Originally Posted by thegamer1185

I mean, @Doh-FAKE , @A certain somebody , @MarCRAP are having a really elaborate back and forth in another thread that seems to be full of good tid bits shite in it. Not going to lie, I thinks it's funny. Some good old **** talk is good IMO can lead to some people mending their differences because it usually leads to more joking than actual insulting.

What can I say? Nothing really... I can only add CORRUPT LIKES to the humor!

My bad, I knew you had your name changed to @mar-crap. My bad. Good thing you just happened to check this thread otherwise you would have missed that I tagged you.

Hahahaha, IT JUST KEEPS HAPPENING!!

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

My note asking permission to transfer the post you made on my wall to your wall, was just what it was and nothing more. Had you declined, I simply would have deleted the post off my wall - but since your post was lengthy, thoughtful and substantial I thought I was being courteous by reaching out to you. I didn't want to just trash all your work. (You're the creator!)

As you can see in my follow up response to your response, what I am saying above is consistent with what you see below. My intention was that I just didn't want you to lose your work by my deletion.

Whyyyyyyy????

My work was not in danger from deletion, and you know that.

At that point in time, my work was in three locations:

1) The original dispute thread, on page 340;

2) Your wall;

3) My wall.

Okay, you didn't know it was on my wall, that's fair. We can strike that one from the list. But it was still in the dispute thread in addition to your wall. You make it sound - TWICE over in those quotes - as if you deleting the wall post would scrub my hard work from the site, suggesting that was the reason why you wanted it moved, out of concern that my work would be lost. How touching. While these details may be fuzzy to you now, they weren't fuzzy at the time. You knew it was a re-post, and that nothing would be lost by deleting the re-post.

Why lie? Why make up bogus reasons for stuff? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Further, you can see that I kept a reference link to your post along with complete description still completely on my wall. Not trying to hide anything from anyone.

I understood the entirety of the situation at the time. You wanted me to contribute, and you called me out to do so. Fine. I was interested in contributing anyway. You wanted to highlight the discovery of the old Mruczek MTV interview, and how that torpedoed Billy's nonsense legal threat. Your motivation in that is 1) Billy's threatening to sue you, and this is evidence in your favor, and 2) he's attempting to erode your public credibility versus his. Still no problem. You re-posted the work to your wall to give the material a single link-able location to which that material itself is the focus. Again, motivations are fine. You properly credited me as the author, which was all I cared about. I will say, I was surprised the moment I saw this re-post to your wall, given some inflammatory things I'd said about Billy, and your choice to put those things on your wall, but that's your choice. I didn't worry about it. As soon as you messaged me, offering to swap to my wall, I immediately understood why. You still wanted a link-able page for the damning Billy material, but you wanted to separate "liar", "cheater", "fraud" and such from your page. Much better to merely link to it and say, "Check out this compelling evidence over here." That way it's still up, and you can still point people to it, and with that link you posted to your wall, you can still promote and direct people to it without the inflammatory stuff appearing under your name. All of that, I understood. All of that, I was on board with. Totally fine.

The only thing I didn't understand was why you had to put forward this weird reason to go to all this trouble, when I was confident in the reason, and it really didn't require a reason anyway. Of course, now I see that this is just a thing you do.

Also, at no point did I suggest you were trying to "hide" the post. I'm not sure where that characterization came from.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Perhaps I should have just deleted it without reaching out to you - but I'm reasonably sure that if I did that you still would be able to find some way for that to fit your current narrative. Lose-lose either way for me I guess!

Why would that be a problem? If you had deleted it from the actual dispute thread, which is supposed to be permanent and un-alterable, yes, after the work I did, I would've been quite incensed. But I don't have some given right to space on your wall.

Have I tried to fit everything I could into some narrative? I've said TGSAP is great, and that the Billy dispute was handled "impeccably". Why am I not rolling those into some projected conspiracy theory as well?

