Dispute: Andrew Mee - Arcade - Joust - Points [Marathon/Single Player] - Player: James Vollandt - Score: 107,216,700

Arcade - Joust - Points [Marathon/Single Player]
Score Track	https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=1303
Rules	Extra Men Every: 20,000 Men For 1 Credit Game: 5 High Score To Date: Yes Difficulty Of Play: 5 Letters For Highest Score: 3 Special Rules: This is a 1 Player Only Variation! No Continues Are Allowed! The Green Label version must be used, no exceptions!
Player Name	James Vollandt
Original Adjudication	N/A
Verification Method	Referee
Verification Date	1985-07-08
Disputed Score	107,216,700 (Rank 2)
Disputed By	Barthax
Dispute Evidence / Rationale	Due to the minimum Credibility Rating to start a Dispute, this is a proxy challenge from RTM against this score. From my personal viewpoint, this is a great piece of perspective information which should stand with the performance while it is on the scoreboard. Quote: Originally Posted by RTM Challenge of the "Joust" arcade marathon score by James Vollandt set in 1985 in Victoria, Canada with a final score of 107,216,700 taking, according to Walter Day's 1st TG Book of Records, a time of 67-1/2 hours to achieve at the "Ironman" event. Based on information contained within a recent inquiry to golden age arcade gamer Darren Harris ("Star Trek" world champion), the possibility existed that the renowned "Iron Man" score by James Vollandt was the result of multiple performances "concatenated" together based on special rules for the event itself. After asking Darren to clarify his original comments he reported first-hand knowledge that due to mechanical difficulties encountered by James at the event, at least one performance was ended and another began, and the aggregate times and scores from these performances were cumulatively accepted and regarded as being the then-"Ironman" duration record in terms of longevity, and more so the score itself was also accepted by Twin Galaxies as the then-marathon world record. According to the rules governing such events, up to five (5) performances could, in theory, be similarly "concatenated" for a recognized longevity record during such events including the one in question. Darren further stated that event rules had changed over the years. The score itself was prominently mentioned within the 1st Twin Galaxies Book of Records both within the arcade score section and the chapter dedicated to the "Ironman" event itself. It is therefore a distinct possibility that the long-held and esteemed original duration record was actually the benefit of at least two, and possibly more, back-to-back performances set at the event by the player in question, and that the aggregate scores and performance durations were combined by Twin Galaxies officials at the event for the purpose of recognition by Twin Galaxies and inclusion in the Twin Galaxies records database. As a matter of record, it was discovered that the Roy Shildt 60 million point marathon on "Missile Command" was also set and governed under what he finally revealed as being "Atari Rules" which, according to what Roy finally admitted to, allowed for "concatenated" performances in case of power outages or in the case of "Missile Command" a game reset which, due to the very nature of the game's program, is quite common in the advanced levels of the game based on a number of conditions. So precedent had been established by Twin Galaxies at events where scores were "concatenated", and it makes me wonder whether there are any other surprises waiting to be discovered from pre-1987 event outcomes. |-

This is going to be a difficult conversation because it is entirely based on anecdotal evidence from a personal E-MAIL exchange between Darren Harris and myself within the past few days due to my initially asking him questions concerning the recent Donn Nauert "Cheyenne" score discussion contained within a thread dealing with the "Top Five Unbeatable Scores of All Time" of which one was Donn's performance.

While discussing issues concerning Donn's 319M score and how it was possible even though the score pretty much stops at the 99.999M point, Darren mentioned the James Vollandt score from that event and it read, and I quote, "But considering Walter allowed Jim Vollandt to restart his Joust game when technical problems arose the following weekend"

That to me was a red flag comment, so I pressed a bit further and asked him to clarify that point. The key response was, and again I quote, "A couple days into Vollandt's marathon, the Joust joystick would only allow one direction. When they opened the panel to try and fix it the game shut off. So under the "Act of God" clause the malfunction was deemed to not be Jim's fault, and therefore he was allowed to restart the game, adding to whatever score he had already achieved."

This comes as news to me and is certainly an exploratory situation as the above is just a single recollection from that event regarding James' score. I've asked both Dwayne and Mark for additional clarification but have not yet heard back from either with anything additional on the matter.

