thread

Dispute: Simon Leitch - iOS - Candy Crush Saga - World 1: Episode 1: Candy Town: Level 6 - Player: Rodrigo Lopes - Score: 71,320

User Tag List

Is this a valid dispute?

You may not vote on this poll
    You have no permission to view/vote this poll.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 7,869
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Vermilion, Ohio
    Posts
    5,054
    Thanks (Received)
    2156
    Likes (Received)
    3663
    Blog Entries
    112
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: snowflaketg
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    33 Thread(s)
    Follows
    46
    Following
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock View Post
    On the contrary, the fact that a Colour Bomb is there, right at the start of this submission's game, is irrefutable evidence that a "booster" was utilised. Inadvertently? Maybe. But, that doesn't matter.

    The rules now say, "Items that appear during the game as a result of gameplay are not counted as boosters, in order to prevent gameplay tactics being hindered."

    The Colour Bomb, seen before any gameplay has begun, is a "booster", put into the game by some method not discernible within the submission's evidence. The method's existence is nevertheless proven by the clarity of its result, the not "special candy" Colour Bomb "booster".

    The hilarious thing is that, if this track's author had simply followed my suggestion to allow the default "booster" (which is the Colour Bomb), this dispute would not even have been necessary.

    And, even after this dispute forced somebody to do something about the inadequate rules, said rules still do not address the fact that Colour Bombs can be put into the game, before play starts.

    Although this ended up being a monumental waste of time, effort & opportunity, this dispute will remain here as proof that at least some attempt was made to clean up the mess made by all these ill conceived Candy Crush tracks.

    And it is a mess, make no mistake. If you really think it's all been cleared up, I dare you to go vote 'yes' on the one & only Candy crush submission left in the queue.
    i will grant you this has turned into a mess, and yes even new subs just have this argument being rehashed. I think though, as with any uncomfortable argument, both sides hate the argument, both thinks its a mess, both which correct resolution would follow. Where I have to disagree, due to being on the opposite side, is the cause of the mess. Therefore, I would suggest we can handle things more easily by explaining our position rather than just blaming other side with things like "ill concieved". I'm gonna fight the urge to call this dispute you started "ill - concieved" and i think if you fought the urge to call the track "ill -concieved" we could debate the focal point more easily.

    as a side note, i cant accept your date to vote yes, as i already voted on that submissions a while back. I have no problem committing my yes vote. In that you'll notice @starcrytas seems to be your opinion but we're able to have the debate without throwing out terms that encourage escalation
    Mr. Do's Castle champ
    Lode Runner champ
    Other kid's games champ

    Adult Games: Street Fighter champ
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 29,002
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,499
    Thanks (Received)
    2877
    Likes (Received)
    1767
    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    70 Thread(s)
    Follows
    19
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    i will grant you this has turned into a mess, and yes even new subs just have this argument being rehashed. I think though, as with any uncomfortable argument, both sides hate the argument, both thinks its a mess, both which correct resolution would follow. Where I have to disagree, due to being on the opposite side, is the cause of the mess. Therefore, I would suggest we can handle things more easily by explaining our position rather than just blaming other side with things like "ill concieved". I'm gonna fight the urge to call this dispute you started "ill - concieved" and i think if you fought the urge to call the track "ill -concieved" we could debate the focal point more easily.

    as a side note, i cant accept your date to vote yes, as i already voted on that submissions a while back. I have no problem committing my yes vote. In that you'll notice @starcrytas seems to be your opinion but we're able to have the debate without throwing out terms that encourage escalation
    Mr Rosa, do not accuse me of "blaming" anyone. This track had to be amended, proof enough that it was ill conceived. However, the rash foundation of a track is not such a bad thing, as long as the track's author is willing to fix any inadequacies. Unfortunately, this track's author refused to do anything about the confusion, hence this dispute.

    Even though it's you, I'm still surprised you'd dare to come here and question my intent, when you just finished humiliating yourself with the most ill conceived dispute one could possibly imagine. I suggest you take a long look in the mirror, before continuing your usual bit of quoting me, trying to provoke pointless argument.
  3. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 7,869
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Vermilion, Ohio
    Posts
    5,054
    Thanks (Received)
    2156
    Likes (Received)
    3663
    Blog Entries
    112
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: snowflaketg
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    33 Thread(s)
    Follows
    46
    Following
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock View Post
    Mr Rosa, do not accuse me of "blaming" anyone. This track had to be amended, proof enough that it was ill conceived. However, the rash foundation of a track is not such a bad thing, as long as the track's author is willing to fix any inadequacies. Unfortunately, this track's author refused to do anything about the confusion, hence this dispute.

    Even though it's you, I'm still surprised you'd dare to come here and question my intent, when you just finished humiliating yourself with the most ill conceived dispute one could possibly imagine. I suggest you take a long look in the mirror, before continuing your usual bit of quoting me, trying to provoke pointless argument.
    The only ill-conceived thing about the track is it failed to take into account that someone would try to twist the words, and I will admit that going forward, simply writing well defined correct rules is not good enough. In additon to the rules being well written, they also need to be written in such a way that can avoid disputes. sometimes you have to redundant and say the same things multiple ways to avoid future debates, its the unfortunately reality but its there.

