I truly believe we have the best Head Custodian we could ever possibly have.

I love this place and this community.

I'll stand by ya, Jace!

datagod thanked this post

wirre.the.man, Fly, Excelliron liked this post

I like the platform for creating the leaderboard

datagod thanked this post

You don't have to sweet talk us, I'm sure most of the vets here will help you find all the bugs when the new website is finally unfurled. lol

Rogerpoco liked this post

On the list of "new members" who don't respect TG, I put Karl Jobst at #1. While I welcome the sharing of deep game knowledge from dedicated experts, I don't like muppets who feel they're above presenting evidence of their claims. The ridiculous quantity of cheaters, and the attitude of the cheater hunters, is why I won't be touching any more of those Logitech subs with a barge pole

Phantom Francisco, Rogerpoco, Snowflake liked this post

Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

On the list of "new members" who don't respect TG, I put Karl Jobst at #1. While I welcome the sharing of deep game knowledge from dedicated experts, I don't like muppets who feel they're above presenting evidence of their claims. The ridiculous quantity of cheaters, and the attitude of the cheater hunters, is why I won't be touching any more of those Logitech subs with a barge pole

I agree with you 100% about Jobst. It doesn't matter who he is--he did stir a lot of sh**. In fact, everything was moving smoothly until he popped in and shook the hornets' nest. When he started in about what he would consider cheating if he was in charge of things woke up the haters waiting to hate on better scores than their own. He created drama for his drama channel. I understand now why he is always in court (which is paid for by his followers through court donations, by the way). It was really disappointing. In reality, only very little true evidence of cheating during this tournament exists, and that's facts. What you think shouldn't be allowed is one thing; what you speculate is another thing; what you can prove is something else. And when he got the drama going for some interesting footage for a possible future video with all the smack talk and squeezed juice, he eased on out. I don't think he even competed. Jobst is the equivalent of a National Enquirer journalist, and that really does disappoint me. He is no longer on my channel subscriptions.

It's fair to say that to a degree, I was relatively resistant to change-boggles me that I'm not new anymore, but I felt like I was mebbe protecting "the way I was taught", around here by the people who had been here before me, and I suppose I assumed the way I was taught was just how it always was, and always would be.

But again, "not new", I've def. come to understand that evolution is as critical for survival for Twin Galaxies as it is for anything else.

Frankly, the credibility hit is just a bit too high for wrong votes, particularly on modern games, with so, so many available options for trickery.

I've never REALLY tried to wrap my ears around the actual numbers of the economy, am only aware of it, and know how to properly use it.

Not a math guy at all, but the amount of proper votes it takes, for higher cred voters, to earn points, the one no vote knocking it down so dramatically just keeps high cred voters on extra dilligence.

Now-again, "economy".

You don't really want a few high cred voters getting in on those. They will go thru too fast to be properly analyzed by the community of the particular game.

It's hit and miss, but I usually don't even vote on my own scores anymore, "let more people see them", ego(lol).

But I know, and have active friendships with easily over a handful of 15-20k cred members, who check relatively daily and surely vote on my scores, same as they do the other people they know well, and it's not some odd conspiracy, we've just known each other for years, before we even had high cred, lol.

So I, and an easy handful of others can tell you the direct effect of high cred voters paying attention to scores, our stuff usually doesn't sit long.

Can't imagine the algorithms could support it, but mebbe even change the weighting scale of the voting for such events, lower high cred members value, reduce the cred hit for no votes(haha), and raise the value effect of the community members of the game in question.

Ah, this is a great place, to be sure, has substance, is why even those of us who like to complain from time to time are...still here(if you think I'm talking about you, I prolly am. But me too, y'know...).

I'm still here due to the grace of Jace(see what I did there...).

Put my hands on my hips and pitched a fit several times, things relevant to this wallpost in a general sense(resistance...), and he still hasn't made me leave, so Thanks for that.

;P

datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

Put my hands on my hips and pitched a fit

Rogerpoco thanked this post

Rogerpoco, Excelliron liked this post

One thing I can assure everyone is that Karl Jobst did not come here intending to create drama. It is my opinion that Karl genuinely cares deeply about speedrunning, fair play, and the integrity of performances, whether they’re at Twin Galaxies or elsewhere. He consistently makes an earnest effort to question, understand, and engage with gaming performances and that has been a good thing for the whole gaming community at large.

