"Some of these scores may have already been approved, while others are still in adjudication. If you have the ability to review these performances, please take a close look and verify whether the claims hold merit."

Wasn't that the point of adjudication in the first place? Oh wait, No one at TG knows anything about Counter Strike 2... This really shows how bad TGSAP is especially for more modern games no offence.

TG needs to adopt SRC's way of adjudication. While every adjudication process will have flaws, SRC's way of doing things is FAR better than TG's.

Theres no point in doing that even though they are clearly cheating , I could do it but this system is so awful that its not worth my time or anyone elses.

Rotunda liked this post

Originally Posted by Rotunda

"Some of these scores may have already been approved, while others are still in adjudication. If you have the ability to review these performances, please take a close look and verify whether the claims hold merit."

Wasn't that the point of adjudication in the first place? Oh wait, No one at TG knows anything about Counter Strike 2... This really shows how bad TGSAP is especially for more modern games no offence.

TG needs to adopt SRC's way of adjudication. While every adjudication process will have flaws, SRC's way of doing things is FAR better than TG's.

I think you may be conflating TGSAP with Challenge Rules—they are two separate systems. The original rules were comprehensive, but it became necessary to clarify the definition of "external help" to ensure adjudicators understood that it includes console modifications. However, these rules are not tied to system operations.

Before this clarification, there may have been some performances approved under a misunderstanding. That’s not a major issue, as TGSAP has a built-in error correction mechanism through the Dispute system. Any such cases can be addressed and corrected within the standard TGSAP process.

TGSAP is an active process that does not stop. If you want to criticize the process that is fine, but it may be best to wait until the competition is over and all submission matters are settled. At that point it may be a better time to measure final effectiveness of the system.

datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Theres no point in doing that even though they are clearly cheating , I could do it but this system is so awful that its not worth my time or anyone elses.

Yes, i can't argue with you really. I stopped adjudicating recently due to disagreements with TGSAP on multiple levels. Props to those who keep voting honestly as they keep this place alive but I have better things to do with my time.

Originally Posted by Rotunda

"Some of these scores may have already been approved, while others are still in adjudication. If you have the ability to review these performances, please take a close look and verify whether the claims hold merit."

Wasn't that the point of adjudication in the first place? Oh wait, No one at TG knows anything about Counter Strike 2... This really shows how bad TGSAP is especially for more modern games no offence.

TG needs to adopt SRC's way of adjudication. While every adjudication process will have flaws, SRC's way of doing things is FAR better than TG's.

Yea but it looks like TG doesnt care about it anyway, you could freely cheat so why dont do it if others cheat?

If someone were to explain that you are cheating he would need to have proof and aproval of old members which is so not time and patience worthy, so might as well let them cheat.

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Theres no point in doing that even though they are clearly cheating , I could do it but this system is so awful that its not worth my time or anyone elses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. The system actively responds to input—that's how it learns and improves. In just a few days, it has already identified and rejected over 30 submissions. It will continue refining and reviewing all performances based on ongoing feedback, ensuring that by the end of the competition, only valid, verified results remain.

datagod, redelf liked this post

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I think you may be conflating TGSAP with Challenge Rules—they are two separate systems. The original rules were comprehensive, but it became necessary to clarify the definition of "external help" to ensure adjudicators understood that it includes console modifications. However, these rules are not tied to system operations.

Before this clarification, there may have been some performances approved under a misunderstanding. That’s not a major issue, as TGSAP has a built-in error correction mechanism through the Dispute system. Any such cases can be addressed and corrected within the standard TGSAP process.

TGSAP is an active process that does not stop. If you want to criticize the process that is fine, but it may be best to wait until the competition is over and all submission matters are settled. At that point it may be a better time to measure final effectiveness of the system.

Yes, theres a dispute system, but I hope you realise that its not worth to try to dispute with some people of this community who probably also have less experience in this area and more voting power, no ones getting paid to do that, the only thing you get from this is losing time.

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Yea but it looks like TG doesnt care about it anyway, you could freely cheat so why dont do it if others cheat?

If someone were to explain that you are cheating he would need to have proof and aproval of old members which is so not time and patience worthy, so might as well let them cheat.

Your statement above indicates that you may not fully understand how TGSAP fully works as you do not need approval from anyone to provide evidence of cheating. If you believe its all the "old members" that are reviewing and adjudicating and have rejected the recent 30+ submissions, then I suppose I can understand that you think they are doing everything.

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Yes, theres a dispute system, but I hope you realise that its not worth to try to dispute with some people of this community who probably also have less experience in this area and more voting power, no ones getting paid to do that, the only thing you get from this is losing time.

You may want to read about the dispute system a little more. If you did you would discover that disputes are not determined by votes or voting power.

https://www.twingalaxies.com/wiki_index.php?title=Policy:The-Dispute-Process-Guidelines-and-How-To-Submit-a-Dispute-Claim

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I'm sorry you feel that way. The system actively responds to input—that's how it learns and improves. In just a few days, it has already identified and rejected over 30 submissions. It will continue refining and reviewing all performances based on ongoing feedback, ensuring that by the end of the competition, only valid, verified results remain.

