Fairness in Disputes / Can I call 'class' into question?

  1. Fairness in Disputes / Can I call 'class' into question?

    09-17-2019, 07:03 AM
    I find it curious to see how this 'fair' investigation and 'open' discussion has been handled. To me, 'fairness' entails representation from both sides of the opinion spectrum getting equal billing, allowing those discussing, to have equal access to information to make up their own mind. When you look at the dispute thread on this website, when you look in the comments of YouTube videos (or actually, don't), or when I look on my own private Facebook page wherein, I choose to post most, as to not disrupt more official discussion of the matters at hand; you don't see what I would call 'fair.' Don't get me wrong, me centering to my personal account is a matter of respect for the classic game community, not a tell as to how often I check in on the dispute, or how informed I remain in these matters.

    Daily, rather, hourly it seems, I get messages or comments attempting to shake my opinions of Billy Mitchell. Furthermore, the commenters always feel the need to inform me that they don't really care about the issue, or that they mean no malice to my friend. Alright, let's unpack that: When you private message me a long list of technical jargon asking for my response (and let's be clear for those playing at home, I have always publically stated that I not apt or really willing to talk about tech, as it's not my expertise...), knowing that nothing I will say will satisfy you, what could your motive be if not to harm? What do you want, if not me to type “You're right. He cheated.” What do you want other than eliminating a friendship? You don't care? You mean no ill will? If that was the case, you'd ignore me, your side is WILDLY more covered than mine and I am choosing to post 90% of my content on my private page. You make a comment about my friend's character anywhere online, and you make it as cruel or dark as you want to go, and you are congratulated across the internet. I state my belief in my friend on a personal outlet, and I met with comments about my intelligence, my lack of knowledge (can we please accept that I've done my homework and stop sending me links I can find myself?), and more. Your aim is hurt me or him. Your aim is to sway me. Your aim is to have your ego stroked by tearing my intelligence (I'll show you my transcripts, if you'd like...) or his character down, in order to distance him from a positive posting opinion and friend. You don't want real 'fair.' You want an information monopoly. You don't want this to go to court, you want to stay on the 'open and fair' internet. The only 'good' coverage you find out there, makes hair and hot sauce jokes, while confirming what you want to hear and focusing only on 'technical evidence.' Okay, so let's break down that focus on the technical down, now:

    Of course, we want to focus on the technical. In focusing on something black and white, the human drama of this situation can be removed. Let's talk only tech, after-all, this is an argument about video game scores held among very human men, so tech is all that is in question...right? Re-read that sentence and tell me how this was ever going to be pretty; it wasn't. When arguing in the Billy Mitchell dispute, it's par for the course to bring my friend's character into play, further proving how he is cheating monster. It is also par to cling to 'technical evidence' and never never bring the characters of the other players into play. What haven't we heard about Billy Mitchell? I've heard everything from white supremacist to cutting in a buffet line. What haven't I been inboxed about? Or told he'll do to me? I've been told to watch my back. I've been told pretty disgusting things for two years (and let's not forget Billy Mitchell hate can also come with a 'nice ****' as well, as the community has proven to be full of gentlemen of valor...mi'lady). Yet, when I contest with questionable facts I've read up on about others of note in this dispute, no one likes that.

    No one likes to think about the character of Jace Hall:

    We've forgotten that Jace was getting traffic to the life supported Twin Galaxies website very near dispute time. We've forgotten the Todd Rogers and Billy Mitchell witch trails brought traffic that helps generate revenue for Twin Galaxies. We've forgotten Jace created bots to further traffic. Gosh, if Twin Galaxies wasn't doing so well and traffic was increased, not only with Hall's robot army, but by news of the most polarizing man in gaming getting a public hanging was helping traffic, you are really going to tell me that it was 100% handled fairly!? That the bots and Jace really wanted a swift end that proved the best case situation? (The best case would be that no one lied and Billy was innocent, by the way, because how in the WORLD would Billy's guilt be good for a RECORD KEEPING company, other than generating income, even modest income, with website hits centered around a controver---oh, damn, proved my point.). And lets talk about Rick Fox and Jace's partners and employees, as well. After all, I am warned against my own partnership with Billy Mitchell in my musical. I am told who my friend is and how he will treat me, alright, friends of a 'Fair Jace Hall' let's read some of these articles in which your fair, honorable friend is called into question. I've even heard the bubbles of complaints that the uploading of Billy's draft documents (cus please be clear, you guys, that's not a legal filling...yet) didn't get enough traffic. Here's my links on Jace's character and how Jace is shown to treat friends and partners and employees:

