thread

"Challenge System" ......

User Tag List

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 97
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,532
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    412
    Thanks (Received)
    187
    Likes (Received)
    354
    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    21
    Following
    9
    I get the concerns being raised here, but is there a specific example you feel invalidates the Challenge System?

    Understand, I'm not saying any of your concerns are invalid or that they can't happen, but unless I'm missing something, it seems your concerns are currently theoretical. I'm also not saying there are not problems/holes in the current system. But there were problems/holes in the old system. And there would be problems/holes with a paid staff. For every problem you've listed with the current system, I could find as many or more potential problems with any system. All of the sports examples you mentioned \ have their own various issues with adjudication, even by experts.

    My point is that in damning a system when it hasn't had any of the problems being mentioned yet, seems a bit premature.

    In some ways, the challenge system is working better than the previous systems have - case in point, the Robotron score. For months (years?) we heard from TG refs about the meetings they were having behind closed doors where no evidence of the score or discussion was being made public, but promises of action were proclaimed, then it just died away. With this system, two weeks in got the community much sought after answers about what exactly happened, and the community can now make the necessary notes in the database and move forward with a more accurate tracking of that game.
    Thanks Jace Hall, Lonnie thanked this post
    Likes Desidious, datagod liked this post
  2. VERIFIED Legendary Member Credibility: 2,568
    Join Date
    Jan 1998
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks (Received)
    780
    Likes (Received)
    1552
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    38
    Following
    12
    The greatest fear, to me, is that the challenge system becomes a "witch hunt" of a sort.

    Many years back there was a thread where someone took the time to highlight the greatest disparities between the recognized WR and the 2nd place score. The way that discussion went back then...had it occurred in the here and now...could easily become the precursor to a series of score challenges based on disparity alone as the driving factor.

    ************************

    FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES ONLY

    As a matter of record, only two (2) large-scale "challenges" ever took place, both successful and both, as a matter of record, were launched by TG's own referees...

    The first was when we made a business decision (which Walter initially was reluctant to implement) where the Board of Referees demanded the removal of at the time more than 40% of all scores in the TG database as they were imported without validation from Nintendo and another source that have since forgotten (a TG "affiliate" site). The scores achieved were impossible to verify and in many cases the times were absolutely impossible without the use of a "Game Genie" or "Pro Action Replay" type device.

    So, without the capacity to differentiate between what was do-able and what was not, the decision was made to dump between 10-20 thousand scores, the exact number I have since forgotten.

    The second successful major purge was when someone added without consultation with the Board of Referees dozens and perhaps more than a hundred arcade scores in the TG database culled from old lists submitted from the old TG "Tamagachi Scoreboard" or however that was spelled. Most of the scores came from the same few arcades and there were more than a few that were outrageously impossible. It would not be the first time that for self-promotional purposes an arcade submitted inflated scores to give it the aura that it was a place where records were set. An across the board decision was made demanding that all the scores would be yanked from the scoreboard, and while that was also met with great reluctance by someone it was finally done.
    Thanks Dave Hawksett, Lonnie thanked this post
  3. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,277
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    1,727
    Thanks (Received)
    656
    Likes (Received)
    2018
    Blog Entries
    180
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    49 Thread(s)
    Follows
    60
    Following
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    I believe my post speaks for for itself but I appreciate your input.
    They do indeed. They speak of professional jealousy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    William M, how completely unprofessional.
    1. Your post adds nothing to the thread.
    I didn't realize you were the forum police. Sorry officer, did not mean to offend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    I'm also an Inductee in the International VideoGame Hall of Fame.
    A committee of your friends and peers cast a vote and decided to honor you.
    Irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    I have 10 businesses
    You registered 10 companies.
    You are so wealthy why didn't you buy Twin Galaxies?
    Irrelevant


    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    An IQ of 167.
    Did somebody adjudicate that, or was a screenshot at Aurcade sufficient evidence?
    Irrelevant


    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    Its time you add a positive influence to the community vs self promotion
    Says the guy who contacts arcades around the country offering to come and personally bless their Joust machine.
    I add plenty to the community. I recall your face being on a trading card because of me.
    Irrelevant


    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    You our are better than that William. Your actions sadden me.
    You don't sound sad. You sound like you are whining.
    Irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    4. Did you actually edit the USNVGT wiki and post a picture of you with BM?

    BM. Those are my initials. Please use unambigious language.
    Why are we talking about Wikipedia on a TG thread about the challenge system?
    Irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    You continually stir up issues with partial truths , they sound good enough to convince people till the entire story is heard.
    Translation: I ask questions and tell people my experiences. If you want to tie yourself to the career boat anchor that is known as Patrick, that is all on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    Shame on you.
    Shame on you Lonnie for partnering with a person that lied about getting a kill screen on the of the hardest games ever made. Shame on you for joining a team that was "reborn" by somebody registering a trademark and assuming control without getting Walter's blessing.
    Shame on you Lonnie for only ever coming here to complain about some "concern" you have, and not taking part in the actual process and learning a thing or two about the community here and what we are all trying to accomplish.

