Originally Posted by Intellivision Master

Stiffer penalties will make it worse. Those who call out a bad score get crucified as-it-is because blind voters lose credibility! The blind voters defend their vote just to save credibility. Which defeats the purpose of us all being “adjudicators”. The penalty should be milder … this way blind voters can just agree with straight forward logic. Calling out a score shouldn’t lead to a civil war. It should be a quick, breezy process.

How about this… “A player may disqualify his/her own score” when a formal dispute is brought or if there’s a dispute during the adjudication process. That would save a ton of battlefield fighting. I find that even when a player wants to remove his own score, the civil war continues. Really? You have to ask …. WHY?

Let’s get the “high-school” mentality out of this place. Let’s make it welcoming for everyone to be at TG.

Ps) Hi Fly! Long time brother!

al's right about the contention and issues, the problem is, the alternative of lower penalites just lets the bad voters continue to grow more cred than they deserve and push more bad scores through

i think the solution is to just make credibility invisible. i like for the most part how it works, for the most part, the problem is turning crediblity into a game creates all the drama and hurt feeling and abuse of the sytem. sure if the cred numbers were hidden stella blue mainly but to some degree all of us wouldnt be able to expose bugs in the system when found.


maybe simply display wrong and right votes, that way we could still find issues, but the voting power that those wrong and right votes translate to behind the system kept secret?

Originally Posted by Snowflake

al's right about the contention and issues, the problem is, the alternative of lower penalites just lets the bad voters continue to grow more cred than they deserve and push more bad scores through

i think the solution is to just make credibility invisible. i like for the most part how it works, for the most part, the problem is turning crediblity into a game creates all the drama and hurt feeling and abuse of the sytem. sure if the cred numbers were hidden stella blue mainly but to some degree all of us wouldnt be able to expose bugs in the system when found.


maybe simply display wrong and right votes, that way we could still find issues, but the voting power that those wrong and right votes translate to behind the system kept secret?

Have an accuracy percentage. Once the percentage drops below a certain level, suspend adjudicating and submitting privileges until the offending decision ages off and the percentage pops back up to the acceptable range.

Excelliron liked this post

jace you have great points that i dont think fully apply here but do apply elsewhere i'll elaborate

Before todds score were removed i had a few second places beaten only by him. For a few years, it wanst worth anyone effort to put in the hardwork just to beat me and be second place. The moment todds first place score was removed though i only brielfy enjoyed first place as it was very much worth the effort to put in the time to beat my score when it was for first place slot

so you're right, the removal of the score and appearance of others scores has some real problem BUT those problem exist regardless due to all the other scores on the board. When a first place is removed, the new first place -- whether it be the former second place, or the record holders former first place -- gains the illusion of being the record longer than was true

i dont deny one bit this is a problem but this problem is just a nasty side effect of removing bad scores, which must be done. I dont see how restoring the good s cores makes the problem worse than already is and even makes things a bit better

Question

1. Sir, who are the bad voters, can you name them?

Here are my official voting stats

RIGHT VOTES (33,885 VOTES)
WRONG VOTES (104 VOTES)

I had 104 wrong

56 with Roscoe group of players for missing 3rd party video site of their gaming achievements either removed or cannot view.

20 for PAL Starsoildier video game submissions

5 when I just overlooked and instead voted yes and on my own video game submission were I said to everyone to vote no.

+ PLUS 5 + 14 = 19 all these were my mistake and I took the 5% credibility point hit for each.

19 total: Also, I did it recently this year 2022 and past a total of 19 of Twin Galaxies members video game submissions the submitter clearly replied and ask TG members to vote no and never going back to check back and got penalized because my oversight.

4-5 That were completely right and the submitter and other TG members agreed but even when they were overturned Twin Galaxies never reinstated the credibility points back.

