Dispute: Garrett Holland - Arcade - Lock 'N' Chase - Points - Player: Patrick Scott Patterson - Score: 89,580

Arcade - Lock 'N' Chase - Points
Score Track	https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=1350
Rules	Dip Switch Bank A: 1-4 = OFF 5-6 = OFF/UNUSED 7-8 = ON Note: There is the possibility that Switch 7-8 = OFF for Cocktail purposes as the only documentation found is for Uprights. Dip Switch Bank B: 1-3 = OFF 4 = ON 5-8= OFF/UNUSED Note: The above Dip Switches, when properly designated, will give the following Twin Galaxies Tournament Settings, used for this title; Lupins: 3 Bonus Points: 15,000 Game Speed: Fast
Player Name	Patrick Scott Patterson
Original Adjudication	N/A
Verification Method	Referee
Verification Date	2010-06-04
Disputed Score	89,580 (Rank 2)
Disputed By	Garrett Holland
Dispute Evidence / Rationale	This person did not achieve this score. He admits on 10/24/2010 that the "house rule" at his commercial establishment was to "take [his patrons' scores] for the Twin Galaxies database." Attachment 91755 This puts *all* of this player's scores' veracity in doubt. Whether or not this score needs to be REMOVED is unquestionable. The only question is why the hell it has taken almost 10 years for this garbage to be disputed.

I'll be disputing every single other one of this player's arcade scores.

inb4: it doesn't matter to me if scores were also submitted on other people's behalf under his patrons' correct names for the purpose of an ESI boost. This entire scenario stinks.

to be clear when you say dispute every score, you mean patrick's scores not marcs right?

also -- and i'm not gonna argue it to far cause patrick certainly put himself in the position -- doesnt his padding of his score by entering others without permission more justify challenging lock n chase that he verified as opposed to scores he submitted to other refs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrett Holland

inb4: it doesn't matter to me if scores were also submitted on other people's behalf under his patrons' correct names for the purpose of an ESI boost. This entire scenario stinks.

---

esi didnt exsit then, or any cross game metric like that other than just world record count. however, you're still basically on the right idea, because while there was no esi, there was just e-penis of "look how many people i can beat on this track". so padding still meant something back then, it just wasnt as quantified with esi as it is today.

Excellent questions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowflake

to be clear when you say dispute every score, you mean patrick's scores not marcs right?

---

That is correct. Marc isn't the one who submitted anything that wasn't his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowflake

also -- and i'm not gonna argue it to far cause patrick certainly put himself in the position -- doesnt his padding of his score by entering others without permission more justify challenging lock n chase that he verified as opposed to scores he submitted to other refs?

---

Perhaps, but based on my observation, "taking someone's scores" includes giving himself credit for the score, in addition to the shenanigans of submitting scores, albeit giving the proper credit for the score, on other peoples' behalf to boost his ESI.

I'm simply going by the language he himself used. If others want to interpret it differently, that is certainly their prerogative.

sorry for so much, i saw you're other link and in uncharacteristic response for me i responded before fully reading. i thought you were challlenging marc's scores

patrick is well known for upsetting a lot of people. often times it turns into pure emotion and the more solid things like you found dont come up

if you wish to make a case against him on general corruption its worth pointing out right in the billy mitchel thread he tries to throw billy under the bus saying billy's tape was verified by vote without watching. he claims to know this because he was one of the people to verify billys now removed dk score. how does he justify his own involvement while at the same time insisting billy's score should be removed? he explains he only verified billy's score on hopes of money

a ref that would make his decisions based on money -- as documented, i believe also goes far to call into question all decisons he made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowflake

there was just e-penis of "look how many people i can beat on this track"

---

OMFG that is AWESOME! LOL!!! And, another great point. While ESI is a contemporary metric, "Expert Skill" has always be gauged, notwithstanding that fact that in 2010, there wasn't an actual (I)ndex, and was entirely subjective ... but, still a motivator.

I'm confused. I don't know what "take the score" means. (record the score on tg, maybe?). But I feel its not the same as "take credit for the score". There is a score from Marc with a date that corresponds to Patrick's post, which would seem to contradict your claim that Patrick is taking credit for a score Marc achieved. Voting no.

I'm sorry, I don't understand - what exactly is the accusation here? That PSP submitted someone else's score as his own? A simple search provided the following link from the archived forums of this site: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...ck-N-Chase-WR!

Reading that thread, and looking at the photos, it seems abundantly clear to me that PSP achieved this score live, at Funspot.

Listen guys, I am all for getting rid of fake scores, and even for disputing scores where there is not sufficient evidence, or something really shady about the methods, time achieved, etc., but I think some of you are going overboard with these privileges. Everyone is free to have an opinion about a person, and decide whether they like them or not on a personal level, but facts should remain immune to personal grudges. When valid scores are getting disputed, for what appears to be no other reason than not liking the person, that is a huge issue - it taints the leaderboards, and drastically reduces your credibility when making future arguments (even if they happen to be valid).

Unless I see something else presented here, or someone can explain to me what I'm missing, this is an easy no vote, and the dispute should be removed completely.