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. 12-11-2019, 12:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Your phone number is held by Twin Galaxies specifically for account related authorization, verification, security and administrative matters only.

    Authorization was needed to perform the action suggested. Your wall can not be touched without your permission other than moderation to comply with TOS parameters..

    I would personally never ask someone else for your phone number. Nor would I try to contact you directly about anything other than a site specific matter.

    Thank you for the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Try this:

    "Hey is it ok if I give you $100? You could spend it!"

    You could answer YES or NO or say WHY are you giving me $100?

    If you asked WHY, I would have told you the reason.

    But you just say YES.

    I say OK, here you go!

    That's it.

    It does not occur to me that I need to explain why I am giving you $100. It's $100. Reason enough unto itself to want to take it. If you don't want it thats ok too. Im just asking. I'm not trying to hide anything.

    Only way I know how to explain it.

    Okay, I like my analogies as much as anyone, but I try, I make a sincere effort, to make them reasonable. And suggesting you were offering me a free hundy is just not a reasonable comparison.

    Free $100? Sure man.

    To put it more directly, it's clear why it's in my interest to involve myself in that transaction. And while your motivations would certainly be puzzling, at the end of the day, I can't worry too much about that. I know what I'm doing, and I have to assume you know what you're doing as well. That said, still entertaining your analogy, if I had reason to suspect you didn't know what you were doing, perhaps you just had a head injury or you're old and suffering from dementia, then I would in fact be an a**hole for taking your money, even if it is freely given by you. I also have to consider if this monetary exchange somehow compels me or implicates me in some legally turbulent matter. For instance, I used to work with someone who occasionally stole company property and then tried to "give" me portions of it. I was on to it immediately, it was an attempt to implicate me in her crime, and I never accepted a "gift" from her of any kind for the rest of the time we worked together. It's not like there are zero implications whatsoever of motivation-analysis at play. But all that said, yeah, I'm likely to be quite agreeable to the arrangement.

    In this case, as I've said many times, this wasn't a free $100 being slapped on the table. That's so silly that you would paint it like that. For my end, this was a solution to a non-existent problem. Thing doesn't have to be on my wall. I would've put it there if I'd wanted. Didn't have to be on your wall, either. Not a concern on my end. Nothing. You wanted it there, and instead of just saying "Hey, I'd like this on your wall" (totally fine) or "I have to remove it from my wall, but maybe you'll want it on yours instead" (also totally fine) or something, it was this weird "It should be there so it sits with its creator." It's not the fact that you asked something, it's that you dropped a silly reason which I saw right through.

    (As an aside, true story, my boss literally just gave me a $100 bonus for Thanksgiving. It was generous, and it was also self-explanatory, given that it was $100, and I'm his employee. On the other hand, I'm not your employee, and your offer was not free money. You just very clearly were seeking something.)

    Should I have simply asked why? Again, your real reason wasn't really my business at the time. Obviously I went along with the thing. I just found it weird. Who does that? It was in following the Rodrigo dispute, in the context of previous score disputes, that all of this finally clicked. How the already peculiar standard of evidence is always shifting despite insistence otherwise, plus the push for speedrunners to sign statements as a basis for score removal, plus the remarks on data collection that don't make sense. (I know I said I'd leave that topic alone after your statement, which I did appreciate but of which I'm also still skeptical, but this was part of what brought this all together.) All this came together to say, "Oh, this guy just does whatever he wants, he has reasons for doing things like any sane person, but instead of saying those reasons, he comes up with other reasons that sound better to him." Which I suppose doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but it is problematic when this is the guy overseeing what is (relatively speaking) a judicial matter, and he's doing this inane dance in matters of adjudication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    It should be with the creator. TRUE
    I just wanted to be courteous. ALSO TRUE
    I didnt want to trash all your work. TRUE (I didn't know you had it on your wall already, and I knew my version was cleaner than adjudication thread version)

    All things these were true and in alignment with my asking for permission. Nothing false here - and all are reasons that I wanted permission to transfer to your wall - but none are reasons why I wanted to remove the post from my wall. I hope that made sense.

