Barthax's Feed

Barthax: Nothing to see here... move along.
07-17-2020 at 12:03 AM
32 Comments
Rate this Entry

SP is designed to prevent participation

Haven't got much spare time again & the cycle which causes me to drift away further is in place again. I come here to participate on the scoreboard. There's great bonus experiences like the friendships, the achievements and debates which occur but let's face it: I'm here to document my scores... They're not stellar, they're mostly not on mainstream crowd-pleasing titles, they're just my achievements. There's a lot of them and as a result, there's rarely any SP in my account.

As I don't have a lot of time to devote to TG, I'm struggling to adjudicate to earn the SP. I'm still carrying my phone around, still accumulating achievements on the off chance moments. Come to the site to submit some stuff, don't have SP, don't stick around (apart from an occasional whinge like this). Some might think that's actually for TG's benefit but **** those idiots as they don't participate anyway other than to whinge more than I do. :P Little time + cheesed off with SP, I'm not asking for more SP just highlighting it's a deterrent to TG's scoreboard.

Enjoy it if you enjoy it, I'm not.

Thankskernzyp, JJT_Defender thanked this post
Likesnads, Luigi Ruffolo, HAN, starcrytas, kernzyp and 2 others liked this post
Comments
  1. Joonas's Avatar

    Still waiting for a feature that let's you donate SP to others.

    Likesdatagod, kernzyp liked this post
  2. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Joonas

    Still waiting for a feature that let's you donate SP to others.


    That's not going to happen. Too easy to blind-vote accumulate on alternative accounts (I have access to seven accounts - representing family & two-player/three-player combinations) and ciphon into a single account. It's a gaping hole in SP accumulation so SP has to be bound for accountability.

  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    i agree donating cant happen for the reason barthax states. one of the benefits of the hearthstone game is you cant trade cards. At first that sounds awful you cant trade in a game whos genres acroynm inclues the word TRADE. however, by removing trades, they can give out all sorts of free bonuses that wouldnt be possible if people could make many accounts and give the bonuses to their main. so there really is benefit in removing optoins, as that can open other options. if submissions points were transferable we'd need far far more safeguards in place to prevent blind voting and fake accounts, the additional verificaiton on fake accounts would likely have some false positive and kick out some good accounts in the process

    as to semantics, it doesnt limit partificpation so much as balances it. balance involves of course a relative limiting but i think the distinguishment matters. its limiting participating in submittiong to a ratio of participation in adjudciatiion -- meanings its also encouraging participation of the other kind.


    all that said, i understand your frustration. i think tis a good system, but yes good systems can be annoying, and if you're just expressing you annoyance, my sympathies.

    ThanksBarthax thanked this post
    LikesBarthax liked this post
  4. swaggers's Avatar

    I mean if you want to submit a lot you need a lot of SP so you need to be active adjudicating. I don't see the issue with the system as is. The only change I really want to see is 2 freebies. Mainly because I think the training / how to of this site leaves a lot to be desired. So people come and do their best and get rejected. Would like to see them get 1 more chance if they stick around long enough to try again.

  5. datagod's Avatar

    Somebody has to pay for the system. We don't give money, but we give time. SP does not discourage participation, it encourages adjudication.

    Ficticious owner: "Come to the arcade. Games cost 3 tokens. You can earn a token by cleaning machines. Clean 3 machines, play one game for free."

    Ficticious player: "I can't clean arcade games, I am too busy playing. Now I ran out of tokens. This place sucks."


    Likesswaggers liked this post
  6. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by swaggers

    I mean if you want to submit a lot you need a lot of SP so you need to be active adjudicating. I don't see the issue with the system as is. The only change I really want to see is 2 freebies. Mainly because I think the training / how to of this site leaves a lot to be desired. So people come and do their best and get rejected. Would like to see them get 1 more chance if they stick around long enough to try again.

    I'm about to broach 6500 unique pending submissions**. I've still around 2TB of footage to sift through (lots of footage gets discarded, it's not like I submit everything) and I've found a new way to record Android* (it's probably been around a while). About the only thing I'm proving around here is TGSAP is not capable of reacting to modern gaming "speed of achievement" and SP is the primary limiting (thank you Snow for the better wording) factor.

