cuda's Feed

cuda
11-06-2018 at 12:58 AM
20 Comments
Rate this Entry

Jared E Oswald's resubmitting scores

So Jared submitted his Guitar Hero scores with Youtube videos included and now for whatever reason they are gone so he is now resubmitting to the same track with the same score under the "new" policy and many (if not all his old submissions are being challenged

Does that mean those who voted "correctly" at the time of his initial submissions (once the challenges are accepted) are about to be hit with mass credit hits?????

Comments
  1. D.B. Cooper's Avatar

    So far, I do not think anyone has lost any Cred due to scores being removed for evidence being removed. I could be wrong about this but I've not seen it.


    I think that when his new submissions get accepted the old score goes away and the dispute along with it. I suggest people vote yes on these submissions so this happens and the headache goes away. I commend Jared for taking the time to resubmit all of his scores.

    Likesxcess dead rew, cuda liked this post
  2. GibGirl's Avatar

    My biggest question is will the new submissions replace the old ones? That would be ideal, as no old submissions to hang around and clear out. Or do the old ones keep the spot until they're removed?

  3. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl

    My biggest question is will the new submissions replace the old ones? That would be ideal, as no old submissions to hang around and clear out. Or do the old ones keep the spot until they're removed?


    Once the new ones get accepted, the old ones are removed. The new one even if it is the same score, it is consireded an update on your score and that's the one that stays.

    LikesGibGirl liked this post
  4. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola



    Once the new ones get accepted, the old ones are removed. The new one even if it is the same score, it is consireded an update on your score and that's the one that stays.


    Ok, good. So nobody should dispute the scores that are re-uploaded, and just allow the fresh submissions to replace them. Unless you WANT to be a jerk to people and hit their credibility.

    LikesMax, Snowflake liked this post
  5. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl



    Ok, good. So nobody should dispute the scores that are re-uploaded, and just allow the fresh submissions to replace them. Unless you WANT to be a jerk to people and hit their credibility.

    According to some comments I have seen, it seems that you don't loose cred if the reason for the dispute is missing evidence. This sound too good to be true, but if it is, disputing scores that are likely to be replaced is just a wast of time.
    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  6. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl



    Ok, good. So nobody should dispute the scores that are re-uploaded, and just allow the fresh submissions to replace them. Unless you WANT to be a jerk to people and hit their credibility.


    correct theres zero scoreboard integrity motivated reason to dispute a score for missing evidence when a new one is submitted -- especially when the only reason people even noticed the old evidence went missing was the new submission. All this does is discourage people from resubmitting if the resub results in people checking the old to look for excuse to challenge.

    natually, it makes a difference when the dispute is launched. if the dispute was launched before the new sub was submitted that its not the challengers fault things worked out as they did

  7. Desidious's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl



    Ok, good. So nobody should dispute the scores that are re-uploaded, and just allow the fresh submissions to replace them. Unless you WANT to be a jerk to people and hit their credibility.


    It's quite obvious that someone needs their toys taken away for abusing the dispute system and causing unnecessary clutter. A clear example of what not to do.

  8. EVN's Avatar

    It seems to me that the policy for TGSAP should be "if there's no video then it never happened" if a video is gone, Admin should be deleting the submission and all votes that were cast for it so it doesn't recalculate as a wrong vote.


    The downside to this is that it would also recalculate people into negative submission points but I reckon we could live with that.

  9. Snowflake's Avatar

    @Barthax and @kernzyp have already been given negative points numerous times due to errors in the system where it at first gave them too much, and then corrected by taking the points away after they were already spent. The terrible analogy to justify negative point was given that a bank would do the same thing --not realizing that if a bank did the same thing someone would be in jail. best not to use analogies that counter the point being made.

    so anyway, yeah, tg already corrects its mistakes by giving users negative submissions points, so it would be hard to argue that tg is opposed to this when they've stood by the decision before.

    something to keep in mind though if the penalty were removed and just a "it never happened" stance was taken. cheaters could just delete their old videos and be exempt from being caught. i think thats the minority of cases, and the vast majority is just evidence gone missing on good scores, but we do need to keep all corner cases in mind. this isnt just thoery though, as two of the "missing evidence" scores i challenged had evidence missing before completion, and i absolutley think i should get my points back. i correctly rejectd a score with zero evidence, those who rejected with me should get their points back, and those who accepted should get the ding for blindvoting.