    Alright, I do get what you're saying. All of those are reasons why you had to / wanted to check with me before implementing your plan. They just have nothing to do with compelling me to act in something that was not necessary. What was weird was your inability to make your request about what you sought, on the basis that you were seeking it, rather than as a solution to my non-existent problem.
  2. 12-11-2019, 11:20 PM
    Hey @ersatz_cats.

    For what it's worth, I consider the matter resolved and in no way am trying to actually argue or convince you of anything further at this point. Please know that.

    -BUT-

    The point of the $100 comparison example I gave, was completely missed. This means that indeed my example was not a good one.

    For what its worth I was trying to provide you a high level systemic mechanical comparison, not a content interpretive contextual one.

    Not a big deal.

    Also -

    Should I have simply asked why?
    YES. All problems would have been immediately solved by you doing this. At the time, and just like now, I had/have nothing to hide. If a message I sent to you didn't make sense, at worst it is merely a communication error that needs to be clarified. No way for me to know that you are being confused or do not have enough information without being able to get feedback.

    It's not the fact that you asked something, it's that you dropped a silly reason which I saw right through.
    This is that "deceptive" undertone that you seem to imply of my action. There was no attempt at deception. I assure you that there was nothing to "see through."

    Looking at your statement, I believe the heart of what you may actually mean is this:

    "I thought that what you wrote in your message contained a representation regarding the reason you were doing the "removal." This "reason" that I believed I was being provided, made no sense. So I could "see through" it on that basis."

    Now in a sense, you are correct. You could see through the "supplied reason" I was moving the content off my wall, because it actually wasn't my reason I was moving content off my wall. The "supplied reason" that was in the message was an attempt to explain why you may want the content on your wall.

    So the issue may have been that you perhaps felt that the absence of my reason was inherently deceptive, when in fact the absence of my reason was nothing more than than the fact it did not even occur to me that one would even be necessary.

    No deception intended.

    I guess my half-baked internal thought could be loosely summarized as:

    "Who cares why I want to do something? Pointless! What matters is why you would want to accept. Here is a reason why you would want to allow this."

    So that brings us all the way back around to, YES - it would have been better to have asked me. Just doing that would have let me know that information was needed, and I would have happily provided it. You must realize, I did not know there was an issue on this whole matter until you finally brought it up!

    Putting all of the above academic postulation aside, and just jumping into your shoes, and now having some idea of how you (and possibly others) process something like this, I can definitely see how just my simple act of not including that information (my reason) could seem "weird" or unnatural to you (hence, possibly "deceptive.")

    To that omission I don't have an explanation really. There wasn't a meaning or intention behind it. Maybe I was just thinking/moving to fast when I wrote the message and sent it. Most likely is that I just didn't really think about it. As I explained in a previous post, the whole matter was really just a low priority musing.

    They just have nothing to do with compelling me to act in something that was not necessary.
    I was not trying to "compel" you to do anything. I don't think in that manner. It was just a question! If you had said no, it would have been just fine.

    Now in regard to your Rodrgio dispute thoughts, here is all I will say -

    Despite other characterizations, I can assure you that the Rodrigo dispute was handled with a global consistency in relation to other disputes.

    I'll explain:

    As mentioned elsewhere, disputes are all unique and are handled on the basis of their uniqueness (while trying to remain within the general dispute claim review guidelines as much as possible.) Rodrigo's dispute case had a number of never-before-seen thematic elements that have no corresponding analogues in other dispute cases - resulting in a highly unique situation that required custom expansion and adaption of the domain of the dispute claim process itself.

    The fact that this "growth" took place is very consistent with the application of the dispute claim concept of addressing each dispute claim case uniquely and as comprehensively as reasonably possible. Various disputes have "grown" our system, and that is the global consistency I am referring to.

    So far, where dispute claim cases have introduced elements that seem to not be fully accounted for in the initial dispute claim system design, the dispute claim system's policies are carefully and logically stretched / modified / excepted / reinterpreted where/if needed to accommodate the highly unique circumstance. Learnings and improvement come from this.

    It may be possible that some of your disappointment in the Rodrigo case relates to wanting to see more consistency at discrete procedural lower levels, but this kind of rigidity can not happen at the cost of the larger macro-mission and function of purpose of the dispute claim system itself. The larger goal will tend to override any procedural parameter if push-comes-to-shove.