    As for acting like my quoting you is not allowed, I have full right to respond to anything on a site that affects me. I will however go back to previous way of handling this by limiting my responses to you to have at least 24 hour gap to avoid too much of a tangent. Go ahead and throw any other insults and provocations you want at me, you'll have the last word on them until 4pm EST 1-12-2018
    Mr. Do's Castle champ
    Lode Runner champ
    Other kid's games champ

    Adult Games: Street Fighter champ
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
  4. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 29,002
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,499
    Thanks (Received)
    2877
    Likes (Received)
    1767
    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    70 Thread(s)
    Follows
    19
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    The only ill-conceived thing about the track is it failed to take into account that someone would try to twist the words, and I will admit that going forward, simply writing well defined correct rules is not good enough. In additon to the rules being well written, they also need to be written in such a way that can avoid disputes. sometimes you have to redundant and say the same things multiple ways to avoid future debates, its the unfortunately reality but its there.

    As for acting like my quoting you is not allowed, I have full right to respond to anything on a site that affects me. I will however go back to previous way of handling this by limiting my responses to you to have at least 24 hour gap to avoid too much of a tangent. Go ahead and throw any other insults and provocations you want at me, you'll have the last word on them until 4pm EST 1-12-2018
    Your disgraceful misuse of the dispute system is something more and more people will come to know, as time goes on. By playing your usual game of attempting to engage me in pointless back & forth, you will succeed only in highlighting how you treat the Score Dispute Review forum as your own personal playground, where you tried to forward your vendetta against Mr Robert Mruczek.

    Tomorrow, you will have the same nothing to say as the nothing you have said, today. But keep racking up the useless, provocative and inflammatory posts, Mr Rosa. More material for my wall. After the severe schooling I gave both you and Twin Galaxies concerning "intellectual property" and "fair use", I would've thought my wall wouldn't be a place you'd want to end up on, again. I may have miscalculated.

    Now, back to the relevant topic .6.9.

    The Colour Bomb "booster" is a feature which increases the frequency of a Colour Bomb's appearing in a game of Candy Crush. The "booster" grows in strength, the more the game is played. Its strength level is indicated by a number, the variability of which means that the "booster" is not just for getting one Colour Bomb. In other words, when a Colour Bomb appears right at the start of a game, that is not the full extent of the "booster". The "booster", during the course of the game, gives the player more opportunities to line up five items, which makes a Colour Bomb appear.

    One thing is obvious: the Colour Bomb is Candy Crush's default "booster". It seems to me to be very easy to get a high level Colour Bomb "booster", which is why I suggested allowing its use. All players should be able to get it, doing nothing more than playing the game a lot. Also, since "booster" options are inevitable, and there seems to be no way of avoiding taking one, allowing players to use the default "booster" appears to be necessary.

    I sacrificed quite a bit of time, playing this ridiculous game. Took it up to the same level as in this disputed submission. Played the level several times, so I could make a half decent comparison between what I saw happening, as a random player, and what I saw in the submission's evidence. Well, not once did a Colour Bomb appear at the start of any of my games, and I didn't get nearly as many opportunities to line up five items to make a Colour Bomb.

    Probably won't surprise anyone to hear that, as a random player, I received zero offers of a Colour Bomb "booster", even after all the times I played. Mr Lopes, on the other hand, is evidently a registered player, and this doubtless had much to do with his being offered a Colour Bomb "booster" with a big fat '8' on it.

    What, therefore, is the more likely explanation of my not getting as many Colour Bombs as Mr Lopes? Was he masterfully manipulating the game, even in its early (laughably easy) stages, to seize a considerable but well deserved advantage? Or was he simply benefitting from an automatic Colour Bomb "booster", due to his being a registered and frequent player?

    I know which one I find more likely, but I won't say. Doesn't matter, anyway, since the decision on this has been made. But this lovely little thread will serve as a permanent reminder that there was a good chance to clean up the mess, and it was passed up, in favour of utterly fruitless and senseless argument. I am so happy to have been a part of it, thanks.
  5. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,322
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    1,738
    Thanks (Received)
    657
    Likes (Received)
    2045
    Blog Entries
    186
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    49 Thread(s)
    Follows
    60
    Following
    61
    This dispute is invalid.
    "May the Heavy Hand spare you" -- Datagod 1:19
    ~~ Strongest Punch on Twin Galaxies ~~

  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,380
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    250
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Received)
    214
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    6
    Following
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by datagod View Post
    This dispute is invalid.
    The 1-1 Dispute is complete invalid. I have to agree that this one is a valid dispute though. Not because he used special candies at all, but because he has one right at the start of the game. I restarted 1-2 30+ times and never started with a special candy (looking into the 1-2 sunmission in the Q) I have been set up to immediately get a Color Bomb on my first move but the game has never give me one to start.

    Again I think using them in game is part of the game but starting with one is a booster whether intentionally selected or by accident or by glitch.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Join us