Originally Posted by Joonas

Jace, we have a clear statement from Todd that Metroid team verifyid their own scores. Isn't that the definition of collusion?

Where many of the refs not friends with one another? If a person is an expert on a system, who else are you supposed to send it to them. If I am the guy you send your submissions to, and we are best friends, it's still my job to make sure the run is good. It's only collusion if I "said" I did this score, and you just put a score in the database without doing your job of actually watching the evidence. How you going to prove that?

Originally Posted by Desidious

With this information coming into the light, I'm all for a full ban and removal of his scores. This is some shady **** that doesn't belong on the site at all. Twin Galaxies can NOT ignore this.. well it can but it won't look good on them. What about team Metroid? How come we haven't heard from them? They always respond on his submissions.

Twin Galaxies is not ignoring anything. No issues, just trying to understand what new information suddenly has been presented that is definitive and objective that can't be ignored? Subjective material is not particularly helpful but objective material always is and I am absolutely looking for it at all times. Any help you can provide is always appreciated.

Wow, my above message is so messed up. My bad. Let's try that again.

Weren't many of the refs not friends with one another? If a person is an expert on a system, who else are you supposed to send it to then if you are friends? If I am the expert on a system and we are best friends, it's still my job to make sure the run is good. It's only collusion if you "said" you did this score, and I just simply put it into the database with out doing my job of watching the evidence package. How are you going to prove that is what in fact happened?

There are lots of ways a score could be colluded on. Still need the proof it happened.

Originally Posted by Tompa

Talking about Team Metroid... Here's "another" fake score from the team: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...-Score-28-00-0

While no video or information about this, it is a literally and undoubtly impossible time to achieve under those rules.

When I get some time soon I will go through the disputes again to process.

Originally Posted by Joonas

Jace, we have a clear statement from Todd that Metroid team verifyid their own scores. Isn't that the definition of collusion?

I'm not sure if the fact that they verified their own scores would be the significant issue, or if the issue would be that they were given permission to do so.

Also there is no definitive evidence in the dispute claim thread that even if they verified their own scores, that this score in particular was verified by them.

So in order for there to be an actual issue from this angle that proves this specific score's invalidity, here's what would have to be definitively proven:

1.) Metroid team verified their own scores.
2.) They were not allowed to verify their own scores.
3.) This score was specifically verified by them.

If all three items were proven objectively and definitively true then the score could be immediately removed on that basis alone.

This removal would be on the basis that the score was not officially authorized to go into the database. It would not be on the basis of the content of the performance. A score, legit or not, can not be put into the database without proper authorization.

All scores put into the database under the above scenario would be removed.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

TG


"If TSA's run represents the only way that those enemies could appear that way" - Based on what is presented in the dispute thread, this 'fact' seems to be generally assumed and not definitively proven.

Has this assumption been fully technically explored and completely extrapolated and indeed been definitively proven that it is literally the only way?

This would be good to know and indeed if it is fact then case would be easily closed definitively. Based on available info in the dispute thread, the enemy configuration appears to be likely improbable but not impossible.

Okay, let me try and make this a little clearer. I used the word "optimized route" so let me define that. The end of TSA's route and nearly all current speedrun's end the same way. It involves using the warp whistle and blowing it a specified number of times (usually only once) to reach level 1. Then walk east 1 screen. north 1 screen, west 1 screen, north 2 screens (traversing the blue ladder in the process), and then left 2 screens and end with finally bombing into the leftmost rock formation. With that said the 4 cases that were described by Starcrytas and I all respresent non-optimal methods of entering 9 all of which would accompany a major time loss. If you get some time Jace, go back to post #57 by @Tompa and click on TSA's run. Go to 28:04 in that run. At that point Link faces NORTH, blows the whistle once and that takes Link to level 1. By knowing how the whistle works this should have actually taken him to level 3 based on what had been done previously in the run. However, the reason this is not occurring is because at least 1 previous attempt at going to 9 was made but failed. You don't see this in the attempt because this footage would have been edited out most likely using common video editing editing software of the time in order to mask this from the general public and those verifying this run at the time. So, what you are seeing is him following the optimized route I defined above which produces the same spawns seen in the disputed submission. He does lose time by stopping to kill a few enemies along the way, most likely looking for a bomb drop, but at no point does he enter the cave and leave, backtrack out of 9 and back down the ladder, use up+A inside of 9, or use "save" at any point. These would all be "non-optimal" ways to produce the enemies in those positions which represent the 4 ways that Starcrytas and I brought to the dispute.