This all starts to get a bit existential. "Oh, if I'd done the other thing, I would've been criticized anyway, so what's the point?" No. The point is, you do a thing, a thing I can identify and point to, that damages your credibility. That's the point. You're dishonest. And given your actions in dispute adjudication, it's hard to tell where exactly the dishonesty ends.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I am the person who actually had the dispute system built for the very purpose that it is being used for. No other TG ownership would ever have done this, and they didn't! There would not even be a conversation about this subject right now without my efforts on it. It makes no sense that I would build such a system only to prevent it from working. It's far easier to just remove it, which is something I can do.

If you really wish to turn this into a discussion about what you have done for the site that's positive, rather than the subjects I spoke of, then yes, you do get credit for actually opening legacy scores up for dispute. I have seen past pages with people's calls for a score dispute process, which only amplified after Omnigamer's May 2017 Dragster analysis, so I'm not sure how much longer you could have gone on without one, but we can set that aside. Also, we can set aside for the moment the fact that your evidence standard for score removal is laughably unreasonable. I'm not even exaggerating when I say people get the electric chair over less evidence than it takes to remove a score here (though granted we're talking silly video game scores here and not life and death).

You can take credit for opening the dispute system and agreeing to adjudicate it, but the fact that you had nothing to do with entering these scores in the first place is really irrelevant, if you are the one throwing roadblocks and obstacles in the way of what should be easy open-and-shut cases. Notice that I haven't tried to make a point of bashing TG for allowing easy dispute cases to linger untouched for several months before resolving, because I am reasonable, and I understand there is a lot to do, and it can't all be done at once. On the other hand, active derailment, active denial of objective evidence, just can't be overlooked.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I'm wondering, before making all these sweeping assumptions about me and my motivations or whatever it is you have decided I have done or didn't do, did it ever occur to you to perhaps just ask me directly about the items? Have I ever been non-responsive to you? Maybe you would have believed my answers, maybe you wouldn't have, but it might have been a good starting point.

I'm not sure that's important, but there is a reason I didn't ask you about these items. With this Rodrigo dispute, everything from my perspective went straight from "Huh, that's weird" to "Holy cow, what is this dude's effing deal!?"

I would illustrate this with a comparison to a man (and I use the term loosely) by the name of Patrick Scott Patterson. As I said before, I make my own judgments on people. I'd heard plenty of bad things about him, saw that a lot of people don't like him. I even heard people say he had fabricated evidence for a DK kill screen (off the leaderboard). But I wasn't so sure. He seemed like a good guy, and he was more than happy to talk about Billy and others being cheaters, so I listened. I followed him on Twitter. There was a moment where I noticed the contrast between how he promoted Billy's score in 2010...

Originally Posted by OriginalPSP

This is an amazing feat that deserves all the props it gets, and went through a great deal of verification on our end involving many referees, not only including the two who saw it live but also myself, David and several more.

...the contrast between that and his testimony years later that he didn't believe any of it and he only said those things because a paycheck was on the line. I'm an understanding person. Paychecks are paychecks. But his words in 2010 were so emphatic, as if to dispel any notion of the score's illegitimacy. I never asked him about it, but I definitely thought "Huh, that's weird."

Then, in 2019, he uses his "video game preservation" outfit to auction off un-dumped prototype cartridges, specifically pumping them in the auction as "un-dumped" to jack up the price. All while still touting himself as a "video game preservationist". This was a complete a-hole move. There was no reasonable explanation. PSP did try to offer a couple phony explanations, but those only made it worse. As soon as I saw that, I was done following him on Twitter. I never discussed it with him, I never asked him about it, because it went immediately from "Huh, that's weird" to "Holy cow, what is this dude's effing deal!?" It went straight from one weird thing to a firm pattern of entrenched dishonesty which would not ever be resolved.

I didn't reach out to you because there was nothing to discuss. The weird thing from before wasn't worth discussing by itself. (Even now, it isn't worth discussing, except that it helps to illustrate a pattern of inability to simply engage with people honestly. Thank you, by the way, for continuing to illustrate that.) This Rodrigo dispute nonsense wasn't worth discussing for an entirely different reason, that being there was simply no excuse for any of it. Yes, we are discussing it now, but here in this public context, this is more about defending what I've written, presenting evidence, and telling anyone interested in this subject to "Watch out."

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I'm not sure why you would think I have some kind of motivation other than trying to clean up the database. I'm guessing that you have some theory on what my motivation is but I can't imagine what it must be.