    It also must be considered that the dispute claim system is still immature and has not had to process a wide variety of vastly different circumstances. Perhaps the discrete lower level of consistency you (and some others) wish to see can be possible once the system has processed many thousands of unique circumstances, and has matured as a result - because it is only through that kind of repeated exercise can the system be continuously expanded in policy and practice.

    While I agree that can all seem kind of "whimsical", I can assure you that it is not. For something as critical as the dispute claim system, yes it is very important to have rigidity and tight consistency as much as possible, and we strive for that - but Twin Galaxies must not make the giant historic mistake that it has in the past, which was to remain so rule-rigid as to become inflexible.

    Twin Galaxies' "flexibility" at certain times will of course seem to produce "inconsistency". In the larger picture over time you will see that it actually is not being inconsistent, its just growing and building layer upon layer. Each previous layer just a smaller sub-set of the new layer being placed on top. Effectively reverse engineering a comprehensive and evolved set of policies into existence.

    The ability to change is a requirement for growth. Growth requires continuous but controlled experimentation as well as simultaneously capturing and sticking with what works for consistency.

    It is a difficult line to walk - and obviously will incur criticism as it goes - but the goal is correct, the intention is pure, the mission is clear.

    That's it.
  3. 12-13-2019, 12:22 PM
    So before I reply to your new remarks, I want to go back and point out something I noticed from earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Your phone number is held by Twin Galaxies specifically for account related authorization, verification, security and administrative matters only.

    Authorization was needed to perform the action suggested. Your wall can not be touched without your permission other than moderation to comply with TOS parameters..

    I would personally never ask someone else for your phone number. Nor would I try to contact you directly about anything other than a site specific matter.

    That was your answer to my direct question of "From where did you get my phone number?" After that, I said "Thank you for the answer." Then, while at work, I was thinking about all this and laughing at the ridiculousness going on, when I realized... Technically, you never actually did answer the question! I'm surprised I didn't notice that in the first place. What you said was:

    - TG (the organization) holds my phone number for administrative matters,

    - You needed my permission for your switcheroo,

    - You would never ask anyone for my phone number.

    But you didn't actually say where you, personally, got it. Now, don't get me wrong. I know what you meant by what you said. You meant that you got my number from my account info in your database. Perfectly understood. But you never actually said that's where you (not TG the organization, but you, Jace Hall) got my phone number. With the many times over nonsense of "I never gave you a reason," now it has me wondering, is that going to be another issue later? Are we going to have a question of personal data access come up later, and are you going to do a "*GASP!!!* IIIIIIIIIIII never said I looked up your number in the TG database!!" I would hope not. Reasonably there wouldn't be a distinction. But at this point, I don't even know what to expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Now in a sense, you are correct. You could see through the "supplied reason" I was moving the content off my wall, because it actually wasn't my reason I was moving content off my wall. The "supplied reason" that was in the message was an attempt to explain why you may want the content on your wall.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Putting all of the above academic postulation aside, and just jumping into your shoes, and now having some idea of how you (and possibly others) process something like this, I can definitely see how just my simple act of not including that information (my reason) could seem "weird" or unnatural to you (hence, possibly "deceptive.")

    Okay, I wasn't expecting this at this point, but I think we are coming to a bit of an understanding on this wall post silliness. I just want to be clear on one thing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    So that brings us all the way back around to, YES - it would have been better to have asked me. Just doing that would have let me know that information was needed, and I would have happily provided it. You must realize, I did not know there was an issue on this whole matter until you finally brought it up!

    So maybe I'm not making myself clear. I didn't ask what your reason was because I didn't particularly care what it was. It wasn't important to me what the actual answer was (and as I said before, I had an idea what it was). Again, I went along with the thing. Honestly, I only asked here in this thread at your insistence, after I had first raised the issue, and because you told me the reason I had presumed (which I still say should have been a consideration for you) was baseless. It was a non-issue for me as well, in that the actual answer didn't ultimately matter. What mattered was you appearing to float out justifications to me that were ostensibly to my benefit, as was done several times in this discussion, when I could see right through them, establishing a pattern and instilling a certain lack of confidence in one's ability to be forthright about the goals one is actually looking to achieve at a given moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    The fact that this "growth" took place is very consistent with the application of the dispute claim concept of addressing each dispute claim case uniquely and as comprehensively as reasonably possible. Various disputes have "grown" our system, and that is the global consistency I am referring to.

