Post Verdict Dispute Discussion:Dispute: Angela Stefanski - NES / FAMICOM / DISK - The Legend of Zelda - NTSC - Fastest Completion [1st Quest] - Player: Rodrigo Lopes - Score: 31:37.0

  1. 12-07-2019, 06:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Tyler View Post
    I don't understand why people are going at it with each other. I was hoping to see some discussion about this whole dispute thing, but it seems things are still going on?
    Apologies for all that and please ignore. It is the normal attack-Jace-post-dispute-decision effect that seems to always transpire one way or the other no matter what is or isn’t done.

    And of course I always have to acknowledge and respond to the general accusations because if I don’t then that invariably creates some kind of proof of accusatory fact later down the line.

    Its a challenging cycle but a required growing pain.

    Onward.
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
  2. 12-07-2019, 08:21 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcade View Post
    @Jace Hall. Were you a philosophy major in college? ;)
    star trek and comic major from what i can see in his posts
    Lode Runner Champion
    Likes Jace Hall, Marcade liked this post
  3. 12-07-2019, 09:57 PM
    Scott Adams (author, public speaker, trained hypnotist / mentalist, and oh yeah creator of Dilbert) wrote a book called LoserThink: how untrained minds are ruining america. Scott has given me special permission to cut and past parts of his books to better educate others that are experiencing loserthing. This section deals with mind reading and is quite fascinating.


    Name:  Loserthink Mindreading.jpg
Views: 126
Size:  203.7 KB

    I see that people often attack others on TG based on what they must be thinking. This happens to Jace more than anyone. Jace has made it clear that he will answer any questions, but people have commented to me that it doesn't matter because he likely is thinking of something else and is being untruthful in his answers.

    I bought this book and several others of his. I greatly enjoy his explanations of current events and how to win at life.Name:  2019-12-08 01_57_18-Loserthink_ How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America_ Scott Adams_ 978059308.jpg
Views: 119
Size:  180.1 KB
    https://www.amazon.com/Loserthink-Un...5788231&sr=8-1
    Your friend, datagod

    ~~Raspberry Pi Enthusiast~~
    Likes Garrett Holland liked this post
  4. 12-07-2019, 10:39 PM
    @Jace Hall , was building a character up for my TW2003 submissions and I just had a few random thoughts "just pop in there" (Sorry people, the Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man wasn't one of them). These are just to help me, and possibly others, add some incite as to how TG handles the behind the scenes process.

    1. We know Rodrigo's run was possible, but highly improbable. Had he NOT had the tape in question, would his Zelda 1 score been the only score removed or would all his pre-TGSAP scores been removed? I think the answer is yes, all removed, because one score looked sketchy. However, TG does the disputes on a case by case basis so I'm just curious as a cat I guess. I've got a couple friends that call me Whiskers.

    2. Knowing what we know in the dispute, was considering keeping his TGSAP scores ever on the table AFTER he was essentially found to be taunting and manipulating the score?

    I'm only asking because I would like to know how TG talks about these things internally. We have already had our discussion, and reading that I feel like another result would have been deemed acceptable based on what we knew. Not because of how I feel personally about it, but from a logical approach. His run was highly unlikely...this would result in the removal of just the Zelda 1 score. I personally don't feel there was enough to be found as cheated. He could have spliced a run, or he could have just made a dumb ass move, we probably won't ever know how he got that spawn in his run. Yes, I know how the spawn works. The score had the evidence to be removed justifiably for TG standards. Once he admitted he had the tape in his possession and was unwilling to share it, attaching ALL his pre-TGSAP scores to the punishment and some kind of ban for tampering with the dispute is now justifiable. One score was found to be highly unlikely, the fact he had evidence to help solve the case was refused to be uploaded, so now we have reason to believe something was not right which makes adding all pre-TGSAP score removals to the punishment justifiable. His actions are definitely not for the greater good, which is where the ban result comes in.