Most of the submissions which had been rejected were rejected because of audio or video issues not cheats, also the ones with obvious cheat yes but the one who turned no spread command on true required 100 replies to get it rejected which is funny.

Rotunda liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Yes, theres a dispute system, but I hope you realise that its not worth to try to dispute with some people of this community who probably also have less experience in this area and more voting power, no ones getting paid to do that, the only thing you get from this is losing time.

Exactly this!

I think the point you are missing Jace is why are we so heavily relying on the dispute system? That should be a truely last resort and hopefully hardly ever used as it shows how bad the process was to let it go through in the first place. The idea is to get it right in the first place, no? Otherwise whats the point. Also it wastes a lot of peoples time and gives people who spent their time on TG a CR hit.

Effectively we are taking a modern ferrari (highly computerised) to a lada specialist (who has no usb diagnostic tools or knows what a ECU is) expecting them to know everything about it. It just doesn't work. But hey we can rely on the dispute system so no worries right? That's a terrible way to patch up a really big problem.

Nosacz liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Most of the submissions which had been rejected were rejected because of audio or video issues not cheats, also the ones with obvious cheat yes but the one who turned no spread command on true required 100 replies to get it rejected which is funny.

Every single submission will be scrutinized throughout the competition. All of them.

Your contributions to this conversation matter—not just because of your knowledge and experience, but because you genuinely care. And that care is shared by many here. Believe me, no one wants illegitimate scores to remain in the database. You are not alone in this. This community, as a whole, values integrity in competition more than most.

I understand the frustration that comes with wanting immediate action, and I know the adjudication process can feel slow at times. But trust that your voice is being heard, and more importantly, it’s making a difference. The system is designed to adapt and improve based on informed input from people like you. And while it may not always be visible from the outside, I have insight into the voting, and it’s not unfolding the way you might think. The actual competitors on the leaderboard are actively engaged in this process, ensuring that the results reflect true performance.

Ultimately, we all want a platform like Twin Galaxies to not only exist but to excel in its mission. We want it to continue providing a reliable framework for competitions like this. And the way it gets better is through participation—by people bringing their knowledge, sharing their insights, and contributing to a system that, over time, refines itself to become even stronger.

This kind of competition—an asynchronous, public showcase of individual achievement—is something that companies like Logitech and others are eager to expand upon. But for that to happen, there needs to be a trustworthy system in place to support it. Twin Galaxies is uniquely positioned to provide that. By engaging in this process, you’re not just ensuring fairness in this competition—you’re helping shape a foundation for even greater opportunities in the future.

Your input matters. Your effort matters. And the impact of what’s being built here extends far beyond a single event.

Anyway, I just want you to know that you are appreciated and TG wants what you want, even if you somehow just hate TG.

Originally Posted by Rotunda

Exactly this!

I think the point you are missing Jace is why are we so heavily relying on the dispute system? That should be a truely last resort and hopefully hardly ever used as it shows how bad the process was to let it go through in the first place. The idea is to get it right in the first place, no? Otherwise whats the point. Also it wastes a lot of peoples time and gives people who spent their time on TG a CR hit.

Effectively we are taking a modern ferrari (highly computerised) to a lada specialist (who has no usb diagnostic tools or knows what a ECU is) expecting them to know everything about it. It just doesn't work. But hey we can rely on the dispute system so no worries right? That's a terrible way to patch up a really big problem.

I totally understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your perspective. I just want to clarify that TGSAP isn’t only about preventing incorrect scores from getting in—it’s also designed to correct errors after the fact. The dispute system isn’t just a backup plan; it’s a core part of the process. In any complex system, built-in error correction is just as important as initial verification.

I think some of the thinking from the old Twin Galaxies referee system still lingers—where once a score was accepted, it was nearly impossible to remove. But TGSAP is different. It filters both on the way in and on the way out. That’s why it works. Scores aren’t just static entries in a database; they are always validated by their evidence. If that evidence is ever found lacking, the score is no longer valid. That’s not a flaw—it’s the system doing exactly what it was designed to do.

That said, I’m not trying to change your mind, just offering some additional context in case it helps. At the end of the day, the system will stand or fall based on how well it works, and I hope you know that everyone involved is doing their best to ensure it’s as fair and effective as possible.

You have over 270 records here at TG. Your contributions have been amazing. We are all glad you are here and appreciate you feedback and criticism. It all helps this place to be better over time.

Rotunda thanked this post

Rotunda, datagod liked this post

I am old, been here for 15 years or so. I do my best to adjudicate. During the adjudication process on a game that is new to me I try to learn as I go. I have learned a lot from reading the "100 post discussions" and I assure you I greatly appreciate them and differing points of view. I sure hope I didn't come across as any sort of gate keeper. I want fairness and accuracy. I welcome all the newcomers to TG, and I hope some choose to stick around and show us old dogs some new tricks.

