thread

Dispute: william rosa - Arcade - Missile Command - Points [Tournament] - Player: Victor Sandberg - Score: 818,310

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 14
  1. Dispute: william rosa - Arcade - Missile Command - Points [Tournament] - Player: Victor Sandberg - Score: 818,310

    02-03-2018, 11:41 PM
    #1
    Arcade - Missile Command - Points [Tournament]
    Score Track//www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=1377
    RulesMissile Command [Points/Tournament]
    Settings of 8-Toggle Switch on Game PCB (at R10)
    1-7 = ON
    8 = OFF/UNUSED
    Settings of 8-Toggle Switch on Game PCB (at R8)
    1 = ON
    2 = ON
    3 = ON
    4 = ON/OFF [Player's Choice]
    5-7 = OFF
    8 = OFF/UNUSED
    Note: The above Dip Switches, when properly designated, will give the following Twin Galaxies Tournament Settings, used for this title;
    Game Starts With 6 Cities
    No Bonus Cities Are Awarded

    Settings have been amended March 10th, 2008 to indicate Dip #4 on R8 is entirely the player's choice. In regards to all future submissions, it will be noted whether Dip-Switch #4 is set to ON or OFF but the scores will all be ranked in the same high-score table with no intentions to track ON and OFF in separate tables.
    Player NameVictor Sandberg
    Original Adjudication//www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php?t=140868
    Verification MethodTGSAP
    Verification Date2015-10-16
    Disputed Score818,310 (Rank 5)
    Disputed BySnowflake
    Dispute Evidence / Rationaletwitch link broken.

    I do want to point out this looks more like twitch changing how their links work than any shady behavior on the submitter. Even still, the link is now broken.
  2. 02-04-2018, 12:12 AM
    #2
    Twitch does this often, unfortunately. The video is still there, just with a new url: , and you can find this performance among his archived videos).

    This is an unfortunate case where a perfectly legitimate score has been challenged and will now for all time display as 'disputed' on the leader board, unless, I'm guessing, Victor resubmits the same score with a video directly uploaded to TG.
    Likes Barra liked this post
  3. 02-04-2018, 12:19 AM
    #3
    Hmm, okay. Now the new link doesn't work?

    Either I don't understand how to embed Twitch videos (likely, as the embedded video cut off part of my post) or this is some compatibility issue between TG and Twitch. In any case, the video is still around, and this dispute's validity is only a a question of whether or not Twitch highlights should be used for submissions.
  4. 02-04-2018, 12:39 AM
    #4
    Quote Originally Posted by dwwnp View Post
    Hmm, okay. Now the new link doesn't work?

    Either I don't understand how to embed Twitch videos (likely, as the embedded video cut off part of my post) or this is some compatibility issue between TG and Twitch. In any case, the video is still around, and this dispute's validity is only a a question of whether or not Twitch highlights should be used for submissions.
    Good one, Ross. Either way, the point being, that just because the "evidence" isn't archived on the TG servers, DOESN'T mean that (enough) evidence doesn't exist elsewhere to support a score claim! I'm not claiming that the "elsewhere" evidence is conclusive,

    john

    .just saying it exists.
  5. 02-04-2018, 12:42 AM
    #5
    My above post was formatted incorrectly by the system?

    john

    .
  6. 02-04-2018, 01:22 AM
    #6
    I'm not sure I like TG's rules on this...when the weblink to the score is suddenly broken.

    It's going to happen where eventually a well documented score is going to be erased from the database because of just this.

    What is going to happen should a site such as "YouTube" (Google-owned) migrate to a pay-per-view or pay-only option ? A lot of videos are also stored there.

    This does not bode well for TG in the long run, to be honest. Just an opinion.

    Imagine if you will a scenario where TG itself charged a nominal "file storage fee", renewed annually, on a per video basis. I'm just curious how well THAT would go over with the gaming community.

    Many of us already saw the video in question. And enough of the gaming community voted "Accept" under fair and open circumstances.

    After a video performance is accepted there should be a marker...permanent on the database...indicating that online video was available for the adjudication as a matter of maintaining the historical account of what documentation was present when the record was accepted. Otherwise some scores submitted are going to go onto a years-long merry-go-round due to unfortunate and unexpected happenstance.
  7. 02-04-2018, 03:55 AM
    #7

    I'm not sure why the scoreboard lists the verification date as 2015-10-16, but that information is inaccurate.

