PHASE ONE (G-2) - Score Count Summary

  1. 11-01-2006, 01:46 AM
    I can confirm that Robert has posted a very comprehensive 10 step listing on how things were achieved and I am sure he will post it in due time.

    Everyone, much as myself, is very passionate on this issue and wanting to see things happen, and believe me, without this feedback and thought, it'd be very difficult to do.

    Aside from this, I'm honestly very pleased with how far this project has managed to come and Robert does deserve praise for that, because this has been one massive undertaking... especially with his own job workload.

    I want to see this project succeed as much as everyone, as there's so many more Positive changes coming that this would be the icing on the cake.

    This is going to take time, and we all need to remember this is merely a rough draft and there's going to be a lot of tweaks and changes for the good. Things are slowly coming together and hopefully by the end of the year, things will be ready to be wrapped up.

    [It's not pretty looking at the moment.... but even the ugliest of caterpillars can transform into the most beautiful of butterflies, and with all the hard work Robert's putting into this cocoon [And the nutrients and sustenance for this Caterpillar that is the Emu split], this one's looking to be Disney like thanks to everyones feedback and constructive thoughts.]


    Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
  2. Re: STop the Nonsense..ALL Right ?

    11-01-2006, 06:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    By "rarity" in THIS case, the answer is as follows. It's not merely a so-called "rarity guide" on a scale of 1-10. It is also "rarity" in terms of submissions to TG. We have not had many submissions on "Aquaventure" and "Allia Quest", titles I am personally unfamiliar with.
    That's all you had to say from the start, Robert - a short, specific answer :) A general answer like "based on rarity" doesn't help b/c rarity is commonly interpreted as a measure of a game's value (as far as collecting), and as you can see from my list above, the accepted definition doesn't apply.


    Gamers can search on such information and see which is which as they please. Keep in mind that while Brien is going to eventually develop the "co-mingling" view tool for impacted variations, we can always enhance the capacity to include or strip out "Unverified" scores. You have to think ahead of what is possible or can be put on the table.
    This makes me wonder why the subject of how to handle unverified scores is only coming up now. But now that I finally have my answer, wouldn't it make more sense to mark them as unverified rather than to label them a specific platform? Also, for example, if I had not seen my scores mislabeled as emulator ones, would they have gone into the database as such, or as 'emulator + unverified' (with a note saying they were unverified)? Perhaps having an unverified section-- for scores that the platform is not known-- would be the way to approach this problem. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but assuming a score was done on an emulator (or any platform) based on the number of submissions TG has for it makes no sense to me. I'm not saying (or 'demanding' as you might read it) that unverfied scores be searchable (although that would be ideal), but that they are at least noted as such. As a sugggestion, you might want to familiarize yourself with the 2600 library if you decide to continue to use your "rarity" system. Both Digital Press and Atari Age have online guides that you can search through.


    I never closed my mind and refused to read any commentary put forth thus far. And if you think about it, compared to my stated stance on the issue of a split many months ago, I've obviously changed pace based on where we have reached now. So why are you harrassing me with all of these questions after questions, and accusations of avoiding the answers ? They have been given if you read them as black and white, and not grey.

    Honestly Robert, you have a tendency to avoid giving specific answers (or sometimes any answers) to questions - particularly mine, so don't force me to go back and dig up old threads.

    As for you changing your stance on the whole emu/ntsc/pal issue, if you had as much foresight as you claim to, this issue would have been resolved when it first came up, and it came up long before I spoke up about it. The majority of gamers agree - the current system is wrong.

    And please, it's not really necessary to interpret someone's questions as an 'attack' or 'harassment', is it? If I didn't care what happened with TG, I wouldn't be posting here. I can see you're making an effort to fix some long-standing problems here, and I applaud you for the effort. But criticism comes with any job; how one handles it makes all the difference.
  3. Re: STop the Nonsense..ALL Right ?