    3. This leaves his TGSAP scores. What was the thing needed to add the TGSAP scores to the removal process? All the evidence for his runs are obviously there for disputing if need be under the TGSAP system, and I didn't see anywhere were TG says he cheated which I thought was the reason for all scores being removed. I get the Zelda run being removed no matter what, he tampered with the dispute. That score could have been removed based on that alone. While I barked at definitive evidence being needed, I'm going off what your response was with all the elements and I do understand it. Was him screwing with the dispute also the reason his TGSAP scores were removed?

    4. Did TG actually think he cheated and that was the reason for all scores removed? May have been answered in 3 but figured I'd ask just in case.

    These are all just questions to help understand what the process is of adding/subtracting penalties. Thanks. "I just want to tell you Good Luck, we're all counting on you". Been watching some good ones this weekend. I realize you have answered some of these questions already, I guess I just want to simply the whole process with "yes, that's pretty much it" or "no, it's in my long answer why we did it." Not trying to beat the dead horse, and I won't ask anymore questions about it.
    Last edited by thegamer1185; 12-07-2019 at 10:43 PM.
  5. 12-08-2019, 01:42 AM
    Thank you for asking directly. It is way simpler to address questions this way.

    I will endeavor to explain as best as I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185 View Post
    1. We know Rodrigo's run was possible, but highly improbable. Had he NOT had the tape in question, would his Zelda 1 score been the only score removed or would all his pre-TGSAP scores been removed? I think the answer is yes, all removed, because one score looked sketchy.
    Notwithstanding the tape issue, yes - all of his pre-TGSAP scores would have been removed until the actual video proof was provided of each of them - either supplied by him or found somewhere down the line by TG Admin in some TG video tape archive that was stumbled upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185 View Post
    2. Knowing what we know in the dispute, was considering keeping his TGSAP scores ever on the table AFTER he was essentially found to be taunting and manipulating the score?
    If at the end of your sentence above you meant "manipulating the score dispute" the answer is No.

    It was great to see Rodrigo choose on his own to respond to the dispute claim thread, but unfortunately it seemed that he was not there to actually help the process resolve and directly address the valid questions raised, but instead was there to try to execute distraction tactics designed to potentially make the community participants second-guess themselves, be insulted or frustrated, or endlessly explore possibilities due to his claimed possession of the actual performance tape that proves everything.

    With that being said, TG was absolutely willing to have some understanding and mild leniency regarding his poor choice of dispute thread actions, by considering the context that he may have just been expressing personal frustration of having his legitimate performance submission challenged, IF he ultimately decided to provide the tape he claimed to posses AND it definitively and clearly counteracted the dispute claims being asserted. However, even under that circumstance, there would have been notable penalty for his actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185 View Post
    3. This leaves his TGSAP scores. What was the thing needed to add the TGSAP scores to the removal process? All the evidence for his runs are obviously there for disputing if need be under the TGSAP system, and I didn't see anywhere were TG says he cheated which I thought was the reason for all scores being removed. I get the Zelda run being removed no matter what, he tampered with the dispute. That score could have been removed based on that alone. While I barked at definitive evidence being needed, I'm going off what your response was with all the elements and I do understand it. Was him screwing with the dispute also the reason his TGSAP scores were removed?
    Yes.

    For clarity - Attempting to manipulate the dispute process in the manner that Rodrigo did was totally unacceptable and is no different than trying to manipulate a TGSAP process. Both TGSAP and the Dispute Claim processes are TG methods of performance data authentication.

    Attempting to circumvent them can warrant a ban and complete score removal in its own right. Obviously this fact was already well known in the case of TGSAP, and I am not sure why anyone wouldn't think it would exactly apply to the dispute process as well.

    TGSAP is how scores go into the database. The Dispute Claim process (DCP) is how scores come out. They are part of a checks-and-balances system.

    Beyond their basic individual points of function as stated above, the only significant difference between them is that TGSAP's final decision is dictated only by VERIFIED MEMBER determination, and DCP's final decision is dictated only by ADMIN determination.

