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. 12-09-2019, 10:13 AM
    havent caught up on all the comments, but i can see i owe jace an apology so i want to do that before forgetting. I did not realize honored veteran was based on comment count. I incorrectly concluded it was a title you handed out to select members like "legendary" (which i'm pretty sure cant possibly be vote count and must've been hand picked by you, especially by your follow up comments, but if i'm wrong i guess sorry for that too)
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes datagod liked this post
  2. 12-09-2019, 11:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by RTM View Post
    RTM REPLY - Jace, that's a step in the right direction. Best to avoid user-defined status terms at all costs as it could lead to confusion as well such as if some users chose to give themselves a status indicating some form of administration, management, moderator or other potentially staff-oriented terms.

    A widely varied listing such as yours gives the added appeal of people now striving for something higher (no pun intended) for their efforts. My only suggestion is to retain in place that "minimum character post" setting else you will get a G4 Forum situation where users would routinely post "LOL" and smiley faces just to get their post counts up. In today's social-media driven world "counts" of posts, likes and followers is all the rage so best to have such terms earned thru at least minimally substantive posts.
    lol well stated rtm well stated indeed. i have more to say on this which i will save for other comments
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
  3. 12-09-2019, 02:34 PM
    Took a day off for football and work, but don't worry, I haven't disappeared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    First it was "It should be on your wall instead of mine, because you're the creator." Then it was because "I didn't want to just trash all your hard work." Then it was "I've never given you a reason." And now it's...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    So now the reason is that the large block of text on your wall was unsightly? I know, I know. You're not saying that's "the reason", or even "a reason". But you just toss that out there like it is.

    This is like if you get home and find the candy bars in the fridge are gone, and your housemate says "We needed more room in the fridge," and "You said you were trying to eat less candy," and "I like to reward neighbor kids whenever they do some yard work," but insisting none of those are reasons why they're gone, but rather arbitrary facts that your housemate has coincidentally chosen this moment to recall, without ever actually stating a reason why the candy bars are gone, all despite being asked.

    For the record, on the subject of this unsightly wall of text Jace felt compelled to remove from his wall, this is what Jace's wall looks like right now:

    Name:  Jace Hall wall example.png
Views: 94
Size:  468.2 KB

    (FWIW, in case there's any misinterpretation, I'll note that the top post pertains specifically to "occasional discord" on permanent TGSAP threads, and is not a reference to this back-and-forth.)

    It seems as if you would have people believe that you were looking to cut down on a massive wall of text that was cluttering your wall? That's an interesting picture to paint, but that's what the "Read More" links are for. Like, believe what you want, but that's just not a reason for removing content several hours later, setting it up somewhere else, and replacing it with a description and link.

    I just really don't get why the mischaracterizations are necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    Well, I definitely do not know the reason for some of the #2 I'm seeing, but with regards to your decision to remove my content from your wall, I want to be crystal clear. I don't have any right to the space on your wall, nor do I deserve a reason for you choosing to remove something on your wall. I honestly did appreciate the shout-out to my work, but at the same time, this was something that was promoting your own side in a public tussle, so I considered it a mutual benefit rather than a particular favor. You were helping yourself by promoting it, which was totally understandable, and totally cool. (Unless I'm somehow misunderstanding your motivation in posting it to your wall. Perhaps it was "Re-post random content to your wall" day.) Again, you own the space on your wall. You can do with it what you want. I don't care. You never had to ask my permission to do anything with your space. But you did require my permission to move it to my wall. (I mean, it's your website, and you technically could have done it if you wanted, but it would have been inappropriate to put it on my wall without my permission.) You present it as though the act of moving it to my wall was a requisite for removing it from yours, and thus something that does not require an explanation. You suggest that you chose to remove it from your wall, therefore in order to do so, it had to be moved to mine, and thus my permission must first be secured. In fact, I recall the removal from your wall was pending my response. But the content didn't have to stay up at all, on any wall. It was all on the dispute thread anyway. It didn't have to be on anyone's wall. These were not two unrelated things (and even if they were, it wouldn't explain any of this). This was a move. It was a deliberate move. You have to have a reason for wanting to go to the bother of moving it, don't you?

