Dispute: Andrew Mee - SNES / SFC - Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - NTSC - Points - Player: Paul J. Tesi - Andrew Peter Mee

Is this a valid dispute?

    This poll is closed
This poll is closed
  1. Dispute: Andrew Mee - SNES / SFC - Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - NTSC - Points - Player: Paul J. Tesi - Andrew Peter Mee

    09-04-2017, 01:23 AM
    SNES / SFC - Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - NTSC - Points
    Track
    https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=73990
    Rules
    Factory Default [No Continues!]
    Special Rules: None.
    Player Name
    Paul J. Tesi
    Original Adjudication
    https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php?t=147998
    Verification Method
    TGSAP
    Verification Date
    2015-10-07
    Disputed Score
    1,629,250 (Rank 1)
    Disputed By
    Barthax
    Dispute Evidence / Rationale
    This run was a clear case of leeching. The original adjudication seemed to fall under a spell of "well the other guy _must_ have leeched so it'll be all OK to accept". Shortly after the adjudication was accepted, a thread popped up showing the original run: it wasn't leeching. https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...-points-record .

    This run should never have been accepted - two thirds of the points score was obtained on the final boss fight without attempting to progress in the game.
    Thanks JJT_Defender thanked this post
    Likes Barra, JJT_Defender liked this post
  2. 09-04-2017, 01:29 AM
    The disputed run, reaches the final boss-lady around 35:35 and stays on that screen until the end around 1:51:00 - nearly 1 hour 20 minutes of leeching.



    The current #2 run where PJ reaches the final boss around 40:10 and dispatches her around 44:37.

    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
    Thanks HugDD thanked this post
    Likes Barra liked this post
  3. 09-04-2017, 04:18 AM
    Looked at original adjudication thread where said player admits it was leeching. Voting yes
    Thanks Lauren Tyler thanked this post
    Likes Barthax, Barra, Lauren Tyler liked this post
  4. 09-04-2017, 05:03 AM
    I agree that's totally leeching, but is there a finite amount of point pressing you're allowed to do on this boss? How is it defined?
    Craig Rout Gallant

    Current verified TG WRs: 58

    My Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/CraigARG
    MAME World Records channel: http://www.youtube.com/MAMEWorldRecords
  5. 09-08-2017, 06:44 PM
    This is an awkward one. Some players were fine with the leeching and dont like the leeching rule. The big issue here for me though, was other players, who were not fine with the leeching rule may have accepted based on the false information that there was no other way for previous number one to get the score he got. This information was later proven false, but was a key piece of information to get the score accepted. For that reason alone I think this needs to be readjudicated. Remove the score, but allow Paul to resubmit if he likes with the correct information, and if adjudicators are still ok with the score with no false information provided so be it.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
  6. 09-09-2017, 06:15 AM
    The runner himself stated that he didn't want to be associated with leeching and regretted that he misled people about PJ's scores. Even if this weren't the case, the rules (global rules? implied rules? this part has me confused a little) at the time of submission stated that leeching was prohibited. Even if there was suspicion about PJ's score, it's presence on the leaderboard should have been evidence that it was legitimate, as has been the running theme in recent dispute threads.

    Voting yes. This run should not have been accepted under the rules at the time of submission. If people want leeching to be allowed, that discussion should take place separately, rather than just voting to slide in leeching scores under the radar and then pointing to them and saying "THIS RUN LEECHED, YOU HAVE TO LET ME DO THE SAME THING NOW"
    Likes Barthax, CWK, Megaretroman liked this post
  7. 09-10-2017, 12:10 AM
    Just went to dispute this one not realising there was one open already

    Voting yes - a clear case of leeching here.
    Likes Barthax, CWK liked this post
  8. 09-10-2017, 07:53 AM
    Leeching bad therefore this submission is bad, I"m voting yes
  9. 09-20-2017, 07:17 AM
    It is possible this track is conceptually flawed.

    It’s a game with an ending, so the only way to go for the most points possible is to use leeching. Anti-leeching rules make it impossible to judge one score against another. How many points you should be allowed to get from the final boss for it to not be considered leeching? At this point it all becomes too subjective. What if a player was very close to the record but had to hit the final boss ‘one time too many’ to beat it?

    It might be more appropriate for a game like this, with an ending, could be done as a speedrun or a marathon, allowing leeching to gain as many points as possible.

    What does everyone think about this?
  10. 09-20-2017, 07:24 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett View Post
    It is possible this track is conceptually flawed.

    It’s a game with an ending, so the only way to go for the most points possible is to use leeching. Anti-leeching rules make it impossible to judge one score against another. How many points you should be allowed to get from the final boss for it to not be considered leeching? At this point it all becomes too subjective. What if a player was very close to the record but had to hit the final boss ‘one time too many’ to beat it?

    It might be more appropriate for a game like this, with an ending, could be done as a speedrun or a marathon, allowing leeching to gain as many points as possible.

    What does everyone think about this?
    I'm not sure what the game having an ending has to do with it. Just because there's no other way to get a higher score doesnt make it ok. I mean if someone said "this is the maxout, the only way to get a high score is cheat" would that make it ok just because its the only way? In this case I dont think its subjective at all. He entered into a loop that can be carried out infinitely. Anything that can be done infinitely (other than progression, or something forced by the game) is leeching (unless people decide the leeching is so hard its cool). In cases of that I've sometimes see the rule say you can only do it once, sometimes see it say 3 times. In this particular case, the infinite loop is possible due to winning guys the same way numerous times. Duck tales deals with numerous lives by saying each one up can only be gathed once, as do many other games. I'd say how many lives you have when you first meet the boss is how many you can use. Any lives earned during the boss battle is part of an infinite loop and therefore not usable.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us