Rotunda liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Theres no point in doing that even though they are clearly cheating , I could do it but this system is so awful that its not worth my time or anyone elses.

I have evidence that you used timescale command to alter your performance as well, i recorded my game with default command values and simply took out my mac10 simulating end of your video then slowed both mine and your videos by 0.1s and times of gun animation were:

- my video - 911ms

- your video - 1006ms

this could be a just slight change to host timescale command like value of 0.95 and your approved... Same with Judosss submition which has nospread, only one comment on that thread and its been approved 3h ago after i uploaded my score (the 12th) in which btw. i have no idea if i was already using the config mentioned in my latest submition in which i admited to having a nospread command in autoexec. Changing rules mid bounty and some subs getting accepted, some ignored cause they get less attention makes me quite uneasy and for sure doesn't motivate me to pursue further.
I don't have time to spent another idk 40hours+ (240h last 2 weeks in cs2) in which i decided to change my configs bcs there was alot of submitions with commands used and command usage was not prohibited in the challenge rules.

datagod thanked this post

Nosacz liked this post

Originally Posted by 420VR

I have evidence that you used timescale command to alter your performance as well, i recorded my game with default command values and simply took out my mac10 simulating end of your video then slowed both mine and your videos by 0.1s and times of gun animation were:

- my video - 911ms

- your video - 1006ms

this could be a just slight change to host timescale command like value of 0.95 and your approved... Same with Judosss submition which has nospread, only one comment on that thread and its been approved 3h ago after i uploaded my score (the 12th) in which btw. i have no idea if i was already using the config mentioned in my latest submition in which i admited to having a nospread command in autoexec. Changing rules mid bounty and some subs getting accepted, some ignored cause they get less attention makes me quite uneasy and for sure doesn't motivate me to pursue further.
I don't have time to spent another idk 40hours+ (240h last 2 weeks in cs2) in which i decided to change my configs bcs there was alot of submitions with commands used and command usage was not prohibited in the challenge rules.

Good that you try to analyse runs, especially those on the top, but I don't understand why are you comparing weapon animations and what animations like shooting or what? Also in a sped up run you would hear a difference in audio, like you know at the start of the run the let's go let's go sound right? Also the fire rate of the weapon could seem a bit off. Where none of audio or fire rate inconsistenties show up in my run. Idk what do you mean with weapon animations. I'm open to talk, if u need to know anything about this run say it.

420VR liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Good that you try to analyse runs, especially those on the top, but I don't understand why are you comparing weapon animations and what animations like shooting or what? Also in a sped up run you would hear a difference in audio, like you know at the start of the run the let's go let's go sound right? Also the fire rate of the weapon could seem a bit off. Where none of audio or fire rate inconsistenties show up in my run. Idk what do you mean with weapon animations. I'm open to talk, if u need to know anything about this run say it.

Sure i will check that lets go sound tmrw and react accordingly.

I was suspicious of you cause you posted on every thread about nospread only and nothing else. There being many commands to manipulate starting from time host which I heard about here for first time, gun speed commands, general speed commands and movement manipulations commands but how could anyone prove that your player model speed up faster by 100ms forward or slowed down 30units less while changing direction of movement with only a simple gameplay video.

Originally Posted by 420VR

Sure i will check that lets go sound tmrw and react accordingly.

I was suspicious of you cause you posted on every thread about nospread only and nothing else. There being many commands to manipulate starting from time host which I heard about here for first time, gun speed commands, general speed commands and movement manipulations commands but how could anyone prove that your player model speed up faster by 100ms forward or slowed down 30units less while changing direction of movement with only a simple gameplay video.

Also if I stop being active in here there is the reason. I woke up one day and decided it’s not worth my time to engage more into this event…

just offering my opinion as it does related to TG in general where i do think my opinion is worht something, however, sure, on this specfiic topic i admit my opinion is wrothless as i dont play or adjudicat them

TG i agree is currently even great at what it does -- old games. I also agree its not so good at the new stuff. Alot of this stuff is kinda forced and rushed and hs problems. BUT since i also cant come up with any better way to expand, i feel TG only really has two choices. Give up on ever modernizing and being relevant -- and do remmber TG didnt start as retro it started as current. those games were new when tg was first reffing them. or, accepted a push to expand that by its nature is all or nothing, and that influx just cant quite be hanlded right.

I guess if you're a risk taker with an eye on the future and willing to be a test subject in the e xperimen that hopefully gets us there you'll applaud jace's approach. if you like only time tested and proven projects you'll be concerend.

I'll be honest, i'm more in the concerned camp, but since TG doesnt cost me anyting I guess i can respect Jace being a risk taker with his own resources

bensweeneyonbass, Rotunda liked this post

Cheating to get these bs prizes? Wow, people's reputations are meaningless these days.

Rogerpoco, Rotunda thanked this post

Rogerpoco, Rotunda liked this post