thread

Cancelled Submissions

User Tag List

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 198
  1. VERIFIED CUSTODIAN Credibility: 10,000
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    515
    Thanks (Received)
    417
    Likes (Received)
    263
    Blog Entries
    19
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: voyboy
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    34 Thread(s)
    Follows
    32
    Following
    27
    Hi Andrew


    I checked the Forums>Today's Posts in different machines and found that its working . I really want to resolve the problems that you are facing .

    I got the video that you sent me . You must click the signature.php AJAX request to inspect the response and show if there is an error there.

    I suspect most of the problems you are facing are due to a script blocking AJAX requests on your machine .

    The reason for this assumption is the following " I logged in your account with your permission to post a submission from my machine and i was successfully able to do so . I did the same on your machine and got an error. "

    I really want to help you and once you send me the AJAX error , i will be able to identify the problems .

    Regards
    Twingalaxies Staff

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax View Post
    I don't use my profile page unless I absolutely have to: it's broken. Forums > Today's Posts (which is the poor brother of the old "all new posts since last visit" functionality) and Cancellations forum.



    So here's the basics of the profile page:
    - Fast loading page: works for me and is equal to other users.
    - Only load the next set of data via AJAX when it is actually needed: broken. If I wanted to scroll down, I'd expect the next load only when I reach a given point for it to load (near the end but not at the end). What happens in reality: you reach that point and then it cycles around loading all possible data (on a timer? - hard to understand) until it finishes.
    - Only load one set of data when needed: broken. If I scroll down the notifications, there's no need to load the next set of scores as well as the next set of notifications.
    [Edit]:
    - Only load one set of data when needed: broken (2). Don't load the same set of data from the server in triplicate.
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 6,283
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Vermilion, Ohio
    Posts
    3,967
    Thanks (Received)
    1606
    Likes (Received)
    2739
    Blog Entries
    86
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: snowflaketg
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    29 Thread(s)
    Follows
    41
    Following
    22
    You know what, I can be pedantic and overly focused on details. As I step back, I realize, that while I stand by everything I said, my complaint is so small that I don't care. Ultimately, the only real issue is in the case of abuse. And in that case, the abusive user will quickly find themselves black balled. While that's only an informal punishment, having people unwilling to vote on one's submission is nothing to scoff at. The trouble makers are a lot fewer and far between than they once were. The community is a pretty happy place right now and I'm sure if a new trouble maker shows up he/she will stand out like a sore thumb and be dealt with just fine.
    Thanks bensweeneyonbass thanked this post
    Likes Jace Hall liked this post
  3. VERIFIED CUSTODIAN Credibility: 10,000
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    515
    Thanks (Received)
    417
    Likes (Received)
    263
    Blog Entries
    19
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: voyboy
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    34 Thread(s)
    Follows
    32
    Following
    27
    Hi Stella


    I have modified the code for cancelled submission. This will work for the newly cancelled submission .

    Now the voters will be able to edit their votes . Please check this and confirm .

    Regards
    Admin Staff

    Quote Originally Posted by stella_blue View Post

    Hey Jace,

    The above statement was true at one time, but the system no longer works that way.

    Currently, adjudicators are NOT permitted to switch their vote from "Yes" to "No" after a submission is canceled. Attempting to do so will result in the vote being removed. TG members can either leave their vote as is, or unvote. There are no other options.

    The change was observed in December of 2016 and discussed by a few of us, beginning here:

    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...l=1#post872955

    We decided that the modified behavior was most likely by design, and not an error.

    You seem to be unaware of the change, so perhaps our conclusion was incorrect?

    Thanks stella_blue, HugDD thanked this post
  4. VERIFIED Veteran Member Credibility: 35,000
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks (Received)
    1921
    Likes (Received)
    2223
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: stella_blue
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Follows
    29
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by admin staff View Post
    Hi Stella

    I have modified the code for cancelled submission. This will work for the newly cancelled submission .

    Now the voters will be able to edit their votes . Please check this and confirm .

    Regards
    Admin Staff

    Thank you.

    Unfortunately, someone else will have to provide confirmation of the modified functionality.

    I have not voted on any of the 8 submissions currently in the canceled archive.

    Reminder

    The following submission was canceled 3 months ago (on April 13, 2017):

    PlayStation - Ridge Racer Turbo / Hi-Spec Demo - T.A (Time Attack) - Medium Track - Fastest Race - NTSC - 01:42.303 - Jason Newman

    For whatever reason, it was bypassed during the recent mass rejection.