As you can imagine, individuals who are relatively new or at least unfamiliar with the Twin Galaxies adjudication process (TGSAP) specifically, naturally bring their own perspectives and methodologies about how performances should be evaluated or how processes might be improved. It’s important to remember that TGSAP is a robust, battle-tested system shaped by thousands of adjudications, and there isn’t anything quite like it anywhere else. As such, newcomers often need some time and experience to fully appreciate its strengths and develop trust in its effectiveness.

There is always friction when new things are experienced. For instance, when TGSAP was initially introduced, there were many strong opinions and debates about the decision to move away from the traditional Twin Galaxies referee structure. However, over time, TGSAP has proven its resilience and value, even as it continues to evolve and improve.

The main takeaway here is that newcomers to our specific adjudication process are on a learning journey. They will naturally bring initial assumptions and sometimes suggest adjudication approaches that might seem to conflict with or even unintentionally disrespect the established TGSAP and its dedicated participants. Rather than viewing this as offensive or creating distance, it's my opinion that it’s beneficial for our community to recognize these actions for what they truly represent: sincere individuals who genuinely care about fairness and integrity, trying their best to contribute while still learning the intricacies of our process. By approaching these newcomers with patience, understanding, and guidance, I believe that we can strengthen our community and help everyone better appreciate the value of the TGSAP system.

My 2 cents.

Poly Player, datagod, Excelliron liked this post

I’d like to encourage the entire Twin Galaxies community to continue actively reviewing and voting on the recent Logitech performances. Your participation and engagement are greatly appreciated and essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of our adjudication process.

To support you in this process and ease any concerns you might have, I want to address a few common worries clearly:

First, I understand there might be anxiety among adjudicators about “unseeable” or speculative cheating—fears of hidden exploits that could later emerge in disputes, potentially harming your credibility rating (CR). Please rest assured that such concerns should not deter your participation.

Due to the nature of Counter-Strike 2 as a PC game utilizing a custom map with specific game property adjustments, the current rules may indeed leave room for speculative cheating scenarios. Eliminating every conceivable loophole would require an excessively complex ruleset—something several times more complicated than even the extensive Donkey Kong Arcade submission rules—which is neither practical nor enjoyable for our community.

What does this mean in practice?

It means you should confidently focus on the fundamentals. Submitters should demonstrate compliance with the posted rules clearly and to the best of their reasonable ability, and adjudicators should evaluate based on these visible demonstrations. You don’t need to worry about unknowable, hidden exploits or feel intimidated by not being an expert in every detail of the game. If a performance appears to meet the criteria laid out in the current rules, you should feel entirely comfortable voting accordingly. It's ok. TG admin is keeping these considerations in mind.

Additionally, please know that disputes for these performances will not succeed based purely on conjecture or random suspicion. Our administrative team has substantial experience with Counter-Strike 2 and possesses the insight needed to review these cases effectively. If any dispute is successful, it will be straightforward, transparent, and unanimously understandable. Historically, the vast majority of dispute decisions have been clear, sensible, and broadly supported by our community.

Given that the Logitech challenge performances are relatively short, the TG community can efficiently evaluate and vote on them in a short period if we collectively decide to do so. Actively tackling new challenges is vital for our growth—not just as adjudicators but as a community. How can Twin Galaxies ever aspire to authentically adjudicate a diverse range of games if we hesitate to fully engage with new genres and new competitive scenarios?

Remember, we are not trying to achieve perfection. That's not possible and is a fools errand in to the isolating world of pedantry - There will ALWAYS be some kind of possibility that gets overlooked in any adjudication, anywhere, on anything. What I hope we will want to achieve together is just a REASONABLE and DEFENDABLE measure of conclusion, thats all.

From an administrative perspective, Twin Galaxies remains committed to flexibility, learning, and growth rather than rigidity. I sincerely encourage the TG community to embrace this same philosophy. Let’s avoid becoming insular or limited like many other specialized gaming groups. Instead, let us strive to be the overarching MACRO community—a nation of gamers, diverse yet unified, proudly representing the myriad gaming states, counties, and cities within our collective passion.

Achieving this goal will certainly take time, but I firmly believe it is possible. More importantly, I wholeheartedly believe in our community’s potential to make this vision a reality. Let’s work together to continue growing, adapting, and elevating Twin Galaxies as a truly inclusive home for all gamers.