  10. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    This isnt just thoery though, as two of the "missing evidence" scores i challenged had evidence missing before completion, and i absolutley think i should get my points back. i correctly rejectd a score with zero evidence, those who rejected with me should get their points back, and those who accepted should get the ding for blindvoting.


    I agree with almost everything except the very last statement. Your insinuating that those that accepted the score were blind voters and should be punished for this practice. The evidence in some of these cases were available to review for the majority of the adjudication period. It was there when I reviewed it and then disappeared at least 30-60 minutes before the the adjudication closed. Blind voting is too 'broad brush' assertion of the people that voted Yes. In my case, it's more analogous with early voting.


    Either way, I'm happy that the new system is in place to prevent this type of 'now its there' and 'now it isn't' flimsy adjudication process. Process and system controls are a good thing!

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    thats a fair point @MyOwnWorstEnemy people who voted before the evidence went missing were innocent. i guess in an ideal system i would only punish those who voted accept after the evidence went missing but i dont think we know exactly when it went missing. i guess when you point that out, i can agree with simply undoing the hits for everyone. my real thing was i didnt like myself and others being wacked for correctly rejecting.

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
  12. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    @snowflake - I agree that those that voted no shouldn't take a hit on properly voting No when there wasn't any evidence to support the submitter's record claim. IMO, it was the TGSAP system that lost credibility (real life not points). I'm glad they've addressed most of what was causing this issue. If memory serves me correctly, I lost 1000-1500 credibility points on the Roscoe Rebellion. I'm ok with it if it played a small part in helping to fix what was broken. :)

  13. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy

    The evidence in some of these cases were available to review for the majority of the adjudication period. It was there when I reviewed it and then disappeared at least 30-60 minutes before the the adjudication closed. Blind voting is too 'broad brush' assertion of the people that voted Yes. In my case, it's more analogous with early voting.


    This sort of thing - substantive changes to how a submission should be seen right before it gets accepted - is what motivated my recent proposal about submission "states". Where it should be clear when a submission's acceptance is pending, and significant action on a submission could change things so it'll be a time before it gets accepted, to help people navigate submissions where last-minute "changes" are occurring.

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  14. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    @GibGirl - I liked that proposal than and still like it now. I proposed something related in which the poll should close for new votes, notify those that voted that they have 2-3 days to review all evidence and comments, and change their votes if warranted.

    LikesGibGirl liked this post
  15. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    Partially side note - if he originally submitted a YT submission that was adjudicated and accepted, then he resubmits the new one with direct upload, I am personally confident in voting YES on those resubmissions without re-reviewing the evidence. How do people feel about this?


    EDIT: I review the submission insofar as making sure it plays to the right Elapsed Time or High Score, and making sure it's for the right game. But I don't watch every minute again.

    Updated 11-07-2018 at 10:24 AM by bensweeneyonbass
  16. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by bensweeneyonbass

    Partially side note - if he originally submitted a YT submission that was adjudicated and accepted, then he resubmits the new one with direct upload, I am personally confident in voting YES on those resubmissions without re-reviewing the evidence. How do people feel about this?


    my issue with blind voting isnt blind voting in and of itself, but its effects. There are two dangers. (1) incorrect voting (2) increased credibilty and voting power given to people who show no expertise. The cred hits, deals with issue two, so i no longer worry about blind voting that much there due to the cred hit solving the real problem. as for issue 1, well as long as you voted correctly who cares how you arrived on the correct vote.

  17. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    Is it blind voting, though? Please see my EDIT to the prior post - I do at least make sure it's the right video by checking the game and final score or elapsed time, but that's about it.

    It's something that has passed adjudication already.

  18. Snowflake's Avatar

    thats fair. my point still stands, that i (of course cant speak for others) am fine with it as long as its correct. you had a less thorough method than id prefer, but as long as it works out who am i to complain.

  19. cuda's Avatar

    Some people voted "correctly" based on the evidence at the time.

    Eg video available and met the criteria so yes. Others voted no once video dissapeared.

    So to me neither voter is wrong and should not be punished.

    Especially now the "new" submission happening and the "old" getting challenged creates a mess as far as I'm concerned.

    Thanksbensweeneyonbass thanked this post
    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  20. trivia212005's Avatar

    Yes, the ones without the evidence (excluding the video) is the ones that are being re-submitted to Twin Galaxies. The ones with the evidence is the one are the new submissions. Just to clarify.

Join us