    Thanks HugDD thanked this post
    Likes HugDD liked this post
  5. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 11,687
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texarkana
    Posts
    3,114
    Thanks (Received)
    1226
    Likes (Received)
    2674
    Blog Entries
    66
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: idesidious
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    55 Thread(s)
    Follows
    57
    Following
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by stella_blue View Post

    Thank you.

    Unfortunately, someone else will have to provide confirmation of the modified functionality.

    I have not voted on any of the 8 submissions currently in the canceled archive.

    Reminder

    The following submission was canceled 3 months ago (on April 13, 2017):

    PlayStation - Ridge Racer Turbo / Hi-Spec Demo - T.A (Time Attack) - Medium Track - Fastest Race - NTSC - 01:42.303 - Jason Newman

    For whatever reason, it was bypassed during the recent mass rejection.

    I can confirm that I was able to change my vote after a submission was cancelled yesterday or the day before.
    #1 on the 3DO Learderboard
    #7 on the Gamecube Leaderboard
    #53 on the N64 Leaderboard
    Thanks stella_blue, bensweeneyonbass, HugDD thanked this post
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 15,869


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keizer Oregon
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks (Received)
    280
    Likes (Received)
    581
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: dmoreland
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24
    Following
    11
    I tried this earlier this morning (before the admin post) and it didn't work for me. I tried to change my vote from yes to no and when I hit enter it came up with a response that said the pole was closed to voting and my vote was removed. I was not able to change it to no. I am unable to test if I would get the same result at this time.
    "Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good"

    Visit my YouTube channel for videos of over 150 classic arcade games, most of which you won't see at your local arcade. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh4...56xV5To9gPqsLA
    Thanks HugDD thanked this post
  7. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Thanks (Received)
    808
    Likes (Received)
    1337
    Blog Entries
    20
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    54 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24540
    Following
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper View Post
    I tried this earlier this morning (before the admin post) and it didn't work for me. I tried to change my vote from yes to no and when I hit enter it came up with a response that said the pole was closed to voting and my vote was removed. I was not able to change it to no. I am unable to test if I would get the same result at this time.
    Please try clearing your browser cache completely and attempt to change your vote again....
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian and Caretaker
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
  8. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 13,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Suberbia, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,938
    Thanks (Received)
    1146
    Likes (Received)
    1597
    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    66 Thread(s)
    Follows
    29
    Following
    24

    Angry

    Note - text in blue font are quotes from Jace Hall.

    "The submitter always loses their submission point fee when they cancel. There is the penalty".

    This is not a true. The submission fee is just like it sounds, a fee that is charged to anyone submitting an evidence package. Canceling the submission incurs no additional charge. It's a risk-free alternative in lieu of full adjudication process for the submitter. Let's break down the "transaction" to be crystal clear.

    Member submits evidence package - Cost 3
    - Option A (Adjudication Process Complete) - Cost 0
    - Option B (Submission Canceled) - Cost 0

    "Cancellation is just one form of why a score submission can become invalid. There are many other reasons that a score submission can become invalid which is why an adjudicator must monitor the scores they vote on".

    Again, I disagree on the premise that a canceled submission is an invalid submission. A cancelled submission simply stops the adjudication process. There is no judgment rendered on whether the submission is valid or not. Introducing a bias that a cancellation is equivalent to a rejected submission is the underpinning of the flaws that later pop up in the rest of the adjudication and cancellation feature. This is not a trivial distinction, this is a fundamental design decision.

    Please keep in mind that I'm purposely calling the adjudication process / design flawed. I'm not stating it is broken. The system functions but it could be better.

    "The above describes an edge case, and the recommendation is to not vote on submissions that you can not or do not want to monitor. Its that simple really".

    "The system is not designed for passive adjudicators. It is not the current goal of the adjudication system for passive participation. If the personal goal of a voting member is to passively participate, then voting systems like highscore.com or etc. are probably better suited for that intention. At least until TG starts to include gradient level verification".

    Yes you are correct. My example that I used to illustrate and example of a reason for 'passive' adjudicator was simply used to bring an element of light-hardheartedness and humor to break up a long and sometimes dry communication. If you need more of the road examples why an adjudicator may become passive here a few to think about: illness, financial distress, increased work responsibilities, birth of a child, death of a parent, car accident, house fire, compulsive / addiction, relocation, wedding planning, or simply needing a break from TG forum drama.

    If the current goal of the adjudication system is not for passive participation, what is the future or end goal? What is your high level design for vision for gradient level verification?