    Obviously these systems are far from perfect, but Twin Galaxies takes these functions quite seriously and will actively work to deter and address manipulation of these systems wherever it discovers it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185 View Post
    4. Did TG actually think he cheated and that was the reason for all scores removed? May have been answered in 3 but figured I'd ask just in case.
    In this specific case, TG has no final opinion on whether there was cheating or not and has no personal comment on Rodrigo Lopes in any way. People can look at the dispute thread contents and form their own opinion.

    With that being said, (notwithstanding the tape issue), it should be noted that the dispute evidence that was provided was absolutely compelling enough to warrant a decision that would have removed all of Rodrigo's pre-TGSAP scores but without a ban being placed (due to not having absolute definitive certainty of impossibility - and hence 'cheating'.) There would have been an additional caveat that would have allowed his pre-TGSAP scores to be re-instated individually over time if definitive video evidence was provided / found for each score.

    I hope that answered everything.
    Thanks thegamer1185 thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
  6. 12-08-2019, 02:13 AM
    Oh, my goodness. This is like, childish levels of lying and manipulation now.

    No, I'm not a "mind-reader". You don't have to be a mind-reader to spot inconsistencies in rationale, or in some cases, to deduce a thought process based on an analysis of one's actions. Let's look at some examples:

    Your co-worker Jason offers to switch days at work. He suggests it is to your benefit, because you dislike working on Fridays. So really, Jason presents himself as being courteous, and offering something of value to you. However, a check of your calendar reveals the day Jason is attempting to get off is the day of the big football game. "A-ha! You're not tricking me into working during the game!" Jason can either say "Ah, damn, I got caught," which is an honest answer. Or he can say "Oh shoot, I didn't see that, sorry," the honesty of which is dependent on your assessment of Jason. Or Jason can stick to the lie of "Noooooo, I was offering this to you because I want to help you! I'm trying to do you a favor!" Let's take the last option. Do you know, with total omniscience, what exactly Jason's motivation was? Do you know Jason didn't just suddenly come down with a case of offering you something you never asked for to solve a problem that didn't particularly need solving? Well, if you're not a fool, then yes, you know.

    Let's see... Hey, there's the classic Simpsons one (shout out to RTM's references): Homer buys Marge a bowling ball with the name "Homer" engraved on it. There's really no way to know what he was intending with that, now is there? You'd have to get a Vulcan mind-meld to figure that one out. (Double reference!)

    How about another? You're all trying to decide where to go eat. Karen suggests Jack-in-the-Box. Great! You all love Jack-in-the-Box. Except Karen just keeps going on about why the reason JitB is better is because it's the cheapest option. And you're all like, "Wellll, it isn't actually that cheap, but that's fine." You all want to go anyway. Not a problem. But she won't stop. She's still trying to convince you the reason we should be going there is because it's cheap. And you're just like, "Look, it's fine. You don't have to say anything more. We're on our way. I just... I don't understand why you have to keep being wrong." You can be confused, and not really understand what the deal is, but based on your assessment of Karen, you may or may not come to the conclusion that she doesn't actually believe what she's advocating.

    How about your friend Josh. He wants to go to your invitation-only D&D game nights with your other friends. He tells you about how much he loves D&D, so you get him in. But once in the group, he spends a lot less time talking about D&D and a lot more time talking about that cute girl in the group he's always trying to flirt with. And wait, come to think of it, didn't he know she was in the group before he asked to join? At this point, he's not even talking about D&D at all, and if you mention game night to him, the first thing he talks about is that girl. Gosh, how could you ever figure out what his motivation is? That's a really tough one to solve.

    Apparently, if you subscribe to Jace's worldview, you really can't ever say someone was dishonest or disingenuous, because you can never truly know that three different Ataris didn't have three different cosmic rays on three different days. (Always back to Dragster.) People should indeed be reasonable and fair, and not jump to conclusions. It's good to give people the benefit of the doubt, to a point. But what you're calling for is obtusion and credulity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Did you ask me? Is the above what I specifically told you? If not, how can you know that what you are saying is even remotely accurate in terms of what I am thinking and what my motivations are?