    So far, where dispute claim cases have introduced elements that seem to not be fully accounted for in the initial dispute claim system design, the dispute claim system's policies are carefully and logically stretched / modified / excepted / reinterpreted where/if needed to accommodate the highly unique circumstance. Learnings and improvement come from this.

    Yeah, but we're not talking about growth. I was on board with that notion until this dispute. Some degree of inconsistency is fine, as long as it's a matter of shooting for a clear goal and occasionally missing. I disagreed with processes and outcomes in previous disputes, but I held out hope you all would figure it out. Because, even though it is your scoreboard, this still relates to relatively important matters of gaming history. (For instance, ensuing mockery aside, you would have been within your right to continue recognizing Todd Rogers and Billy Mitchell if you so chose, and one could say all that was at stake was your organization's credibility. But if you had decided to dismiss the disputes against them, it would also give public credence to an idea that perhaps their records actually were legitimate historically, to say nothing of the Guinness connection. That is why, as an outsider to TG, I do consider these matters worth engaging.)

    To be clear, here were the unique circumstances you cited in the Rodrigo dispute thread:

    1.) There is a lot of evidence presented and a good portion of it is objective, however the supplied objective evidence is not fully "definitive" as measured by the strictest TG dispute standard that other disputes have had to meet for score removal.

    2.) While the volume of evidence is not definitive, it is most certainly reached a highly compelling level and does warrant compulsory Twin Galaxies administrative engagement.

    3.) It is clear that the score record holder, Rodrigo Lopes, has established that he maintains the original performance video and has access to it. However, he is unwilling to share the video, which is his prerogative of course.

    4.) Without public access to the videos for review, it may be potentially unreasonably difficult to definitively measure the dispute claims against the score. Many disputed scores fall into this category, but this dispute case is unique in that the issue is compounded by the tacit admission of the score submitter that they are in possession of the score performance video but will not release it despite the tremendous work done by the dispute participants to examine all other elements and exhaust all reasonable possibilities, leaving nothing but the tape itself as the unexplored area.

    6.) Twin Galaxies has encountered a unique dispute situation and circumstance that must be dealt with specifically and uniquely. Situations like this are precisely why score disputes must be handled on a case-by-case individualized basis.
    Link: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...09#post1060309

    I don't know what happened to #5, maybe it was censored by admin, who knows. At any rate, those items 1-6 (minus 5) you cited are legitimately enough to remove a score, and likely enough for a ban as well. Full stop. However, rather than act on this evidence, your solution to this was to invite top Zelda speedrunners from offsite to sign up with TG, provide their real info (including home addresses), and sign statements asserting their belief that Twin Galaxies has been "very thorough, fair, and reasonable" [oxford comma added by me] in adjudicating the dispute, as well as asserting their belief in the evidence. Your goal was to get five such statements, saying once that condition was met, you would levy a lifetime ban against Rodrigo Lopes and a full score removal (which, hours later, got reduced to a partial score removal and a length-to-be-determined ban).

    Now, I understand that, even though Twin Galaxies oversees an all-encompassing scoreboard (as opposed to SRC moderators who oversee scoreboards just for the games in which they specialize), you can never be a technical authority on all games, so you must rely on others' expertise at times. However, you already had experts on the game chiming in with their expertise as to why Rodrigo's level 9 spawn patterns (which matched cheated runs from Michael Damiani) were not possible legitimately. I just don't get A) how this offer was at all in any way congruent with the repeated claim that score removals must be done on the basis of objective, definitive evidence (which you now seem to be suggesting is more malleable than has always been expressed), or B) how this offer really contributed to advancing the evidence against Rodrigo at all, when the information being cited was already public knowledge, and was already backed by Zelda experts. (To say nothing of any potential distinction between Zelda speedrunners and Zelda technical experts who don't run the game.)

