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 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. VERIFIED COMMISSIONER Credibility: 8,000
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Leigh-On-Sea, UK
    Posts
    227
    Thanks (Received)
    249
    Likes (Received)
    427
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Follows
    17
    Following
    6
    @sdwyer138 This is starting to look like a special case. If people voted in good faith on a valid submission for the correct track then they should not be penalised in my opinion. This dispute can remain for as long as necessary in order to ensure a logical and fair resolution.
    @rotunda Thanks for bringing this one up. It was just over a year between your two submissions. For the record, would you mind clarifying exactly why you resubmitted?
    @Barthax Successful disputes require the consent of Twin Galaxies – that’s one of the reason’s I’m here. Sheer weight of votes alone will not overturn old scores which obeyed the rules of their time. Other organisations that monitor scores/records etc have to change many rules over time, often as a result of the evolution of the health and safety industry. The old achievements, under old rules, still need to be preserved and recognised even if people have to adopt slightly different rules to compete against a slightly different track.

    One example would be for marathons set in arcades. It is much easier now that it was in the 1980s to use an UPS to keep the machine running in the event of a power cut. Should we therefore insist that power cuts mean the end of your (modern) score attempt? If you intend to spend several days setting a record, with press attention, then surely you would arrange to have an UPS. However if you were trying to beat Brian King’s Robotron score, under the same rules, would the requirement for a UPS make it unfair, as a power cut could mean a vital caffeine break?
    Likes HugDD liked this post
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,310
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks (Received)
    807
    Likes (Received)
    943
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    18 Thread(s)
    Follows
    14
    Following
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett View Post
    @sdwyer138 This is starting to look like a special case. If people voted in good faith on a valid submission for the correct track then they should not be penalised in my opinion. This dispute can remain for as long as necessary in order to ensure a logical and fair resolution.
    I like your opinion there ;) It's also not fair that I lost cred for voting in good faith on a valid submission that ended up getting cancelled just because the person made a new submission for a faster time.. But that's a different matter..

    Back to this - Comparing Rotunda's video for each of the two tracks in question, the game play appears the same to me, the rules are the same, "mid-level" sounds like "medium track", so I don't see any reason why it's not appropriate to do a merge/delete right now.

    And not exactly related, but on the topic of this same game. I'm noticing that several tracks for this game have poor formatting with visible html tags. Can this be cleaned up?
    Likes HugDD 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
    39
    Following
    1
    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.
    I also agree and I'm happy to take a CR hit or whatever to get this score cleaned up. It was my mistake and only my mistake and i completely agree voters should not be punished for my oversight.

    @rotunda Thanks for bringing this one up. It was just over a year between your two submissions. For the record, would you mind clarifying exactly why you resubmitted?
    I improved on my time, then completely forgot about the old "mid level" track and submitted to the newer format. It is a complete cock up on my part.
    Thanks Dave Hawksett thanked this post
  4. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,310
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks (Received)
    807
    Likes (Received)
    943
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    18 Thread(s)
    Follows
    14
    Following
    24
    The people who donated to that track should get a refund too
  5. VERIFIED COMMISSIONER Credibility: 8,000
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Leigh-On-Sea, UK
    Posts
    227
    Thanks (Received)
    249
    Likes (Received)
    427
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Follows
    17
    Following
    6
    We will lose the old track and stick with the better-formatted track, as suggested.

    Thanks again.
    Thanks rotunda thanked this post
    Likes sdwyer138, rotunda liked this post
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 7,851
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Vermilion, Ohio
    Posts
    5,046
    Thanks (Received)
    2155
    Likes (Received)
    3649
    Blog Entries
    112
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: snowflaketg
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    33 Thread(s)
    Follows
    45
    Following
    23
    The reason new evidence can ping old votes is because it still means you voted yes on a bad submission. If there was unsufficient evidence at the time to know if it was valid or not, then abstain would've been the better choice. Think about it, even if proof of cheating didnt exist at the time, but comes to light later, then that still means there was insufficient proof to accept. Theres no way a fake score ever had sufficient proof to accept, thats impossible. This should encourage people to abstain on submissions that lack sufficient evidence.

    that said, there are times that is unfair. sure, if you vote accept on a screenshot, and then a video comes through proving wrong setting, i have no sympathy. However, we're told to accept things now like hardware modifications that previoulsy would've been disallowed as long as theirs no proof it affects gameplay since it later proof is found it can handled then. This is totally unfair, since the person voting in good faith based on the rules at the time gets dinged later. Another example is youtube videos going missing. We were told at the time to just vote on whether or not we believe its valid, not on whether or not we think the evidence will be permanent. But then in adifferent thread we're told if the evidence goes missing we should've taken that into account and we'll be dinged.