So anyway, there are of course no expectations here - but if you can be inclined, I would encourage everyone to help further adjudicate if possible. There are many competitors already doing so, but as you know, their CR strength is limited compared to the more seasoned adjudicators.

Dennis Smithers, Jr., datagod liked this post

I just looked thru the queue at the specific game, somewhat willing to give understanding and adjudicating it a go-

There seem to be almost 300 submissions?

These challenges need specific moderators/adjudicators, with some semblance of deserved "cred power"/"knowledge".

Don't wanna be one, period, "no thanks", on ANY game, but it's just too overwhelming for one who is casually interested, even in just the overall interests of the site to feel like taking on.

GregDeg thanked this post

GregDeg liked this post

Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

I just looked thru the queue at the specific game, somewhat willing to give understanding and adjudicating it a go-

There seem to be almost 300 submissions?

These challenges need specific moderators/adjudicators, with some semblance of deserved "cred power"/"knowledge".

Don't wanna be one, period, "no thanks", on ANY game, but it's just too overwhelming for one who is casually interested, even in just the overall interests of the site to feel like taking on.

Credibility isn't very important but it's a tool used to gatekeep important aspects of the site which you already know. Jace is encouraging us to risk the Credibility that takes longer to gain than to lose just to get these scores pushed through because it's not a good look for us for the future of outside bounties. People like me, who vocally deny participation in these outside bounties isn't a good look either but I'm still staying true to how I want to use this site.. we are given the freedom of choice after all. I know Jace can't force us to vote on these so he kindly uses the word "encourage" but I can't shake the feeling of being a pawn in this debacle sadly and I know I'm being negative.

Use the site however makes you happy because that's all that matters in the end anyways. Right?

Rogerpoco thanked this post

Rogerpoco liked this post

Originally Posted by Desidious

Credibility isn't very important but it's a tool used to gatekeep important aspects of the site which you already know. Jace is encouraging us to risk the Credibility that takes longer to gain than to lose just to get these scores pushed through because it's not a good look for us for the future of outside bounties. People like me, who vocally deny participation in these outside bounties isn't a good look either but I'm still staying true to how I want to use this site.. we are given the freedom of choice after all. I know Jace can't force us to vote on these so he kindly uses the word "encourage" but I can't shake the feeling of being a pawn in this debacle sadly and I know I'm being negative.

Use the site however makes you happy because that's all that matters in the end anyways. Right?

I deeply appreciate all of the viewpoints shared regarding adjudication and understand the caution around risking Credibility—this concern is entirely valid. Credibility is an important tool within Twin Galaxies, intended to support fair and thoughtful adjudications. However, ideally, Credibility should not become a barrier that prevents our community from openly welcoming and engaging with new groups and opportunities.

The aim in encouraging active participation, such as adjudicating newer submissions like the Logitech challenges, isn’t about merely creating appearances or pushing scores through prematurely. Rather, it genuinely stems from the goal of fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment. When we publicly refrain from adjudicating certain types of submissions, even with the best intentions, it may unintentionally signal to new players or groups that they aren’t fully welcome or valued in our community. This outcome is likely the opposite of what we collectively envision for Twin Galaxies.

At the same time, Twin Galaxies absolutely respects everyone’s freedom to choose their own level and style of engagement. No one should ever feel pressured or obligated to adjudicate submissions they are uncomfortable with. Each member is a valued contributor to our community, and there’s no hidden agenda behind my personal (or TG's) encouragement—only the sincere intent to continually expand inclusivity and support growth that benefits everyone involved. Twin Galaxies has always existed to serve the gaming community as a whole, without ads or costs to our members, because we believe deeply in this inclusive mission.

Obviously I recognize and respect the many different ways members choose to engage with the platform, and encourage everyone to continue participating in ways that align with their own enjoyment and comfort. After all, that’s ultimately what matters most.

Ultimately, credibility is meant to support and facilitate our adjudication, not inhibit or dominate it. I believe that it’s deeply important that TG members don’t allow the fear of losing CR points to drive overly cautious or pedantic, isolating behaviors that might take away from the inclusive and collective core purpose as a community and platform. My hope is that the TG community can view opportunities like the Logitech submissions as a chance to step outside their usual comfort zones, build confidence in evaluating submissions even in areas where they might not be experts, and expand their gaming knowledge collectively as a community.