Despite your characterization of me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I truly don't know what your motivation is at times. For instance, I wouldn't say for sure that you sell people's info. (Don't suppose you want to address that specifically, pun intended?) I'm merely at a loss for ideas on what other purpose you have for emphasizing data collection the way you do. Is your style of dispute administration really because you wanted to defend Rodrigo, or is it because you believe the theatrics of the clown show are beneficial, either to the site, or to your own amusement? I don't know. I can only state that none of this makes any sense for the stated objectives, and it harms TG as a credible scorekeeping outlet.

Originally Posted by ersatz_cats

Hahahaha, IT JUST KEEPS HAPPENING!!




Whyyyyyyy????

My work was not in danger from deletion, and you know that.

At that point in time, my work was in three locations:

1) The original dispute thread, on page 340;

2) Your wall;

3) My wall.

Okay, you didn't know it was on my wall, that's fair. We can strike that one from the list. But it was still in the dispute thread in addition to your wall. You make it sound - TWICE over in those quotes - as if you deleting the wall post would scrub my hard work from the site, suggesting that was the reason why you wanted it moved, out of concern that my work would be lost. How touching. While these details may be fuzzy to you now, they weren't fuzzy at the time. You knew it was a re-post, and that nothing would be lost by deleting the re-post.

Why lie? Why make up bogus reasons for stuff? I don't get it.




I understood the entirety of the situation at the time. You wanted me to contribute, and you called me out to do so. Fine. I was interested in contributing anyway. You wanted to highlight the discovery of the old Mruczek MTV interview, and how that torpedoed Billy's nonsense legal threat. Your motivation in that is 1) Billy's threatening to sue you, and this is evidence in your favor, and 2) he's attempting to erode your public credibility versus his. Still no problem. You re-posted the work to your wall to give the material a single link-able location to which that material itself is the focus. Again, motivations are fine. You properly credited me as the author, which was all I cared about. I will say, I was surprised the moment I saw this re-post to your wall, given some inflammatory things I'd said about Billy, and your choice to put those things on your wall, but that's your choice. I didn't worry about it. As soon as you messaged me, offering to swap to my wall, I immediately understood why. You still wanted a link-able page for the damning Billy material, but you wanted to separate "liar", "cheater", "fraud" and such from your page. Much better to merely link to it and say, "Check out this compelling evidence over here." That way it's still up, and you can still point people to it, and with that link you posted to your wall, you can still promote and direct people to it without the inflammatory stuff appearing under your name. All of that, I understood. All of that, I was on board with. Totally fine.

The only thing I didn't understand was why you had to put forward this weird reason to go to all this trouble, when I was confident in the reason, and it really didn't require a reason anyway. Of course, now I see that this is just a thing you do.

Also, at no point did I suggest you were trying to "hide" the post. I'm not sure where that characterization came from.




Why would that be a problem? If you had deleted it from the actual dispute thread, which is supposed to be permanent and un-alterable, yes, after the work I did, I would've been quite incensed. But I don't have some given right to space on your wall.

Have I tried to fit everything I could into some narrative? I've said TGSAP is great, and that the Billy dispute was handled "impeccably". Why am I not rolling those into some projected conspiracy theory as well?

This all starts to get a bit existential. "Oh, if I'd done the other thing, I would've been criticized anyway, so what's the point?" No. The point is, you do a thing, a thing I can identify and point to, that damages your credibility. That's the point. You're dishonest. And given your actions in dispute adjudication, it's hard to tell where exactly the dishonesty ends.




If you really wish to turn this into a discussion about what you have done for the site that's positive, rather than the subjects I spoke of, then yes, you do get credit for actually opening legacy scores up for dispute. I have seen past pages with people's calls for a score dispute process, which only amplified after Omnigamer's May 2017 Dragster analysis, so I'm not sure how much longer you could have gone on without one, but we can set that aside. Also, we can set aside for the moment the fact that your evidence standard for score removal is laughably unreasonable. I'm not even exaggerating when I say people get the electric chair over less evidence than it takes to remove a score here (though granted we're talking silly video game scores here and not life and death).

