@
sdwyer138 This is starting to look like a special case. If people voted in good faith on a valid submission for the correct track then they should not be penalised in my opinion. This dispute can remain for as long as necessary in order to ensure a logical and fair resolution.
@
rotunda Thanks for bringing this one up. It was just over a year between your two submissions. For the record, would you mind clarifying exactly why you resubmitted?
@
Barthax Successful disputes require the consent of Twin Galaxies – that’s one of the reason’s I’m here. Sheer weight of votes alone will not overturn old scores which obeyed the rules of their time. Other organisations that monitor scores/records etc have to change many rules over time, often as a result of the evolution of the health and safety industry. The old achievements, under old rules, still need to be preserved and recognised even if people have to adopt slightly different rules to compete against a slightly different track.
One example would be for marathons set in arcades. It is much easier now that it was in the 1980s to use an UPS to keep the machine running in the event of a power cut. Should we therefore insist that power cuts mean the end of your (modern) score attempt? If you intend to spend several days setting a record, with press attention, then surely you would arrange to have an UPS. However if you were trying to beat Brian King’s Robotron score, under the same rules, would the requirement for a UPS make it unfair, as a power cut could mean a vital caffeine break?