    Like, I'm trying to imagine you, sitting in your big comfy chair, thinking about the evidence against Rodrigo, as accumulated by dispute participants, as well as the circumstances surrounding Rodrigo's possession of the tape, and thinking "This evidence isn't quite enough for a ban and score wipe," but deciding the one ingredient you were missing in this evidence stew was having a few Zelda speedrunners join your site and sign your thing. I'm trying to imagine you sitting up and thinking "Hey hey, NOW we have a case! That's the last part we need!" And similarly, I'm trying to imagine all this happening, you in that big comfy chair thinking this through in this fashion, and never once thinking "Oh, and it'll be cool to get TG some publicity by having some notable speedrunners sign their names on our site," as if that wasn't a factor in deciding to predicate this dispute on outside involvement.

    And that mental picture just doesn't work for me.

    And don't get me wrong! I would greatly appreciate a reevaluation of the evidence standard in TG dispute cases. My personal belief is that score removal should be based on "preponderance of the evidence" (over 50% likelihood score is not legitimate) and that player removal (ban and score wipe) should be based on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard used at criminal trial). I'm baffled that it takes more evidence to remove a video game score than it does to sentence people to execution. But I have zero, and I mean zero faith this dramatic shift in this one case represents an actual move toward those standards, no matter how its conveniently being presented now. Rather, the next dispute will be right back again to "We can't remove this obviously bogus score because this objective scientific evidence is just not quite as definitive as we would like".
  4. 12-13-2019, 11:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post
    S
    But you didn't actually say where you, personally, got it. Now, don't get me wrong. I know what you meant by what you said. You meant that you got my number from my account info in your database. Perfectly understood. But you never actually said that's where you (not TG the organization, but you, Jace Hall) got my phone number. With the many times over nonsense of "I never gave you a reason," now it has me wondering, is that going to be another issue later? Are we going to have a question of personal data access come up later, and are you going to do a "*GASP!!!* IIIIIIIIIIII never said I looked up your number in the TG database!!" I would hope not. Reasonably there wouldn't be a distinction. But at this point, I don't even know what to expect.
    I'm starting to like the @ersatz_cats universe version of myself. Plans-within-plans masterminding I am. Be on the watch - as I am mysterious!

    So much more interesting than the reality. I'll take it.


    So maybe I'm not making myself clear. I didn't ask what your reason was because I didn't particularly care what it was. It wasn't important to me what the actual answer was (and as I said before, I had an idea what it was).
    1.) You didnt ask me because you didnt care.

    2.) I didn't tell you because it never occurred to me to do so.

    3.) If I knew you cared, it would have occurred to me to tell you.

    4.) However you did not care - and thus did not ask, and thus I did not know and therefore it did not occur to me to tell you.

    5.) It is already clear that I'm happy to answer whatever. You've asked me plenty of questions already! I don't have anything to hide. So your asking would have definitely cleared up your confusion.

    But here is my confusion:

    Given the above, how do you conclude "a certain lack of confidence that one's ability to be forthright about the goals one is actually looking to achieve at a given moment?"

    It doesn't make sense. I'm forthright about my goals if you ask me what they are. What's the problem?

    "He didn't tell me something. He's not being forthright."

    - But you didn't ask.

    "I didn't ask because I didn't care."

    - Well if you didn't care, why would he think to tell you?

    "Non-Forthrightedness I say!!!"


    Alrighty then.

    Hey look, I could understand that if you had asked me, and I refused to answer, then there could be some "non-forthrightness." - But that never happened.

    But really the largest head-scratcher is how you were able to take all of this and identify it as evidence of a larger case of the "dishonest motivation" you were making.

    That being said, I'm not pushing back on your case anymore. I've decided it is better and cooler to be mysterious. It gives the impression that I am thinking way harder and deeper on these things than I actually am. LIKE A BOSS. :)

    To be clear, here were the unique circumstances you cited in the Rodrigo dispute thread:

    Link: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...09#post1060309

    I don't know what happened to #5, maybe it was censored by admin, who knows. At any rate, those items 1-6 (minus 5) you cited are legitimately enough to remove a score, and likely enough for a ban as well. Full stop. However, rather than act on this evidence, your solution to this was to invite top Zelda speedrunners from offsite to sign up with TG, provide their real info (including home addresses), and sign statements asserting their belief that Twin Galaxies has been "very thorough, fair, and reasonable" [oxford comma added by me] in adjudicating the dispute, as well as asserting their belief in the evidence. Your goal was to get five such statements, saying once that condition was met, you would levy a lifetime ban against Rodrigo Lopes and a full score removal (which, hours later, got reduced to a partial score removal and a length-to-be-determined ban).