    So why did you want it on my wall at all, rather than yours? Oh, let me guess. "It's because you were the creator."

    All your stated reasoning here is circular. It's all variations of "I did it, because I did it. That's the reason for doing it. It needed to be done." As if you just go around acting on ideas with no motivation or rationale behind them whatsoever. Nobody operates like that. I'm not even sure legit crazy people operate like that.

    What's funny to me about that is, somehow your portrayal of yourself is even less flattering than any picture I'm painting. Like, you want us to believe you're some sort of mystery riddle box out of which baseless decisions and actions emerge?

    At the end of the day, you can play your weird little social games if you want. Thankfully, you are not a person I have to deal with in my real life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    Okay, let me see if I can explain the distinction. Let's say Billy actually does follow through with his lawsuit threat. Here are three scenarios:

    1) Attorney for Plaintiff: "I'd like to enter into evidence this screenshot from Jace Hall's website where a user makes disparaging remarks about my client." Your answer: "There's a lot of people who post on the website, and there are legal limits to what I can and cannot censor. I'm not responsible for what some rando says."

    2) Attorney for Plaintiff: "I'd like to enter into evidence this screenshot from Jace Hall's website where a user makes disparaging remarks about my client, as well as this second screenshot where defendant Hall links to those comments." Your answer: "The user post contained valuable evidence pertaining to a case of importance to the site, which I wished to bring attention to. [Although in Jace-ese, I suppose that would be "I wanted to link to it because I wanted to link to it, because linking to it was what I sought to do."] The fact that the evidence presentation on that user's wall was inseparable from any disparaging remarks they may have also made is not something I controlled, but those remarks were not of relevance to me. The evidence was my sole focus."

    3) Attorney for Plaintiff: "I'd like to enter into evidence this screenshot from Jace Hall's personal blog where he directly quotes and reprints another user's disparaging remarks about my client." Your answer: "The intention was to re-post valuable evidence pertaining to a case of importance to the site, which I wished to bring attention to." Rebuttal: "Given the post was quite long and you were free to quote selective portions of your choosing, why did you choose to repeat and amplify these disparaging remarks along with the evidence which you claim was your sole focus?"

    And if you still don't understand the distinction, please ask that lawyer whose advice you never take, and I'm sure they'd be happy to explain it to you.

    (To be crystal clear, what I'm actually saying is that you do understand the distinction, and that was why you wanted it off your wall and on mine, to create that degree of separation. As I said before, the proposal was a solution to a "non-existent" problem, except insofar as that was the issue that needed solving. I just don't understand the silly charade and the "I did this for no reason whatsoever" dance.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Please consider that you may have possibly come to the wrong conclusion on my motivation on this matter.

    Look, I don't even particularly care about the reasoning behind any of this. I just don't understand why you feel compelled to force these bogus lines of rationale. It's like giving weak excuses when no excuse was needed at all. I don't understand why the obfuscation, why the insistence on reductive, circular reasoning, on something that was so simple, and needed no particular justification in the first place.

    I suppose I should thank you. Admittedly, I was a bit trepidatious about bringing up this whole bit about the wall post in the first place. The peculiar nature of the offer as stated was clear to me, but I wasn't sure the point I was trying to make would properly convey, why this rather small, relatively insignificant interaction was so unusual and (in light of many other observations) so revealing. I don't know if anyone's bothering to read all this mess at this point, but if they are, I feel like you've been proving my own point for me.

    And again, if I haven't made this clear by now, the point isn't that this wall stuff is important, or that it matters what Jace has on his wall or what reasons he gives for it. What matters is, this is the guy who handles dispute adjudication on the site. He handles relatively important matters relating to competitive gaming history the same way he handles all this other stuff. What matters is that this is an illustration of who he is. (And I could go into why his dispute administration is equally obtuse, but I feel like that's becoming a dead horse.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious. This is unreal.