    The challenge process has already proven to be a valuable asset to the community. We have heard directly from the Robotron high score owner, and his story was captivating to say the least.
    "May the Heavy Hand spare you" -- Datagod 1:19
    ~~ Strongest Punch on Twin Galaxies ~~

  4. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks (Received)
    914
    Likes (Received)
    1533
    Blog Entries
    30
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    58 Thread(s)
    Follows
    33356
    Following
    99
    Hello Lonnie. Some answers:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    Challenge System:
    I rarely weigh in on the operation of TG unless I feel there are sufficient concerns.

    In this case I believe there is not only a concern but an intrinsic flaw and a major danger to TG credibility.

    The move to a community system is understandable but certainly not as good paid referees. The community system creates the dangerous problem of non experts commenting or attempting to validate scores. I certainly wouldn't want a non Expert to judge expert level play.

    TGSAP has proven itself to be faster , more effective, and potentially more consistently accurate than previous Twin Galaxies verification methods. Additionally, unlike previous methods, the entire process is publicly documented and available for review both during and after the fact of adjudication.

    While it is understandable that one would not want "non-experts judging expert level play" as you suggest, the good news is that is not what is taking place in the TGSAP method.

    In the TGSAP method, the community is looking at whether or not a score performance is valid based on the rules that were defined for a particular track. The community is not trying to judge "expert level play" to rate it (which is a different matter altogether.)

    The challenge of looking at a particular rule set and determining if those rules were followed by a performance is quite different than trying to qualitatively rate someone's score performance the way Olympic judges for Gymnastics do.

    This system equates to a popularity system that can easily be manipulated by any group of people with a passion to promote themselves or to defame others.
    This is patently false for many reasons and I'm assuming you are making this statement because you are not familiar with how the system functions. Many attempts at collusion and manipulation of the TGSAP process to get an invalid score performance accepted have already taken place without success. Either a score performance is valid or it is not.

    In TGSAP, voter weighting is not equal across participants - therefore, popularity is irrelevant.

    For further evidence of this, all you need to do is look at what took place during the H1Z1: Fight for the Crown qualification period, where in order for players to qualify they needed to have a verified Twin Galaxies H1Z1 performance in the database. During that time numerous extremely popular H1Z1 twitch streamers submitted their performances and commanded their enormous personal audiences to go "vote for them."

    In that situation you have people who are vastly popular trying to accomplish a result through the means that you suggest and that method failed to push invalid scores through. In fact, the system caught a few potential cheaters and blocked them from participation.

    If you have real concerns about TGSAP or the method, or you believe that the system is failing to do its job, we would all be very appreciative of you helping us identify which of the 25,000+ scores that have entered the database under the TGSAP method that you believe to be false/invalid. We could then address those problematic score performances with the dispute system.


    ​Now the TG community has created a "challenge system " that can remove historical scores. A poor business choice, far worse than the current popularity system.

    It is clearly known that over the years scores have been challenged in forums only later to be not only validated but exceeded.

    The recent challenge system implementation only serves to discredit Twin Galaxies and its historical adjudication process to the world.

    It would be helpful to better understand why you believe that creating a way to document discussions regarding specific Twin Galaxies scores is a "poor business choice?"

    Your position here makes me wonder if you fully understand the score dispute process. Let me briefly explain:

    The dispute process is available for all scores in the database. It is not aimed at any score type in particular.

    Any score in the database can be formally disputed. Rightfully so, as it is important that all scores in the database are valid under any 3rd party review.

    A dispute is nothing more than a formal and documented conversation about a score's validity.

    If a dispute accumulates enough momentum, the system will force TG admin to look at the discussion and consider its contents.

    That dispute discussion will have evidence, opinion, insight, etc. From all the people who have contributed to it.

    TG Admin will then decide at that time if the dispute discussion has made a substantial enough case to remove the score.

    If TG Admin agrees with the dispute, TG Admin will remove the score.

    If TG Admin is not persuaded, TG Admin will allow the dispute discussion to continue until it accumulates enough momentum to warrant another review.

    Its really that simple.

    I think it is very important to understand that historically, previous TG ownership / Admin simply removed scores from the database in a very haphazard, private and undocumented way. This is a fact. That previous method has contributed toward some of the overall scoreboard integrity questions that have been raised in the past and get raised even now.

    This new dispute method is a much more formalized and public process for TG Admin to follow, with accountability assigned to all participants (including the community) that is permanently documented for all to see both during and after any decision gets made.

