Dispute: Garrett Holland - Intellivision - B-17 Bomber - NTSC/PAL - Default Settings - Player: Matthew Ostberg - Score: 8,490

Is this a valid dispute?

    This poll is closed
This poll is closed
  1. Dispute: Garrett Holland - Intellivision - B-17 Bomber - NTSC/PAL - Default Settings - Player: Matthew Ostberg - Score: 8,490

    06-01-2019, 02:15 PM
    Intellivision - B-17 Bomber - NTSC/PAL - Default Settings
    Score Track
    https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=11448
    Rules
    This variation is for both NTSC and PAL as there is no difference between the two on the Intellivision Video Game Console.


    Player Name
    Matthew Ostberg
    Original Adjudication
    N/A
    Verification Method
    Referee
    Verification Date
    1983-09-02
    Disputed Score
    8,490 (Rank 1)
    Disputed By
    Garrett Holland
    Dispute Evidence / Rationale
    Same circumstances and evidence as THIS DISPUTE ->


    In summation:


    1. This score and dozens of others were published in this 1983 magazine.
    2. This magazine is the only source on the planet that reports these scores.
    3. The magazine admits on page 16 that they required no proof other than the score written on a piece of paper.
    4. The magazine doesn't reveal which variation the scores were achieved on.
    5. There is no evidence that this player or any other player listed in that magazine even exists.
    6. A TG staffer simply read the magazine and put the scores in our database.
    7. These scores were never even submitted to TGIS by the alleged player, nor by any affiliate of TG, nor by anyone else other than the TG official who read the magazine and typed in the scores.
    8. These scores have never been reviewed, adjudicated by, witnessed, analyzed, or even contemplated by any TG official, or any other human for that matter.
    9. The scores in this magazine that are not currently in our database just so happen to be on tracks wherein the putative score leader at time of entry was a TG referee, meaning they were intentionally omitted or intentionally removed by a former TG official... and for good reason, as these scores should have never been included to begin with. If these scores didn't deserve inclusion for tracks that TG referees were the leaders in, then they don't deserve inclusion for tracks that TG refs did *not* participate in.
    10. These entries do not even reach the lowest standards for acceptance that TG has ever had since its inception, much less today's standards.
    11. Some of these scores are not even realistic, such as the Atari 2600 932K Pac-Man score.
    12. These scores do not belong anywhere near a legitimate high-score database, much less the planet's official standard-bearer for video game high score record books, TwinGalaxies, whether the scores are unrealistic or pathetically realistic.


    Game-specific peculiarity, albeit not additional grounds for removal, as if the laundry list above wasn't sufficient enough:
    This score was put under the Game 3, difficulty A track when all of the others were placed in the "default" inaugural track for their respective titles.


    This is a no-brainer. Time to clean up a bit ... not moved ... REMOVED.
  2. 06-01-2019, 02:17 PM
    I messed up hyperlinking "THIS DISPUTE". Here it the URL --> https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...-Score-932-497
  3. 06-02-2019, 11:08 PM
    also, disregard the portion regarding game variation and difficulty. That was not supposed to be included in the cut/paste (bad) job I did.
  4. 12-02-2019, 09:49 PM
    "default" settings is something you'll hear me complain about alot. Not only were photographs allowed (so i'd have to assume easiest settings used if the photo shows score but in most games cant indicate settings), but also earlier members told many things that were players choice were changed to default, and of course imported scores like this werent necessarily default

    further, on intellivision "default" has been assumed to mean disc, fine and good. well that being the case "default" or disc is game 4.
    Name:  image.png
Views: 38
Size:  427.4 KB
    the magazine makes no note of difficulty, and since "practice" is a difficulty setting note the radical differences in difficulty
    Name:  image.png
Views: 37
Size:  229.7 KB

    we cant possibly assume disc/game4 was followed. if this score is not removed, then the track needs to be changed to allow setting to be users choice so as to have a level playing field.