    Now, I understand that, even though Twin Galaxies oversees an all-encompassing scoreboard (as opposed to SRC moderators who oversee scoreboards just for the games in which they specialize), you can never be a technical authority on all games, so you must rely on others' expertise at times. However, you already had experts on the game chiming in with their expertise as to why Rodrigo's level 9 spawn patterns (which matched cheated runs from Michael Damiani) were not possible legitimately. I just don't get A) how this offer was at all in any way congruent with the repeated claim that score removals must be done on the basis of objective, definitive evidence (which you now seem to be suggesting is more malleable than has always been expressed), or B) how this offer really contributed to advancing the evidence against Rodrigo at all, when the information being cited was already public knowledge, and was already backed by Zelda experts. (To say nothing of any potential distinction between Zelda speedrunners and Zelda technical experts who don't run the game.)

    Like, I'm trying to imagine you, sitting in your big comfy chair, thinking about the evidence against Rodrigo, as accumulated by dispute participants, as well as the circumstances surrounding Rodrigo's possession of the tape, and thinking "This evidence isn't quite enough for a ban and score wipe," but deciding the one ingredient you were missing in this evidence stew was having a few Zelda speedrunners join your site and sign your thing. I'm trying to imagine you sitting up and thinking "Hey hey, NOW we have a case! That's the last part we need!" And similarly, I'm trying to imagine all this happening, you in that big comfy chair thinking this through in this fashion, and never once thinking "Oh, and it'll be cool to get TG some publicity by having some notable speedrunners sign their names on our site," as if that wasn't a factor in deciding to predicate this dispute on outside involvement.

    And that mental picture just doesn't work for me.
    Ah, this one is easy. Let me try to break it down:

    I don't know what happened to #5, maybe it was censored by admin, who knows. At any rate, those items 1-6 (minus 5) you cited are legitimately enough to remove a score, and likely enough for a ban as well. Full stop.
    Now I want to be clear that this is your opinion. If you were running TG, then maybe that would have been good enough for you and that's fine. I've stated in the past that TG will remove a score when it feels comfortable doing so and not before.

    With that being said, for the purposes of academic argument, I will grant you the above statement as true. Yep, enough to remove!

    So why not remove it immediately then?

    Let's continue:

    However, rather than act on this evidence, your solution to this was to invite top Zelda speedrunners from offsite to sign up with TG, provide their real info (including home addresses), and sign statements asserting their belief that Twin Galaxies has been "very thorough, fair, and reasonable" [oxford comma added by me] in adjudicating the dispute, as well as asserting their belief in the evidence. Your goal was to get five such statements, saying once that condition was met, you would levy a lifetime ban against Rodrigo Lopes and a full score removal (which, hours later, got reduced to a partial score removal and a length-to-be-determined ban).
    This is where I think you and others may have not seen the forest through the trees when it comes to the dispute cases. Some of this type of stuff also took place in the Dragster thread, and generated a similar reaction.

    The first thing to clearly establish, is that there no need for significant urgency when it comes to disputes. I get that people from SRC like to do things quickly - but no one is getting killed and baby's birth's are not being held up until a dispute case completes. Its ok for them to take the time that TG feels they might need, whatever that is.

    I mention the non-urgency only to speak to the fact that removal on the TG end must be really thought through. Here is why:

    It is important to keep in mind that the SRC is a community, and TG is an organization. Generally speaking, you can't take a whole disparate community full of anon gamertags to court. You can however take an organization to court. This is an important distinction that plays out in dispute claim cases, and can sometime frustrate participants who are not keeping this in mind.

    Remember, I may literally find myself standing in court over this dispute claim stuff. Silly I know, but yet it could and may happen. It is in those scenarios that I would like to make sure that I am fully armed with as much evidence as possible, not just evidence regarding the score invalidity itself, but also evidence regarding the specific process applied in that dispute claim case.

    As you may have seen from some of the Mitchell claims, the notion of the process itself being unfair is an angle that some people will try to take to reverse decisions regardless of actual score related evidence.