    So in reality, this entire statement is something that you decided on your own. You "understood why." You decided why I wanted to do something. You chose to pick from your own imagination, what my motivation was.

    I immediately understood why you posted it to your wall, for the reasons I mentioned before. This was like hungry-person-eats-food levels of motivation analysis. I also thought "Weird that he would put some of what I said on his wall, but whatevs, it's his choice."

    The proposal to move it was a solution to a "non-existent" problem. This, by the way, should always be a red flag, which is not to say it's necessarily nefarious, just that it's curious. But I put "non-existent" in quotes, as in this specific case the offer made sense as a way to distance one's self from my choice of harsh words. It all made perfect sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Well for starters, the fact is that I didn't put forth any reason to you as to why I wanted to move the post. I only put forth a reason as to why I was asking you for your permission to move it to your wall (you're the creator). I guess if someone is looking to twist something into a specific narrative they could take my reason for asking you for permission and somehow recast it as "a reason for why I wanted to move the post." However the reality is that these are two very different things.

    Okay, let's take a look again.

    Name:  Message from Jace Hall.png
Views: 123
Size:  40.4 KB

    I mean, it sure sounds to me like you gave a reason. I think we're in agreement that "so it can sit with the creator" wasn't your driving motivation behind both PM-ing me and texting me several hours after it had already been sitting on your wall, having to stop in the middle of what was certainly a busy time for you to do so. Again, this was a solution to a "non-existent" problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Literally just trying to do something helpful while I was in process of addressing my ACTUAL motivation for wanting to move it to your wall (which, at some point you may want to ask me what it was).

    Okaaaaaaay. What was your actual motivation, then? Why don't you just say, if there was some other reason? Or was it, as you say here, "just trying to do something helpful"?

    Again, at the time, this was just a "Huh, that's weird." This stuff about the wall post wouldn't be worth discussing, as I keep plenty of "Huh, that's weird"s to myself, as do we all. Except in this case, I found myself with a long string of "Huh, that's weird"s attached to one person, strange insistence on inconsistent rationales, complete with baffling stuff that makes literally no sense under the stated premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    If you admittedly don't know what my motivation is, how can you determine that my motivation is "dishonest"? You can only determine that in the absence of information if it is your predisposition to do so.

    "Absence of information"? Grow up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Is this a question? An accusation? It's both and it's neither, right? It's just a statement that is thrown out there at my expense, or TG's expense, that you freely get to make without consequence, to just bolster this whole narrative undertone of "questionable motivations" and etc. Well good for you. Fire and forget.

    Oh my gosh, I literally ask you to address the thing you wouldn't address before, and I'm being told I'm just taking a cheap shot.

    Wait a minute...... Are you reading my mind?

    Anyway, since me posing the question, which I did intend sincerely, as a parenthetical aside is not sufficient for you, I will now formally ask you the question on the direct record:

    jAcE hAlL, pLeAsE sIr, i wOuLd lIkE tO fOrMaLlY aSk yOu A qUeStIoN. pLeAsE dO iNfOrM uS oF wHy cOlLeCtInG pEoPlE's iNfO aPpEaRs tO bE a pOiNt oF eMpHaSiS fOr yOuR aDmiNiStRaTiOn.

    Oh wait... I didn't put it in the form of a question. Does that disqualify it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Twin Galaxies is different. TG is trying for things like accuracy, cumulative value creation to the individual, recognition, permanence, fair play and a certain standard of participant accountability in its record keeping. I have personally found that most things in this world that have true value to a person tends to have their name attached - in a real way. Twin Galaxies is just an option that people have to log their gaming achievements and shape recognition in a way that can carry meaning that which capable of potentially translating outside of just the gaming community, perhaps even in the mainstream world, where actual identities are used and valued.