    my suggestion when i put all the official statements together is this, never vote accept unless you're 100% sure the run truly is valid. If there's even the slighest shadow of a doubt, abstain.
    Mr. Do's Castle champ
    Lode Runner champ
    Other kid's games champ

    Adult Games: Street Fighter champ
  7. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,491


    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    808
    Thanks (Received)
    266
    Likes (Received)
    501
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: danman123456
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    55 Thread(s)
    Follows
    23
    Following
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett View Post
    @sdwyer138 This is starting to look like a special case. If people voted in good faith on a valid submission for the correct track then they should not be penalised in my opinion. This dispute can remain for as long as necessary in order to ensure a logical and fair resolution.
    @rotunda Thanks for bringing this one up. It was just over a year between your two submissions. For the record, would you mind clarifying exactly why you resubmitted?
    @Barthax Successful disputes require the consent of Twin Galaxies – that’s one of the reason’s I’m here. Sheer weight of votes alone will not overturn old scores which obeyed the rules of their time. Other organisations that monitor scores/records etc have to change many rules over time, often as a result of the evolution of the health and safety industry. The old achievements, under old rules, still need to be preserved and recognised even if people have to adopt slightly different rules to compete against a slightly different track.

    One example would be for marathons set in arcades. It is much easier now that it was in the 1980s to use an UPS to keep the machine running in the event of a power cut. Should we therefore insist that power cuts mean the end of your (modern) score attempt? If you intend to spend several days setting a record, with press attention, then surely you would arrange to have an UPS. However if you were trying to beat Brian King’s Robotron score, under the same rules, would the requirement for a UPS make it unfair, as a power cut could mean a vital caffeine break?
    Course I have some opinions and must respond :)

    Marathons with power cuts END the marathon. That is exactly what happened to George Luetz on one of his Q-Bert attempts and the idea of connecting it to a UPS was brought up and I actually think that is what was done on his WR attempt. This was after 36+ hours of playing IIRC so it already DOES apply. The entire point of allowing that in the past was kind of silly but somewhat understandable. It also appears to me that it let people also assume they could just play and play and play and they felt it was a "marathon" to stitch multiple games together regardless if it was truly one credit or not and if all the men died off when they rested or not.

    Also any score on a scoreboard that violates a current rule shouldn't exist. This makes no sense you can't have a first place score that uses some trick or technique that is BANNED now and just say "Well it was ok at the time". Needs to be moved to another scoreboard with an * noting why or rules fix. You shouldn't just flush the record if it was truly "ok at the time" but you cannot expect people to now have to run a mile for a 100M Dash time.

    The enter concept of penalizing someone AFTER the fact is kind of a whatttttttttt????? These disputes should have ZERO to do with the previous adjudication. What is going to happen is NO ONE will ever vote NO and only abstain on submissions where there is even a "sliver" of doubt (Which I really think is happening now). Regardless of that somewhere down the line they go "Hey you know what starting at level 1-c and using catmander with the boomshooter creates some scoring glitch and invalidates the game so we will be rejecting anyone using that tactic (similar to the no-bees Galaga for example) and all those people now loose out even when it wasn’t technically wrong to start but now it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong? You cannot have one process later affect a process from way before. I think only if someone got HURT originally due to something being found wrong you fix who got dinged not turn around and ding everyone else afterwards again. While in the one of cases I have I can understand "dinging" all the blind yes voters (Someone submitting to the wrong track and it ended up getting accepted even when they said they were going to cancel it) I still think it’s a bad idea because; while this one case maybe crystal clear others will not be; you can't try and decide "Ok they screwed up bad here ding them this was really an honest error and shouldn’t be rejected but we will due to this or that". Way too hard to try and ride that line and this will do nothing but hurt the entire adjudication process which in turn impacts TG as a whole.

    TL;DR - Marathons end when power is cut, Rules need to be same for all records on a track, don't ding folks who adjudicate after the fact. Fix the ones who got it right but don't take away. Jeopardy doesn't take cash away when the other person got the answer right before they did...
    Dan Desjardins
  8. VERIFIED COMMISSIONER Credibility: 8,000
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Leigh-On-Sea, UK
    Posts
    227
    Thanks (Received)
    249
    Likes (Received)
    427
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Follows
    17
    Following
    6
    @danman1234

    Thanks for your comments

    My reasoning for not wanting to penalise people who originally voted ‘yes’ on this track is summed up by the dispute rationale. To simply remove the score by accepting the dispute could have the effect of penalising those who voted on a track deemed correct at the time. People who voted yes originally did not get things wrong.

    I agree that marathons should end when the power cuts and that rules should be the same for all scores on a track. However it is becoming clear that different rules have been used over time for the same tracks. This does not invalidate them but, if we can nail down the exact conditions of older rules, we can at least think about separating tracks in a way that current players could theoretically still play under the old rules if they wanted to. Therefore we need to precisely ascertain what those old rules were.
    Likes Barthax liked this post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Join us