You can take credit for opening the dispute system and agreeing to adjudicate it, but the fact that you had nothing to do with entering these scores in the first place is really irrelevant, if you are the one throwing roadblocks and obstacles in the way of what should be easy open-and-shut cases. Notice that I haven't tried to make a point of bashing TG for allowing easy dispute cases to linger untouched for several months before resolving, because I am reasonable, and I understand there is a lot to do, and it can't all be done at once. On the other hand, active derailment, active denial of objective evidence, just can't be overlooked.




I'm not sure that's important, but there is a reason I didn't ask you about these items. With this Rodrigo dispute, everything from my perspective went straight from "Huh, that's weird" to "Holy cow, what is this dude's effing deal!?"

I would illustrate this with a comparison to a man (and I use the term loosely) by the name of Patrick Scott Patterson. As I said before, I make my own judgments on people. I'd heard plenty of bad things about him, saw that a lot of people don't like him. I even heard people say he had fabricated evidence for a DK kill screen (off the leaderboard). But I wasn't so sure. He seemed like a good guy, and he was more than happy to talk about Billy and others being cheaters, so I listened. I followed him on Twitter. There was a moment where I noticed the contrast between how he promoted Billy's score in 2010...




...the contrast between that and his testimony years later that he didn't believe any of it and he only said those things because a paycheck was on the line. I'm an understanding person. Paychecks are paychecks. But his words in 2010 were so emphatic, as if to dispel any notion of the score's illegitimacy. I never asked him about it, but I definitely thought "Huh, that's weird."

Then, in 2019, he uses his "video game preservation" outfit to auction off un-dumped prototype cartridges, specifically pumping them in the auction as "un-dumped" to jack up the price. All while still touting himself as a "video game preservationist". This was a complete a-hole move. There was no reasonable explanation. PSP did try to offer a couple phony explanations, but those only made it worse. As soon as I saw that, I was done following him on Twitter. I never discussed it with him, I never asked him about it, because it went immediately from "Huh, that's weird" to "Holy cow, what is this dude's effing deal!?" It went straight from one weird thing to a firm pattern of entrenched dishonesty which would not ever be resolved.

I didn't reach out to you because there was nothing to discuss. The weird thing from before wasn't worth discussing by itself. (Even now, it isn't worth discussing, except that it helps to illustrate a pattern of inability to simply engage with people honestly. Thank you, by the way, for continuing to illustrate that.) This Rodrigo dispute nonsense wasn't worth discussing for an entirely different reason, that being there was simply no excuse for any of it. Yes, we are discussing it now, but here in this public context, this is more about defending what I've written, presenting evidence, and telling anyone interested in this subject to "Watch out."




Despite your characterization of me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I truly don't know what your motivation is at times. For instance, I wouldn't say for sure that you sell people's info. (Don't suppose you want to address that specifically, pun intended?) I'm merely at a loss for ideas on what other purpose you have for emphasizing data collection the way you do. Is your style of dispute administration really because you wanted to defend Rodrigo, or is it because you believe the theatrics of the clown show are beneficial, either to the site, or to your own amusement? I don't know. I can only state that none of this makes any sense for the stated objectives, and it harms TG as a credible scorekeeping outlet.

Only thing I can say about this is that there was NOT "definitive" evidence to remove the score. While I agree the score was probably not likely to have been done, still wasn't an open-and-shut case. There have been many open and shut cases in the dispute system (The ones you mentioned that lingered awhile that had obvious impossible scores), but I don't think this was one of them. As for the rest of your posts, it is an interesting read.

Originally Posted by thegamer1185

I don't know, you have had some pretty irrelevant posts on here. So have I, so have many others where we posted and it literally had nothing to do with anything other than to be a dick, haha. While his opinion can viewed many different ways depending on the person, at least he is pointing out why he feels that way and that isn't shite. Just how he feels. You just don't agree with it. Which is completely fine.

