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, 10:57 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: 135
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: 128
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
  2. 12-07-2019, 11:39 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 11:43 PM.
  3. 12-08-2019, 02:42 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
  4. 12-08-2019, 08:15 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
  5. 12-08-2019, 01:05 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
  6. 12-08-2019, 01:18 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
  7. 12-08-2019, 01:31 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: 91
Size:  300.4 KB


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

    ~~Raspberry Pi Enthusiast~~
  8. 12-08-2019, 01:46 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Tyler View Post
    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.
    Thank you.

    I understand and appreciate your note, as well as your overall participation here.

    Please know that I never perceived any type of negative goal from you at all.

    And while yes there are people who seem to want to attack me from time to time, and they can get pretty outrageous sometimes, I do just try to answer them back without malice because in the end I believe they wouldn’t feel the need to attack me if they didn’t actually care, or if it didn’t actually matter to them - and I consider perhaps they may just have difficulty expressing themselves or maybe their life at the moment isn’t so great and perhaps I’m a good release target for other frustrations. My job seems to be that sometimes I must bear the brunt of that and allow those feelings/sentiments to be expressed within reason.

    I do try to listen to the core points they are presenting. I look for the value and consider their perspective despite the insults or accusations because my goal is for both myself and TG to be the best versions possible. Nothing is perfect and I have no problem admitting that.

    Anyway,

    All good and thank you and everyone else who continue to participate with passion - it’s part of why TG is a special place that matters!
    Thanks Lauren Tyler thanked this post
    Likes Lauren Tyler liked this post
  9. 12-08-2019, 02:06 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Well @ersatz_cats,


    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.

    since the whole community is listed in this, i have a point i'd like to see you adress that i brought up earlier. You've made the point that earlier tg made the miss -- a point i agree with. however, can you truly distance yourself from that when it was your administration that handed out "legendary member" and "honored veteran" status to banned members? Doesnt that mean you yourself made the decision that these members really are at a higher status, and so doesnt any mess those members created in some way reflect on your decision to hand out such titles? also in lieue of 2 legendary members and 1 honored veteran having all their scores stripped, it would sure appear to me you disproportianately handed out such accolades to those least worthy. in sight of dispute decisions and banning to you see how these titles elevating some gamers above other is problematic, do you intend to change such titles, and could you elaborate on what critieria you used to hand out such titles in the first place
    Lode Runner Champion
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
  10. 12-08-2019, 03:57 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    since the whole community is listed in this, i have a point i'd like to see you adress that i brought up earlier. You've made the point that earlier tg made the miss -- a point i agree with. however, can you truly distance yourself from that when it was your administration that handed out "legendary member" and "honored veteran" status to banned members? Doesnt that mean you yourself made the decision that these members really are at a higher status, and so doesnt any mess those members created in some way reflect on your decision to hand out such titles? also in lieue of 2 legendary members and 1 honored veteran having all their scores stripped, it would sure appear to me you disproportianately handed out such accolades to those least worthy. in sight of dispute decisions and banning to you see how these titles elevating some gamers above other is problematic, do you intend to change such titles, and could you elaborate on what critieria you used to hand out such titles in the first place
    Sorry. I guess I missed what you brought up earlier. Let me answer now -

    Firstly, I've never intended to project that I am ever trying to "distance myself" from TG's past mistakes, if I have come across that way at times, I apologize. To accept TG, is to accept the whole of it - both the good and the bad - and I do that wholeheartedly and believe that its mega-history is part of why it is so special.

    The "distancing" you may be perceiving from me is not supposed to be from "TG's history", but only from how the previous ownership chose to structure and manage TG processes and decisions.

    What I try to do, is remind people that a lot of the historical problems that I'm trying to deal with, were not the result of decisions I was responsible for. Therefore they should afford me the benefit of the doubt and understand that my motivation in the various matters are likely not going to be the same as the people who generated the problem in the first place.

    I'll give you an example: At one point there was an assumption and community pre-disposition that I would somehow automatically have a personal interest in "protecting" certain individuals from objective scrutinizing processes just simply based on who they are. The foundation of that assumption was legitimately rooted in historical TG ownership behavior.

    I would try to attempt to illustrate that I was not that previous ownership and therefore the assumption that I would have a similar predisposition as that of the previous ownership was in total error. To that end, I can see the notion of "distancing" but it was only intended to be within that kind of context.

    however, can you truly distance yourself from that when it was your administration that handed out "legendary member" and "honored veteran" status to banned members? Doesnt that mean you yourself made the decision that these members really are at a higher status, and so doesnt any mess those members created in some way reflect on your decision to hand out such titles? also in lieue of 2 legendary members and 1 honored veteran having all their scores stripped, it would sure appear to me you disproportianately handed out such accolades to those least worthy.
    This is very easy for me to answer.

    When I put "legendary member" or "honored veteran" into people's "status" it was very much random and not systematic or thought through in any meaningful way. This mostly took place earlier in the new TG era and frankly I forgot about it (haven't done it in a looong time) and I personally didn't think much of the moniker beyond it being similar to someone's signature block text at the bottom of their post (which can be anything a person wants.)

    There is no current "TG specific system" hierarchal structure to the "status" feature of the profile other than what was built in to the original web site software we based the site on, which I think uses account existence time or number of posts or something like that to "elevate" status.

    Anyway, in trying to think back as to why I did that for some people initially (and randomly, probably due to an interaction with them at that moment) I believe it was just based on either my early perception of their total historical contribution to Twin Galaxies before I arrived, or maybe I saw they've been a registered member of the site for a very long period of time and the site used a default status text to describe it and I thought it sounded lame.

    Bottom line, until right now - I really did not think much about it at all. I never even thought of the "status" as carrying any true verifiable meaning. No one until you has ever directly said anything to me about it that I've noticed so I had no idea that anyone actually attributed much meaning to the status title either and i assumed it was more of "signature line" type of thing. No one that I can remember even messaged me requesting that I change their "status" to anything, which would help organically clue me in to it having meaning for people on the site, so I guess my point is it was always below my radar as a point of concern.

    With that being said, after now having my attention specifically put on it in a manner in which I recognize the possible perceived significance of it, I agree it was / is a problem and should not have been done at all without there being a clear system of how it actually works put in place.

    My error. Complete apology from me.

    I honestly can't remember who else I may have changed the status of over these years. I assure you it is all random momentary happenstance in terms of why someone had theirs change. Like filling out name tags at a party. If you could point them out to me I will remove any alterations I made back to default (whatever it is.) That is what should be done in my opinion, now that I realize.

    Also, now that you got me on the subject, I think the "status" line could be something interesting, other than what default titles are. I'm open to suggestions to make the site more fun and interesting in this area. When we get more resources perhaps we can add ideas there.

    Not sure if that was the kind of answer you were hoping for, but that definitely is the truth!
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
    Likes datagod liked this post
Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 256
Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Join us