    Here's what I actually said, the whole quote you were replying to, of which you snipped out a tiny bit to respond to:

    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post
    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.

    I wasn't speaking of your decision to listen to what Rodrigo had to say. What I was addressing was the decision to appease Rodrigo's unreasonable demands that his disputers, who are backing their case on solid technical evidence and who have worked hard on their own time to either verify or (potentially to Rodrigo's benefit) possibly to refute this body of evidence, why after all this work they should have to face punitive terms equivalent to what he was facing for having cheated based on his decision to withhold key evidence up to that point.

    The "exercise" was the choice, by you - you you you - to give credence to that particular groundless grievance of Rodrigo's, and to do so in such a way as to delegitimize the dispute process in favor of a theatrical show. And that whole bit was a response to another previous mischaracterization by you that dispute thread theatrics were limited to the actions of others, when I was clearly speaking of your own.

    It is, of course, wholly appropriate for people with scores on the scoreboard (accused or otherwise) to have and express an opinion on the dispute process, and for those suggestions to be weighed fairly on their merits. I never said otherwise, no matter what strawman you would prefer to argue against.
  4. 12-09-2019, 04:41 PM
    Ok real fast responses for @ersatz_cats!

    First it was "It should be on your wall instead of mine, because you're the creator." Then it was because "I didn't want to just trash all your hard work." Then it was "I've never given you a reason." And now it's...
    Nope. Wrong again. A quick step-through:

    1.) Needed to remove from my wall (my reason for doing this is unstated)
    2.) Didn't want to just delete the work into the nothingness. It was lifted from the adjudication thread, properly formatted and structured for a wall post (which is different than the forum post), and I thought you might want it placed on your wall since you were the source. Had no idea you already had it there. Just was being courteous and asking you if I could place it there. No? No big deal. Just was asking. Honestly.

    There nothing more to it. I've told you this now in numerous ways and no matter how I try to communicate it, you just look for something else to support your "theory" about my "motivations." Godspeed to you sir.

    So now the reason is that the large block of text on your wall was unsightly? I know, I know. You're not saying that's "the reason", or even "a reason". But you just toss that out there like it is.
    Look at you. Wow. Absolutely nowhere did I mention anything about "unsightly" or anything. Nothing man... Nothing. Where did you get that?

    I didn't "toss the fact" that I removed a large block of text from my wall as a reason for why I was doing it. Not at all.

    You see. What you did with this issue is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Clear as day.

    I said I removed a block of text from my wall, and you, in true conspiracy-form, try to derive the "reason" that it has something to do with it being "unsightly."

    You do understand that your choice and discussion of this specific "reason" comes purely from you, right?

    First there is nothing. Then there is the reason you decided to write and talk about. I wasn't involved in its concept or creation. All you. 100%

    You could have also chosen the "reason" to be "so Jace can avoid the Gnome invasion" and that would have been equally as incorrect and from your own imagination.

    Why do you insist on trying to assume the reason and rationale behind what I am doing? I just don't get it. You may want to try asking me about why I am doing something first, before assuming or creating any reason out of your imagination, it may get you more accuracy in your understanding. If I won't tell you, after you specifically ask me, then sure, imagine away!

    So why did you want it on my wall at all, rather than yours? Oh, let me guess. "It's because you were the creator."
    Please stop guessing. I didn't "want" it anywhere. It's not about me "wanting" anything.

    As I stated above, I was asking if it was ok for me to move it to your wall because I assumed based on your THANK and LIKE on my wall on the actual post itself that indicated you valued the post and so I thought you may have wanted it on your wall. Not in a big-deal sort of way, just in more of a "hey do you want this, sort of way." Obviously you wanted the information on your wall because you had already placed it there (unknown to me at that time) so its not like I was totally off-base in interpreting your communication about the post.

