thread

Questions for upcoming State of the Galaxies

User Tag List

Page 2 of 95 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 945
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,809
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE, Canada
    Posts
    2,268
    Thanks (Received)
    333
    Likes (Received)
    516
    Blog Entries
    1
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: d3scride
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Follows
    52
    Following
    26
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jace eluded to on the TGL stream (not sure if it was State of the Galaxies), that TG would be scrapping the idea of having it's own TG MAME front end.

    The current rules state that WolfMAME106 must be used for MAME submissions, but many people feel this is an antiquated rule that needs to be changed. The newest versions of WolfMAME (WolfMAME159 at the time of this post) fixes a lot of the issues present in older versions (bad emulation, dip switches with no info, nonworking romsets, etc). Presently there are many tracks for MAME in the TG database that contain scores that weren't submitted on WolfMAME106 either because the games simply don't work properly in 106 or gamers submitting on older versions prior to the release of 106.

    Some issues arise though like romset names being changed in the newest version, dip switch defaults changed due to more accurate info coming about, etc.

    My question:

    Will TG allow the community to submit on the newest versions of WolfMAME and if so how will this affect the current MAME database since new versions of WolfMAME will continue to be introduced and will have an impact on any new MAME tracks that are created?
    Craig Rout Gallant

    Current verified TG WRs: 58

    My Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/CraigARG
    MAME World Records channel: http://www.youtube.com/MAMEWorldRecords
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    291
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Received)
    300
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    16
    Following
    3
    1. Why should I trust any scores/times on the leaderboard when no proof exists?
    Likes d3scride liked this post
  3. VERIFIED Member Credibility: 1,244
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    63
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    14
    Following
    3
    For games on iOS are we allowed to mirror the iOS device to an AppleTv and film it that way?
  4. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,809
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE, Canada
    Posts
    2,268
    Thanks (Received)
    333
    Likes (Received)
    516
    Blog Entries
    1
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: d3scride
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Follows
    52
    Following
    26
    Twingalaxies currently has a lot of different issues it has to deal with

    Is it possible to have platform specific sub-forums where the community appoints a moderator(s) who they feel are experts in these areas to handle platform specific subject matter that current TG staff may or may not be as knowledgeable in? This would allow TG to focus on the more pressing issues and give the community more freedom in managing content within the platform sub-forums. These moderators could be initially appointed by Twin Galaxies, and then periodically elections can be held (similar to elections at MAME Action Replay) where the community votes on whether to keep the current moderators as is, or replace them if they are not doing an adequate job.
    Craig Rout Gallant

    Current verified TG WRs: 58

    My Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/CraigARG
    MAME World Records channel: http://www.youtube.com/MAMEWorldRecords
  5. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 1,696
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Doylestown PA
    Posts
    213
    Thanks (Received)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    120
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: anningmay
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Follows
    21
    Following
    10
    Earlier this week, Jace indicated that he was open to the idea of multiple modern WolfMAME versions being allowed (as opposed to just WolfMAME .106). Jace, can you confirm this?

    Also, he mentioned the possibility of a "final emulation solution" in the same post. I was under the impression that a "TG MAME" was no longer happening. Can you tell us what your current thinking is on this, and maybe give us MAME-ers an idea of what is in store for the future?

    Dave
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 5,650
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,496
    Thanks (Received)
    489
    Likes (Received)
    1172
    Blog Entries
    1
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: BarraNZ
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Follows
    35
    Following
    21
    Tried to ask this a couple of times but Jace was obviously ignoring me (j/k):


    If a user rejects their own submission (eg because of a typo in the score/time) is there a way to hasten the adjudication process?
    This would aid in clearing out the review forum.
    It would still cost the user submission points etc, just get them through a bit quicker when its an obvious input error

    Obviously it would not be wise for this to work the other way.

    Thanks!
  7. VERIFIED TG STAFF Credibility: 4,000
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    596
    Thanks (Received)
    828
    Likes (Received)
    1177
    Blog Entries
    60
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: twingalaxies View Channel: twingalaxieslive
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    32 Thread(s)
    Follows
    33613
    Following
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Barra View Post
    Tried to ask this a couple of times but Jace was obviously ignoring me (j/k):


    If a user rejects their own submission (eg because of a typo in the score/time) is there a way to hasten the adjudication process?
    This would aid in clearing out the review forum.
    It would still cost the user submission points etc, just get them through a bit quicker when its an obvious input error

    Obviously it would not be wise for this to work the other way.

