One more thing : why max speed only if Snaking is banned anyway?
What if I want to play Hyper Speeder at 90% to make its acceleration slightly less terrible, or if I just prefer the feel of the machine this way

 ill have to pass on this unless the ruleset will be better defined and worked out.

Because you will get a worse time.

That does not answer my question. It is merely called "Glitchless" so why ban something that is not a glitch

Because I fear that it will get abused/exploited.

Now that is a more reasonable answer. But I still feel there should be some room to go a bit below max speed, especially since there are some machines that reach their top speed below 100% setting.
And then there's the machines that can't snake at all, so why restrict those? At least the non-customs that are known to not be able to snake should be allowed below 100% Max Speed IMO

As long as it can be agreed upon by the community what rules are fair, I'm fine with them.

If you want to play in a non/low-technique environment, just play the Twin Norrita challenge/ladder

(Non-technique would be a better category than "glitchless" for GX, there are almost no fucking glitches in this game, it's all abuse of game physics. The only glitch that comes to my mind right now is Sudden Stop. That's how it is in my book anyway)

You're just arguing semantics. Glitchless is just the name. Technique-less is the ruleset, and you're idea of no techniques is using 1 

machine. I'll put up a video soon that VERBALLY describes this category's rules with a gameplay example. It should clear up everything.

Can you clarify what happens if one gets an accidental shift boost off the side of the road, or off the wall?

Category names should accurately describe the category without causing confusion or misconceptions. The advanced technqiues in this game are either exploits or bugs, but none of them are glitches. There is a distinct difference between those words in video game environemnt that you can't simply ignore.

If you agree that your semantics are way off throughout this entire thread, that just means you have no chance to convey any of your thoughts in a precise manner, making you the least suited person to define a ruleset.

But in general a non-tech category would be fun. There shouldn't be any exceptions for any techniques (even QT), which would massively change the pool of viable vehicles.

I went ahead and added www.youtube.com/watch to the original post. It is just a video where I clarify the ruleset verbally. Please watch it if you are opposed to the category.

I have watched the video and it changes nothing for me. I was never confused about the ruleset, I just disagree with it strongly.

Here's my main problem with all of this, and why I may have come across as rude : you are treating this as YOUR category. In the description of the video, you say it as "my new glitchless category" and you bring your entire own ruleset and refuse to change anything about it. Yes you put the suicide finishes up for vote, but only after a lot of debate, and on most points you refuse to budge.

In your video you say the only reason you think people disagree with this is because they don't understand. The only thing I don't understand is how you came to this conclusion. There is clearly a lot of opposition here, it is not confusion.

You also say about normal shift boosts that "it is possible to chain them together almost infinitely, which is really only possible if you're a TASbot of some sort". I realize you say that as a joke, but you are severely overestimating how difficult it is to pull these off. If you put in a lot of work and time to practice this, it will get a lot easier.

You only consider something to be a glitch if you can do it continuously? Really? That is straight up wrong. Not even gonna argue about this.

And then the subject of there being a finite number of "hidden" shift boosts... Watch this video for me real quick. Specifically starting at 21 seconds.
Infinite possibilities. Now imagine this on a longer cylinder, such as Cylinder Knot or Cylinder Wave.

In conclusion, I do not give a damn if you want to play by these rules. That is your own decision. However, the creation of a category is meant to be a community effort. The rules need to be discussed together and adjusted to everybody's liking. It's not something that's meant to be done by a single person.

The video didn't really clear anything up for me. When your defense for many of the rules we're arguing (even the ones we're okay with) about is just that "It doesn't make sense", that doesn't defend your side at all. And at this point you're just shooting yourself in the foot because aside from the broken down rule, it's pretty much all good now. And again you seem to ignore some of the points and questions I bring up in my posts, which only serves to push me away from participating in this category seriously. A real shame really.

When talking about the side shift boosts and side attacks, if you simply said "I don't want the abuse of exploits in this category", I would understood why you you want this to be the rule, accepted it more easily and better understand the point of this category. But instead you are trying to say it's a glitch with things that Vallkyr pointed out in the last post that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I've been waiting for you to make such a response, but you haven't and now I have to write this way for you to get it. Maybe you'll say you've been trying to say this all along, which means there's a problem of conveying this to us.