    https://www.vpesports.com/jace-hall/...irregularities

    http://www.polygon.com/2019/4/25/185...racosm-esports

    http://freegamessap.org/2019/echo-fo...jace-hall.html

    http://www.dailyeports.gg/h1z1-pro-l...OSDOiCmgqNtpT0

    http://www.polygon.com/2018/11/21/18...62qU1nyLWzebSY

    ANNNNND there's more.

    No one likes to think about the character of Robert Mruczek (I'm going to stop citing links, as I think my point is made, even got some polygon.com, in there for our fans): A man who had the tapes for sometime and who's frame by frame is considered gold, yeah? Look, I don't really take my proof from cave trolls with an anime **** collection, but looking at the facts that you all have told me, this guy has screwed countless score submissions and made statements that are just wrong about many. The man is proven to be ill tempered, self-serving and frankly just creepy. Please don't site the weeb crypt keeper to me any-longer. His character is no stronger than others. And it's no where near Billy Mitchell's.

    No one likes to think about the characters of Dwayne Richards (countless voice mails, emails, and let's be honest shady deals), Carlos Pinero (who seems nice enough, but lied and admits it) Tim Sczerby (he called the theatre festival I was premiering my musical at and left threats for Billy Mitchell, my first trip with the man was nearly canceled), Cat 'Despira' Test, Patrick Scott Patterson, and more. And yes, I already hear: “But Casey, none of this matters, it's not TECHNICAL EVIDENCE.” No. It's human evidence. If your tactics about Billy Mitchell in my inbox, profile wall, or on this 'fair' dispute are allowed, my questions about the characters of his investigators and the players on the other team are also allowed. Character questions do matter in court. They also matter in making up your mind on who the real villains are, not the villains in movies, the villains on the 'fair' internet. The ones who 'don't care.' The ones who 'don't want to hurt anyone' and who 'only want the truth'. Be ready to call all the characters into question when you dispute my friend and his character. To tell me my assumption that there would be wrong doing in not only this investigation but malice of intent against Billy Mitchell is as stupid, as you not thinking about my side, at all. It's a stupid as you trying to take my experiences away from me. It's a stupid as only calling on the character of one man and 'technical evidence.' Let's be fair. Let's all think a little. It's not so black and white. 'Fair' is a big grey area and I'm standing in it with Billy Mitchell. Nothing technical thus far has proven my friend a cheater.
    Last edited by Uncanny_Casey; 09-17-2019 at 08:19 AM.
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes Barthax liked this post
  2. 09-17-2019, 12:44 PM
    Just to try and make sure things are clear before anyone starts arguing back... are you wanting people to do something/stop doing something in regards to things, or are you arguing your own points in the dispute?

    Because if you want people to stop bothering/harassing you, or randomly contacting you wanting you to change your mind, well, you deserve to be able to ask for that and get it. The internet is definitely a mess when it comes to harassing people, dogpiling on people, or otherwise making this miserable for people just because they have differences of opinion. Nobody deserves that.

    But you're making a lot of comments and claims about other people, so it seems like maybe you do want to discuss/debate the topic yourself. Maybe this is a good time to be clearer on what you're wanting via this post?
    Thanks Uncanny_Casey thanked this post
    Likes Rogerpoco, ersatz_cats liked this post
  3. 09-17-2019, 08:02 PM
    Fair Question, and I'm not sure I really knew the answer until you asked. First of all, yes, I would like the posting/messages on my personal page to slim. There are people I have rapport with, I have made friends, but I am getting tired of having to prove the reasonings for my friendship. As far as some of the points or remarks I made on others, I did, today, decide to come here, as I felt my wall was becoming close to this, anyway. So, I guess now that the post's been made, it was a venting, a hope I could get others thinking a bit outside of the technical, and also asking for a reprive in my private messages, I think the people who I enjoy conversation with know who they are, and I am responsive, the ones that can stop are the article links or flat hatred. Thank you for a fair question. I have to get thinking, too. We could all stand to think on what we are aiming to accomplish, more.
  4. 09-18-2019, 08:31 AM
    i've made no secret i think billy is guilty, i also know argumetns like to distract. So i purposely kept my mouth shut on some dragster things so that peole couldnt use it to derail the bily dispute. i was gonna wait for the billy dispute to end so i could bring it up then. however rtm has already brought up todd and barnstorming. so yes, now thats hes bringing it up, it can no longer wait. Why was in 11th hour RTM allowed to provide new evidence against todd and then the thread insantly locked? look i'm not feeling bad for todd or defending him. if you wanna ban him for fake scores like wabbit that rtm adamantly defended and fought hard to protect, then fine, ban himf or that. but if the final nail in the coffin is RTMs testimony, well if that testimony was so important how is it fair noone was allowed to respond?