    Thanks!
    we have been thinking of implementing something like this, however it would also come with an enormous hit to credibility points.
    we are approaching the time where people are going to need to be very careful when they send in a submission.

    the video upload function makes it not practical to provide a preview, however it really is not necessary because all of the information you have typed in is sitting right in front of you. It is not being altered. So all the person needs to do is actually double check everything before they hit submit. They will be more likely to do this if they know that there is a penalty for self rejection of a submission.
    Likes Barra liked this post
  8. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 28,683


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    3,013
    Thanks (Received)
    627
    Likes (Received)
    1504
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)
    Follows
    48
    Following
    29
    Why would making a mistake and admitting to it cost credibility? That seems completely off. Whatever system is in place needs to be able to deal with people making mistakes. It really doesn't help too when people like myself use the video upload and it causes a duplicate to upload too. Why should I be faulted for the system's mistakes?
  9. VERIFIED TG STAFF Credibility: 4,000
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    596
    Thanks (Received)
    828
    Likes (Received)
    1177
    Blog Entries
    60
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: twingalaxies View Channel: twingalaxieslive
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    32 Thread(s)
    Follows
    33613
    Following
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by ssdninja View Post
    Why would making a mistake and admitting to it cost credibility? That seems completely off. Whatever system is in place needs to be able to deal with people making mistakes. It really doesn't help too when people like myself use the video upload and it causes a duplicate to upload too. Why should I be faulted for the system's mistakes?
    System errors would never result in credibility loss. So no worries there. :)

    In regard to your first question, "Why would making a mistake and admitting to it cost credibility?" - This is life. Here are examples:

    I made a mistake and bounced a check.
    I made a mistake and didn't see that red light.
    I made a mistake and chose "A" when I meant "B" on that test.
    I made a mistake when I posted that comment on Facebook.
    etc.

    Many times in life, mistakes can have a real cost associated with them. It doesn't matter if you admit to them, there still is a cost. So in order to avoid that cost, we make extra sure that we do everything we can to avoid making that mistake. Costs associated with mistakes is a checks and balances system that works to reduce avoidable error. Certainly all errors can not be avoided, but overall an error rate can be reduced greatly with such a system in place.

    As it currently stands, there is no significant cost associated with making errors on score submission forms. The ultimate result is that there is a higher error rate and less attention paid to detail during the submission form fill out process. That's just how it is.

    This of course results in numerous adjudication threads that have zero chance of being accepted - and then the follow on user suggestions of having TG create systems designed to somehow allow the removal of these threads by the original submitter.

    Any ability of the original submitter to be able to remove their own submission is immediately creating an opportunity for people to attempt to cheat the system.

    Example:

    User submits bogus score video
    Everything goes smooth for a few days.
    One user points out a problem with the video.
    Original submitter "rejects" their own submission and video is gone along with the thread.
    NO PENALTY.

    Using the above method, a user can just keep working the system until something is able to slip through via miracle.

    Now, look at an alternative scenario:

    User submits bogus score video
    Everything goes smooth for a few days.
    One user points out a problem with the video.
    Original submitter "rejects" their own submission and video is gone along with the thread.
    CR POINTS LOST.

    One of the things that is eventually coming in general is CR point loss for the submitter for a rejected submission (whether self-rejected or voter-rejected.) This will help encourage superior submission packages and less "oh well, let me just send it in there and see what happens."

    Now, as a community we are not quite there yet and so we are not ready to implement this but it is important to understand that the goal is always to receive credible score performances and to discourage anything else.

    What also comes with the above idea is the concept of a submitter getting a special CR point gain if a submitted score is accepted. It is a two-sided coin!

    While we understand the inconvenience of making a mistake on a submission form, the fact of the matter is that we all must treat the process of submission with seriousness and detailed attention. This will bring more credibility to the whole process and continue to elevate the participating community's professionalism and public regard.

    Hope that thinking made sense.
    Likes Barra, ssdninja liked this post
  10. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 28,683


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    3,013
    Thanks (Received)
    627
    Likes (Received)
    1504
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)
    Follows
    48
    Following
    29
    That's all well and good but you didn't address the fact that people have errors beyond their control during submission. The last time I used the direct upload feature it submitted two identical submissions and from there I guess I'm responsible for the issue?I made a post in the website section of the forum and never received an answer. In any case, punishing people for errors beyond their control is not the best method, I think. If there are going to be consequences for mistakes then the system should also have some responsibility when the mistakes happen on the other side of the screen.

    As far as the other points I understand the emphasis on accuracy and consequences. I agree and I think that people should be held responsible when some errors are made. For example, recently there have been instances where a series of submissions were in error and I think that's an issue that does deserve some positive punishment. I do want to point out that neither I nor Barra mentioned the option to immediately remove a post - especially once it has been questioned. I think we were both going off the idea if it was possible to expedite a mistake faster to get it off the queue and clear it up for other submissions.
Page 2 of 95 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Join us