And once again, we're (along with astro and others) not on the same page with the term "glitch" which only makes things harder. You've been defending by saying that "snaking, side attacking, and shift boosts off the wall" are glitches, and before you said that, you said doing something continously to gain speed is a glitch. Ignoring the fact that none of those are glitches, that line of reasoning has huge a huge hole. Snaking is essentially chaining quick turns to gain speed. There are many courses with S curves where the best way to drive through it is by doing quick consecutive, or continous quick turns. I know that's not really snaking, but input wise, there's no difference at all. Side attacks is obviously programmed into the game, and the fact that you gain a bit of speed by doing one side attack is intentional. And how you can do multiple side attacks in a short amount of time is an intentional aspect of side attacks. If it's intentional and works as it was intended, then it is not a glitch, ever. The fact that we take advantage of it to gain more speed is an EXPLOIT/ABUSE of the intended features of side attacking.

I presume you have the same line of reasoning for off course side shift boosts. If that is a glitch, but acute/90 degree and on course shift boosts are not glitches, that doesn't just make the reasoning a whole lot weaker, that's a flat out contradiction. I don't know why you won't budge with your use of that term. I realize you're using the word to more easily describe all of the techs that won't be allowed. It would have caused a lot of less headaches if you put in the OP what you consider the definition of a glitch to be. Even so, there are other ways to describe the same thing that are pretty much de facto/well established in the F-Zero community. You really should try to speak with the same terms to convey what you're trying to say without any issues.

If you aren't aware, some of the posters who have replied are just not some nobodies who are not very knowledgble or doesn't have much experience with the game. E-Dragon is very skilled and ranked highly in the ladder. Vallkyr is so too and is very knowledgable of the game. Mooninite might be the most interested in this sort of category since he has excellent runs with non custom machines that does not highly abuse MTSing and side attacks and who will give me a run for my money. And I've been around the game from the start back in 2004, and started out playing this game without any techniques to my knowledge at all. This will sound forceful, but if you want our support, there is every reason you should seriously consider our input. If you can't give a good reason to the broken down rule (All you said in the video is that "it doesn't make sense"), then there is no reason really why this rule has to be decided by a vote in my opinion.

Not trying to pile on, but I made a video trying to bend these proposed rules as far as possible.

F-Zero GX - Twist Road Glitchless

(I don't get it in this video, but the road shiftboost around turn 1 isn't too hard to get when going into lap 3, even without MT)

I don't have much else to say that hasn't been said already, but there's probably been more debate over what's intended & what's not here, then what AV did over this entire game's development.

 No snaking was specified, but that was pretty cool. I knew that Quick Star can sort of emulate MTSing by drifting, and that was quite the ending.

Although I'm sure how you'll respond to this, here's a off the side shift boost that doesn't involve the use of pressing L or R at all, and cannot be done continously (Probably can be done with TAS). Is this fine or not?

https://youtu.be/te-7dim-s2Y (Just the beginning of the run)

The point is, back in 2003, techniques had not yet been discovered. I thought that the way speed runs were done back then were very interesting and seemed like a lot of fun. That is my idea. No side attacks, no shift boosts, no snaking, and no momentum throttling. That is all.

Second of all I was very offended by Vallkyr's accusations. I HAVE changed many rules, and listened to input, and I never straight up tried to claim this for my own. I know that some people are more aggressive online but please, please don't make false accusations. If you read my posts you'll see that I was always respectful and even apologetic at times. I am sorry if anyone feels offended by my proposition. That was never my intent. Thank you.

PS (concerning shift boosts I'm fine with banning them all together, and concerning broken down finishes I am fine changing that as well, I guess I was just unaware that MY approval was needed)

  Vallkyr might have only read the OP after you made the Quick turn and AX part rule changes. But I wouldn't say 2 rules is many rules, but whatever.

Unaware that your approval was needed? You're the only one who's proposing this category, and presumbly work to get it going and maintaining it.

I admit I was blunt with my reply (a bit moreso than I intended), but that's how I felt about the situation.

It's true I only noticed this thread after the AX part and Quickturn rules were removed, but that's 2 very minor things. Though I should not have said you refuse to change anything, so sorry for that.

Let me explain exactly why I felt you were claiming this category as your own :
First, as I mentioned earlier, you called it "my new glitchless category" in the video description
Secondly, even though you were polite in your posts, you talked as if you were in a position of power to make these decisions. Examples :
"How about we first poll for this category's creation, then poll for that rule once it is approved."
"With regards to broken down finishes, there can be no exceptions. When you mentioned accidentally breaking down but finishing, that run would simply die. Tough Luck."
"I think the broken down rule is necessary, but I will remove the AX parts restriction since the side attack ban should be enough to prevent abuse."
"I created this catagory with time attack in mind, not GP."
Do you see what I mean? That last quote speaks for itself, really.

delete pls