    Dude, I was just asking you something simple and trying to do something courteous. There's nothing more to it.

    As intelligent as you clearly are, it is astonishing to me that you refuse to accept that I was simply being nice and respectful - and instead you spend all this energy on figuring out my magical "plans within plans" that actually make no logical sense and focus on "dishonest" motivation theory.

    It seems as if you would have people believe that you were looking to cut down on a massive wall of text that was cluttering your wall? That's an interesting picture to paint, but that's what the "Read More" links are for. Like, believe what you want, but that's just not a reason for removing content several hours later, setting it up somewhere else, and replacing it with a description and link.
    "I would have people believe?" Where did that come from? I'm not telling people anything. You just now "decided" my reason was that it was "unsightly" and now you are diving deep into it, and yep you guessed it, the "reason" you decided for me this time again does not make sense - because you are right, "that's just not a reason for removing content several hours later, setting it up somewhere else, and replacing it with a description and link."

    So that's right, it's just not a reason. Doesn't make sense does it? Why then would you think that "unsightly" could ever be my reason? Why would you make that up, explore it, realize it makes no sense, and then try to call me out on something you created and I never even said or indicated? I just dont get it. This is how your whole entire presentation of things seems to be.

    (To be crystal clear, what I'm actually saying is that you do understand the distinction, and that was why you wanted it off your wall and on mine, to create that degree of separation. As I said before, the proposal was a solution to a "non-existent" problem, except insofar as that was the issue that needed solving. I just don't understand the silly charade and the "I did this for no reason whatsoever" dance.)
    You have gone down the rabbit hole. I have not, or ever implied, that "I did this for no reason." I have only stated that you don't know the reason, and when you assert that you do, you are mistaken.

    Now, if you think anything of legal significance would be hanging on some highly subjective distinction regarding a link on my wall to a post someone else made, versus a fully credited reposting of a post someone else made, then all it tells me is that you have likely not been through numerous civil litigations that pertain to these kinds of subjects. I will just thank you for your legal opinion and move on.

    Of course this is all beside the point - Your point of even bringing it up is to try to somehow assert that you know what was in my head - which according to you it for some reason apparently was some kind of "legal distinction" nonsense you spelled out - which is silly in the first place - AND aside from the fact that I know your "distinction-theory" is something a judge would absolutely not care about in the context of any lawsuit brought against TG, the whole subject, concept, notion of Mr. Mitchell in its totality was totally not what I was thinking or having anything to do with as it relates to why I was doing what I was doing.

    Normally I will let most things slide, but for this one you have cooked up, I have to say come on man, really?

    Are you really trying to say that all my energy on this is expressed on the basis of your proposed super-subtle-nuanced-differential description?

    You honestly think that is why I went through all the hoops and etc.? Are you kidding me? It makes no sense. If I really had a concern, I would just delete the post completely with no reference. It's that easy and much cleaner. Wouldn't that be easier than all this "transferring" and "permission asking?" Just a simple delete. All done. Seriously, be real.

    The "motivational reasons" you supply for me to be doing all this stuff are flatly ridiculous. They just do not make logical sense at all in anything other than a whacky conspiracy-for-the-point-of-conspiracy universe. Good lord.

    This "distinction" motivation is just like the above "unsightly" motivation you created. Your MO seems to be: decide what my "reason" is, go down the rabbit hole on it, and then of course the answer doesn't actually make logical sense - but you hold on to it because it fits your narrative about me.

    If that what makes your world work for you, I guess it is what it is. Not going to try to change it.

    During our discussion, one thing I realized was that we were spending all this time talking about my "motivations", but you haven't really mentioned yours. I thought that was interesting - but I now realize there was no need.

    You see, at first I thought you were actually being sincere in your conversation with me, but then I recently took the time to actually look at your Reddit post and can determine that you may be essentially playing to an audience. That helped me understand better where you may be coming from.

