MyOwnWorstEnemy's Feed

MyOwnWorstEnemy
04-19-2019 at 05:17 AM
5 Comments
Rate this Entry

Score Disputes and Soap Box Talk

Asking if the Community members would kindly opine on two disputes (and others while your at it) on recently accepted submissions. I took significant credibility hits for pointing out what I think are clear rule violations. If you disagree, that's fine but I would like to hear the counter arguments of those with different opinions.

Here are the submissions I'm disputing....

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/201920-Dispute-Shaun-Michaud-PlayStation-2-Tony-Hawk-s-Pro-Skater-4-PAL-Chicago-Single-Session-Points-Player-Johnny-Bonde-Score-3-500-443

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/202876-Dispute-Shaun-Michaud-PlayStation-2-Tony-Hawk-s-Underground-2-PAL-New-Orleans-Best-Combo-Player-Johnny-Bonde-Score-2-554-166


Also, I just want to jump on soap box for a few minutes and point out (once again) that the adjudication process does not consistently promote the right behavior. The primary and most desired reward for adjudication is submission points. Since an overwhelming majority of submission are accepted (estimate 98-99%) adjudicators can gain substantiation submission points by voting yes and not perform any due diligence. Clicking Yes is easy and really just playing the odds. Should this be worth the same as voting No and backing it up with a credible challenge? I don't think so.

Credibility is earned through hard work and performing quality due diligence. Sometimes that means sticking one's neck out there and calling out a rule violation and pushing against the Yes crowd. Voicing a valid challenge that keeps out submissions and maintains the integrity of the scoreboard has more credibility than a common Yes vote. As the state of adjudication currently sits, folks who are performing quality due diligence are more likely to abstain than vote No. After all, why take the credibility hit and try to do the right thing when the majority of the adjudicators are only interested in submission points.


Here's a couple of suggestions:

- Make all comments / responses in the submission thread anonymous (this creates more of a safe space for valid challenge without personal trolling)

- Cap the number of credibility points earned by Yes votes - Example 10,000

- Build functionality that requires a NO vote to include explanation (maybe a drop down of common no vote reasons (e.g., wrong score, wrong track, etc... with an edit text field that allows someone to enter their own comments.

- To curb the chance of whimsical no votes, create a risk / reward mechanism. For instance, the No voter must pledge the greater of 500 or 5% credibility points along and if other deem this a valid challenge, they will be award the amount pledged (1:1 odds). Credibility earned through credible challenge (No Vote) is not limited to the Cap (see #2)


What this proposal does is limit the voting weight of blind / low quality due diligence voters and increases the voting weight of those performing quality due diligence adjudications. The risk / reward limits the number of whimsical No vote (e.g. animosity against the submitter), and the anonymous comments creates a safe space for critical feedback.


Happy Good Friday and God Bless :)



ThanksMarcade thanked this post
LikesRogerpoco, ILLSeaBass, Marcade, HAN liked this post
Comments
  1. timmell's Avatar

    I agree with you and voted on the dispute. More blind voting. Maybe the dispute will be resolved by this time next year.


    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy, datagod thanked this post
    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy, Marcade, datagod liked this post
  2. Marcade's Avatar

    "Credibility is earned through hard work and performing quality due diligence. Sometimes that means sticking one's neck out there and calling out a rule violation and pushing against the Yes crowd. Voicing a valid challenge that keeps out submissions and maintains the integrity of the scoreboard has more credibility than a common Yes vote. As the state of adjudication currently sits, folks who are performing quality due diligence are more likely to abstain than vote No. After all, why take the credibility hit and try to do the right thing when the majority of the adjudicators are only interested in submission points. "


    Amen to that!!!

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    Add me on Facebook same icon William Rosa. Tg don’t care about the scoreboard no more but at least it introduces us to each other

    Likesdatagod, MyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  4. datagod's Avatar


    This is the icon I always see on TG, not the lovely Gameboy camera selfie you have on facebook.

  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    Then **** tg programmer cause I use the same sweet icon here

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
Join us