JJT_DEFENDER
SUBMISSIONS - ACCEPTED (555)
SUBMISSIONS - REJECTED (69)
FOUNDED TRACKS (1,057 SP DONATED)
RIGHT VOTES (33,885 VOTES)
WRONG VOTES (104 VOTES)

-> credibility-> penalties -> system -> wouldn't

Originally Posted by Snowflake

al's right about the contention and issues, the problem is, the alternative of lower penalites just lets the bad voters continue to grow more cred than they deserve and push more bad scores through

i think the solution is to just make credibility invisible. i like for the most part how it works, for the most part, the problem is turning crediblity into a game creates all the drama and hurt feeling and abuse of the sytem. sure if the cred numbers were hidden stella blue mainly but to some degree all of us wouldnt be able to expose bugs in the system when found.


maybe simply display wrong and right votes, that way we could still find issues, but the voting power that those wrong and right votes translate to behind the system kept secret?

Most important: We Twin Galaxies members need to resolve and quash our differences instead screaming making things up about other Twin Galaxies members and let's work together as one.

And now we need to think about the future how to make Twin Galaxies something that is respectable and known by the internet gaming community and game developers game system distributors like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc.

Let's help Jace Hall head custodian and owner TGSAP era the present move forward positively.

We need good news about Twin Galaxies to online internet gaming world.

1. We need new faces of Twin Galaxies site the Twin Galaxies members great video world record players that can speak for TG?

Like the NBA, NHL, MBL etc they all have players that represent and promote the league why not with Twin Galaxies.

2. We can ask the top 10 players of each of the platforms and on popular games be our representatives and promote on a parttime basses from home.

3. Ask the game developers and game console system distributors to let Twin Galaxies members beta test and promote these new games and console systems and peripherals.

1. #1 We need good representatives of TGSAP current Twin Galaxies member players who are active in uploading world records on all platforms. That can be in the spotlight to represent Twin Galaxies and show that this is a great site and have great video game players to the world gaming community.

Twin Galaxies players that are known outside of Twin Galaxies are as follows it almost always been bad news.

There are others, I am just naming a few and if Twin Galaxies members can name some more great.

For the exception of

Star Wars marathon Former TG chief referee Robert Mruczek;

Nibbler: Man vs Snake Tim McVey;

Donkey Kong players Robbie Lakeman, Wes Copeland note a minor problem between them, Steve Wiebe;

Tapper William Rosa, Lauren Featherstone;

Joust, Asteroids John McAllister;

Missile Command Victor Sandberg

1. Billy Mitcheal -> not good for Twin Galaxies

2. Todd Rogers -> not good for Twin Galaxies

3. Patrick Patterson -> later bad new not good for Twin Galaxies news

and there were other Twin Galaxies members and referee's who put bad light to Twin Galaxies

datagod, Ninglendo thanked this post

BotzaBrand, Silent Apostle, datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by JJT_Defender

Question

1. Sir, who are the bad voters, can you name them?

no, not naming, one reason is your own next comment about not stirring up drama. but additionally while i knew of a few bad voters i cant possibly know of them all or future bad voters. my comment wasnt targetting individuals, but just that the system would benefit bad voters whoever they are.

datagod liked this post

Another suggestion; the ability to truly block someone.

datagod liked this post

How about stopping using Facebook video player for the awesome highlight videos. So users of the Twin Galaxies website don't have to worry about being tracked by Facebook.

Originally Posted by sdwyer138

I've posted about this specific example a couple times in the errors thread:

https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/breakthru-ntsc/super-nintendo-entertainment-system

Brendon submitted a 324K score that was accepted and appeared on the scoreboard. He later submitted a 640K score that was rejected. We would expect his 324K score to reappear, but it did not.

Hey @admin staff please look at this and confirm. You said this was fixed!!!