    "The fact is that after you vote on a submission, new information can be discovered about that submission. That new information can be anything from a cancellation to a discovery of cheating. All information under the system is equal. Its new information that suddenly becomes available to the participating voter. They can use it or not. They can monitor the submission or not. The penalty in all cases is exactly the same. New information is new information. The system is completely even on this matter".


    Again, this is the downstream impact of insisting a rejection and a cancellation are the same. A cancellation is not the introduction of new information to consider in adjudicating a video game performance via an evidence package. A cancellation is someone pulling the "emergency brake" on the journey to Adjudication City. The trip stopped short of it's destination. There are no postcards or photos to validate whether its a good city or bad city. The cancelled submission is neither valid or invalid. It should be viewed as it never existed. The only question is how to compensate the adjudicators services for performing their responsibilities when the submitter hits the brakes (cancel button). In my opinion, either the bank of Twin Galaxies compensates the adjudicator for performing their responsibilities, determined by those who cast a vote (Yes/No), or they are compensated directly by the submitter. Under no circumstance should be penalized for what is the equivalent of a NON VOTE situation. Having adjudicator monitor submission the jump from the adjudication forum to the rejection forum and click a radio button is a pointless and non valued-added waste of time. It has no relevance to what I view as to quantify a credible action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    People will submit.
    People will want to cancel.
    People will spend their valuable time reviewing something, only to find out that the submitter wants/needs to cancel. Those people will want value for their time and will not want people who cancel to be able to waste their time at whim.

    That's just not going away. I am always interested in hearing better ideas, but I think that as people really start thinking through the entire matter thoroughly, they will find that:

    1) A passive voting system can not solve for this by design.
    2) Finding a better solution is not trivial!
    I'm going to be nice and ignore the undertones that (1) the idea I proposed lacked thought and (2) its also Trivial! The exclamation point was added for additional emphasis.

    But I will use this as a quick end to what I learned with through this conversation.

    1) Claims of having an open mind and interest in hearing better ideas are well just claims.

    Having an open mind for new ideas and maintaining the system is fair and balanced to risk/rewards for both the submitter and adjudicator is a logical contradiction. If you are unable and unwilling to identify and acknowledge a problem exists than I think your mind is already made up. Any further dialogue is a waste of time.

    The statement is also confirmed when someone uses snarky remarks such as "Neat system. Too bad no one will ever use it!", "if people really start thinking through the entire manner thoroughly", and "Finding a better solution is not Trivial!".

    There is not point continue a debate if the goal is to win an argument rather than acknowledge a problem, identify the root cause, and implement a solution. Its clear that the problem is the Sunday only adjudication either can't or are unwilling to commit more time to administrative adjudication activities. The system that is designed purposefully to exclude passive adjudication is perfect!
    Last edited by MyOwnWorstEnemy; 07-17-2017 at 06:06 PM.
  9. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Thanks (Received)
    808
    Likes (Received)
    1337
    Blog Entries
    20
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    54 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24540
    Following
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy View Post
    Note - text in blue font are quotes from Jace Hall.

    "The submitter always loses their submission point fee when they cancel. There is the penalty".

    This is not a true. The submission fee is just like it sounds, a fee that is charged to anyone submitting an evidence package. Canceling the submission incurs no additional charge. It's a risk-free alternative in lieu of full adjudication process for the submitter. Let's break down the "transaction" to be crystal clear.

    Member submits evidence package - Cost 3
    - Option A (Adjudication Process Complete) - Cost 0
    - Option B (Submission Canceled) - Cost 0
    I'm not understanding what you are saying here. There is a cost, therefore a penalty. Your equation above does not make sense to me, where you have "Cost 0" that's not accurate. What you would have to include in your equation above for it to be accurate would be the phrase "additional cost" if that is what you mean?

    Yes there are no additional costs - however there is in fact an initial cost, therefore a penalty when losing that investment.

    So using your example:

    Member buys a television - Cost = 3
    - Option A (Adjudication Process Complete) - Cost = 3 (the member spent 3 to accomplish this)
    - Option B (Submission Canceled) - Cost = 3 (the member spent 3 and accomplished nothing, therefore losing 3, hence a penalty since they have given up submission points and received nothing in return.)

    Given that, I'm not sure how you consider cancellation a risk-free alternative? Submitter's lose SP and receive no value for it under cancellation. They would have been better off not submitting in the first place, rather than cancel. That's a penalty.


    "Cancellation is just one form of why a score submission can become invalid. There are many other reasons that a score submission can become invalid which is why an adjudicator must monitor the scores they vote on".