    did any of you before your comments first try to make a deal with jace that noone could respond? why did he even feel the need to make the deal that the thread would be locked after he posted if he thought his testimony was fair? why would jace lock the thread after rtm's testimony if things are open and people have a chance to respond?

    no chance was given to responed to the final evidence. in fact, effort was put forth from jace and rtm behind the scenes -- a conspiracy that rtm brags about on his tipster interview --to collude and lock the thread exactly after he posted

    pay attention jace. you trusted rtm, and he's so hungry for fame and power he turned around and bragged about your conspiracy. this is the guy you trusted. i repeated warn people about him, yet you dont listen. reopen the dragster thread and lets examine RTMs final testimony, the key point that got todd banned shall we?
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Thanks Uncanny_Casey thanked this post
    Likes swaggers liked this post
  5. 09-18-2019, 12:06 PM
    Howdy, Casey! Thank you for joining the discussion here. I've heard about your play. Is there anywhere online where it can be seen?

    I will say, in my experiences from quietly following the active dispute last year, many people in the thread were appreciative of those coming to present Team Billy's side of the situation (including David Race and, for a time, Steve Kleisath, who was ferrying information from others). This was because so few people were presenting anything from Billy's side, and it was good to have content to respond to. But that appreciation could only go so far, as those presentations from Billy's supporters were often lacking. Sometimes they showed a basic lack of understanding of what was at the core of the dispute (a bit understandable, given the dispute quickly surged over 100 pages). Other times, they demonstrated a desire to contrive any basis they could find to excuse Mr. Mitchell of the evidence against him, while sweepingly dismissing investigators' technical conclusions as "unproven" or "dogmatic" without any critical basis for doing so. It was not the search for the truth that people found offensive, it was the failure to acknowledge and confront the known facts about the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    To me, 'fairness' entails representation from both sides of the opinion spectrum getting equal billing, allowing those discussing, to have equal access to information to make up their own mind.
    I take it "equal billing" is a term borrowed from your theater work? First of all, there was no reason "both sides" of the "opinion spectrum" should get "equal billing", because this was never a case based on opinion but rather one of fact. Framing it in such a way suggests the process was one akin to a vote, where people simply line up and say "I think he's guilty," or "I think he's innocent," and the votes are tallied. There was a vote which worked by bringing the dispute to TG administration's attention, but that's the extent to which the vote operated. People were free to share their opinions, but those opinions would hold no weight, even if the opinions skewed 100-to-1 in one direction. (See for example a dispute of an Isaiah "Triforce" Johnson score last year, where the opinion was heavily against the score, but the score stood because there was not enough objective evidence to overturn it.)

    But setting all that aside, the reason both sides did not get "equal billing" was because that's not how the score dispute process works. Billy was never required to present any defense at all (although he could if he chose). The case had to prove itself of its own merits. This is similar to a criminal trial, where at "halftime" (after prosecution has concluded but before the defense begins their case), the defense can move to dismiss based on the fact that the prosecution simply hasn't made their case. In other words, even if you take everything the prosecution says to be true, the defendant still would not be found guilty. A judge can make such a ruling without it ever going to a jury. Similarly, in the dispute, the "prosecution" had to make its case stand of its own merit, which will naturally skew the quantity of content of any contested matter in that direction. The "prosecution" has to build the house, while the defense only has to remove one wall. Going back to the court analogy, in the event the prosecution's case is enough to convict, then the defense can begin their case, looking to effectively poke holes in the prosecution's case, enough to cast reasonable doubt. (This is why I don't have a problem with Billy and his defense team taking the route of attempting to poke holes in the story wherever they can. That's typically how a defense is presented.) But what this all means is, it was never going to be "equal billing". TG was never going to make sure X number of people were arguing against Billy and Y number of people would argue in his defense, even aside from the fact that all dispute participants were essentially volunteers. People were free to argue as they saw fit. And I must say, the MAME evidence was pretty damning, thus most (but not all) chose to engage their efforts in verifying that assertion.