Please know that I put my heart and soul into supporting this site, platform, and community—giving everything I’ve got. I genuinely believe the entire gaming industry stands to benefit immensely if Twin Galaxies can fulfill its full potential as both an idea and a concept. However, I’m just one person, and ultimately, the vision can only stretch as far and wide as the community is willing and able to dream and embrace.

bensweeneyonbass liked this post

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

One thing I can assure everyone is that Karl Jobst did not come here intending to create drama. It is my opinion that Karl genuinely cares deeply about speedrunning, fair play, and the integrity of performances, whether they’re at Twin Galaxies or elsewhere. He consistently makes an earnest effort to question, understand, and engage with gaming performances and that has been a good thing for the whole gaming community at large.

Unfortunately, that glowing opinion isn't true. Karl Jobst is, demonstrably, a money grubbing drama queen. Are you aware that he said he would make a video about how TG was failing to stop all the Counter Strike cheating, until he came to rescue it from its ignorance?

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Ultimately, credibility is meant to support and facilitate our adjudication, not inhibit or dominate it. I believe that it’s deeply important that TG members don’t allow the fear of losing CR points to drive overly cautious or pedantic, isolating behaviors that might take away from the inclusive and collective core purpose as a community and platform. My hope is that the TG community can view opportunities like the Logitech submissions as a chance to step outside their usual comfort zones, build confidence in evaluating submissions even in areas where they might not be experts, and expand their gaming knowledge collectively as a community.

This is in your power. If you want members to not fear losing CR points, you need to adjust the penalty for being on the wrong side of a vote. I think CR is important to most of us and under the current system, the more you have the more you stand to lose if you make a mistake. Last time I made one it was almost a 3k hit. That's one thousand submissions I have to get right just to get back to even. That hurts.......a lot! So when it happens it makes you not want to feel that pain again which makes a person extra cautious when adjudicating. That's a good thing but it also means I won't vote on any submission I'm not 100% sure is good. You can't have it both ways. Either you need to lower the penalty for wrong votes, even if it's just for these bounties. Or you need to understand that the folks with high CR are probably not going to want to risk it voting on games outside their comfort zone.

Phantom Francisco, Rogerpoco thanked this post

Phantom Francisco, Barthax, Rogerpoco, datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

This is in your power. If you want members to not fear losing CR points, you need to adjust the penalty for being on the wrong side of a vote. I think CR is important to most of us and under the current system, the more you have the more you stand to lose if you make a mistake. Last time I made one it was almost a 3k hit. That's one thousand submissions I have to get right just to get back to even. That hurts.......a lot! So when it happens it makes you not want to feel that pain again which makes a person extra cautious when adjudicating. That's a good thing but it also means I won't vote on any submission I'm not 100% sure is good. You can't have it both ways. Either you need to lower the penalty for wrong votes, even if it's just for these bounties. Or you need to understand that the folks with high CR are probably not going to want to risk it voting on games outside their comfort zone.

I may just be a nobody here, but I agree with this. The penalty for being on the wrong side of a vote is extremely too strict. The balance between credibility gained and lost is way too lopsided. I understand why the penalty is harsh, but the unbalanced nature of it stems from overcompensating for TG's past. Cut those haunting ties away, not allowing fear of past events and reputation interfere with the community of TG today.

A 5% penalty for doing nothing but being on the wrong side of a vote for someone like Almighty Dreadlock, for example, would cost him over 650 CR if the penalty was just ONE percent ... so ... a FIVE percent penalty? That will make you not vote, relying only on guaranteed easy submissions with no professional judging decisions having to be made. No effort. No "professional" input. Just skip to the next submission.

It also makes it not fun. It just doesn't. Why bother putting in your 2 cents on something that might lean the other way and cost you literally hours and hours of your life time?

5 percent is too much. I understand the reasoning behind it, but we're not Billy Mitchell, Todd Rodgers, or Walter Day. We're the NEW Twin Galaxies. We are our OWN thing.

And I believe I'm speaking for the whole community when I say that 5 percent is too much of a risk, versus how much we get on the gain, to make it enjoyable. For one singe vote it is literally THREE steps forward, and potentially THOUSANDS of steps back.