    Victor's submission was originally accepted 7 months earlier, on 2015-03-16 at 10:20 PM (EDT).

    From my personal shoutbox archives (see below):

    March 16, 2015

    * Diskborste 's submission Arcade - Missile Command - Points [Tournament] - 818,310 - Victor Sandberg has been accepted* [10:20 PM]


    Thanks HugDD thanked this post
    Likes HugDD liked this post
  8. 02-04-2018, 10:49 AM
    #8
    alot of these questions have been answered in other threads, i'll try to sum up as best as i can though.

    //www.twingalaxies.com/entry.ph...1#comment17811

    Since the video is still there, just the link was broken, I was unsure what to do, you can see in the linked thread (albeit non permanent and on my wall) that I first asked advice and was advised that broken links, even when the video still exists elsewhere are to be challenged.

    Lots of explanation is given there and elsewhere. So as far as fairness goes, i would summarize (excuse the rudeness, summaries lack tact and details) that everyone who used non-tg upload was made aware of the risks from the beginning. So if nothing else, the rule is nothing new and people knew what they were getting into. Again, excuse the rudeness, I understand even if you're warned about the rule it can still sound unfair. I didnt make the rule, however, in addition to feeling as long as we warned about the rule its only fair to follow it, the rule has been explained and I believe the explanation makes sense. Rather than regurgitate it all I'll ask anyone unclear to read up on it
    themselves.

    The point about others have already seen the video needing to be recorded is already handled. Adjudication threads are permanent, and people can see the accept comments which indicate people at the time saw the evidence. Rudy's missing subs for example that I challenged I noticed noone made the same complaint. People saw rudy's video at the time, in fact it was explicitly mentioned in the thread they saw the video, yet I saw not a single person say my challenge there was valid. We do have a record of people seeing the evidence, but thats not the same as the evidence itself being permanent.
    @RTM did ask a very interesting question that I wonder if you've considered @Jace Hall . What about the link still being there, but it suddenly costing money to view. I mean, at some point, if the cost is high enough to view, the evidence it basically is missing. The people capable of finding issues may not have the money to view it. Consider a ridiculous hypothetical to make a point, what if videos costs $1,000,000,000 to view. At that point I'd think we'd all acknowledge its the same thing as the video being set to private. Well, depending on people's means, $1 is no different than $1,000,000 they either have the money or they don't. At the same time, I'd feel awkward saying "ooo that evidence costs $.01 to view therefore its no longer valid". I'm very curious what the official stance would be in that case.
    Mr. Do's Castle champ
    Lode Runner champ
    Other kid's games champ

    Adult Games: Street Fighter champ
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
  9. 02-04-2018, 10:51 AM
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RTM View Post
    I'm not sure I like TG's rules on this...when the weblink to the score is suddenly broken.
    It's going to happen where eventually a well documented score is going to be erased from the database because of just this.
    What is going to happen should a site such as "YouTube" (Google-owned) migrate to a pay-per-view or pay-only option ? A lot of videos are also stored there.
    1. Use direct upload to preserve evidence for all time.

    2. See number 1.

    3. You obviously didn't read number 2.

    4. Just stop.
    "May the Heavy Hand spare you" -- Datagod 1:19
    ~~ Strongest Punch on Twin Galaxies ~~

  10. 02-04-2018, 10:58 AM
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    What about the link still being there, but it suddenly costing money to view. I mean, at some point, if the cost is high enough to view, the evidence it basically is missing. The people capable of finding issues may not have the money to view it. Consider a ridiculous hypothetical to make a point, what if videos costs $1,000,000,000 to view. At that point I'd think we'd all acknowledge its the same thing as the video being set to private. Well, depending on people's means, $1 is no different than $1,000,000 they either have the money or they don't. At the same time, I'd feel awkward saying "ooo that evidence costs $.01 to view therefore its no longer valid". I'm very curious what the official stance would be in that case.
    That would be considered a change to the evidence presented.
    3rd party hosted evidence needs to remain unchanged. That would include the ability to access it publicly within the same availability and state that it was in when originally adjudicated.
    Jace Hall
    Chairman of the Board
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
    Thanks Snowflake thanked this post
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Join us