    But again, the fact that so many engaged in the way they chose was not what resulted in the verdict against Billy. The fact that the evidence confirmed his guilt was what resulted in that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    What do you want, if not me to type “You're right. He cheated.” What do you want other than eliminating a friendship?
    If I may be blunt, this is not about you and how you handle your friendship with Billy. It's about the proven fact that he cheated, and the fact that there are rules against that sort of thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    Your aim is hurt me or him. Your aim is to sway me. Your aim is to have your ego stroked by tearing my intelligence (I'll show you my transcripts, if you'd like...) or his character down, in order to distance him from a positive posting opinion and friend.
    I will say, Internet harassment sucks, and I'm sorry you've had to deal with that on a personal level. On the other hand, on a professional level, if your theater troupe decides to dedicate its efforts to celebrate a known liar and cheater, one who has treated a number of people connected to this case very poorly, it should be expected that some negativity related to that work will ensue (hopefully contained within the bounds of that work, and not venturing into personal spheres). I don't really see how this would be surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    You don't want real 'fair.' You want an information monopoly. You don't want this to go to court, you want to stay on the 'open and fair' internet. The only 'good' coverage you find out there, makes hair and hot sauce jokes, while confirming what you want to hear and focusing only on 'technical evidence.'
    I don't think this is appropriate to go to court for many reasons, but "fairness" is not one of them. The evidence is pretty solid. While I don't wish to see relevant parties brought into the undue stress of a trial, I would be satisfied seeing the case against Mr. Mitchell confirmed in a court of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    Of course, we want to focus on the technical. In focusing on something black and white, the human drama of this situation can be removed. Let's talk only tech, after-all, this is an argument about video game scores held among very human men, so tech is all that is in question...right?
    The human element does come into play in terms of who said what at what time. That becomes relevant when one intends to "impeach" a witness. (That's legal-speak for discrediting the witness. Basically, it's when you've shown their testimony can't be trusted.) I count four people off the top of my head - Billy Mitchell, Rob Childs, Todd Rogers, and Carlos Pineiro - who have demonstrably lied in the course of this case or others matters related to this case, and whose testimony would likely not be seen as credible in, say, the eyes of a jury. The nice thing about the technical evidence is that it's objective. It doesn't lie. It has no bias. It simply is what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    It is also par to cling to 'technical evidence' and never never bring the characters of the other players into play.
    The character of who? Billy's chief witness for his later two games, Todd Rogers? Todd has been shown through his own score disputes and associated interviews to be a pathological liar. But again, focusing on the character of people (something which Billy surely promotes, as he exudes charisma and confidence) distracts from the fact that we have objective permanent evidence from which we can draw our conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    We've forgotten the Todd Rogers and Billy Mitchell witch trails brought traffic that helps generate revenue for Twin Galaxies.
    I would remind the court.... Oh, right, we're not in the actual dispute. Then I will remind the reader that the dispute threads DID NOT - I repeat, DID NOT - contain ads during the first run of the DK dispute or the Dragster dispute. The Internet doesn't magically spit out money. Site traffic isn't a net positive without some form of monetization. It's actually a net negative when your site receives so much traffic without an increase in income. I will say, the dispute thread now does have ads, but given Billy is the one who has chosen to continue this entire exercise, I hardly blame Jace Hall for any ad revenue that may ensue at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    I am told who my friend is and how he will treat me, alright, friends of a 'Fair Jace Hall' let's read some of these articles in which your fair, honorable friend is called into question.
    I hate to bring politics up, but this reminds me of Trump enthusiasts defending their guy by shouting about "Crooked Hillary! Crooked Hillary!" I never liked Hillary, and I didn't vote for her, but that doesn't absolve Trump of his own crimes and wrongdoings. If you want to impugn the character of Jace Hall, given that he's a public figure, you're free to do so. This doesn't change the independently verified evidence against Billy Mitchell.