    This is the ground work that was laid and we continue to build upon, however slowly.

    In the age of internet-anon a lot of people do a lot of things that they would not do if their name was attached.

    Beyond any GWR concern, the verification process is one of the steps TG uses to reduce down anon participation. It isn't perfect, but it is a step in the direction and a designed deterrent. It is "extra hassle" to help filter out those that may not find the point and purpose of TG suitable for their participation - and it helps all participants know and understand that they are dealing with a platform that is attempting to keep the playing field as even and as accountable as it possibly can at this time.

    I actually do appreciate the forthright answer on this matter, I really do. I disagree with some of how this is characterized. For instance, I'm skeptical of the idea that this actually cuts down on effectively anonymous participation to any meaningful degree, as well as the idea that people do not value achievements unless their legal names are attached. Also, many people choose to be anonymous online not out of some nefarious motive but because many people on the Internet (including some on this site) don't understand boundaries, and one's identity becomes a safety concern. Having said that, at this time, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    The banter or theatrics you saw in the Rodrigo dispute thread were a result of the participants engaging. It is what it is, thats life on the net. There is nothing in there theatrics-wise that was unusual for an internet forum thread.

    You were the one asking for people to pile on into a bet with Rodrigo to which the losing party risked a lifetime ban. That was you. You, you, you. Don't displace this all on other people. I don't know why Rodrigo's complaints were being entertained, and I don't see a reason for the exercise (which was a solution to a non-existent problem) other than "It'll be a fun way to engage people in the thread" (hence my use of the word "theatrics"). I'm sure you'll say it was to assuage Rodrigo of his claims that the dispute process is unfair, but that sort of goes against the idea that 1) the dispute rules are what they are, 2) the matter should be decided on the evidence and not what Rodrigo thinks, and 3) this was an exception and not a precedent to be invoked by another gamer later. You can try to dress stuff up like that in rhetoric all you want, but this sh*t maaaaaaaaakes nooooooooooooo seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Regarding dispute acceptance, "Dispute acceptance is at TG Admin's (or Jace) whim!" - That's right. Who else should be able to pull data out of a private database? The public? I'm sorry that you feel the fact that since only TG Admin can ultimately remove a score it inherently means that the scoreboard can never have integrity.

    siiiiiigggghhhh...... This is a disingenuous characterization, and you know it. (Gosh golly, more mind-reading!)

    Okay, fine, there are some people out there who think they should be the ones in charge, and you're probably used to hearing things such as that from them. But I think you see from the context of what I wrote that the focus of my grievance - again, you learn about someone's motivation by observing their choice of focus - was not that it was up to you, but rather that it was being administered in an arbitrary way (hence the word "whim"). It wasn't that it was JACE's whim. It was that it was Jace's WHIM. (And to be clear, what you quoted there was not a direct quote of mine, but I understand it to be a paraphrase, which is fine.)

    Yes, it's up to you. It's fair that such a thing is up to an authority. My complaint wasn't that you have the final word; it's that dispute matters are said many times over to require definitive objective evidence, which sometimes seems to mean actual omniscience, and other times means something far less than objective. It's one thing to try at consistency and fail. I'm not judgmental of mere failure. An honest failure was at one time an attempt to succeed. But it's another thing to say "We have rules that must be followed" and then go "Welp, this time, throw the rules out the window, how's about we settle it on this ref's word, or we ask five Zelda speedrunners to sign statements and do it that way." Those aren't close approximations of rules. Those are whims.

    Oh, and don't worry Jace. If you choose to respond, I will see it whether you choose to tag my name in your multiquote or not.
  7. 12-08-2019, 07:15 AM
    Well @ersatz_cats,

    Clearly, your desire to infinitely hold on to your belief and narrative regarding me is beyond anything I can hope to successfully alter.