Some members on this site say that credibility doesn't matter to them, but they also aren't voting, are they?

Don't want credibility to be so decisive in decision making? Stop making it so precious. Sure, a penalty for being the minority vote? Absolutely. But with the current way, the loss is too heavy.

I'm only speaking as a friend and as member of our community.

Rogerpoco thanked this post

D.B. Cooper, Rogerpoco, Excelliron liked this post

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

This is in your power. If you want members to not fear losing CR points, you need to adjust the penalty for being on the wrong side of a vote. I think CR is important to most of us and under the current system, the more you have the more you stand to lose if you make a mistake. Last time I made one it was almost a 3k hit. That's one thousand submissions I have to get right just to get back to even. That hurts.......a lot! So when it happens it makes you not want to feel that pain again which makes a person extra cautious when adjudicating. That's a good thing but it also means I won't vote on any submission I'm not 100% sure is good. You can't have it both ways. Either you need to lower the penalty for wrong votes, even if it's just for these bounties. Or you need to understand that the folks with high CR are probably not going to want to risk it voting on games outside their comfort zone.

Totally understand your perspective, and you're right—there's definitely a balance involved. The penalty serves as an important motivator for careful and accurate adjudication; lower the stakes, and standards may slip. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.

However, another approach to voting could be to consider whether you're 100% sure the submission is invalid, rather than needing to feel absolutely certain it's valid. It's essentially looking at the same situation from the opposite perspective.

Ultimately, growth comes from stepping outside of our comfort zones, even when it's uncomfortable. It’s my sincere hope that the TG Community continues to embrace that challenge and remains open to growth and exploration.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

However, another approach to voting could be to consider whether you're 100% sure the submission is invalid, rather than needing to feel absolutely certain it's valid. It's essentially looking at the same situation from the opposite perspective.

Absolutely! I think the ratchet on ourselves could be loosened a little. What matters is the democracy of our own community. What matters on OUR leaderboards is what WE decide.

Twin Galaxies don't ask much of us in exchange to use this site, their resources, or for this fantastic opportunity to compete for official world records and have your name in a historical record book.

Let's all pitch in and get this bounty sewed up so the competitors aren't forever having to wait on the official word (we've all been there, waiting and waiting for that record to be official. We know how it feels).

We're the Twin Galaxies of today? Okay, let's act like it. Let's do this, be serious about it, and have fun with it. Cast your vote and make your professional gaming voice heard. If along the way you take a Credibility hit, so be it -- you participated in the battle and have the scars. CR is something that can be reaccumulated.

TG has asked us for assistance. You've got a big CR score? Great! Put it to use (the exact reason why you worked to get it).

If anybody has questions about a run, we can discuss it -- that's what the forum on the submission's page is for. All we have to do is have a majority in agreement one way or the other.

We're Twin Galaxies. Let's let others see how we handle our business and make them want to be a part of the magic!

Remember that we are a league of champions -- we are the ones who lead the rest.

datagod thanked this post

Jace Hall, datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Phantom Francisco

I may just be a nobody here, but I agree with this. The penalty for being on the wrong side of a vote is extremely too strict. The balance between credibility gained and lost is way too lopsided. I understand why the penalty is harsh, but the unbalanced nature of it stems from overcompensating for TG's past. Cut those haunting ties away, not allowing fear of past events and reputation interfere with the community of TG today.

A 5% penalty for doing nothing but being on the wrong side of a vote for someone like Almighty Dreadlock, for example, would cost him over 650 CR if the penalty was just ONE percent ... so ... a FIVE percent penalty? That will make you not vote, relying only on guaranteed easy submissions with no professional judging decisions having to be made. No effort. No "professional" input. Just skip to the next submission.

It also makes it not fun. It just doesn't. Why bother putting in your 2 cents on something that might lean the other way and cost you literally hours and hours of your life time?

5 percent is too much. I understand the reasoning behind it, but we're not Billy Mitchell, Todd Rodgers, or Walter Day. We're the NEW Twin Galaxies. We are our OWN thing.

And I believe I'm speaking for the whole community when I say that 5 percent is too much of a risk, versus how much we get on the gain, to make it enjoyable. For one singe vote it is literally THREE steps forward, and potentially THOUSANDS of steps back.

Some members on this site say that credibility doesn't matter to them, but they also aren't voting, are they?