    * Mobizen Mirroring means I can record multiple devices simulaneously by remotely controlling the Android device. The games which fit the niche of the interaction mechanism are very small (turn-based RPG) but I am currently running two phones remotely for 8+ hours a day. The remote view of the Androids is on a PC which means OBS is employed as the recording software (camera + Mobizen Mirroring). If I was insane, that'd add 8 hours footage per day.

    ** Yeah, yeah, lots of inaugurals.

    Likesdatagod, starcrytas liked this post
  7. Madsandy's Avatar

    I agree with @datagod and everyone else. This is a pay to play system, and in my ever so unimportant opinion, its currently the best way to incentivize adjudication without offering anything with monetary value. With that being said, im sure everyone here is open to listen to any suggestions you have on improving the system.

    Another bullet point that I would like to go over is you saying you dont have enough time to adjudicate, but then have enough time to submit scores. This seems to be similar to Rodrigos "I dont have time to submit the tape but I have time to play 3 hours of Angry Birds" excuse. Either you have enough time, or you don't. I dont believe TG is advanced enough to handle time parodoxes just yet.


    Likesdatagod, starcrytas liked this post
  8. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by datagod

    Somebody has to pay for the system. We don't give money, but we give time. SP does not discourage participation, it encourages adjudication.

    I disagree because of the intended audience: gamers. It re-enforces a need to game the system - which many people will label "blind voting" without any proof.

    Likesdatagod liked this post
  9. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsandy

    I agree with @datagod and everyone else. This is a pay to play system, and in my ever so unimportant opinion, its currently the best way to incentivize adjudication without offering anything with monetary value. With that being said, im sure everyone here is open to listen to any suggestions you have on improving the system.

    Another bullet point that I would like to go over is you saying you dont have enough time to adjudicate, but then have enough time to submit scores. This seems to be similar to Rodrigos "I dont have time to submit the tape but I have time to play 3 hours of Angry Birds" excuse. Either you have enough time, or you don't. I dont believe TG is advanced enough to handle time parodoxes just yet.

    Automation.

  10. Madsandy's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax


    Automation.

    Automation of what? The adjudication? If thats your suggestion, while I agree that that would technically work, I think the cost of developing a program that is able to reliably adjudicate all types of videogames with all types of rules would be so prohibitively expenseive that it would honestly be more cost effective to give cash incentives to adjudicate.

  11. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsandy


    Automation of what? The adjudication? If thats your suggestion, while I agree that that would technically work, I think the cost of developing a program that is able to reliably adjudicate all types of videogames with all types of rules would be so prohibitively expenseive that it would honestly be more cost effective to give cash incentives to adjudicate.

    LOL, you missed your own question. Re-read. ;)


    Aside from the fact that when I am adjudicating (I only adjuciate manully, just in case you still fail to read your own words) there's ample time within a five minute video to copy & paste large quantities of information and I already have the submissions prepared.

  12. datagod's Avatar

    Allow me to say something, else I sound like a jerk. I like Barthax and his submissions. I wish he could get more SP.

    ThanksBarthax thanked this post
  13. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by datagod

    Allow me to say something, else I sound like a jerk. I like Barthax and his submissions. I wish he could get more SP.

    Thank you. I'm always amazed at the access (time place, all that jazz) you have to different places to get the photos you do.

    Back into the context of the conversation piece: why is SP the solution? You've been to the arcades. Why would SP be the solution to submitting scores throughout the day at a live event (assuming there was bandwidth enough)? SP is not the solution to getting content into the scoreboard - the story of @Marcade's visit to the pinball museum, for example. One person - how long did that take to get the scores onto the scoreboard?!

    Thanksdatagod thanked this post
  14. Barthax's Avatar

    I think I'm talking myself into describing better (hopefully!): the adjudication of scores is a requirement for the scoreboard to exist. It should not be tied to prevent submission, however. Some other reward system is needed.

    Why is an achievement not valid unless the achiever has "adjudicated" correctly something probably completely unrelated 3 times?!

    Someone achieves 1.3M on DK (I hate myself for using DK as an example or even having an inkling of what the next Holy Grail might be). Why is that invalid in the eyes of TG unless that achiever has done a bunch of unrelated crap?