    Again, I disagree on the premise that a canceled submission is an invalid submission. A cancelled submission simply stops the adjudication process. There is no judgment rendered on whether the submission is valid or not. Introducing a bias that a cancellation is equivalent to a rejected submission is the underpinning of the flaws that later pop up in the rest of the adjudication and cancellation feature. This is not a trivial distinction, this is a fundamental design decision.
    During cancellation, a judgement is in fact rendered on whether the submission is valid or not. That judgement is being made by the submitter themselves, and it is final. This is not a bias, this is fact and has nothing to do with design.

    The reasons for cancellation can be wide and varied, and since those reasons are not adjudicated in any way, any cancellation must instantly negate a submission due to the fact that the very person who is making a score claim is no longer willing to stand by their claim as valid.

    The very foundation of the adjudication process starts with someone making a score claim and asserting its validity throughout the entire adjudication process. When a person withdraws their claim before an adjudication is complete, there is no longer anything to adjudicate - there is no claim being made by anyone. They have ceased to assert their submission as valid.

    The reasons for their cancellation cannot be proven. However, it doesn't matter if their cancellation rationale can be proven - its not relevant - what is relevant is the fact that they no longer stand by their claim and have rendered a judgement on the validity of their own submission and no longer are choosing to make a claim. The claim is gone.

    My example that I used to illustrate and example of a reason for 'passive' adjudicator was simply used to bring an element of light-hardheartedness and humor to break up a long and sometimes dry communication. If you need more of the road examples why an adjudicator may become passive here a few to think about: illness, financial distress, increased work responsibilities, birth of a child, death of a parent, car accident, house fire, compulsive / addiction, relocation, wedding planning, or simply needing a break from TG forum drama.
    All valid reasons, and there always remains the option to simply unvote on all pending adjudications during those time periods. No need to have active adjudications running when there are more important things to do.
    If the current goal of the adjudication system is not for passive participation, what is the future or end goal? What is your high level design for vision for gradient level verification?
    This is an entirely separate topic and not really appropriate to have in the middle of a discussion about the cancel feature. It is absolutely true that the goal of the adjudication system is not for passive participation and it is not trying to solve for it.

    "The fact is that after you vote on a submission, new information can be discovered about that submission. That new information can be anything from a cancellation to a discovery of cheating. All information under the system is equal. Its new information that suddenly becomes available to the participating voter. They can use it or not. They can monitor the submission or not. The penalty in all cases is exactly the same. New information is new information. The system is completely even on this matter".

    Again, this is the downstream impact of insisting a rejection and a cancellation are the same. A cancellation is not the introduction of new information to consider in adjudicating a video game performance via an evidence package. A cancellation is someone pulling the "emergency brake" on the journey to Adjudication City. The trip stopped short of it's destination. There are no postcards or photos to validate whether its a good city or bad city. The cancelled submission is neither valid or invalid.It should be viewed as it never existed.
    This is just not accurate. You are trying to draw a distinction between a cancellation and a rejection in a system that is trying to establish authentication and validity of something submitted to it. Either something is valid or it is not. There is no in-between. You are suggesting that the system consider something that was placed into it is as something that did not exist or happen. That is entirely counter to transactional record keeping methodologies and function.

    The submission does/did exist. There is no escaping that fact. When a submission is placed into the system it is by default considered invalid until it is accepted as valid through the adjudication process. This is why a cancellation and a rejection are the same - both are not valid submissions - and make no mistake, both are submission types in the system - we can't deny that fact. It is completely objective in measurement here.

    The only question is how to compensate the adjudicators services for performing their responsibilities when the submitter hits the brakes (cancel button). In my opinion, either the bank of Twin Galaxies compensates the adjudicator for performing their responsibilities, determined by those who cast a vote (Yes/No), or they are compensated directly by the submitter. Under no circumstance should be penalized for what is the equivalent of a NON VOTE situation. Having adjudicator monitor submission the jump from the adjudication forum to the rejection forum and click a radio button is a pointless and non valued-added waste of time. It has no relevance to what I view as to quantify a credible action.
    This above suggestion runs exactly contrary to your previous suggestion that the system view the submission as it never existed.