    11-01-2006, 02:02 PM
    Hi Scott,

    It's good to get constructive criticism no matter what the project is. Let me see if I can aid from my (or "yet another") viewpoint. :)

    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    By "rarity" in THIS case, the answer is as follows. It's not merely a so-called "rarity guide" on a scale of 1-10. It is also "rarity" in terms of submissions to TG. We have not had many submissions on "Aquaventure" and "Allia Quest", titles I am personally unfamiliar with.
    That's all you had to say from the start, Robert - a short, specific answer :) A general answer like "based on rarity" doesn't help b/c rarity is commonly interpreted as a measure of a game's value (as far as collecting), and as you can see from my list above, the accepted definition doesn't apply.
    You yourself have used intepreted in your answer. Rarity is usually only a measure used in an interpretive fashion - where rarity tends to fact the inclination for the description tends to a statistic instead of a phrase with a lack of clarity, in my experience.

    I agree that there are rarity guides online which give the likely availability of particular carts - I haven't been involved with these guides but have certainly used them as reference. I trust that someone and, far more likely, some group of individuals have created these intepretations based on a collection of what they believe to be accurate statistics - I have little or no access to the historical relevance of those statistics or any reasons for those categorical decisions but I still trust they're roughly accurate.

    Robert with the aid of others has created an interpretation of the likelihood those scores on the scoreboard were created using a console or an emulator. Many of these scores have a likelihood of 100%. For example, my own scores are 100% emulator - the point where likelihood tends to certainty.

    Personally, I fail to see any need to delve into further rhymes & reasons beyond that initial classification - scores were publicly displayed in their initally evaluated likelihood to get them "out of the door" for discussion. Numerous gamers, yourself and myself included, have been able to give certainty to various scores. Seems to have done the trick as we're certainly discussing them. :)

    As to Todd having received your scores and being able to verify them again if need be. Please understand that we are volunteers and in some cases, mine included, our principal activities in life are not TG. Scores I have verified get archived - I have boxes in my loft. My loft has far more personal items in there too. I have access to the TG archives in my possession, but not readily. Thus, it is far simpler for me to give a rough recollection of the items for an initial evaluation than to ensure full clarity for all of them. I have not met Todd, nor have any inclination to know his family circumstances. That said, from the public forums, Todd certainly lives in an area prone to weather extremes. I've heard some tales of the stacks of archives at Robert's dwelling too. I would estimate Todd's & Robert's likely immediate access to reaffirm the content of all their individual archives is going to be slim (even without considering the amount of time that would take to review them).
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
  4. Will Reply After Hours

    11-01-2006, 02:28 PM
    Hi STonic:

    Thanks for the feedback. I have a lot of useful things to say but can't right now as I am at work. I assure you there will be nothing volatile.

    Robert
  5. Re: STop the Nonsense..ALL Right ?

    11-01-2006, 02:31 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    If I didn't care what happened with TG, I wouldn't be posting here.
    Scott, aside from the public forum discussions, you and I have had one very lengthy discussion via PM here and I know your posts are well intentioned. I feel sure you must have had experience of Trolls over at Digital Press just as we have had on these forums. :) That said, when well intentioned individuals don't see eye to eye, the little things can sometimes overshadow the overall conversation and lead to a feeling of Trollish behaviour on one side or another.

    It'd be great for all to iron-out their opinions with different phraseology to illustrate the same point - avoiding the trollishness of otherwise non-trollish posts. For any points you feel aren't being answered correctly: any chance you could re-phrase them, especially as text-only conversation lacks the visual and audible elements which give added emphasis and emotive aspects to what is otherwise just words. On our part, I'm sure the TG staff will be able iron some of our collective phrases too - but if we only read what appears to be repetition, that -ishness can creep into the wrong places.
    I'd rather be last on every game than throw my time away chasing only one score.
  6. Re: STop the Nonsense..ALL Right ?

    11-04-2006, 06:44 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    I agree that there are rarity guides online which give the likely availability of particular carts.
    If I had started a thread here - or anywhere - asking "What does a game's 'rarity' mean?", nobody would have said "It depends on the number of score submissions TG has in its database". Nobody. If Robert wants to use his definition, that's fine, but you have to tell people that. If he did, please point me to the thread b/c I missed it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Kelly_R_Flewin
    I can confirm that Robert has posted a very comprehensive 10 step listing on how things were achieved and I am sure he will post it in due time.
    That's probably why I missed it :(


    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    I feel sure you must have had experience of Trolls over at Digital Press just as we have had on these forums...
    Why is this even being mentioned? Nobody is trolling in this forum, are they? The discussion here is about the database reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    I have a lot of useful things to say but can't right now as I am at work. I assure you there will be nothing volatile.
    Ok.

    And if you can post the 10-step list that Kelly Flewin mentioned, that would be great. I think everyone here would be interested in seeing it, and perhaps it will help answer some questions before they're asked :)
  7. Revised Score Count and Status (11/04)

    11-04-2006, 06:10 PM
    Hello fellow gamers:

    This is an update based on the two major new confirmations (Rodrigo and Stephen). I regret to inform that no other confirmations have been received.

    Here below are those gamers who have publicly or privately verified the classification of their combined 1,673 scores.

    307 David B Yancey
    204 Todd Rogers
    200 Robert T Mruczek
    151 Troy Whelan
    135 Rodrigo Lopes
    133 Stephen Knox
    114 Alan W Hewston
    103 Robert Macauley
    70 Lafe Travis
    58 Douglas C Korekach
    34 Tom Duncan
    23 David R Archey
    20 Andrew Pete Mee
    18 Scott Stilphen
    16 Mike K Morrow
    15 David Nelson
    10 John J Gall
    9 Jason Dyer
    7 Ken Sweet
    7 Mr. Kelly R Flewin
    6 Bryan L Wagner
    5 Douglas A Loyd
    5 Jason Cram
    5 j?rome PAITREAULT
    3 Wolff K Morrow
    3 Zachary B Hample
    2 Adam R Wood
    2 Brian Kuh
    2 Neil Chapman
    2 Nick Ortakales
    1 chad B rogers
    1 Chris E McClard
    1 Donald Hayes
    1 Shawn Cram
    1,673 Total Confirmed

    Unfortunately, that leaves 1,774 scores unconfirmed from 238 players. Details follow afterwards, but here is the snapshot...

    1 player (100+ scores) holds 350 records (19%)
    14 players (25-99 scores) hold 664 records (37%)
    44 players (5-24 scores) hold 496 records (28%)
    179 players (under 4 scores) hold 264 records (15%)

    As I do not return from FS until 11/19, we have some time to allow everyone a chance to see this and respond. If anyone believes that they can contact one of the players below and point out this thread and forum category to them, then by all means please do so and encourage them to respond.

    Ron and eleven other players make up fully half of the above...932 scores out of the 1,774...

    350 Ron Corcoran - impossible to confirm
    79 Greg Troutman - inactive
    78 Mark Feldt - inactive
    78 Stephen R Riesenberger - not sure if still active
    64 Brien King - active and pending reply
    58 Jeffrey D. Lowe, Jr. - active and pending reply
    46 Keith C Post - inactive
    37 Christian L Keilback - active...I am hoping Todd can contact
    37 Rudy J Ferretti - active and pending reply
    37 Ryan Gavigan - active and pending reply
    36 Bryan Miller - not sure if active
    32 Giovanni Flamand - inactive, but he's from Italy and I do not recall Ron ever mentioning that he received actual tapes from Giovanni, so I assigned his scores a prelim status of emulation

    Here is the full list of what remains...

    More than 100 Scores
    350 Ron Corcoran
    Player count = 1
    Percentage = 19%


    25-99 Scores
    79 Greg Troutman
    78 Mark Feldt
    78 Stephen R Riesenberger
    64 Brien King
    58 Jeffrey D. Lowe, Jr.
    46 Keith C Post
    37 Christian L Keilback
    37 Rudy J Ferretti
    37 Ryan Gavigan
    36 Bryan Miller
    32 Giovanni Flamand
    29 Jonathan A Ewing
    28 James Carter
    25 John Marks
    Player count = 14
    Score count = 664
    Percentage = 36%


    5 to 24 Scores
    22 Pete Rocha
    21 Heather Corcoran
    21 Shane Monroe
    20 Kevin M Herbert
    19 Stephen Krogman
    18 Andrew Wagner
    18 Shane Shaffer
    17 Glenn Bussell
    17 Joe Knasin
    17 Scott Bolderson
    16 A. Keith Krueger
    16 Chris M Parsley
    16 Mike Rupprecht
    16 Nathan Page
    13 Tim Balderramos
    12 Carlos Marrero
    12 Galen Komatsu
    12 John Drake
    12 Steven Vallarian
    11 Benjamin Johnson
    10 david oliver
    10 Mark Rupprecht
    10 Michael Ryan
    9 Dustin Barksdale
    9 Michael E Billmeyer
    9 Michael McDuffie
    9 Mike Nail
    9 Nick Johnson
    9 Terence O'Neill
    8 Dan Mowczan
    7 Michael Bricker
    7 Michael Garber
    7 Tom Swingle
    6 Frankie Cardulla
    6 Mark Androvich
    5 Brian Gilman
    5 Daniel Vignes
    5 Darrin Maas
    5 David Dutrow
    5 J F Lavall
    5 Matt Hakeman
    5 Mike Ratledge
    5 Patrick Wyrick
    5 Sam Hartmann
    Player count = 44
    Score count = 496
    Percentage = 28%


    Less than 5 Scores
    4 Barry Yost
    4 David Orlikowski
    4 Jack Alberts
    4 Jarrett D Wyatt
    4 Joshua Warren
    4 Matt Matthews
    4 Natalie Purawec
    4 Scott Butler
    4 Thomas Jentzsch
    4 Todd Smith
    3 Adam B Gurno
    3 Adam Matlock
    3 Charles Petrizzi
    3 Darlene Horton
    3 Ed Semrad
    3 Giovanni S Flamand
    3 J. Hasenbuhler
    3 Jacob Huebert
    3 Jason K Data
    3 Jeff Martin
    3 Jim Zawada
    3 Patrick Wickwire
    3 Stephen Salmon
    2 Aaron D Sanders
    2 Avery Moore
    2 Beau M Barnett
    2 Bob Schmidt
    2 Brad DeShong
    2 Carmine T Guida
    2 Chase A Hermsen
    2 David Marli
    2 Dean Busack
    2 Derek Tompkins
    2 Gary Shepherdson
    2 Greg Easterly
    2 James Ancsanyi
    2 John Rhodes
    2 Joseph Knasin
    2 Ken Vance
    2 Lance Lovett
    2 Mark Marrese
    2 Matt Reed
    2 Mercury Hess
    2 Mike Dolce
    2 Mike T Ashton
    2 Paul Vidro
    2 Robert A Flores
    2 Ryan Osborn
    2 Scott Crawford
    2 Scott Mallery
    2 Tony Case
    2 William H Smith
    1 Alan Hostetler
    1 Allison Butler
    1 Andrew Brown
    1 Andrew Schrock
    1 Ben Strobel
    1 Beni D'Amore
    1 Bill Bennett
    1 Bill Heineman
    1 Blaise Warren
    1 Bob Clarke
    1 Bob Fincutter
    1 Bobby Tribble
    1 Brad DeMoss
    1 Brandon Marks
    1 Brett Weiss
    1 Bryan Cord
    1 Buz Pryzby
    1 Chad M Mohr
    1 Charles OwnJr.
    1 Charlie Barclay
    1 Chris Cavanaugh
    1 Chris Larkin
    1 Chris Taylor
    1 Christian F Cram
    1 Christopher Drum
    1 Chuck Burton
    1 Chuck Potts
    1 Craig Harris
    1 cristian M alexander
    1 Curt Kozielec
    1 Curtis Hepworth
    1 Dan Boscaljon
    1 Daniel Melendez
    1 Dave Canton
    1 David Jones
    1 David Kim
    1 Derek L Grieselding
    1 Desirae Olsen
    1 Dustin Hubbard
    1 Edward Semrad
    1 Eric M Scott
    1 Fabrizio Zavagli
    1 Fidelis M Warren
    1 Frank Merollo
    1 Geoff Voigt
    1 George Reese
    1 Glen Greenly
    1 Gregory S Erway
    1 Guy Albertelli II
    1 Horace Eckerstrom
    1 Houston Berry
    1 Jared Hintz
    1 Jared K Thompson
    1 Jay Tilton
    1 Jeff Quinn
    1 Jeff Weiss
    1 Jeff Wulf
    1 Jerome Paradis
    1 Jerry Trouter
    1 Jesse Alexander
    1 Jim Edwards
    1 Joe Costales
    1 Joe Grisaffi
    1 John Babich
    1 John Christovasilis
    1 John Dunne
    1 John Larem
    1 John Opelia
    1 John P Pettit
    1 Jonathan D Elson
    1 Joseph A Greenlee
    1 Joseph Ratulowski
    1 Josh I Horowitz
    1 Josh Warren
    1 Ken Anderson
    1 Kevin Oster
    1 Kevin Schaller
    1 Lance Simon
    1 lloyd r hartley
    1 Lowell T Duncan
    1 Luc Pycke
    1 Luc PykeSint
    1 Manuel Rotschkar
    1 Mark Darmofal
    1 Marty J Cosimo
    1 Mathew D Whiteman
    1 Mathew L Hubbard
    1 Matt Drinkwine
    1 Matthew Brown
    1 Matthew Talley
    1 Melody L Hawman
    1 Michael Maas
    1 Mike C Plude
    1 Mike Etler
    1 Mike Kyburz
    1 Nate J Alig
    1 Nate Lockhart
    1 Nick Northrop
    1 Noah Kadner
    1 Paul AllenPanks
    1 Perry Brenkman
    1 Pete Fifield
    1 Peter T Lewis
    1 Phil Younger
    1 Rich Bryan
    1 Rich Semenza
    1 Richard Reyes
    1 Richard Wensing
    1 Rico Saucedo
    1 Robert E Johnson
    1 Robert Prindle
    1 Robert Vanatto
    1 Roddy Toomin
    1 Ronnie Dingman
    1 Ruffin Bailey
    1 Scott Allen
    1 Scott Cruse
    1 Shane Leonard
    1 Stan Salvador
    1 Steve J Wiebe
    1 Steven J Kooij
    1 Thomas J Smith
    1 Tim Clancy
    1 Tim Snider
    1 Tom Chang
    1 Tom Crungale
    1 Tom Garcia
    Player count = 179
    Score count = 264
    Percentage = 15%


    Robert

    *****************
  8. The 10-Step List

    11-04-2006, 06:18 PM
    Hello fellow gamers:

    Actually it's 11 with the last step being the reclass itself. I thought it was 10 in my last reply to \"STONIC\". Again, this is what I went by to get the project rolling. Under the constraints that I was working with (permanent loss of documentation from Ron, many inactive gamers and unfamiliar titles), I had to start somehow and at some point, so here is what was done.

    With the verification type entry in question, I classified the scores after discussing with Todd as follows in order of sequence...

    STEP 1 - PAL ONLY titles (Acid Drop, etc)
    STEP 2A - gamers who are 100% exclusively Orig NTSC
    STEP 2B - same for exclusively Orig PAL
    STEP 2C - same for exclusively Orig SECAM
    STEP 2D - same for exclusively EMU
    STEP 3 - review the balance and sort by title, make preliminary assessments based on cart rarity
    STEP 4 - re-sort by gamer and achieve sub-totals of score count by gamer, then in descending order, re-assess whether any additoinal gamers might have been 100% one sub-platform or another
    STEP 5 - review by gamer their array of submissions including those already segregated as \"rare\" (*1) being possible EMU...can it be 100% verified if yes or no, and IF NOT, then leave those as EMU for now and let players review the listings to provide corrective feedback
    STEP 6 - review remaining players, sort by country, make additional assessments based on likelihood of EMU or PAL/SECAM submission for non-USA/CANADA submitters
    STEP 7 - review remaining players and scores, then sort by DATE of verification. Isolate any that are not pre-6/11/04. At this junction there were less than twenty that met this criteria. We verified these manually after discussion as well as specific E-MAILs sent to specific referees. If you recall a few on the referee TG-Going-Forward\" forums, one post called \"Two Verifications Needed\" among others sent via PM
    STEP 8 - compare all scores, including those already classified, versus TG BOOK, and assign each \"Orig NTSC\" (or PAL) status as no emulator existed in that era according to Walter.
    STEP 9 - review remaining players and make assessments . We were at approx 235 to go and with Walter's blessing to get the project going as all were Ron-verified, incommunicado and unable to contact. These were assigned \"Orig NTSC\" as all were USA/CANADA and were common titles
    STEP 10 - Group each player in descending order of their submissions regardless of rank in the EMU forum and allow players time to review. As such, EMU classifications appear first in each groups due to alpha triple sort by person/sub-platform/title
    STEP 11 - make corrections as they come in keeping track of who replied and who did not for future reference
    STEP 12 - when ready, reclass according to the remainder of the project plan for the 2600 platform.

    NOTE (*1) - \"rare\" is not always defined as a 1-10 scale in how this was approached. In some cases, not that many, it could have included a title that I have never even heard of before, with the initial assumption that it is rare. I was dependant on Todd's expertise to inform me if this was not the case. Titles such as \"AquaVenture\" and \"Allia Quest\", for example, I never heard of them.

    Robert
  9. Re: The 10-Step List

    11-05-2006, 11:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    With the verification type entry in question, I classified the scores after discussing with Todd as follows in order of sequence...

    STEP 1 - PAL ONLY titles (Acid Drop, etc)
    STEP 2A - gamers who are 100% exclusively Orig NTSC
    Several times in the past year, and as recently as 6 weeks ago, I've stated both privately and publicly that I:

    A) only use a real (NTSC) 2600 system for all my scores
    B) using PCAE isn't even an option for me b/c my computer can't run it, not that I would even if I could.

    Also, none of my scores were done on PAL versions (like PCAE, I can't run them b/c my TV picture will roll, and I have no way to compensate for it).

    As far as classifying my scores (following your order of sequence), the process should have stopped at step 2a. So that leads me to question step 3, b/c it's not so much an assessment as it is a re-assessment, based on step 5. Logically, any reassessments on your part should only be done after gamers have had a chance to review their scores, and only to scores that are in question. If you intend to follow this procedure with the other database sections, it will cause more problems than it will solve b/c re-labeling a score's platform based on *any* definition of rarity is a terrible idea. I believe I made a good case against it here, but again, that's my opinion.


    In regards to Ron's scores and TG's 'grandfather' rule, the situation may be similar to the questionable 80s arcade scores, but it's not the same (the platform wasn't in question b/c there were no arcade emulators then). You mentioned having a listing of what cartridges Ron owned, and normally I would accept that as "proof" to back up any TG scores pertaining to that list. However, the problem with Ron's scores (and this is a serious one IMO) is that he submitted most (if not all) his own scores. And with all his recordings now lost, unless there are folks out there who witnessed him achieve specific scores in person (perhaps at shows like CGE), all his scores should be marked unverified.

    I can personally vouch for his Escape from Supercade score, since I watched him play. So that's one you can marked as NTSC/verified.



    NOTE (*1) - "rare" is not always defined as a 1-10 scale in how this was approached. In some cases, not that many, it could have included a title that I have never even heard of before, with the initial assumption that it is rare. I was dependant on Todd's expertise to inform me if this was not the case. Titles such as "AquaVenture" and "Allia Quest", for example, I never heard of them.
    It sounds like you definition of rare is more dependent on your familiarity of a given title, and not so much on how many database entries it may have. For example, there are a number of titles that have only 1 or 2 score submissions for them (everything from common releases to prototypes to homebrews) that weren't reclassified as EMU scores.

    Again, this is exactly why, if you're going to be re-labeling people's scores based on your own definition of what "rare" means, you should first take some time and familiarize yourself with the 2600 library. In the past 5 years or so, several unreleased prototype games have since been released (on cartridge), not to mention several games that were previously undiscovered or thought not to exist. Plus the approx. dozen new homebrew titles that are released each year.
  10. Ron' Scores, Yours and Rarity

    11-05-2006, 02:39 PM
    Hi Scott:

    I'll be brief and focus on just three issues...

    -> While you very well might have mentioned publicly on the classic forums that you exclusively used one sub-platform (Orig NTSC), I haven't been able to peruse this forum with regularity since relinquishing my chief referee status as wel las Dreamcast and XBox concerns. I have largely been focusing on MAME and arcade, as well as the referee forums, so I was admittedly unaware of your previous posts even if I had weeks or months ago participated in one of the theads. I have 7500+ forum replies...I seriously doubt I remember them all.

    -> The \"rarity\" issue is as discussed subjective. However, I personally reviewed with Todd ALL of the titles that I had initially deemed as \"rare\". Therefore an opportunity existed for a second opinion at that time to say \"Hold Up\" and address it from there. Just as Walter relies on the referees for certain decisions and facts nowadays (if I have difficulty remembering 5 years worth of decisions, imagine Walter who has 20 years worth on top of that), so I also end up relying on the more seasoned platform referee for supplemental and precise information.

    The fact that some were deemed \"rare\" and were not is in fact part of the initial discovery process. Who better than the submitting gamer then to point out the mistakes. And that's what is happening.

    You forget the most basic aspect of this...nothing is actually being reclassed until everyone that takes the time to chime in has had their say in both corrections and suggestions. At least in this respect the project is going along not without hitches but with a fair amount of feedback. Abnd there is still two weeks to go before I start the physical reclass itself, so let's see how it plays out.

    As for hindsight issues, we can debate the hindsight aspect to the handling of this reclass project, or debate way back to the initial decisions back in 1996-1998 to co-mingle. It really doesn't matter as we have reached the here and now and are taking pro-actove steps as needed to make the reclass as accurate as possible under the circumstances. WHich leads me to...

    -> Ron's scores. While Ron was initially onboard, TG was a very small organization...Walter, Ron, Stephen, Mark, and I maye be incorrect but also Shane Monroe, Ken Sweet, and a few others, but the majority of the score validations were done by Walter, Ron, Mark and Stephen.

    We know full well the pitfalls of referees posting their own scores. It creates an atmosphere without an aura of supervision. We recently removed this capacity on the \"new database\" at the behest of CTO Brien King. However, in the 1-2 years before that change with respect to the new database, and as far as the 20 or so years before that, such provisions did not exist.

    This largely affected a few referees, myself included for 2002-early 2005. While I dutifully sent my own 2600/CV scores to Ron and Stephen, and my INP scores to Mark (thru his departure date), the other platform scores (Sega DC, N64, etc) I still have the tapes here. I have more than 150 of my own tapes averaging 4 hours that have never been watched...and that's just me. No one has the time to watch 600 hours of my own video tapes, and again that was just for non-DC/N64. As for my own MAME, Kelly Flewin watched the ones that Mark never did, and now another referee (several have access) watch all.

    But back on track to Ron, he was in full command of the Atari and Inty platforms, as was Stephen for CV, and I think Shane for the C64. Cross-verifications in the old days I was not privvy to. We had a difficult enough job as it was between keeping pace with incoming tapes and posts. In my own case, the postage cost for 150 tapes would be enormous as that occurred over 2-3 years from 2002-2004 whereupon I largely stopped with most console submissions save for Xbox and an occassional other submission.

    Ron's own scores, I never saw ANY of them except for the few he submitted in conjunction with the 2600 Atari time deca from 2001 or 2002.

    Unfortunately, I cannot recreate the wheel here due to loss of tapes. Some of Ron's scores, if you have noticed, have already been yanked...selectively...because not only was there no proof, but no one, not even Todd or myself, was even TOLD that he did these scores let alone pulled them off. One such extraction was his 1M on \"Donkey Kong\" for the 2600. All of a sudden it was there. I challenged that one myself, successfully, and it was removed. There were others but I cannot remember them all....just a few, though.

    As for whether he was emu or original, I recently acquired assistance in determing what Ron's collection of titles is, and I crocc-checked this with a trusted referee versus which titles are on the 256-in-1 \"cuttle cart\". So the \"Orig vs EMU\" debate is in progress there. Some, I know for a fact he did while on vacation, such as \"Turmoil\" for the 2600 and 1.5M on \"Zaxxon\" for the CV. But the vast majority I do not know.

    That still leaves the self-verification aspect. If Walter entrusted Ron with the privilege to do so under the circumstances, just as he entrusted me with my own from the year 2001 summer console competition (285-300 scores), I will not question Walter's decision in that respect. It was what it was, good or bad, and we are now moving forward.

    I assure you that the scores within Ron's pool that I personally felt warranted discussion have already been discussed. I used a personal combination of assessments to do this. For example...if in a title such as \"Breakout\" Ron could not achieve 864 points, there is no way he could get 1M on \"Kaboom\" let alone 50K on game \"A\" as he once claimed. His current \"Kaboom\" scores are more reflective of his skillset in that arena. And while my own cherry-picked title challemges were of course entirely subjective, other referees...AND gamers...should always feel free to evaluate any that they feel warrant questions.

    Mind you, at this late date, between the absolute inability to verify his scores and Walter's statement on grand-fathering, some issues will not be pursued, but certainly any top scores in question should welcome questions at this time.

    While I personally am done questioning Ron's 2600 scores, I will not do so for the other Atari platforms as it is not my place to do so as I never played 5200/7800 platforms. As for his scores on other platforms, that is a different matter and for a different phase of the project.

    That's it from me for now.

    Robert
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Join us