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, 02:19 PM
    DRUNK-FAKE said:

    Name:  image.png
Views: 118
Size:  5.9 KB

    MARCRAP REPLY: You cant AFFORD to buy that much alcohol.
    Last edited by Marcade; 12-07-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  2. 12-07-2019, 02:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcade View Post
    DRUNK-FAKE said:

    Name:  image.png
Views: 118
Size:  5.9 KB

    MARCRAP REPLY: You cant AFFORD to buy that much alcohol.
    FARTCADE said: blah blah blah i'm a big fat stupid jerk but i like your comments

    SNOWFLAKE REPLY: Thank for you the likes
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Marcade liked this post
  3. 12-07-2019, 02:34 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    Crow-Cake REPLY: Thank for you the likes
    MarCake (Yoda voice reply) : " Your welcome for you the clicks"
    Likes Snowflake liked this post
  4. 12-07-2019, 03:14 PM
    Having a "dislike" option would just allow people to troll people if they wanted too. It wouldn't be an accurate number of who really didn't like what someone had to say vs who was just trolling someone. If someone wants to troll someone by liking a post, it doesn't deter the post from being read. In fact, I think we would all agree that when a post isn't liked, it gets a comment. When people like a post, they click like and no response is usually added.
    Likes Marcade liked this post
  5. 12-07-2019, 03:18 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185 View Post
    Having a "dislike" option would just allow people to troll people if they wanted too. It wouldn't be an accurate number of who really didn't like what someone had to say vs who was just trolling someone. If someone wants to troll someone by liking a post, it doesn't deter the post from being read. In fact, I think we would all agree that when a post isn't liked, it gets a comment. When people like a post, they click like and no response is usually added.
    trolling will always happen, comments allow trolling to, i dont see anyone saying disable them. I think reddit shows thumbs up/thumbs down works well, i think youtube shows it works well. the trolls should be a small enough percentage that the numbers still matter. now, i agree there shouldnt be a "dislike" leaderboard, that's more easy to manipulate since one person with hours on their hand could disliek everything (of course the same hold trues for likes but whatever). so fine, no leaderboard for dislikes, but for individual comments if you see 1 like and 30dislikes are you really gonna suspect its a good the trolls derailed? also, even if tg was majority trolls i dont see how the dislike status harms

    the like status without adislike is heavily misleading. controversial posts get both more likes and dislikes. neutral posts get neither. having likes wthout also having likes dislikes might as well just measure number of controversial posts
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Marcade, datagod, thegamer1185 liked this post
  6. 12-07-2019, 03:22 PM
    as for your point about liking gettng no comment and dislike getting a comment thats why i said there'd be less clutter. with no like button, people would have to start explicilty stating their likes. likewise, with a dislike people wouldnt need as much to state their argument. you seem worried about a "dislike" by a troll, but how is forcing the troll to comment any less disruptive? for trolls, i would think dislikes are better than comments. and for non-trolls, again, cut down on clutter. no need to have a bunch people weigh if they can all easily make clear what they think of the comment with a simple click
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Marcade, datagod liked this post
  7. 12-07-2019, 03:54 PM
    It's really interesting compare the two post-dispute write-ups people have done, and see what each is intending to try and accomplish.

    One one hand, we have @cantaloupeme , who wrote up his thoughts in something short and to the point. It was helpful, and really fits into his stated intent of trying to extend an olive branch and help heal up the two communities. I suspect there are a lot of things he chose not to say in his writeup, and if so, I'm wishing he had added more - honest criticism meant to help should never be discouraged. Regardless, it was still good, and I still hold out hope that someday we'll see another submission from him on this site.

    On the other... we have @ersatz_cats . I'm going to hold off on guessing what his intentions are, but I think the fact that it wasn't originally linked on TG says a lot. It offers up... touches of criticism, liberally drowned in mockery, insult, and lots of negativity. And of course, it was posted to the internet's dumpster fire, 4chan but with usernames, Reddit. And unsurprisingly, given the tone of the thing, it inspired lots more negativity, insults, and mockery.

    It comes across as that guy who wants everyone else to think he's cool, and does so by putting everyone else down. Sure, he enjoys getting people to laugh at his target, but everyone knows that as soon as it's convenient, the guy will get other people to laugh at them. It tells us more about the person doing it than about anyone else. It's no use trying to please someone like that. Because they're not interested in being pleased, they're interested in knocking down other people.

    So thanks, @ersatz_cats , for letting us know who you are.
  8. 12-07-2019, 04:31 PM
    I realize that it is impossible to battle a conspiracy-type of argument set (not a character comment, just a description of your specific prose in this case), where the questions are laced with implication or assumption that continually try to lead to a desired conclusion, but I will give it one more shot (and will try to be brief and to the point.)

    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.


    Right. You don't get it. Perhaps it is because you are actually trying to fabricate something that isn't actually there - and that fabrication requires me to be "lying" except that it doesn't make any sense at all as to why I would do so.

    So either you are flatly mistaken in your assertion or there is some kind of magical rationale that explains why I would "lie" - It has to be one or the other.

    So let's look at the rationale you provide:

    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.


    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.

    Then you go on to say:

    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.


    While I am glad that you were confident in whatever reason you decided I must have, even you apparently did not understand why I had to put forth this "weird reason." Weird reason indeed!

    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.