    i just hooked the game up tonight, seems pretty complex and i dont know much about it yet. i decided to look up any tg scores and saw it was already disputed. as i learn more about the game i'll update you on how difficult/easy/plausible i think this score is.
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Garrett Holland liked this post
  5. 12-07-2019, 09:17 AM
    Just a reminder that this dispute has nothing to do with the score being possible or not possible. A score being impossible is not the sole criteria for a score to be disputed. This score was within a series transposed from a 1983 magazine. 100% of the evidence given to-date supports the assertion that this score (and all of the others) was never submitted to TG, never witnessed by a referee or any other human, never submitted by the player or by any TG affiliate, never scrutinized, never confirmed, never adjudicated, and never was a determination made that the score actually happened, nor is there any evidence within the record that this player even exists. 0% of the evidence provided to-date supports an outcome of validity. Should the player actually exist, or should anyone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows this player, feel free to chime in. I, personally, will not be holding my breath ;-)
  6. 12-07-2019, 11:37 AM
    beyond all that garret i think we can also now prove this score was submitted to a different track. it was submitted to an any settings allowed track. not only was the "verification" of this as light as you claim, and other such score have been removed in the past, this score in particular though was submitted to a track with a different set of rules and this imported to this track incorrectly (or this tracks rules were changed later, either way, this score was performed under a different rule set)
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Thanks Garrett Holland thanked this post
  7. 12-07-2019, 12:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    beyond all that garret i think we can also now prove this score was submitted to a different track. it was submitted to an any settings allowed track. not only was the "verification" of this as light as you claim, and other such score have been removed in the past, this score in particular though was submitted to a track with a different set of rules and this imported to this track incorrectly (or this tracks rules were changed later, either way, this score was performed under a different rule set)
    ... that's assuming the score was performed and submitted to TG, neither of which any part of the universe of evidence supports ;-)

    Just think, though ... 100 points every 40 minutes after 5,000 ... what a slog, eh? That's 20 hours of straight play *after* getting 5,000 just to reach 8,000. Could you imagine? LoL!
  8. 12-07-2019, 01:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett Holland View Post
    ... that's assuming the score was performed and submitted to TG, neither of which any part of the universe of evidence supports ;-)

    Just think, though ... 100 points every 40 minutes after 5,000 ... what a slog, eh? That's 20 hours of straight play *after* getting 5,000 just to reach 8,000. Could you imagine? LoL!
    fair enough i was taking it as a given it was imported from the magazine. i guess its theoretically possible it was dual submission.

    realistically though, i think jace should be able to acknowledge this was an import. once we acknowledge that we can prove the settings of the score imported were any settings allowed -- which is different from this tracks settings.

    so i see a few options
    1. prove the score is impossible -- honestly a good case can be made for that on the current settings, butonly if people play the game. anything we put into words comes off as "its too hard for me so it cant be done", since we cant really formalize why it truly is too hard, i dont see this angle working
    2. prove the score never should've been imported -- this seems to be your approach, which may work. i noticed some such disputes went through. i dont know if there was an additional reason to remove that i missed, or if you're angle really was convincing enough. if so, yay, i guess we just wait.
    3 prove its on the wrong track/wrong settings
    3a. the track rules were changed were time -- entirely possible, but hard to prove. maybe wayback machine could help?
    3b. prove the score was imported -- this involves the same steps as option 2. both hinge on proving the score is imported. if we accept that, its a pretty straightforward proof the settings there are different.

    you're pushing 2, i'm pushing 3b. BOTH involve proving the score came from the magazine, which i'm fairly confident you proved. its ok we dont see eye to eye, i just thinking proving standards werent good enough is subjective, even in extreme cases like this, where as proving different settings is a little easier.
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Thanks Garrett Holland thanked this post
    Likes Garrett Holland liked this post
  9. 12-07-2019, 02:00 PM
    Agreed. I believe our intended destination is identical ... just via a different preferred route ;-)
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Join us