Also, I want to refer back to post #117 made by @fcoughlin . In that post he describes the "bottleneck" effect that traversing the ladder will have on the enemy spawns in level 9. If you only cross that ladder once then due to terrain issues and the generally narrow path to level 9 you will only get 1 particular spawn pattern, which is seen in every speedrun following an optimal path except for TSA and the submission in question. If you were to traverse the ladder a second time then the spawns will "bottleneck" again and this time there will be a new pattern which would match what is seen in the video footage for both TSA and the disputed submission. This is how you know that there is at least 1 splice in TSA's video since his video footage only shows him traversing the ladder ONCE. So, with that said, if TSA's run shows those spawns using an "optimal" path and the only way for those spawns to occur using said "optimal path" is to use a splice prior to level 9 then I think that implicitly proves that there must be at least 1 splice in the disputed submission. There is no other run on the internet that I have found following an optimal route that has the same spawns as TSA and the submission in question. And yes, in the ridiculous, ludicrous event that this case would actually be taken to court following TG's decision I think this evidence would be good enough to stand up in a court of law.

As for the rest of the events and posts of today, it seems that there is a question as to who verified the run. It seems to boil down to whether RTM ever saw the run or if it was verified by the Metroid team. Right now the evidence, as Jace noted, is subjective as to who actually verified it but could later become objective if more evidence is found. It does not appear to have gone through the triple verification process though, which was standard for other zelda runs at the time. No matter who saw it, it would have been difficult or near impossible for that particular person to have detected a splice unless they had intricate knowledge of the game and/or were specifically looking for it. It's important to note TSA's run sat on SDA's site fully transparent for nearly 6 years probably being viewed by thousands before anyone brought any evidence against it. As far as the question of emulators I have experience using some emulators in the 2003-2005 era. The 3 most prominent at that time would have have been Nesticle, Famtasia, and then early versions of FCEU which came out in late 2004-early 2005. Famtasia was actually used in some of the early tool-assisted runs for this game. It's been a pretty common practice going back at least that long for speedrunners to use emulators for practicing certain difficult areas of games, routing strategies etc. So, it would not be uncommon for the player in question to do this. However, to prove any foul play as Ninglendo alluded to, there would have to be proof that the 35:xx time he is referring to was actually entered into the database. From what it looks like to me it appears that there is a discussion over whether something like this would be allowed but no confirmation of it. The player in question may have even submitted it but there is no confirmation as to whether it was verified. In RTM's defense many people did not understand the capabilities of emulators back in 2003 since they were in their infancy back then so maybe RTM wanted to take a closer look at the submission and then concur with the other refs on whether something like an emulated run should ever be allowed. Once again there is no proof the run was actually verified, just a discussion around it.

I can say pretty confidently that the "final moments" video and the disputed submission does not appear to be from an emulator from that time. Famtasia had slightly different sound effects for ROM's as compared to cartridge versions of the same game. You can see this for yourself by watching any of the TASes done for this game prior to 2005. These sound effects are not heard in the "final moments" video. In the case of Nesticle and early versions of FCEU the color palette was slightly different than on the original cartridges. The colors were much more vibrant and bold. In the case of this disputed submission what appears in the "final moments" is very dark and shadowy by contrast which would be indicative of a play back of a VCR recording while using very primitive recording equipment to capture it. Thank you for reading.

After reading Jace's comments I have to ask myself if it would be easier to find somebody guilty of murder than guilty of submitting a fake score.

I mean no offense to Jace of course, and I dont' think he will be offended by my opinion.

Is the burden of proof in this dispute the same level as in a criminal court or civil court? Do we need to prove beyond all shadows of a doubt that this score was submitted in a fraudulent manner?

I don't think so. This is not a criminal matter. This is a civil matter.

We have had multiple expert witness provide their testimony on the permanent record stating that this submission is fraudulent and should be removed from the database.

We have clear footage that indicates the level 9 outcome is not possible without video splicing.

