thread

Dispute: Jason Newman - PlayStation - Ridge Racer Turbo / Hi-Spec Demo - PAL - Mid-Level [Fastest Lap] - Player: Jason Newman - Score: 41.77

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 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,889
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,308
    Thanks (Received)
    563
    Likes (Received)
    899
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Follows
    40
    Following
    1

    Dispute: Jason Newman - PlayStation - Ridge Racer Turbo / Hi-Spec Demo - PAL - Mid-Level [Fastest Lap] - Player: Jason Newman - Score: 41.77

    PlayStation - Ridge Racer Turbo / Hi-Spec Demo - PAL - Mid-Level [Fastest Lap]
    Score Trackhttp://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=198730
    RulesYou may use a saved game to access and use any car including the #0 Angel car or #13 Devil car.
    Player NameJason Newman
    Original Adjudicationhttp://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php?t=152483
    Verification MethodTGSAP
    Verification Date2016-02-25
    Disputed Score41.77 (Rank 1)
    Disputed Byrotunda
    Dispute Evidence / RationaleNice easy one here... I originally posted this for TG to deal with but as they haven't I will just dispute my own score for the reasons given below. This is my track, my record and i request it be removed.

    An error i made on my first attempt at making a game track here on TG



    Duplicate tracks for the same track and score. The one in red needs to be removed, green is the new score with the correct and cleaner track title as well as a better score thus being 1st. The duplicate track needs to be removed.
  2. VERIFIED Honored Veteran Credibility: 27,295


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    No' 'ere
    Posts
    20,177
    Thanks (Received)
    6541
    Likes (Received)
    6415
    Blog Entries
    133
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: barthax
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    48 Thread(s)
    Follows
    86
    Following
    78
    Voting No as the submission was valid against the track it was posted against. If this were to be honoured then those adjudicators who faithfully verified the original submission will be penalised for correctly adjudicating.

    Are you on my radar?
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
    Thanks Snowflake thanked this post
    Likes Snowflake liked this post
  3. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,889
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,308
    Thanks (Received)
    563
    Likes (Received)
    899
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Follows
    40
    Following
    1
    Well it needs to be removed some how. It's a completely redundant, duplicate track and needs to be removed.

    I wasn't aware people get penalised for their original votes on disputed tracks either... that's a bit crappy.
  4. VERIFIED Honored Veteran Credibility: 27,295


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    No' 'ere
    Posts
    20,177
    Thanks (Received)
    6541
    Likes (Received)
    6415
    Blog Entries
    133
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: barthax
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    48 Thread(s)
    Follows
    86
    Following
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by rotunda View Post
    I wasn't aware people get penalised for their original votes on disputed tracks either... that's a bit crappy.
    If a dispute is successful then the original vote is reversed - all those that voted Yes on the original get a -3 CR and -1 SP (to rectify the original gain) and then a 5% reduction on their CR as it was at the time. The system then re-calculates the whole CR for all participants. Those that vote No on the original get their 5% CR deduction reimbursed and then +3 CR and +1 SP.

    Are you on my radar?
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
    Likes nads liked this post
  5. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,889
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,308
    Thanks (Received)
    563
    Likes (Received)
    899
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Follows
    40
    Following
    1
    Wow... TG really is turning into a full time job haha!

    I was unaware, thanks for letting me know.
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 5,644
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,495
    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
    34
    Following
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax View Post
    If a dispute is successful then the original vote is reversed - all those that voted Yes on the original get a -3 CR and -1 SP (to rectify the original gain) and then a 5% reduction on their CR as it was at the time. The system then re-calculates the whole CR for all participants. Those that vote No on the original get their 5% CR deduction reimbursed and then +3 CR and +1 SP.
    Even in the presence of new evidence? Seems a bit backwards

    We have to vote on the evidence given at the time. If we all assumed that new evidence (contrary to the vote) could be posted at a later date, no score would ever get verified

    (not getting at you, just sharing some general thoughts)
    Thanks HugDD thanked this post
  7. VERIFIED Honored Veteran Credibility: 27,295


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    No' 'ere
    Posts
    20,177
    Thanks (Received)
    6541
    Likes (Received)
    6415
    Blog Entries
    133
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: barthax
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    48 Thread(s)
    Follows
    86
    Following
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Barra View Post
    Even in the presence of new evidence? Seems a bit backwards

    We have to vote on the evidence given at the time. If we all assumed that new evidence (contrary to the vote) could be posted at a later date, no score would ever get verified

    (not getting at you, just sharing some general thoughts)
    Yeah, sucks doesn't it?! New evidence or not, if a dispute is successful the old voting is reversed.

    Are you on my radar?
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
  8. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 5,644
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,495
    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
    34
    Following
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax View Post
    Yeah, sucks doesn't it?! New evidence or not, if a dispute is successful the old voting is reversed.
    Wow ok I didn't realise this. Has this issue been raised anywhere? Surely that's not the intended consequence of settling a dispute.

    ...removing all votes.
    Likes rotunda liked this post
  9. VERIFIED Honored Veteran Credibility: 27,295


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    No' 'ere
    Posts
    20,177
    Thanks (Received)
    6541
    Likes (Received)
    6415
    Blog Entries
    133
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: barthax
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    48 Thread(s)
    Follows
    86
    Following
    78
    Yeah, like the current community finding reasons to overturn decisions which were perfectly valid in the early 1980s, the future community can overturn valid decisions of today.

    Are you on my radar?
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
  10. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,340
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks (Received)
    818
    Likes (Received)
    951
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    18 Thread(s)
    Follows
    15
    Following
    24
    I agree that the score is valid for the track it is under. And I also agree that the track has been duplicated.

    It would not be fair to penalize those that voted correctly. Honestly, I feel the submitted should be penalized. But either way the issue of a duplicate track needs have a proper way to be addressed on TG.

    Perhaps the current dispute system is not designed in a way to best handle this situation. @Dave Hawksett can you provide guidance regarding if the dispute route is the right way go about this, or if a new process needs to be developed to merge duplicate tracks?
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Join us