is going to help, so we should probably take that part out anyway.

[AdmiralMemo]

I think it should stay in !explain, as that's nearly universally accepted as "mod-only area" (even though it technically isn't) so you won't have other people trying to do !notagame and then wondering why it doesn't work.

But, at the same time, I think we should take the best wording out of both and mold it into a whole. In fact, I'll go do that now.

[Can't Wear Hats]

All good points. !explain it is!

[SohNata]

I'm personally fine with it being up to the person streaming at the time if they feel it's getting out of hand or too much. It's difficult though, as sometimes the discussion is good and I think these are debates that need to be had - even if discussed in chat before - and some people don't want to use the forums.

That said, I'm personally always a little troubled when the specter of timeouts for anything other than spam & abusive/rude behaviour are being lobbied.

[Can't Wear Hats]

I hear you SohNata, and it's (at least for me) a case-by-case basis on timeouts, certainly not a blanket policy. I really try not to use them, and we managed to avoid actively using them last time these things were brought up, and I hope we can continue in the same vein.

When it comes to "What is a videogame" I agree that there's a good discussion to be had there, but GamerGate is a big ugly mess right now. But of course, it's ultimately up to the streamer.

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, it doesn't need to even be the full 10-minute timeout, since Mods can specify the number of timeout seconds. (10 minutes is just the default when you don't specify a number of seconds.) For example, .timeout UserName 1 is effective for clearing objectionable messages from the chat while still allowing the person to talk. A 1-second timeout isn't going to even really be noticed by the person as being a timeout. So, if someone needs to just settle down, as they're not getting the hint that they should drop it, maybe a 1-minute timeout would be effective, or maybe 2-minutes, depending on lag and such. (I was originally going to say 30 seconds, but then I realized that in bad Internet areas, they might not have even caught up to the streamer's reaction yet.)