We have the defendant claiming to have video proof of his innocence but it unwilling to upload said video for our analysis (which to any reasonable jury member would indicate the witness has something to hide).

We have testimony from former TG referee that Team Metroid verified their own scores. We have another Referee that is refusing to answer questions about who validated the score (possibly due to possible backlash from the community for making a mistake).

We have the defendant refusing to testify in this dispute. Nobody is stepping forward to defend this submission. There are no alternate theories being provided, no teams of experts examining the video to see if it is somehow possible to have been generated by a non-standard ROM, etc. Nothing.

Multiple communities have been complaining about this score for years.

Nobody believes this submission is legit. The one person that claims it is legit won't even defend it. This is not a criminal case. This is not a civil case. This is a score board discussing removing an obvious cheated submission.




A jury of peers would find this submission fraudulent. Why won't the judge?

How I see this dispute now.

Originally Posted by datagod

After reading Jace's comments I have to ask myself if it would be easier to find somebody guilty of murder than guilty of submitting a fake score.

I mean no offense to Jace of course, and I dont' think he will be offended by my opinion.

Is the burden of proof in this dispute the same level as in a criminal court or civil court? Do we need to prove beyond all shadows of a doubt that this score was submitted in a fraudulent manner?

Yes you do. This is not a jury trial. Objective definitive evidence. We are looking for truth of fact of score invalidity, not public opinion.

Originally Posted by datagod

I don't think so. This is not a criminal matter. This is a civil matter.

No. This is a matter of measurement and quantification. Either something happened, or it didn't. This has been quantifiably defined in the rules and can be objectively measured against.

Originally Posted by datagod

We have had multiple expert witness provide their testimony on the permanent record stating that this submission is fraudulent and should be removed from the database.

Lips flapping means little and does not constitute objective and definitive evidence by any means.

Originally Posted by datagod

We have clear footage that indicates the level 9 outcome is not possible without video splicing.

This is an assertion that is being made in the dispute claim thread, and we are in the process of determining if this assertion is in fact true or just a presumption. If this turns out to be definitively true, then a decision is easy. We will see. As of this moment, the only 'evidence' of this assertion that I've seen in the claim thread is lips flapping about it, but I need to look more closely.

Originally Posted by datagod

We have the defendant claiming to have video proof of his innocence but it unwilling to upload said video for our analysis (which to any reasonable jury member would indicate the witness has something to hide).

This is not a jury decision and it makes no difference what one might imagine the reasons are for why he is choosing not to share the video. One can not definitively conclude anything other than he does not want to share the tape. Assuming his rationale behind that decision is an entirely subjective process.

Originally Posted by datagod

We have testimony from former TG referee that Team Metroid verified their own scores. We have another Referee that is refusing to answer questions about who validated the score (possibly due to possible backlash from the community for making a mistake).

More lips flapping, and there are other lips flapping that contradict the initial flapping lips. Just all around lips moving with vigor, providing nothing objectively provable or definitive.

Originally Posted by datagod

We have the defendant refusing to testify in this dispute. Nobody is stepping forward to defend this submission. There are no alternate theories being provided, no teams of experts examining the video to see if it is somehow possible to have been generated by a non-standard ROM, etc. Nothing.

All these statements do nothing to objectively or definitively prove the performance as invalid. All these statements require conjecture to have any significance.

Originally Posted by datagod

Multiple communities have been complaining about this score for years.

The idea that something is proven definitively invalid because people are complaining about elsewhere it is not something that would work well in a lawsuit defense that TG has to potentially later construct to support its decision in court.

Originally Posted by datagod

Nobody believes this submission is legit. The one person that claims it is legit won't even defend it. This is not a criminal case. This is not a civil case. This is a score board discussing removing an obvious cheated submission.

Unfortunately, "nobody believing something" does not definitively and objectively prove that something is invalid or false.

Originally Posted by datagod

A jury of peers would find this submission fraudulent. Why won't the judge?

I agree that based on what you said above, a jury of peers would find this submission fraudulent, which would have nothing to do with whether or not it actually was fraudulent. This is of course how innocent people can wind up in jail and it is precisely why the dispute system does not work by public opinion or popular voting.

To understand the dispute process better, one may want to consider looking at it from a more scientific type of approach that tries to head toward absolute answers of truth-in-fact, not a jury-courtroom type of approach.