I mean, @Snowflake , @RTM , @Marcade are having a really elaborate back and forth in another thread that seems to be full of good tid bits shite in it. Not going to lie, I thinks it's funny. Some good old **** talk is good IMO can lead to some people mending their differences because it usually leads to more joking than actual insulting.

if you have enjoyed my comments in those threads or others i hope you'll consider liking, thanking, or better yet both liking and thanking any such post so as to increase my corrupt ballot stuffing like count

Originally Posted by Snowflake

if you have enjoyed my comments in those threads or others i hope you'll consider liking, thanking, or better yet both liking and thanking any such post so as to increase my corrupt ballot stuffing like count

Dude, I have no idea why, maybe I'm just in a good mood but I actually started laughing. See if I start to like your post, then I have to like @marcrap posts (nailed it that time, boom!!), and as a result I would have to like @rtm posts as to not show any favoritism to one side because most of that thread is all nonsense. So one like leads to another, sooner or later we all end up having a few drinks and I just don't want to see what the end of that road looks like.

Just so I am clear with that above scenario:

to some of the more serious points (and gee wilikers i hope adressing serious things can earn me some corrupt likes)

Reading jace's mind and motives
always difficult, but of course we have action to look at. While i also attribute some dishonesty to jace its not nearly to the extent ersatz does. In particulr the idea of wanting people to be guilty or not -- i dont think jace wants anyone to be guilty since as we see fake scores result in a lot of problems for tg no matter what he does. even worse the implication it somehow means he made his decision out of disliking billy, rodrigo, or todd.

Attack on Jace's Motives
If i can offer my mind reading attempt, that i believe is more consistent with the displayed actions. To say it insultingly jace wants a cop out, a fall guy, someone else to take the blame if things go to court, public opinon or real court. To say it positively, jace is cautious and doesnt want to attach his name to anything he cant be 100% sure of. between having RTMs wagging lips (and inconsisten testimony at that) to be the final nail in todd's coffin, to wanting speed runners to sign an affidavit, to ultimately resorting to bad behavior in rodrigo's case, i saw this as all just him covering his ass. I spoke up multiple times about how rtm's final comment on todds dispute, and i even spoke up in the thread about the issue with asking speed runners to come in and sign something. i agree those were problems. i just dont think theres evidence for the darker motives being assigned. thats not to say you're wrong and i'm right, reading minds is tough, but i think the evidence points more towards ass covering than malicious, vendetta filled compulsive lying

It was like that when i got here
jace is right, it was like that when he got here. i regularly bash the old ways. But jace, you kinda run it both ways. you purposely wanted the name tg because of the positive associated with the name. You also give a lot of lip service and respect to the old ways as overall being for the best, now i get it, you cant be negative as that would be used against you, but at the same time all the respect you blanketly give to the old refs doesnt fully reconcile with a "dont blame me the refs did it" approach. i mean, come on you gave rtm, billy, todd (and i think a few others) "legendary member" status. you gave rodrigo and other "honored veteran" status. once you annoint someone with that status, that was YOU making the decision to call these members "legendary", that was not something you inherited, that was a conscious choice to elevate these members above others. any drama and high profile issues and blaming of you for supporting them in part truly is your fault as long as you hand out such titles. on a side note, i think its intereting that "legendary" members are orders of magnitude more likely to be banned than ordinary members. really makes you wonder what metrics you used when handing out that status

somewhat unrelated request
everyone knows i like "likes" but what about dislikes? thats really helpful with clutter and places like reddit remind me of it. these disputes go on and on, part of why i get invovled with last word stuff is i'm afraid only the last word is scene and that leads to a vicious cycle. if dislikes and likes both existed, you wouldnt need to censor, but people who dont have time to read the whole thread could dislikes and likes into account when scanning for most worthwhile comments. reddit uses this very well. also, if i know people can just find the best posts, i dont feel the need to repeat myself, resulting in less posts to wade through. i think enabling a dislike button would both make threads shorter ,and well as make shifting through the threads easier, and cut down on at least some of the drama

Originally Posted by thegamer1185

So one like leads to another, sooner or later we all end up having a few drinks and I just don't want to see what the end of that road looks like.

Drunk-FLAKE does NOT consume a "few" drinks.
(Just sayin')

Originally Posted by Marcade

Drunk-FLAKE does NOT consume a "few" drinks.
(Just sayin')

i take one shot for every 'like' marcade gives me on the drinking day