    So I will try to wrap it up with a few quick responses:

    I immediately understood why you posted it to your wall, for the reasons I mentioned before.
    I don't see how you could have "immediately understood why I posted it on my wall" when all the reasons you supplied were not actually my reasons. It's clear that those reasons you posted are what you decided they must be, however those reasons are not anything I ever wrote to you.

    I mean, it sure sounds to me like you gave a reason.
    Yes. I definitely provided you the reason why I was contacting you. I was contacting you to see if it was ok to post the content to your wall, since you are the creator of the content, and obviously its your wall.

    What I did not provide you with is a reason as to why I decided to remove the giant text block of content from my wall. It didn't even occur to me that an explanation to you would be needed for what I'm choosing to do for my own wall.

    Since this particular issue can be broken into binary pieces, let me attempt to break it down to minimize any miscommunication or confusion.

    There are two distinct items involved:

    1.) My reason for contacting you. (already mentioned above)
    2.) My reason for removing the post content (more specifically, the giant block of text) from my Wall.

    These are two different things. They have two different reasons. I don't know how else to communicate this concept.

    My PM does not provide a reason for both points. It only provides a reason for point #1.

    You can not under any circumstance know my actual reason for #2. It's impossible, I assure you. You just do not have that information, nor can your discern it from anything I've said thus far anywhere on the site.

    As I understand from your previous post, your whole rationale is that my "reason" for point #2 is built on an inferred-by-you idea that somehow relates to a concern I must have had regarding Billy Mitchell or "distancing myself" or something related to that matter. However, if you think about this a little more deeply you can determine on your own why this rationale actually doesn't make sense.

    The rationale you provided seems to assume that if a statement is posted by a member on the website that could actually produce legal or general difficulty, then the "location of that post" within the site would somehow make a significant difference to an authority as it relates to me specifically.

    However, the reality is that it makes no difference at all. I am the site owner / custodian. Either an authority will view that I am responsible for what is said by members on the site, or it will not - it would not matter where within the site the member made the statement as long as the location was publicly viewable and accessible.

    More to that point, as you saw I kept a complete descriptive link and full reference to the post itself, as well as the entire multi-post commentary beneath it on my wall even after the event. If my goal was to "get away from it" or whatever your logic was, it makes zero sense to keep any of it at all on my wall after the fact.

    Literally the only thing that actually changed was that visually, a very large block of text (that happened to be your content, fully attributed to you) was removed from a wall post of mine and instead links and full descriptions of the content were supplied, fully attributed to you.

    Not really a good "distance" logic strategy, if that's what I was doing. Might have been better to just remove everything from my wall I would think.

    Please consider that you may have possibly come to the wrong conclusion on my motivation on this matter.

    Of course, believe what you want.

    Again, this was a solution to a "non-existent" problem.
    I can only guess that you are saying this because from your perspective if you don't know or can't imagine what "problem" I was trying to solve, it must therefore automatically not exist.

    I don't know why Rodrigo's complaints were being entertained, and I don't see a reason for the exercise
    I'm not sure but it seems from your statement that you may care little for the ability of the "accused" to be able to speak and provide their perception or side of the story, and further have those complaints (or whatever) fairly considered as objectively as possible as part of the process. Ok. That's completely your prerogative of course.

    However, Twin Galaxies does not share that sentiment and as a result Rodrigo was able to participate and say / complain / whatever he felt he needed to within the dispute claim thread. Of course, just like all participants within the process, he is accountable for the actions and statements he provided.

    We can just agree to disagree on the importance of this participation ability.

    "We have rules that must be followed" and then go "Welp, this time, throw the rules out the window, how's about we settle it on this ref's word, or we ask five Zelda speedrunners to sign statements and do it that way." Those aren't close approximations of rules. Those are whims.
    I'm not sure if you captured perfectly what happened within the correct contexts but if that is what you have concluded, alrighty then.

    Oh, and don't worry Jace. If you choose to respond, I will see it whether you choose to tag my name in your multiquote or not.
    I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean or imply. Ok I guess?

