Jace Hall's Feed

Jace Hall
03-15-2025 at 09:54 PM

Dear Twin Galaxies Community,

Throughout these years, I believe we've made incredible strides, evolving from past limitations and continually building something more inclusive, expansive, and meaningful. At its core, Twin Galaxies—established in 1981—represents something deeply significant: a recognition that gamers, and their remarkable achievements, deserve appreciation beyond the limitations of isolated gaming communities and niche interests.

Recently, with the Logitech Aim & Run Bounty Challenge, we've witnessed firsthand what I believe is the immense opportunity that arises when new communities are welcomed into our ecosystem. Logitech, as an influential external partner, seems thrilled with this collaboration—and it appears to be one of the most successful competitions in Twin Galaxies history.

The Counter-Strike 2 community, despite initial unfamiliarity with our adjudication process, has enthusiastically engaged with this challenge, demonstrating a genuine appetite for our structured, transparent approach to recognizing achievements. It's inspiring to see many of these new Counter-Strike players actively participating in the adjudication process themselves, clearly demonstrating what seems to be a genuine commitment to fairness and transparency.

Moreover, it's worth highlighting that these new Counter-Strike players aren't just adjudicating their own submissions—they're actively assisting in adjudicating submissions across our entire platform. While their votes might carry less weight than our longtime veteran members, every bit of participation helps, and their involvement clearly shows genuine commitment to our community.

One of our key future goals is to reach a point where Twin Galaxies can economically empower its members—such as by purchasing submission points directly from the community and enabling sponsors like Logitech to cover adjudication costs. This model would reduce barriers for participation, incentivize community engagement, and provide direct economic benefits to our dedicated members. If this Logitech Challenge completes with full success, it drastically moves us forward on this front.

However, this exciting new influx of participants hasn't come without legitimate concerns. Understandably, some longstanding members have expressed hesitation around adjudicating games they're less familiar with, fearing potential risks to their Credibility or encountering disputes. There have indeed been cases where some newer participants haven't respected our processes, but I genuinely believe these represent a minority rather than the overall community. While vigilance is crucial, we actively work to identify and address these issues. Disputes raised are ultimately decided by Twin Galaxies Admin, who historically have shown a strong track record in making fair and accurate decisions, consistently protecting adjudicators' Credibility.

It's important to explicitly acknowledge the significant contributions and dedication of our veteran members. Your expertise, commitment, and passion have been essential in shaping Twin Galaxies into the much more respected authority it is today than in the past. Encountering initial challenges when integrating new communities is entirely normal and expected—every meaningful growth opportunity comes with a learning curve. If anyone feels uncertain or hesitant, please remember Twin Galaxies Admin remains consistently vigilant, supportive, and ready to guide you through adjudication uncertainties or disputes, protecting your Credibility as fairly as possible.

In my opinion, adjudication isn't about achieving absolute perfection; rather, it’s about making informed judgments based on the knowledge reasonably available at the time. While skepticism and vigilance are important, our collective responsibility is to balance caution with openness.

Historically, Twin Galaxies has faced stagnation from exclusivity and resistance to change. It's my belief we must avoid repeating those mistakes. We're at a pivotal moment: by actively engaging with the pending submissions from the Logitech challenge, we can publicly capture and demonstrate authority, fairness, and unity—setting a powerful precedent for future opportunities.

Ultimately, the choice is yours. If you value Twin Galaxies and want to see it survive and thrive, I want to encourage you to further roll up your sleeves, overcome hesitation, and engage inclusively. Of course nobody is being forced, and I certainly cannot single-handedly drag Twin Galaxies to success and a positive future. If we are able to collectively embrace this and other future challenges, I genuinely believe we can become the central global authority for recognizing gaming achievements, celebrated and respected across all gaming communities. If not, that's okay too—either way, I deeply appreciate your engagement, and I’m committed to supporting the path our community collectively chooses to follow.

This is just my 2 cents, but I felt it was important to share. I feel honored to be able to be among you in general and I thank you all for your continued dedication, patience, and support.

Humbly,

Jace

User comments (28)

Unregistered's Avatar

Quote Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

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


alot of great points, but i have a major disagreement as well as a possible solution that you hint at which i think i can build on

I actualy think the hit is to small. I totally get why it APPEARS too large, but its still easy enough for sloppy voters to build and build and so the cred number speaks more to how muc you adjudicate than how accurate you are. I'd be fine with both bigger rewards and bigger credit hits so that you could reach your stabilzation cred sooner.

to yourpoint of varied cred hits, Chess uses an ELO rating, which like cred, is a complex formula where the higher you are the more you can lose and less you gain. but they also have a "K" value, which basicaly is a multiplier to both hits and rewards. some tournametns that are more important are worth a higher k others lower. I could see these bounties as being treated as more casual than competitve not to mention that yeah the corruent voters dont really know this stuff too much, so yeah, lower the "K" value on them. maybe you only get one as opposed to 3 points improved for a right vote, but you also only lose 2% not 5% if wrong?

my chess knowlege is 20 years old and very rusty, if my analogy made mistakes I'll count on @Excelliron to correct me

Likes Fly, datagod, Excelliron liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Smithers, Jr.



It must have done something. The queue went from 50 pages to 3 in about three days.


Yeah it's community = one person actually saying what their vote is and everyone else piggybacking off that vote.

Thanks Rogerpoco thanked this post
Likes Barthax, Rogerpoco liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Desidious



Yeah it's community = one person actually saying what their vote is and everyone else piggybacking off that vote.


I actually think it might have been a time based thing, based on however the acceptance algorithm works, complete coincidence.

:D


Likes Fly liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Rogerpoco
No one is really standing there with their hands on their hips..

Wait. Aren't you??


Now I'm lost.


(on a sidenote, glad to see that you finally got it through your thick head that "noone" isn't a word lollll)

Thanks Rogerpoco thanked this post
Likes Rogerpoco liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by RaGeNyC


Wait. Aren't you??


Now I'm lost.


(on a sidenote, glad to see that you finally got it through your thick head that "noone" isn't a word lollll)


Ya, lol, you got me.

:D

Ah-ya, I'm def. confused as to why I thought that was the proper way to spell that.

Thanks RaGeNyC thanked this post
Likes RaGeNyC liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by Rogerpoco


Ah-ya, I'm def. confused as to why I thought that was the proper way to spell that.


Took a while for it to sink in (thick head??). In the past....



lmaooooo

Thanks Rogerpoco thanked this post
Likes Rogerpoco liked this post
  • alarm

Quote Originally Posted by RaGeNyC



Took a while for it to sink in (thick head??). In the past....



lmaooooo


Upside down. I'm usually grounded, looking down, while the point goes right over my head.

All same in the end, I suppose, just wanted that to be accurate.

Thanks RaGeNyC thanked this post
Likes RaGeNyC liked this post
  • alarm

We really should have a meeting convention -- I want that scrapbook!

Thanks Rogerpoco thanked this post
Likes Rogerpoco, RaGeNyC liked this post
  • alarm
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Join us