    I find it challenging to understand why you would believe that the old TG admin method score removal could in any way be better than the new method of TG admin score removal. It further confuses me as to how you conclude that having this greater public visibility, participation and documentation of the process "only serves to discredit Twin Galaxies and its historical adjudication process to the world."

    Of course while I appreciate your opinion and don't seek to change it, I would think that the previous ownership's private, unpredictable and certainly undocumented processes used to remove scores from the TG database were more likely to discredit the institution. Well, hopefully you were around and able to voice your strong objections to what they were doing at that time as well!
  5. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 930
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Grandview Missouri
    Posts
    165
    Thanks (Received)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    55
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: lmcdonald111
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24
    Following
    10
    Mr McEvoy
    once again your responses add nothing of substance.
    This seems to be an on going pattern.

    Clearly the truth of the statements regarding your actions of harassing people, telling half truths for your own benefit and posting self promoting pictures on the USNVGT have struck true.

    I was wondering how long it would take you to go it to complete melt down.
    I can only imagine people who have watched you abuse others are humored by your recent rant.

    Its okay, you can take your ball and go home. 👍

    Truth , Honesty and Integrity are my friends. 👍
    I have the ability to weigh them clearly you don't.
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,277
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    1,727
    Thanks (Received)
    656
    Likes (Received)
    2018
    Blog Entries
    180
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    49 Thread(s)
    Follows
    60
    Following
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    ............
    Irrelevant
    "May the Heavy Hand spare you" -- Datagod 1:19
    ~~ Strongest Punch on Twin Galaxies ~~

    Likes The Kombat King liked this post
  7. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 930
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Grandview Missouri
    Posts
    165
    Thanks (Received)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    55
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: lmcdonald111
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24
    Following
    10
    Jace , I'm sure we all thank you for post and the fact that you saved TG from potential extinction, that thanks has been extended to you by me many times.

    I have also in the past had private discussions with you regarding the adjudication process and why you chose a Community system vs paid staff Refs.

    We we both agreed at that time that the later was preferable but not currently practical.

    I did not post my concerns without understanding the process and the potential need for one.

    I disagree the community of non experts judging anything or voting while they learn or having the ability to appeal anything they are not experts at.

    All the other issues simply side track the core concern I voiced.

    I do appreciate you taking your very valuable time to comment on this thread.
  8. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,532
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    412
    Thanks (Received)
    187
    Likes (Received)
    354
    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    21
    Following
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    I disagree the community of non experts judging anything or voting while they learn or having the ability to appeal anything they are not experts at.
    Lonnie,

    here is an example of "expert" refs making decisions in the previous incarnation of TG. Two refs who were involved in the NES, made a rule for Dr. Mario stating that no hard or soft freezes are allowed in the game. It was stated that this was because the effects of the freezing on the score was not fully understood. Both of these guys had former WRs in the game, but neither were anywhere close to where the community was pushing the scores at the time.

    Being an expert in the game, I sent in footage to one of those refs proving that the score adjustments that happened after soft freezes do not affect the scoring at all. They still decided to implement the rule. There was no chance for review, despite that all of us knew it was an absurd rule to add and that it penalized the strongest players because we are now forced to build smaller combos...in other words, play at a lower level.

    Now, there have been so many scores submitted under this rule set, that to undo the rule would provide a disjoint in past scores and present scores which would corrupt the integrity of the game's records. This is the effect of "experts." My point is not to say that it was a wholly imperfect system when expert refs were doing the judging, but my point is to say that there are enormous holes in that system which can negatively affect any number of games in the system you are pushing. So it brings me back to my previous question...why are you pushing a system which has been used and is known to have holes in it over a system which, while new, currently has a better rate of accuracy and better transparency when said accuracy might come into question and when the only flaws you point to are potential and theoretical?
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
  9. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 930
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Grandview Missouri
    Posts
    165
    Thanks (Received)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    55
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: lmcdonald111
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Follows
    24
    Following
    10
    Thank you.

    I think we can all agree that the old system needed help👍

    But it I believe if ran correctly it's better than a community of non experts
  10. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,532
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    412
    Thanks (Received)
    187
    Likes (Received)
    354
    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    21
    Following
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    But it I believe if ran correctly it's better than a community of non experts
    For someone who brags about their IQ, you should know that when talking about something with measurable outcomes, beliefs don't replace facts. And the facts are, that at current, the present system runs more efficiently than the previous one.

    Perhaps the system of refereeing would be better in a perfect world, but in over 30 years of operating it had more problems and holes of keeping scoreboard integrity on a regular basis from the beginning than this system has had in the short time of operation, so until those holes start to form, it is a much better system to use.
    Likes datagod liked this post
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Join us