Originally Posted by Snowflake

jace you have great points that i dont think fully apply here but do apply elsewhere i'll elaborate

Before todds score were removed i had a few second places beaten only by him. For a few years, it wanst worth anyone effort to put in the hardwork just to beat me and be second place. The moment todds first place score was removed though i only brielfy enjoyed first place as it was very much worth the effort to put in the time to beat my score when it was for first place slot

so you're right, the removal of the score and appearance of others scores has some real problem BUT those problem exist regardless due to all the other scores on the board. When a first place is removed, the new first place -- whether it be the former second place, or the record holders former first place -- gains the illusion of being the record longer than was true

i dont deny one bit this is a problem but this problem is just a nasty side effect of removing bad scores, which must be done. I dont see how restoring the good s cores makes the problem worse than already is and even makes things a bit better

The issue here revolves around the concept of a "historical record" versus an "active leaderboard."

What I am suggesting is that these two concepts do not need to be the same thing, and in fact it may be better for them to be two different things for a number of reasons.

Historically (and currently) TG has had these two concepts merged into being the same thing and what you describe above is ultimately one of the problems that can take place when a leaderboard is also supposed to serve as a historical record.

I understand the point you are making above for sure. I am still thinking through all of the issues.

yeah i'm surprised more people aren't speaking up, but i don't understand even a single reason why people would want someone's top accepted score to not show on the scoreboard just because they've had another score rejected. and i have been listening and trying to understand.

Excelliron thanked this post

Originally Posted by wwdkong

yeah i'm surprised more people aren't speaking up, but i don't understand even a single reason why people would want someone's top accepted score to not show on the scoreboard just because they've had another score rejected. and i have been listening and trying to understand.

Rejected or disputed?

Originally Posted by BotzaBrand

Rejected or disputed?

seems about the same thing to me. do you see a difference, as it relates to not having their best accepted score on the board?

Originally Posted by wwdkong

yeah i'm surprised more people aren't speaking up, but i don't understand even a single reason why people would want someone's top accepted score to not show on the scoreboard just because they've had another score rejected. and i have been listening and trying to understand.

——-

Thought exercise:

Imagine you personally hold a Pac-Man competition.

Rules are X.

10 people play and your top scoring participant named David gets a perfect Pac-Man score under the X rules.

Tournament ends.

The next week you hold another Pac-Man competition.

Same rules as previous one. Rules are X.

10 people play and this time David only gets half the score he got the previous week - or perhaps was disqualified.

It’s ok though, his PREVIOUS score submission from the week prior just automatically kicks in and once again he sits on top of this week’s competition!

The fact that he submitted a NEW score that failed is irrelevant! Yay!

He wins your 2nd week of competition!

——

This is currently how the Twin Galaxies leaderboard‘s work. This is because the concept of historical performances is the same thing as an active leaderboard.

Again I am thinking through all of the aspects of this, but I am not convinced that the TWIN GALAXIES leaderboards should remain structured in that manner for a number of reasons.

The concept that when someone chooses to submit a new score to replace their old one that they are tacitly agreeing that this new performance represents their entry for the leaderboard is not an unreasonable idea.

Anyway, there are a number of things to think about on this topic.

wwdkong thanked this post

Here is another example. There is an ongoing discussion about a player's submission that includes a 17 minute pause. The player is confident they can submit a better score.

Lets say that in anticipation of the current submission, the player does indeed submit a higher score and it is waiting in the queue. The current score is accepted (a real possibility according to the discussion) and if that happens it will be disputed (for violating the global rule).

Will the disputed score's removal affect the player's higher submission?

I likely am a bit confused over the whole discussion. If so, my apologies.

Fly liked this post

Originally Posted by datagod

Here is another example. There is an ongoing discussion about a player's submission that includes a 17 minute pause. The player is confident they can submit a better score.

Lets say that in anticipation of the current submission, the player does indeed submit a higher score and it is waiting in the queue. The current score is accepted (a real possibility according to the discussion) and if that happens it will be disputed (for violating the global rule).

Will the disputed score's removal affect the player's higher submission?

I likely am a bit confused over the whole discussion. If so, my apologies.

No it would not.