    I was asking permission because, as stated, you were the creator, and it was your wall I thought it should be placed on. I'm not going put anything on anyone's wall as a main post without permission. I did not know at the time that it was already there. 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). It is not remotely the huge shadow operation deal that you are making it out to be. More on that later.

    The bottom line is that the fact is that I never stated to you why I wanted to move the post, and you have created the "reason" that you have personally come to believe for your own purposes - and that reason you have created, by the way, makes zero sense (which is why you are baffled as to why I would "lie") - There are no lies sir. None.

    And yet I somehow know, that despite telling you the above in crystal clear form, you will likely cling on to whatever theory you are trying to establish, which is essentially, "I dont know what your motivation was, but whatever it was its not what you say it is."

    And to that I just say, "Why don't you just ask me why I wanted to move the post?" - We will see if you ever do.

    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.)
    If you are looking for a pattern, you are going to continue to find what you are looking for. That's how conspiratorial processes work.

    Try this: Consider that I am being honest with you. Consider that I am so matter-of-fact honest that you may not believe it and somehow inherently find that feels dishonest for whatever reason. You could just ask me to clarify, but you don't. I don't know what else to tell you other than that you apparently seem to be perceiving dishonesty from me that seemingly has no logical motivation or means-to-an-end. I guess I'm some kind of magical mystery to you, patterns of behavior and etc.

    OR - Perhaps one day you will find interest in asking the questions you want answers to, instead of assuming things. One thing for sure is that I can definitely tell you that your assumptions are way more exciting than the actual matter-of-fact answers.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I truly don't know what your motivation is at times.


    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.

    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 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. I do think this is a perfect example of the conspiratorial type of thought process that is nearly impossible to argue against but I will give it an attempt:

    As you know, to register at TG, all you need is an e-mail address. That's it. Just like anywhere else. You can see everything here, no problem.

    However if you want to participate in TGSAP, and you want to have impact on other people who are part of that process, you must get verified and identify yourself. That's the whole point. TG is non-anon verified people participating in a peer-review style authentication process. All the people who are in the process, knows that everyone else has identified and verified themselves and knows that they are dealing with people who are willing to step forward and be recognized for their achievement as judged by others who have also stepped forward themselves.

    It's pretty simple really. No anon in TGSAP.

    Hey, no one has to do it if they don't want to. Being verified is not a requirement to register at TG. People don't have to care about or come to Twin Galaxies or participate in TGSAP. There are plenty of places out there on the internet that will happily accept someone's gamertag as id and tell them that they are amazing. No questions asked. I personally have no problem with people going off and being recognized somewhere as "Mr. X" or whatever, with no real way of ever knowing who that person was. People can value that however they want. History will value that however it wants.

    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.

    Also to address your subtle but repeated outrageous accusation: There has never been and will never be any selling of anyone's private data, it's never been considered or thought of as any kind of option, ever. I would appreciate it if you ended that line of accusatory "pondering."

    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.
    "You don't know." Yet you try to conclude all kinds of things like the nature of my or TG's motivation anyway. Imagine this thread if TG handled dispute claims in that exact manner.

    So for the last time -

    The dispute process was created to allow users to argue remove of data from the TG database. They make their claims and support them to the point that warrant TG review. TG reviews the claims and either removes the data or does nothing and allows more data to be accumulated. There is nothing more to it. No conspiracies, no magical motivations.

    At no point was it ever indicated that score removal was something that could take place via VOTE. It was never implied and it was always specifically stated that the only thing that can remove data from the database is TG Admin. So I am not sure why there is any surprise on your part as it relates to that well-documented and known fact about disputes.

    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. Not sure what you are suggesting to do here. Does TG go in and try to moderate and delete everything it doesn't like? Doing that, the accusations will fly. Obviously. So your suggestion is? Nothing. There is no suggestion, only criticism of the process, which you are entitled to - but to you or anyone else's criticisms of the formal process I will say this - at least TG has a formal process to criticize.

    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.

    Regardless, for a score to be removed, TG has to be convinced. It's that simple.

    And of course many people have complained that it "takes too long."

    Other than general impatience. What exactly is the rush? Is there an emergency that I am not understanding?

    Here is how a dispute claim length time can be calculated = "A dispute claim lasts until TG Admin is convinced of its veracity and is willing to live with the score removal consequences."

    All these people complaining do not have to take any significant responsibility for the score removal consequences. So its easy for them to say and demand whatever they want. "Do it now! It's so obvious!"

    People can claim "ridiculously high standard" to justify their impatience or possible insecurity about them potentially having a "lower standard" but in the end Twin Galaxies has to do what it believes it needs to do in order to be confident that it is making the best decision it can.

    If that process is too slow for some people, that's fine. They can go do something that they find faster, that's ok.

    So far, I'm very confident in the dispute decisions that TG has made. We will see how it goes.
    Thanks Lauren Tyler, datagod thanked this post
    Likes Lauren Tyler, datagod liked this post
  9. 12-07-2019, 07:34 PM
    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?
    Lauren Tyler
    Eternal Champion of Ragol
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes Marcade, Snowflake, datagod liked this post
  10. 12-07-2019, 07:47 PM
    @Jace Hall . Were you a philosophy major in college? ;)
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod, Jace Hall liked this post
Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 18 26 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 261
Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 18 26 ... LastLast
Join us