Don't want credibility to be so decisive in decision making? Stop making it so precious. Sure, a penalty for being the minority vote? Absolutely. But with the current way, the loss is too heavy.

I'm only speaking as a friend and as member of our community.

I completely understand the issue you’ve raised, and I don’t disagree. The current system is indeed quite binary and rigid, primarily because it hasn’t been revisited or adjusted since its initial implementation. Introducing more dynamic elements into the voting and credibility system isn’t a trivial task; it requires careful consideration and detailed, systemic-level planning.

At this moment, however, such deep structural changes are challenging due to our current priorities and workload. We’re actively engaged in significant foundational work to bring the community a fully updated, modern version of the TG site in the VERY near future. Interestingly, a major factor delaying this rollout is the unresolved Logitech submissions—we don’t want to initiate a comprehensive update until those are finalized. This means that the community’s understandable hesitation to adjudicate does ultimately have downstream implications, impacting other planned improvements.

Once the new TG site is launched and stabilized, revising and improving elements like the credibility system will become much more feasible. The modernized platform’s coding and infrastructure will facilitate these improvements significantly. The performance enhancements alone, such as increased speed and responsiveness, will make a substantial difference—I personally find the current site painfully slow compared to what’s coming.

Ultimately, I'm just doing the best I can for the community. It's my opinion that this community is fantastic and has enormous potential. However, I also understand that achieving that potential requires collective openness to growth, occasional discomfort, willingness to explore beyond familiar boundaries, and an acceptance of new ideas that can push us forward. I hope the community desire is there.

I’m genuinely doing everything I can to encourage positive growth and forward movement.

We will see how it goes.

datagod thanked this post

Phantom Francisco, datagod, D.B. Cooper liked this post

Originally Posted by Dennis Smithers, Jr.

If along the way you take a Credibility hit, so be it -- you participated in the battle and have the scars. CR is something that can be reaccumulated.

TG has asked us for assistance. You've got a big CR score? Great! Put it to use (the exact reason why you worked to get it).

That's just, unfortunately, not how it works.

Your cred(I checked!), for the time you have been here is great, you have truly seemed to work hard. The enthusiasm is awesome, I remember that period for myself.

It takes a long time to build up cred, for those vested in doing so-I've voted for almost a decade now.

The games we typically are asked to take on to adjudicate are somewhat black and white, experienced users have learned to make sure every detail is accounted for before voting, as it should be, for members with high credibility-

THAT'S the reason we worked to get it.

With the newer games, newer consoles, all the "behind the scenes" craziness that can be done on PC's in particular-

I'm just not "sure".

The reason my cred is so high is because I make sure I am sure. My own internal opinion DOES NOT MATTER.

I don't understand why people don't understand that, even going up the ladder, and I also don't understand how some can view credibility as a novelty stat.

If I'm not sure, I'm not voting. As far as I know, I'm not "special", lol, somehow, we have many members here. And as I've said before, everyone doesn't have to vote on everything, particularly if it's a disinteresting game that a member knows absolutely nothing about.

No one is really standing there with their hands on their hips, it's just a SEP, "Someone else's problem", there are no rewards for being right or wrong, no accolades really, EXCEPT CR, and for many of us, there's just not enough incentive to take risks, particularly with something where many of the videos have players of said game chiming in about cheating/not cheating-

Stuff like that just needs it's own voting category altogether, with the people that know the game having more credible input on the outcome of submissions.

To be clear, Dennis-my tattoos all happened in my teens, lol, "No Mas".

But if I were an active tat person, I'd have a TG tattoo, most certainly, and I bleed TG blue and red, nowhere else really matters to me.

This whole thing just didn't quite work out.

We've had things before that initially didn't work out well, but once streamlined, they became par for the course.

I'm just hoping that happens with instances such as what we are going on about here.

:D

D.B. Cooper liked this post

Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

That's just, unfortunately, not how it works.

It must have done something. The queue went from 50 pages to 3 in about three days. It isn't about one individual being "special." It's about the community as a whole pulling together and getting it done.

I'm glad you're here, Roger. It's great to stamp the leaderboards with you. Maybe someday we can have a TG convention and make a great weekend out of it. I'm sure I'd have to buy a special scrapbook for that!

Rogerpoco, datagod thanked this post

Rogerpoco liked this post