    [Edit:] sorry for the edits, moving target as my mind races...

    Updated 07-17-2020 at 08:32 AM by Barthax
  15. Snowflake's Avatar

    i think the answer there is real world trade offs. we have to have a system that works with in the real world. This means all sorts of thigns. extra effort. false positives (fake scores deemed good) false negatives (real scores deemed fake), hurt feelings, added effort in cost some dont have. heres another one. what if someone is a great gameboy player but doesnt own a computer, phone, or interent? how is it fair the great gameboy player cant get the scores achieved due to being too poor to havec internet access. costs are unavoidable, and costs are not good, but as long as they exist any realistic system has to acknowledge and work with them.

    volunteers can work. they can come with their own issues of people just volunteering to gain power over others. also the volunteers will likely only volunteer on what they care about. heck just look at mame, lots of people playing mame, but how mame players stepping up and volunteering to do inp analysis for each other?

    inp analysis earns zero submission points but its needed for the sub. inp analysis and the mame backlog shows exactly what would happen if tg went to volunteers for this. oh sure, some honorable volunteers exist, but not enough, at least not now

  16. Madsandy's Avatar

    @Barthax Just to make sure that I have everything clear and that we are on the same page, let me give you my personal analytical rundown on the exchange that just transpired. My statement was verbatim "Im sure everyone here is open to listen to any suggestions you have on improvong the system".

    Now I didnt specifically state that the challenge that I posited was geared towards the adjudication system itself, so my apologies if that caused any misunderstanding, as i was under the impression that most would understand that said challenge was about Adjudication simply because thats what this entire discussion was centered around.

    Your reply was then"Automation", which to be fair to me, doesnt gove me a ton to work with as far as correcting any misunderstanding that you may have had. While that isnt your job to gove me such additional info, lack thereof leads me to believe that you arent actually looking to improve the system, which if that is the case I have to ask, why post about this in the first place?

    With all of that being said, Ill ask to clarify, automation of what would make TG better?

  17. nads's Avatar

    Im Curious Pete, how much SP would you need to document all your scores?


  18. datagod's Avatar

    I think I see what Barthax is saying. SP should not be required to submit. Get the scores into the Queue. Get all of them in the Queue. As people adjudicate, they gain SP which can be used to create tracks or maybe buy certificates.

    Make submitting free, but pay with SP for other things.

    I think a lot of people would simply submit and not adjudicate. It is an economic decision, and economies are difficult.

    Anyone watch the Russel Crowe movie about game theory?

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  19. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsandy

    @Barthax Just to make sure that I have everything clear and that we are on the same page, let me give you my personal analytical rundown on the exchange that just transpired. My statement was verbatim "Im sure everyone here is open to listen to any suggestions you have on improvong the system".

    Ah, the confusion is understood. You're still missing the second paragraph where you actively asked a question about the time I have... albeit without the punctuation. ;)

    ... I believe the below is based on the confusion between us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsandy
    Now I didnt specifically state that the challenge that I posited was geared towards the adjudication system itself, so my apologies if that caused any misunderstanding, as i was under the impression that most would understand that said challenge was about Adjudication simply because thats what this entire discussion was centered around.

    Your reply was then"Automation", which to be fair to me, doesnt gove me a ton to work with as far as correcting any misunderstanding that you may have had. While that isnt your job to gove me such additional info, lack thereof leads me to believe that you arent actually looking to improve the system, which if that is the case I have to ask, why post about this in the first place?

    With all of that being said, Ill ask to clarify, automation of what would make TG better?

  20. Madsandy's Avatar

    So if im understanding your situation correctly, you have over 6500 submissions that have been achieved at some point in the past,(back when you had spare time), and have ran into a point where you have niether time for gaming or adjudication. Thus the limiting factor is still SP as any time contraints you may have personally dont matter, as your submission process is automated and recquired little to no input from yourself.

    If this assumption is correct, then I am indeed more empathetic to your plight than i was before. However, I do find that it is bad form to try to draft policies that encompass rather extreme edge cases such as yourself. I would propose that there may be a solution that would both uphold the current SP system while concurrently allowing for time effective mass submission.

    Likesswaggers liked this post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us