The most recent submission would always be considered the player's place on the leaderboard.

For clarity, this discussion is about previous accepted scores auto-populating a leaderboard if for some reason a players current score is removed. I am not convinced that this should take place.

datagod thanked this post

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

The most recent submission would always be considered the player's place on the leaderboard.

Therefore if I have a score #1 score of 500 that was previously accepted, then some time later I decide to be silly and submit a score for 100 which is also accepted, the 500 is deleted and 100 remains, because the 100 is my most recent submission?

wwdkong liked this post

Originally Posted by sdwyer138

Therefore if I have a score #1 score of 500 that was previously accepted, then some time later I decide to be silly and submit a score for 100 which is also accepted, the 500 is deleted and 100 remains, because the 100 is my most recent submission?

No sir.

More specifically and for clarity -

The most recent accepted submission that appears on the active leaderboard would always be considered the player's place on the leaderboard.

In your example above your score of 100 does not beat your higher score of 500 and therefore may be accepted as a verified score but would not be placed on the active leaderboard as a replacement for your higher score/position.

Your question revolves around a different context than the one being discussed where a players historic score is automatically injected back on to an active leaderboard if the players current verified score is successfully disputed/removed post-authentication.

Again, still thinking through all the issues and appreciate the discussion that helps clarify!

sdwyer138 thanked this post

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

——-

Thought exercise:

Imagine you personally hold a Pac-Man competition.

Rules are X.

10 people play and your top scoring participant named David gets a perfect Pac-Man score under the X rules.

Tournament ends.

The next week you hold another Pac-Man competition.

Same rules as previous one. Rules are X.

10 people play and this time David only gets half the score he got the previous week - or perhaps was disqualified.

It’s ok though, his PREVIOUS score submission from the week prior just automatically kicks in and once again he sits on top of this week’s competition!

The fact that he submitted a NEW score that failed is irrelevant! Yay!

He wins your 2nd week of competition!

——

This is currently how the Twin Galaxies leaderboard‘s work. This is because the concept of historical performances is the same thing as an active leaderboard.

Again I am thinking through all of the aspects of this, but I am not convinced that the TWIN GALAXIES leaderboards should remain structured in that manner for a number of reasons.

The concept that when someone chooses to submit a new score to replace their old one that they are tacitly agreeing that this new performance represents their entry for the leaderboard is not an unreasonable idea.

Anyway, there are a number of things to think about on this topic.

This is how the scoreboard works because there is no section for what you are talking about. In your above example, you are talking about a tournament/competition. I think most here would be in agreement that having a section of the site that tracks tournaments or competitions and keeps those scores/rankings/results are separate of the historic scoreboard unless someone submits to the main board.

Again, with your above example - Davids first score would not carry over because it is a different competition. Literally no one here is saying it should. Davids first score should remain on the top of the leaderboard (currently the only leaderboard). But what everyone is saying is that if davids previous score was 1 million and that score had been submitted and accepted. And the perfect score was then disputed and removed for some reason, this scenario does not undo David's previous score of 1 million.

wwdkong, Excelliron liked this post

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

The concept that when someone chooses to submit a new score to replace their old one that they are tacitly agreeing that this new performance represents their entry for the leaderboard is not an unreasonable idea.

honestly most of what yu've been saying i felt was true in a vacuum but not really relevant in the context here BUT if THIS is the real crux of it i'm starting to get your point.

so, to put words in your mouth ;), when someone submits a score the submission itself comes wtih the implication that the submitter is distancing themselves from all older scores and wants the older scores removed?

by this logic willl you allow people to request score removal? alot of temper tantrum throwers have when leaving tg demanded all their scores removed. it sounds like this will allow them to do that, so im curious if by the same reasoning you're going to start allowing people to request their scores be removed.

i can easily imagine some people who arent leaving but hate second place and only want first places. its not hard at all for me to imagine some dethroned first places wanting their older score removed and now using this for that purpose