    Anyway, thank you for your feedback. It has all been duly noted and I will try to be better for you and the whole community. If I missed any of your questions it was not intentional, it is only because of how much there is to address. If you break out any specific question I missed that you want answered in a separate post I would be happy to answer it.

    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
  8. 12-08-2019, 12:05 PM
    i'd like to respond to the point about usefulness of verification. It definitely cuts down on fake accounts in so far as you need one phone per account. so people can make fake accounts, but this at least puts some sort of limit on it based on their finances or the number of non tg friends willing to let them have their phone number for a tg account. i fall into the mistake of htinking all or nothing. from an all or nothing point of view this doesnt stop fake account, but it does put a limit on them

    i'm not sure if you've ever scanned through mkwizard's punchout cheating. its interesting from a lot of angles. one bit of troll humor from after the dispute often missed though is girard's fake accounts. he was upset that his real scores were stripped along with his real ones. honestly i believe his don flamenco score was real he went through great pains to prove it, but sadly, too little too late, too bad. you cheat on one score you lose the real ones too. he continued to make fake account after fake account. some more hilarious then others. he once pretended to be his own big brother sticking up for little brother mike. he talked about how rich he was to afford phone after phone, but i'm prety sure i recall him mentioning friends let him use their phones to verify. i enjoyed when he told us "noone cares about games, i know cause people tell me that all the time" -- i took that to mean he prattles on to nongamers about games, no social awareness, and when they tell him noone cares, rather than change his behavior and stop boring normies with nerd talk, he has the nerve to bash us for caring too much about games.

    i think people miss the psychological interesting after math of mkwizard's banning. it seems like the sort of the thing you might find interesting. but it also shows that yes, attaching an account to a phone number presents a hurdle, a surmountable hurdle but a hurdle none the less.
    Lode Runner Champion
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
  9. 12-08-2019, 12:18 PM
    Mr. Hall,

    I wish to say that I hope I did not come off the wrong way at all. While there are those who are intent on attacking you for whatever reasons and purposes, I was genuinely concerned about this whole thing. I understand that you and the other administrators of Twin Galaxies did the best you could to come to a reasonable agreement on what to do, and you did what you had to.

    Unfortunately, there is never any way to please everyone. There will always be people who disagree, and some of them will take things 'up to eleven.' It's just the way it is.

    I was not intent on sounding sarcastic in any way nor was I intent on mocking you at all. I was just simply offering some personal commentary.
    Lauren Tyler
    Eternal Champion of Ragol
    Thanks Jace Hall thanked this post
  10. 12-08-2019, 12:31 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post
    Oh, my goodness. This is like, childish levels of lying and manipulation now.

    No, I'm not a "mind-reader".....

    Your co-worker Jason offers to...

    Let's see...

    How about another? ...

    How about your friend Josh. ....


    Apparently, if you subscribe to Jace's worldview....

    Okay, let's take a look again.....


    I mean, it sure sounds to me like you gave a reason. ....



    Okaaaaaaay. What was your actual motivation, then? .....

    Again, at the time, this was just a "Huh, that's weird." .....

    "Absence of information"? Grow up.

    Oh my gosh, I literally ask you to address ....

    Wait a minute...... Are you reading my mind?



    You were the one asking for people to pile on into....


    siiiiiigggghhhh......


    Okay, fine, there are some people out there who think they should be the ones in charge....
    This is a laundry list of items. It is classic LoserThink.

    Instead of focusing on one or two important items, a loserthinker will list many items, so many to fact check. Some might be truthful, some might not be. When a person doesn't have one single good point to make, they give you 10 bad ones.



    Name:  2019-12-08 16_29_51-(1) Cream of Loserthink_ Loserish Advice and the Laundry List - YouTube.jpg
Views: 81
Size:  300.4 KB


    Here is a short video: https://www.twingalaxies.com/newrepl...eply&p=1063097
    Your friend, datagod

    ~~Raspberry Pi Enthusiast~~
Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 261
Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Join us