    I'm going to be nice and ignore the undertones that (1) the idea I proposed lacked thought and (2) its also Trivial! The exclamation point was added for additional emphasis.
    Apologies, there were no intended undertones. Perhaps it can read that way depending how one is personally feeling at the moment when reading but I assure you that no negative undertones were implied/intended and items (1) and (2) were not directed at anyone specifically in any way. They were intended to only be generic statements. Clearly point #1 where I state "1) A passive voting system can not solve for this by design. " had nothing to do with anything you were saying as you were not suggesting a passive voting system - so I at least hope that can confirm that what I am saying is true in regard to there not being any intended undertones!

    But I will use this as a quick end to what I learned with through this conversation.

    1) Claims of having an open mind and interest in hearing better ideas are well just claims.

    Having an open mind for new ideas and maintaining the system is fair and balanced to risk/rewards for both the submitter and adjudicator is a logical contradiction. If you are unable and unwilling to identify and acknowledge a problem exists than I think your mind is already made up. Any further dialogue is a waste of time.
    I assure you that I am actually interested in hearing better ideas and discussing them. That is not just a claim. If I was not interested I promise you that I would not spend any time engaging on the subject. I'm interested!

    Now some people may not appreciate push back on suggestions, and only want the conversation to go one way. If that is your demeanor that's ok I am able to just sit back and listen. No issue there. However my assumption has been that you primary interest was in our collective goal is to find a better solution than what we currently use. Unfortunately, the solution that you laid out in your initial post, unmodified, simply does not solve the matter on its own. Either you want me to discuss and try to explain my perspective on why, or you don't, which is ok too.

    The statement is also confirmed when someone uses snarky remarks such as "Neat system. Too bad no one will ever use it!", "if people really start thinking through the entire manner thoroughly", and "Finding a better solution is not Trivial!".
    Please forgive me but I want to suggest that you may be a bit sensitive on this. No one is trying to be snarky. There's no reason for that and certainly nothing like that is running through my head at any point in this conversation. I don't have any emotion about this, at all. This is just problem solving. Nothing more. You may be reading more into this than what is there, at least on my part.

    When I say that finding a better solution than the one we have is not trivial, I am being quite serious. When I mention thinking things through, I'm not suggesting that you or others aren't thinking, I am saying that this is an incredibly complex and multi-layered issue that requires a tremendous amount of abstract analysis.

    To illustrate, lets take a look at just one of your statements,
    "In my opinion, either the bank of Twin Galaxies compensates the adjudicator for performing their responsibilities, determined by those who cast a vote (Yes/No), or they are compensated directly by the submitter. "
    Just that one simple statement you made is loaded with engineering and systemic complexity.

    In one sentence you laid out an entire multi-layered additional subsystem of the cancellation function that needs to be completely figured out from both a logistical and user interface perspective. TG Compensates? Ok, how much? Why? Determined by those who cast a vote? How? What about prevention of collusion and manipulation of that determination to stop people from working that system for advantage? Etc. Etc. We are talking about a lot of work, time and effort just for this one piece. So while it's easy to make statements like the above as suggestions, when I talk about thinking things completely through, that type of thing is what I am referring to, that's all I meant.

    This is what I mean by "not trival!" (with exclamation point) :)

    As someone who has personally spent thousands of hours sitting in a room with others trying to model out all these various systems for TG, I know firsthand how out of control it can get to try to solve these things. Simple ideas on the surface turn into nightmares of complexities.

    So as the most invested person on the planet into these TG systems, you can rest assured that I am always interested in looking at ways to improve it by any reasonable method possible. For anyone to think otherwise doesn't make sense. This is why I am fully engaged in this conversation.

    There is not point continue a debate if the goal is to win an argument rather than acknowledge a problem, identify the root cause, and implement a solution. Its clear that the problem is the Sunday only adjudication either can't or are unwilling to commit more time to administrative adjudication activities. The system that is designed purposefully to exclude passive adjudication is perfect!
    The goal is not to win an argument. The goal is to find the best system. That requires discussion and debate. Everything can be improved, obviously. I'm sorry that this has taken on some kind of personal nature for you, but I do understand how that is possible. Certainly never my intent!
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian and Caretaker
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
  10. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 23,062
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,496
    Thanks (Received)
    461
    Likes (Received)
    861
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    46 Thread(s)
    Follows
    21
    Following
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall
    The reasons for cancellation can be wide and varied, and since those reasons are not adjudicated in any way, any cancellation must instantly negate a submission due to the fact that the very person who is making a score claim is no longer willing to stand by their claim as valid.
    Jace, if that's the case, then why did you's guys "adjudicate" the cancelledPunch Out score/submission to be a cheat?

    He cancelled the submission BEFORE any accusation of wrong doing was submitted. ?


    john

    .



Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast