PHASE ONE (G-2) - Score Count Summary

  1. Re: Ron' Scores, Yours and Rarity

    11-05-2006, 04:29 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    -> 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.
    Well, I did state that. You of all people know I've been one of the more vocal proponents for NSC/PAL/EMU scores to be separated in the past year. I've posted (in detail) the differences between them in several threads, threads that you yourself were involved with. I can't really believe that you or anyone else would think I would have submitted any emulator scores under the current TG policy. :roll:



    -> The "rarity" issue is as discussed subjective.
    That's the understatement of the year. First you say it pertains to how many scores a title has in the database, then you say it depends on whether or not you're familiar with the title...


    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.
    Then one of two things happened. Either Todd told you those scores in question were done on an emulator (ignoring both the actual tapes he has in his possession as well as my conversation with him 6 weeks ago) or you relabeled those scores based on your own definition(s) of "rarity".


    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.
    Lucky for me I stopped in to check them...

    Which brings me to an earlier question I asked - if I didn't step in to correct your mistakes, would they have gone into the database as emulator scores -- even though they were originally verified as NTSC scores? If so, you don't see a problem with that?


    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.
    That's quite a change from your earlier stance of "this wasn't a problem when Ron was the 2600 ref" ;)

    And yes, the point of these discussions/posts is to make the reclass as accurate as possible.


    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.
    Well, there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this problem. If TG is interested in addressing a problem that affects their credibility, the right choice would be to remove any and all scores (no matter how many there are) that were self achieved+submitted, until the videotapes can be reviewed by someone else. If TG is more interested in avoiding inconveniencing anybody from the extra workload/cost the right choice would make, then mark all those scores UNVERIFIED until they can be.

    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.
    You don't have to recreate anything here b/c from what you and Todd have said, the large majority of his scores were never verfied by anyone other than Ron himself. And since there's little chance of them being verified (aside from the few that you, Todd, and I can vouch for), there's no point in labeling them unverified. They should be removed altogether. Having a ref submit his own scores is bad enough (and this problem far outweighs any discussion of what platform they were done on), but how does it make TG look if only a few hand-picked scores are going to be removed? How does it look if ANY of them are still in the database?


    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 can't imagine Walter not having a problem with refs verifying their own scores. If he doesn't, then he can state it here for everyone to see. IMO, this isn't a 'grandfathering' issue; this is an issue of TG's ethics. Just because TG didn't always have a specific rule against it doesn't mean it was "ok" to do any more than it is now. Part of "moving forward" is to address+fix current problems.

    Up until a few months ago, you didn't want to address or question TG's policy on handling/labeling NTSC/PAL/EMU scores either (and "what is was" was bad), but we're moving forward on that now, aren't we?


    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.
    So we now also have proof that he LIED about some of his scores?! Lemme get this straight. He:

    Used an emulator for an unknown number of his scores
    Verified his own scores
    Lied about his scores
    All videotapes of his scores no longer exist


    The hell with past TG policies with this. Aside from the very few scores that you, Todd, and myself have personally witnessed Ron achieve, do yourself, TG, and everyone else a favor and remove them. Why are you even contemplating keeping them??
  2. Here we go again...

    11-05-2006, 06:20 PM
    Hi Scott:

    I am going to have Walter and/or Brien respond to this one...frankly there is not much more to say that I have not already said on the matter or Ron's scores. Ron was a former Board of Directors member who doubled as a senior platform editor/referee. I think it best at this time for a remaining Board of Directors member to respond at this point. I've already said as much as I needed to on the Ron-matter.

    Robert
  3. One Last Comment

    11-05-2006, 06:23 PM
    Scott:

    Barthax has already replied once, maybe twice, about hanging on words or their meanings.

    There is no \"understatement\" here...what is there not to understand from everything posted thus far ? This is not the \"Stonic\" project, you know...this affects more than just one gamer.

    Robert

    Quote:
    -> The \"rarity\" issue is as discussed subjective.


    That's the understatement of the year. First you say it pertains to how many scores a title has in the database, then you say it depends on whether or not you're familiar with the title...
  4. Re: Ron' Scores, Yours and Rarity

    11-05-2006, 06:26 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    So we now also have proof that he LIED about some of his scores?!
    That's a bit of a leap to call him a proven liar. There could be any number of reasons for said entries. We just don't know and no amount of assumptions is going to change that.

    Those leftovers that can't be confirmed... marking these old scores as UNVERIFIED seems just fine to me, it shows that TG collected these scores as a part of gaming history but unfortunatly due to various reasons they can no longer be confirmed, end of story. Those viewing the database can make up their own minds as to wether or not it's true. I don't feel this tears apart TG's credibility in any way, it's not like TG is going to start accepting qustionable scores. It means what it means, that's all.
    Martin Bedard

    Arcade Finder - Find the coin-op games you want to play!
  5. The Scores Removed

    11-05-2006, 06:41 PM
    Hello fellow gamers:

    The few scores removed were at the tail-end of Ron's tenure. While I cannot discuss the departure details, we treated his scores just as we did any other gamer for the few entered shortly before his departure.

    I already examined a data dump provided by Brien well over a year or two ago. Scores that of course I knew we would have no backup for at that point. And the decision to dump a few was made.

    What many of you do not know, we have had departing referees before, and in some cases their cache of submitted tapes is difficult if not impossible to re-obtain. TG does not have a lawyer on retainer, for example, to go to Texas and get back the few tapes that Matthew Leto possesses during his tenure as XBox/GCN referee. Now that he is knee-deep in the FPS arena, and has a \"manager\" no less, returning TG's property voluntarily is probably the last thing on his mind. And I doubt he even has these at this point. He never responded to my multiple requests back when he left...I doubt he saved the tapes he had. I offered to pay return postage, but no reply. Some of those tapes were my own, by the way, for \"Simpsons Road Rage\", \"Crazy Taxi 3\" and \"Circus Maximus\". The tapes are gone, fellow gamers, just as the majority of the tapes Ron had verified on TG's behalf during his multi-year tenure.

    The decision to eliminate, for example, Ron's 1M \"DK\" score for the 2600 said or implied nothing that he lied about a score. This action would have been taken by any similiar-minded referee if they were in my position, plus I cross-checked all intended removals with Walter and Brien, and in some cases Stephen and Todd.

    The capacity will exist for gamers to see scores that are \"Unverified\", who the referee verifying the score was, when it was verified (save for the data dump from Ron's old database which is largely submission/verification date 6/11/04 as he was gone from the fold during that phase of the upload and did not, if you recall his original \"Snipercade\" site, make mention of the submission/verification date, so we had no point of reference other than who verified the scores.

    Some scores also ported over with an error of the verifier. I recently at an early stage in this process cleared with Brien the decision to attribute all dated 6/11/04 and prior to Ron as they were all drawn from his own \"Snipercade\" database from his tenure as a referee. All scores received after that point, and the referee(s) are still with us at TG.

    That's about it from me on this.

    Robert
  6. postage

    11-05-2006, 07:38 PM
    I keep hearing that postage is so terrible for the tape exchanges. Does everyone know about USPS Media Mail? 1 pound to/from anywhere inside the US for $1.59. You can ship up to 70 lbs at a time very reasonably. No one should use priority mail unless they need a rush on a few tapes. Parcel Post and UPS are expensive, I agree. Stick with Media Mail. It's good for all books, recorded media, magazines, bound printed material, etc......

    And of course, foreign shipping is very expensive. That's why everyone is starting to send stuff on DVD, I guess. I don't have any suggestions to help with foreign shipping.
  7. Re: The Scores Removed

    11-06-2006, 11:43 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by WalterDay
    TG has embraced a lot of "Grand-fathered" scores that came down from the past. When I retired from video games in 1986, much paperwork was lost by the players who inherited the TG archives of that era. Though we knew that many, many scores were properly submitted during that early era, we later had no surviving paperwork with which to back up the earlier procedures with our normal level of proof.

    We are faced with a similaar problem with a bunch of these 2600 scores. Ron Corcoran verified esentially almost all of the scores in question, and then, around the time he left, his archives of tapes were lost as he moved onward.

    We know the verification process happened and the scores were accepted and approved, but the original documentation is gone.

    So, realizing that the scores were approved, we accept them under the same "Grand-father" spirit.
    I have no problem with TG Grandfathering scores that were properly submitted to which proof (paperwork, videos, etc.) is now lost. Players shouldn?t be penalized b/c TG lost that information. This applies to players whose tapes were sent to Ron.

    However, this is not the same situation with Ron?s own scores b/c nearly all of his Atari 2600 scores were entered improperly (i.e. by himself), and any paperwork or tapes he might have had ? that NOBODY else has ever seen - no longer exist. That?s why your grandfather clause doesn?t apply. Its intended purpose is to protect score that were correctly verified. Ron?s weren?t. You may have trusted him to enter his own scores honestly, but we now have several examples where he didn?t. So aside from the few scores of his that were personally witnessed (at CGE or Funspot/Deca) they should all be removed. Case closed.


    Fortunately, almost all of these scores in question have virtually no impact on the standings. Still, players are always welcome to challenge scores should any eventually appear suspect.
    Well, here?s my formal challenge! How can anyone honestly say his scores have ?virtually no impact on the standings??? He has more 2600 records than anyone (350!) ? all of which were entered by himself ? and 33 of those scores are currently 1-st place records:


    Adventures of Tron 996,800
    Alien 255,265
    Asteroids 2 (???) 2,760,050
    this is a hack of Asteroids and shouldn?t even be in the db!
    Berzerk 518,260
    Berzerk 836,650 game 9, dif A
    Berzerk 33,360 game 9, dif A, 15-min
    Circus Atari 74,268 game 1, dif B
    Circus Atari 12,938 game 2, dif B
    Espial 79,990
    Exocet 13,030
    Frogger 39,211
    Frogger 36,218 game 3, dif A
    Galaga 225,190
    Garfield 7,706,600
    Gas Hog 38,300
    MAD 20,900
    Meteor Defense 135,625
    Mines of Minos 11,450
    Moon Patrol 484,300
    Ms Pac-Man 2,654,680
    Night Stalker 263,000
    I?ll remind you once again that this is a PAL game!
    Pac-Man 125,002 game 6, dif A
    Pac2600 272,300
    Pharaoh?s Curse 7,490
    Radar 8,321
    River Patrol 16,660
    Sinistar 182,135
    Space Invaders 10,875 game 7
    Star Wars: DSB 78,318
    Star Wars: ESB 26,227
    Stargate / Defender II 237,250
    Super Breakout 2,180 game 5
    Yars? Revenge 12,000,026


    Given the evidence we have so far, it?s VERY possible that one or more of these scores are suspect as well. You, Robert, are deciding which scores of his stay or go based on nothing more than your assumption of whether or not each score was within his skills as a player (?), while ignoring the fact that nobody has ever watched any of his tapes (if he even made them). And mind you, we?re only talking about his Atari 2600 scores. His Intellivision scores are just as suspect, since you said he was in charge of that platform as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Barthax has already replied once, maybe twice, about hanging on words or their meanings.
    Does he speak for you now? I appreciate his replies, but I didn?t ask him - I asked you. You are the one in charge of this project, and as such you are expected to answer any questions pertaining to it. Accusing people of personally attacking or harassing you when they ask you a question, trying to deflect the question to someone who isn?t in charge of this project, or questioning someone?s ?qualifications? when they ask you a question (?How many scores do you have in the database??) doesn't work now any more than they did a few months ago with the NTSC/PAL/EMU debate. Sorry if you don?t like to answer questions, or deal with ?commentary? or criticism, but that?s how it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    There is no "understatement" here...what is there not to understand from everything posted thus far ?
    Well, let?s look at the meanings of some of your words, Robert:


