Garrett Holland's Feed

Garrett Holland
04-26-2021 at 01:50 PM
Rate this Entry

TwinGalaxies process flaw

Creating this on my wall to memorialize the issue, with the additional benefit of not getting buried in the Site Issue discussion thread.

This submission was submitted on 4.19.21 at 17:56 ET.

I voted no on it around 4.20.21 17:50ish.

The submission was adjudicated "VALID" on 4.20.21 18:00ish.

I attempted to dispute its acceptance around 4.20.21 18:10ish due to the incorrect time reported by the submitter.

The submitter already had a better performance accepted from last year on this leaderboard. As a result, this new submission was immediately archived the moment of its acceptance and was never shown on the leaderboard, removing any ability for anyone to dispute the outcome using the standard process of clicking the "Undisputed" link on the respective entry from the scoreboard. This is an untenable situation, where if not fixed, adjudicators will be relegated to ensure the submitter does not have an existing performance with a better result than the new submission, and ensuring that starting the dispute process on the new submission is not even possible

@admin staff Do you have a time frame estimate in which this issue will be addressed?

In the meantime, if any other member with 4K or more CR discovers a way to dispute this submission, please do so for me.

As always, thank you for your efforts!

  1. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    The entire process flaw identified here is that a player can submit a performance that was worse than a score they already have on that leaderboard, *and* if such submission reports a clearly inaccurate score and becomes accepted due to blind voting, there is currently ZERO remedy for those who took the time to correctly adjudicate to dispute its acceptance, even 2 seconds after it became accepted, because it is immediately archived. This dynamic remaining in place would force diligent adjudicators to include in their routine a thorough investigation to discover whether or not that player currently has a better score on the leaderboard for that track ... for every single submission they vote on ... and even then, this mitigation technique would only work if *most* voters are also doing the same investigating, otherwise the bad submission still becomes accepted due to blind voters anyway with no ability to dispute. That is a ridiculous expectation to foist onto diligent voters.

    Furthermore, it *is* a database integrity issue. These scores are still in the database ... theyre simply archived in the "Accepted" category. If the better of the two scores were to end up being disputed and removed, the inaccurate lower score by that submitter would take its place. (or at least it should) and voters who were correct in their adjudication should not have to count on this extraordinarily rare occurrence happening in order to dispute the newly-accepted but inaccurate submission.

    If an inaccurately-reported submission can be voted on and CR lost due to blind voters, then that submission should be disputable upon its acceptance.

    LikesBarthax, Snowflake liked this post
    Updated 05-11-2021 at 08:56 AM by Garrett Holland
  2. stella_blue's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    If a submission can be found to have been wrongly accepted (typos or whatever) or present evidence of "wrong doing", why should it be protected if the player has a better score?

    It should not.

    To be clear, I was only referring to submissions where: (1) Video evidence has gone missing, and (2) The score does not appear on the scoreboard, and never will (superseded by a valid submission with a better score).

    My suggestion is admittedly self-serving. I am interested in protecting the credibility of conscientious voters, not the submission. Please disregard my previous comment, as the proposed solution accomplishes the former but not the latter.

    What it all boils down to is this: I am frustrated that, in terms of CR penalties, all wrong votes are created equal. The following types of incorrect votes are punished with the same severity:

    • A "Yes" vote for a submission that was valid at the time of acceptance, then later plagued by missing evidence (deleted YouTube video, YouTube video set to "private", modified Twitch URL, etc.)
    • A seemingly careless "Yes" vote for a problematic submission, where the adjudicator failed to notice one or more issues (a typo in the score, incorrect settings, score submitted to the wrong track, use of a banned tactic, excessive leeching, exploitation of a glitch, etc.)

    If it were up to me, I would add a new database column to every submission record (e.g., something like CR_IMPACT_FLAG with a value of "0" or "1"). For the majority of submissions, the flag would have a value of "1", indicating that all votes would either be awarded or penalized CR points as a result of the outcome. In the case of an accepted dispute due to missing evidence, the flag would be set to "0". The submitter would forfeit 3 SP, but all CR consequences would be nullified.

    I suspect that @JJT_Defender might support this idea, but I question whether anyone else will.

    ThanksBarthax, Garrett Holland, JJT_Defender thanked this post
    LikesSnowflake, JJT_Defender liked this post
    Updated 05-12-2021 at 08:15 AM by stella_blue
  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    ah yes, in the case of an accepted score being pulled on a technicality where presumably it was correct to vote in at the time, was beaten later and then someone wants to go back in time, i agree with you. such a dispute would feel malicious in my opinion. now, if a video missing score was voted against, and immeditely disputed at the time, and mid dispute replaced, in that case i'd still want the cred recalc cause the rejecters could argue it was right to reject even at the time. but yes i see your point now if allowed to reject old archived subs

    Thanksstella_blue, Garrett Holland thanked this post
  4. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    I concur. Digging up and disputing archived accepted scores that no longer have a working link to a third party site video would be abusing the system.

    Likesstella_blue liked this post
  5. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    With that being said, Im thoroughly confident that any such abuser of the system would have such a dispute rejected by the community.

    Likesstella_blue liked this post
  6. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    @site admin Just checking for a status update. Is this still on the plate?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Join us