As additional documentation I direct you to the following link - http://www.videoparadise-sanjose.com/tg-rules.htm

Rule 4.2 is critical and at the core of the matter. But more importantly additional anecdotal evidence for this dispute is clearly required. Right now all that exists are grounds for an initial discussion, and worthy of such at that.

For the purpose of the event itself, which had an end-goal of seeing if any attendee could play an arcade video game for 100 hours, perhaps this "concatenation" for the sake of duration made sense at the time to the event officials. But the recognition of a concatenated score which comprised of anywhere from 2 to as many as 5 entirely separate and back-to-back performances...that's a whole different matter.

One interesting addition - an interview with James Vollandt that I found. Curiously a "trial run" of 100M in 53 hours is mentioned which is odd because his touted record from the event was 107M (just 7M higher) at 67-1/2 hours (a whopping 14-1/2 hours longer for a score that was only 7M higher...makes no sense)

Additionally, while breaks are mentioned not once is a restart or concatenation of scores mentioned.

Elements of this interview, possibly all of it, must be somewhat recent as McCallister's marathon is mentioned which occurred only a few years prior.

http://www.spyhunter007.com/james_vo..._new_score.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTM

One interesting addition - an interview with James Vollandt that I found. Curiously a "trial run" of 100M in 53 hours is mentioned which is odd because his touted record from the event was 107M (just 7M higher) at 67-1/2 hours (a whopping 14-1/2 hours longer for a score that was only 7M higher...makes no sense)

Additionally, while breaks are mentioned not once is a restart or concatenation of scores mentioned.

Elements of this interview, possibly all of it, must be somewhat recent as McCallister's marathon is mentioned which occurred only a few years prior.

http://www.spyhunter007.com/james_vo..._new_score.htm

---

I believe during the event that his goal was to just maintain the game and not to work so hard getting a score. Trying to score fast is tiring and as you know the goal was to play to 100 hours. I don't remember if I talked to him or had contact via email, but I remember we discussed something about scoring rate and I do believe that he said he could do even better than 53 hours for the hundred million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTM

One interesting addition - an interview with James Vollandt that I found. Curiously a "trial run" of 100M in 53 hours is mentioned which is odd because his touted record from the event was 107M (just 7M higher) at 67-1/2 hours (a whopping 14-1/2 hours longer for a score that was only 7M higher...makes no sense)

Additionally, while breaks are mentioned not once is a restart or concatenation of scores mentioned.

Elements of this interview, possibly all of it, must be somewhat recent as McCallister's marathon is mentioned which occurred only a few years prior.

http://www.spyhunter007.com/james_vo..._new_score.htm

---

In the article, James emphasizes that he was deliberately stretching out his play for time and not looking to maximize points. He felt this point was lost when people were comparing McCallister's score to his own situation.

Also, James does mention the joystick and power failure, confirming Darren's recollection! Use keyword search for "joystick" (the relevant section is the second hit)

(PD): Do you ever wonder in the back of your mind what you would do if the game crashes either by power failure, monitor failure or board failure? Would you try again the next week if this occurred?

(JV): Actually it did - the joystick got stuck in one direction and when they opened the panel to try and fix it the game shut off. Because it was a malfunction beyond my control, they allowed a restart immediately after they fixed it. I lost over 200 men and had to start all the back at the slow pace. I never really recovered from this and never got another break."

That echoes the balance of what Darren stated to me...

"I don't think that the players were aware of this because it happened at 3:00 in the morning when most everyone had returned to the hotel to sleep.


Jim lost over 200 lives as a result and never really found his groove after that."

Given the confirmation of the combined scores for this record, did you have a remedy in mind at the outset in the event of this outcome, RTM? The two that I can see would involve 1) leaving the score where it is, with the dispute review to serve as an explanatory footnote about the score's unique rule set, or 2) create an "Iron Man" track for this score.

i love the idea of attaching notes so in that sense this dispute is very valid but i was pretty unhappy with the inconsistent way robotron was treated

look for verification method, its always chanted "met the standards of the day" even though we have no idea if the rules were truly followed. then a case like this comes up, where not just verifications met the standards of the day, but the gameplay rules also met the standards of the day, but for actual rules we'll ignore the standards of the day!!!!!!