    Also, two of your links don't appear to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    And yes, I already hear: “But Casey, none of this matters, it's not TECHNICAL EVIDENCE.” No. It's human evidence.
    But Casey, it's not technical evidence.

    Here's the thing. It's a neat trick, calling it "human evidence" to put it on par with scientific evidence, but what we're really talking about is testimony. And testimony helps, but it only goes so far. Humans are fallible. We have biases. We forget things. We misremember. Some people even lie. Humans can be coerced as well. We already have a situation where Carlos has stated publicly how he was pressured for hours to sign a statement he did not believe in, thinking it wouldn't affect him. How many of these other people were similarly pressured?

    On the other hand, the scientific, technical evidence doesn't change. The evidence - actual evidence - doesn't care who you are. It doesn't care if you're Billy Mitchell or anyone else. It simply tells you facts. And the fact is, Billy's three contested games were shown to have been produced likely with MAME but certainly through means other than what was stated. The testimony does come into play after that, but unfortunately for Billy, it helps to demonstrate that this was no accident, but rather a willful attempt at deception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    Character questions do matter in court.
    Yes, they do. And the character of nearly everyone in Team Billy has been shown to be quite lacking. It's your choice whether you wish to associate yourself with that level of character or not.
    Thanks Madsandy thanked this post
    Likes swaggers, Madsandy, Barra, onlyinajeep liked this post
  6. 09-19-2019, 09:12 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncanny_Casey View Post
    http://www.polygon.com/2019/4/25/185...racosm-esports

    got some polygon.com, in there for our fans
    _________
    You should probably read the articles you include as part of your character assassination. That one says that "racist remarks were allegedly made toward Jace Hall". 'Toward' doesn't mean 'by'. And don't bother trying to deny that you were aiming to call Mr Hall a racist. I don't like Jace Hall, but that was pathetic.
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
  7. 09-22-2019, 07:14 AM
    Thanks for posting, Uncanny_Casey, it's much appreciated. One day I'd welcome a discussion about your view of the technical evidence, but I want to underline that I don't mean that in a confrontational way at all. I'm always curious about different views since, fundamentally, I don't want to screw up my take on the evidence in the dispute review. Getting this wrong would be a huge blow to TG and its members, and that's why I feel an obligation to follow up on Mitchell's evidence package. I have no interest in "sitting" on exonerating evidence - if it's in the package, it will be posted, discussed, and immediately flagged for TG admin review in order to rescind its decision - salvaging TG's reputation in overseeing a transparent and fair dispute review process would demand it, let alone for the player involved. That said, I know the dispute review has been disruptive to say the least. All I can say for myself is that I started looking into the dispute without any agendas or jealousies, and frankly straight up skepticism. Why would Billy Mitchell cheat? was my starting point. My first encounter with the Boomer swap video completely shocked me though, and that was my first questioning of my previous assumptions. Why would a world class pro participate in a staged video that was plainly meant to document a "real time" moment at Boomer's arcade, a video that concludes with Mitchell starting his DK Junior game - a game, most of us were led to believe, was the very start of the one where he achieved a WR? But yes, a sketchy video falls far short of the grounds to conclude that someone didn't follow the rules.

    I'll be honest, so far I've found many of the witness statement claims deeply problematic, especially the statement from Mitchell and Day that the 1.047 m score was basically never official for any time at all (this is different from what is commonly known - that Day accepted the score, it was taken down after a few days, and then RTM verified it the following year, which was subsequently clarified by several TG messages posted by Day about KoK). That bothers me a lot, I'm not sure what others outside the TG community think.

    Without a doubt, the harassment you've experienced for being Mitchell's friend is flat-out wrong, full stop. Unfortunately, I've noticed that social media seems to offer people the freedom (anonymity?) to be rude, cruel, and toxic - I'd like to think that 99% of people who engage in it wouldn't behave this way in a personal interaction, but that's small comfort when people aren't willing to act like they're dealing with someone face-to-face when they tweet or write. At the same time, a TG decision shouldn't be followed up by people trying to "mass convert" others to agree with its findings - if both sides want to engage in a discussion about the evidence, that's different, but I agree, our personal day-to-day domain shouldn't be yet another front in the dispute review.
    Thanks ersatz_cats thanked this post
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Join us