    Hey, that's fine for you, and if it is helping your self-esteem or makes you feel more popular or whatever I'm glad for it and no worries - but I really can't keep engaging for that purpose. You got your show, and now its time for me to move on.

    I do thank you for your opinion and feedback. I will work to be better and so will TG. Thank you again.
    Likes datagod, Barthax liked this post
  5. 12-09-2019, 06:23 PM
    wow this has been a real eye opener. is this what i sound like fighting with rtm or a.d.?

    i read every comment and its taxing. i dont wanna skip anything unless theres something important mixed in.

    you've both made your point thoroughly, and you havent you never will.

    ersatz, there are many times i suspect jace is misleading or even lying -- what business owner isnt. but you've focused on such a minor thing where mind reading really is required i'm frankly not convinced you caught him in a lie. its a weird point to choose from when there are other examples. you've stated your case in full, just ask him what his motivation was. now that you've thoroughly beaten him over the head with your claims and examples ask as the final straw. i can see not asking right away, give him enough rope to hang himself, and then pull out your win. well how much more rope do you need to give him? you've gotten all the info out of him, now ask him to tell him you're reason and go for the win if you think you have it

    jace same deal. i actually in this case find your story plausible. but i dont get repeatedly asking ersatz to ask you. just tell him the reason. you've thoroughly made your point that he's making a conclusion without asking. you've also given him all the rope he needs to hang himsel now go for the win

    fine, i'll ask the question. Jace Hall, would you please be so kind as to enlighten me on the exact reason why you moved ersatz post to his wall.
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Barthax, ersatz_cats liked this post
  6. 12-09-2019, 09:35 PM
    Echoing Snowflake, just wanted to point out that ersatz_cats posed the question in a post on 8 Dec 2019, but was apparently overlooked.

    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post

    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?
    Thanks Snowflake, ersatz_cats thanked this post
    Likes Snowflake, ersatz_cats liked this post
  7. 12-09-2019, 09:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by The Evener View Post
    Echoing Snowflake, just wanted to point out that ersatz_cats posed the question in a post on 8 Dec 2019, but was apparently overlooked.
    wow two apolgoies from me in one thread, this is embarassing. my apologies to ersatz for forgetting that. i do recall it now but forget as i read through the other stuff.

    Other than that my point remains, jace please answer the question, this can be ended.
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes The Evener, ersatz_cats liked this post
  8. 12-09-2019, 10:03 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninglendo View Post
    Gee, it makes you wonder what the motive was for active competitors wanting to "help out" by becoming refs knowing what we know now...


    RTM REPLY - that's a very valid point. Initially refs were hand-selected by the management team based on our personal experience in dealing with them. The process was slow at first but in time things picked up. By 2005 there was a larger influx of referees and it was hard to keep track of who was a TG staffer at that point so someone (I forget who) was charged with maintaining the TG staff link for the front page. I am not even sure at that point if Walter himself gave the ratification for all incoming staffers as there were so many being brought onboard.
    Likes Snowflake, Ninglendo liked this post
  9. 12-09-2019, 10:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    ...plans within plans...
    The spice must flow!
    Help me beat Snowflake at the "Like Game"
    Creator of Arcade Retro Clock


  10. 12-10-2019, 01:22 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by RTM View Post
    RTM REPLY - that's a very valid point. Initially refs were hand-selected by the management team based on our personal experience in dealing with them. The process was slow at first but in time things picked up. By 2005 there was a larger influx of referees and it was hard to keep track of who was a TG staffer at that point so someone (I forget who) was charged with maintaining the TG staff link for the front page. I am not even sure at that point if Walter himself gave the ratification for all incoming staffers as there were so many being brought onboard.
    The staff page responsibility was given to myself but that fact got lost on whomever was hiring & it quickly fell in+out of accuracy as I struggled to "find out" what was going on myself - "growing pains".
    Last edited by Barthax; 12-10-2019 at 01:25 AM.
Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 11 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 261
Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 11 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Join us