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Scores on so-called "rarity" titles were singled out and these were in fact double-checked whether they were original or emu.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    "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.
    By your own words, rarity either refers to how many TG submissions a title has, or it refers to whether or not you?re familiar with the title. Or both. NOW do you understand? Because up until now, the only person who knew what your definitions of "rarity" were was you.


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    I think it best at this time for a remaining Board of Directors member to respond at this point. I've already said as much as I needed to on the Ron-matter.

    I am going to have Walter and/or Brien respond to this one...frankly there is not much more to say that I have not already said on the matter or Ron's scores.
    No, there?s PLENTLY to discuss about it. You?re responsible for this whole database project, and how scores will be re-entered. The problem doesn?t go away because someone chooses to ignore it.



    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    I assure you that the scores within Ron's pool that I personally felt warranted discussion have already been discussed.
    Where? Point me to the thread where this was discussed. Or was it discussed in the admin forums, out of everyone's sight?


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    The decision to eliminate, for example, Ron's 1M "DK" score for the 2600 said or implied nothing that he lied about a score.
    Then why was his DK score removed? Don?t dance around the answer? what was the EXACT reason it was removed, and what evidence was that reason based on? Because if Ron didn't lie about his scores, then he was grossly incompetent. He was the 2600 ref for how many years? He has more 2600 scores on TG than anyone else, but yet you?re going to try and convince me that Ron wouldn't know what the maximum score is on a common game (like Breakout for example) or that he maxxed out Kaboom with the game inadvertently set on difficulty B?


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    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.
    Good, because that?s exactly what I?m trying to do?


    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    This is not the "Stonic" project, you know...this affects more than just one gamer.
    Yet another snide remark... I?ll tell you, if it was my project, I can guarantee it would have been handled much differently. In fact, if I was in your position, all these serious issues would have been corrected years ago, instead of being repeatedly pushed aside until you had no choice but to address them.
  8. Re: The Scores Removed

    11-06-2006, 11:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    [Snip - grandfathering] Its intended purpose is to protect score that were correctly verified. Ron?s weren?t.
    I fail to see where the proof is in either direction. There is likelihood that scores were entered by Ron for himself. Aside from those public performances, there is little of no documentary evidence to proove the scores were not verified by another. :?: Hence, the grandfathering rules, IMO, still apply.
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
  9. Re: The Scores Removed

    11-06-2006, 12:02 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    [...] questioning someone?s ?qualifications? when they ask you a question (?How many scores do you have in the database??) doesn't work now any more than they did a few months ago with the NTSC/PAL/EMU debate.
    To my reading, Robert's actions were not questioning of qualifications - merely questioning of identity:

    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Out of personal curiosity on my part, do you have any 2600 submissions ? I don't see you as a user in the admin gamer/people section.

    Just wondering.
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Hi CSly:

    No need to leave the forums...I was just curious as to your position in this.
    It's happened on the forums before... you might remember:

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    LOL! :oops: Would you mind letting me know so I can finally make the connection between Stonic & ... ?
    :D
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
  10. Re: The Scores Removed

    11-06-2006, 12:08 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    Well, here?s my formal challenge! How can anyone honestly say his scores have ?virtually no impact on the standings??? He has more 2600 records than anyone (350!) ? all of which were entered by himself ? and 33 of those scores are currently 1-st place records:
    All of which are now attributed to Ron. There were migration issues from the old scoreboard to the new details were lost. Wholesale attribution of scores to the assigned referee could (I don't know for certain) have been a solution. My understanding is Brien King (CTO) would be responsible for a definitive answer on the migration process and any anomalies that may have arisen.
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Join us