Speedrunner Accuses Sabotage in Super Mario Bros. Competition

Speedrunner Niftski, renowned for being the second-fastest player to complete Super Mario Bros., has dedicated much of 2026 to achieving a groundbreaking milestone: becoming the first to match a theoretically perfect playthrough of the game. However, a sudden rule change that invalidated his preferred input method has led him to accuse the game’s moderation team of conspiring against him and hindering his progress.

In a YouTube video released on Monday, Niftski claimed that the current Any% world record holder, averge11, “colluded with certain SMB1 leaderboard moderators and others to rig the vote to ban input swapping, aiming to sabotage my Any% TAS tie progress.”

Since January, Niftski has been focused on achieving an Any% TAS tie for the entire original Super Mario Bros. For those unfamiliar, Any% is a speedrunning category where the goal is simply to finish the game as quickly as possible, without the need to complete all content. TAS, or tool-assisted speedrun, involves using code to execute precise inputs that are often beyond human capability, allowing players to discover optimal routes and test the limits of the game. A TAS tie occurs when a human player matches the time of a TAS speedrun.

Essentially, Niftski is striving to conquer Super Mario Bros. with the absolute fastest time possible.

To achieve this, he has been utilizing input swapping, a technique that many speedrunners leverage in various games. For Niftski, this means alternating between a keyboard and a controller to simplify certain game segments.

Last October, the moderation team voted overwhelmingly to allow input swapping under specific conditions. Screenshots from Discord shared by Niftski reveal that averge11, the speedrunner he accuses of conspiracy, also supported input swapping and had expressed intentions to use the technique for their own advantage around that time.

However, after Niftski showcased his impressive TAS tie progress using input swapping, the moderation team cited his achievements as a reason to reconsider the vote.

In February, the team voted 14 to 2 to ban input swapping, marking a significant shift in just four months. Niftski suspects that this change was not organic but rather influenced by averge11.

“The discussion about banning input swapping was initially raised in bad faith, aimed at undermining my performance,” he stated.

The situation escalated as Niftski alleged that averge11 had been sending negative messages about him in private servers, driven by jealousy and a desire to manipulate the vote against him.

Both Niftski and averge11 participated in the vote as informal “consultants,” despite not being official moderators. Niftski claimed that another prominent speedrunner, LeKukie, who has extensive knowledge of controllers, was also added as a consultant but was denied access to the Discord server until after the vote concluded.

During the voting process, averge11 encouraged team members to support the ban on input swapping and successfully pushed to close the vote early, even though some members hadn’t had the chance to cast their votes.

Following the vote, averge11 and their associates celebrated in a private server, with messages like “no more Niftski” and a video titled “niftski funeral” circulating among them.

“Averge11 has repeatedly exploited their position in the community to get what they want, even at the expense of others,” Niftski remarked, expressing hope that this situation wouldn’t lead to harassment of the mod team but rather a reevaluation of the input swapping ban.

In a response on Twitter/X, averge11 acknowledged some of the behavior highlighted in Niftski’s video and documents, stating, “I don’t have an excuse for some of the behavior brought up, nor do I intend to excuse it. I’ve messed up many times, and anyone who knows me knows I will own up to that and I think accountability is important.” They did not respond immediately to requests for further comment.

The speedrunning community is no stranger to drama, and this incident could potentially lead to significant changes in the structure of moderation within the community.