Garrett Holland's Feed

I don't know the answers, but am right now this very second in the middle of something that might help someone else clarify part of your question, and advice on mine.

Was about to upload a pretty decent Kangaroo score, was browsing others vids this moment to see if anyone had the same "strategy" as me.

The game has a timer, which I think *almost* universally rules out leeching, and such actions become "pressing".

The problem is-I can't beat the second level so basically I squeezed out every point I could get with each man before the timer ran out, never really attempting to make those horrid jumps to complete level 2, ha!

Garrett Holland thanked this post

Garrett Holland liked this post

To all your questions yes I’ll try to remeber to link the tiles at desktop later. However the official rules don’t help much as people still argue over what they wish the rules said instead of what they actually say

Garrett Holland liked this post

The thing is, I'd love to adjudicate submissions regardless of any leeching present within the performance being adjudicated ... because I'd vote no EVERY. DAMNED. TIME. there was leeching unless allowing it is explicitly stated in the track description. But who honestly wants to take a credibility hit when most others simply say "meh ... I don't care ... Such and such and so and so 50 billion years ago did it, too. Accepted! YAY!", which is their prerogative, I suppose, however, we can't even see evidence for submissions more than a few years old to verify the claims, which is why I refuse to participate in adjudicating such a performance one way or another. I'm not going to take a cred hit by voting no when I know 90% of others will be voting yes, but I'm also not going to upvote a shady submission, either, lest I enable and even encourage the bad behavior. I'm certain the refs dedicated a lot of their life back in the day watching performances submitted on DVD and VHS (how boring, eh?), but actually seeing a WR record "verified" via Ref, VHS, DVD, etc. years ago doesn't mean JACK SQUAT to me, especially given the muktiole examples in the database where someone submitted a score, for example (random number, here) 10,000,000 on a game (orig hardware) where not only there aren't any other performances for that track, say, over 3,000,000, but after public scrutiny became a requirement the same person submitted a performance for the same system, title, difficulty, and variation, except under the EMU track, and managed to achieve merely 20% of their 10,000,000 score, notwithstanding the fact that the 20% wasn't even good enough for first, second, or even third (or 4th, 5th, 6th, etc., etc.) on the EMU track (one would think they would be motivated to beat the current leader ... after all, it should be quite easy for them after putting up score more than 333% higher than the nearest competitor, no? You don't "forget" how to destroy a game.) I'm sure all can see how extraordinarily skeptical a rational person can be regarding this kind of scenario ... a scenario I've observed happen more than once ... and you can't even dispute the old score to discourage new submissions wherein the player is using the same garbage leeching technique, because there is no evidence to scrutinize, and "IDK, I just think that person is a liar because half of their others submissions are shady." isn't a valid reason for an official dispute. Obviously, I am not advocating for DQing all submissions over 5 years old (or whenever publicly viewable performances became the requirement), but knowing what the standards are would be a nice mitigating component. Apples to Apples would be great, yes? Meh ... just my personal opinion, I suppose.

ILLSeaBass liked this post

Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

The game has a timer, which I think *almost* universally rules out leeching, and such actions become "pressing".

This is exactly what I had thought. Obviously, an in-game timer would necessarily preclude leeching in nearly all cases. My beef is about games with no timers that count down to zero causing the player to either lose a life or end the game, etc., *or* perhaps even games with a timer, but the player is rewarded more lives as a result of the leeching than they expend for it (i.e. Super Mario Bros. get-1up-get a few coins-turtle bounce-run out of time, rinse, repeat, etc.)

All I know that is certain is when you hit a 100 posts you become a senior member.

Everything else is very grey area.

Check out the top score for Infiltrate to show the anomaly of leeching.

Rogerpoco, Garrett Holland thanked this post

Rogerpoco, Garrett Holland liked this post