how does it make sense to enshrine verification method (something that can and should change) as some holy unquestionable thing when it was the standard of the day, meanwhile the actual gameplay rules themselves can just be changed and old valid scores under those rules thrown away because of changing rules?

we know at one point TG allowed concatenated scores for marathons and at another point it didnt. heck when i first joined the rules still showed concatenating was allowed -- though i remember in a discussion with rtm he said those rules were removed, so apparently their brief return during jace's days were by accident.

if you move this score or even worse remove it, it gives future generations the impression concatenation was not allowed unless otherwise specified and so other potentially concatenated scores wont be as obvious. I'm fine splitting the track between concatenated and not concatenated, but since the rules of the time allowed concatenation, any score which cant be proven either way belongs on the concatenated track

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Evener

Given the confirmation of the combined scores for this record, did you have a remedy in mind at the outset in the event of this outcome, RTM? The two that I can see would involve 1) leaving the score where it is, with the dispute review to serve as an explanatory footnote about the score's unique rule set, or 2) create an "Iron Man" track for this score.

---

RTM REPLY - the concatenation rules were a unique chapter in TG history. They were intended for event-based marathon play as far back as 1983 thru, one would imagine, at least 1985 when the "Ironman" score took place. Whether they still were enabled/honoured for scores achieved in the 1986-1987 era remains unknown. Additionally, no such rules even existed pre-1983 thus any 1981-1982 marathons were done on single-credits during any "events" that TG held or was present at within the early years.

The purpose of the "Ironman" event was first and foremost a longevity challenge...the score itself was secondary. But the rules applied were crafted before the "Ironman" event even existed.

This creates a muddled situation...a TG scoreboard with marathon scores (like James) that were NOT played under the same auspices as those of NON-event scores, thus giving those players a distinct advantage.

Think about it, and I'll cite a reference well known to me. When Brandon Erickson set his longevity record at arcade "Star Wars" of 54 hours he achieved 287 million points...97.5% of my score...and his game ended due to a combination of hallucination and machine controller issues, but had he the opportunity to "restart" on a fresh machine and had his scores "concatenated" there might be a different champion at the title right now.

Bottom line is that the rules were applied differently towards different players and there is an inherent bias there.

What I would propose is that event-based marathon scores achieved 1983-1985...and possibly 1983-1987 (when TG ended) need to be assumed to be "concatenated" and thus in their own category apart from non-event marathon scores. The trick is identifying which were event-based within this period as dates alone are not always accurate in the TG database.

As for the longevity mark set by James, I believe that a new "longevity" record category should be established for well-documented marathons only, those where there is sufficient historical proof of the longevity itself, and therein lies a second problem as many of the 1987 and prior marathon scores have no such longevity stamp associated. Thus only a select few including that of James' "Joust" performance and some others could be added to this new category.

I propose that this category allow one (1) marathon per person regardless of title...thus you cannot be in it for 40 hours on "Asteroids" as well as 50 hours on "Missile Command". Next, I propose that the category be limited to arcade only as there are far too many ways for console scores to be drawn out for ridiculously lengthy times...especially MMORPG titles where anecdotes exist of players at it for well in excess of a hundred hours.

Lastly, I propose that the category be split into "concatenated (multi-credit)" and "non-concatenated (single credit)" performances, each single player.

Finally, supplemental rules must be appended as far as furthering the gameplay itself. Anecdotal evidence exists that Billy Mitchell and CHris Ayra left a "Pacman" game playing for 30 days to see if anything happened in the famous "split screen" stage. As we know, a point is reached where the ghosts are trapped at the far right and "Pacman" is parked safely as well. Having this qualify as a 30-day single-credit "longevity" record would be a farce, and that's aside from the issue of who did such a score and their being banned from TG.

Anyway, those are my prelim ideas...

-> Splitting all pre-1987 marathon SCORES into multi-credit/concatenated and single credit/non-concatenated
-> Creating a new arcade only "longevity" category in terms of duration, one entry per person regardless of title, split into multi-credit/concatenated and single credit/non-concatenated with special rules created to avoid"resting" gaming such as that anecdotal 30-day "Pacman" performance from qualifying for the category due to no furthering of gameplay, and for similar non-furthering actions in the same spirit

Robert