    So from a TG perspective, extra consideration is always important.

    Enough score evidence is accumulated to warrant score removal. Great.

    However, since there are avenues of argument that can be made in a litigation that can call the process itself into question outside of the evidence itself, there are some "details and comprehensive items" that will sometimes need to be included (each dispute is unique) to head off some theoretical anticipatory conversations and arguments.

    So, what TG tries to do as best it can, is silence those angles/arguments ahead of time.

    It is true that TG can not think of them all, and there will always be some kind of nonsense that someone could try - but - TG will make an effort to catch some of them.

    So my public invitation to invite top Zelda speedrunners from offsite to sign up at TG (and get verified - which requires that personal info - nothing new there) and participate, was simply to make sure that it was clear that TG had in fact publicly invited 3rd party external experts to the process if they wanted to participate. No pressure.

    It was to show clearly that the SRC community was not deliberately excluded, so any lack of their presence in that area was not due to TG agenda or manipulation.

    It also intended to demonstrate clearly that TG does in fact value the SRC and would like them to participate at their discretion. I can honestly tell you that the the "dislike" that the SRC shows for TG is not mutual. TG has nothing against the SRC and wishes them no ill-will.

    In regard to the described "effect" of the SRC participation, I wanted to make sure that anyone who came to participate would understand how valued and effective their feedback would be - because let's remember, according to your statement above, we had already met the evidentiary standard. It would just be more on top of what is already there, and that they would not be wasting their time.

    Also, if for some miraculous reason SRC experts showed up and cleared Rodrigo, then great! All TG is focused on is whether or not the data is valid.

    The SRC participation offer was essentially a matter of "crossing the t's" and "dotting the i's" - It was to make sure that the request was added to the body of work, for later demonstration (if needed) - and it was a gesture and admission by TG to the SRC's recognized importance and expertise. The inclusion of all this is very consistent with previous disputes. TG has made sure to do this wherever it feels that down the road it may be necessary to really illustrate complete and fair treatment of the submission holder throughout the process.

    People may get frustrated by all this "extra" but I think that may be because they are not thinking about all this stuff in this way. Why would they? They don't have to.

    Anyway, the later argument that TG was biased against Rodrigo and did not make any effort to publicly invite "3rd party pros from the speedrun community" (arguably - his peers) to the process was eliminated.

    You may laugh at that notion now, but I am telling you that an argument that "TG only allowed its current members who hated me to participate" is definitely a way to try to get less-informed people to "believe" there could have been a targeted witch hunt or whatever.

    And hey, if some people from SRC wanted to come over an participate, great.

    Now I am really sick right now and my head is a bit cloudy, so I may not have articulated this concept in the best form, but I hope you get the gist of what I am saying - and I assure you that this action of "comprehensiveness" was consistent with other historical dispute cases.

    All that being said - I'm not trying to change your opinion. Just letting you know the thinking - there is nothing nefarious about it.
  5. 12-16-2019, 02:23 AM
    So I have some responses to some of Jace's remarks from the other night (and I do hope Jace gets well soon), but I'll wait on those for now. With all this legal liability talk coming up, and having been called to answer for previous claims I made, I want to get back to something I promised earlier: a legal analysis.

    I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Jace Hall over credentials, nor do I have a particular interest in discussing my personal background over this nonsense. I will say that I have never been a real lawyer, and nothing I have ever said constitutes legal advice. That said, I have worked on several cases, including no fewer than three in which I represented myself (successfully, I might add). I know my way around a courtroom, and as you will see, I'm not just talking out of my arse. Oh, and I definitely do not watch any TV pretend court bullsh*t, which I'm sure is entertaining, but only serves to give people false impressions of how things really work (as opposed to going to the courthouse and watching in on actual cases, something you can actually do if you find this stuff interesting).

    Let's recall for a moment what was said before:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    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.

    (As an opening aside, the phrasing suggests to the reader that Jace Hall has "been through numerous civil litigations" but does so without actually stating it as a fact or stating a number. As we've seen, this kind of language seems to be a common theme, leaving me wondering if the actual number is much smaller than implied. But since I'm not interested in discussing my own background in detail, I have no grounds to ask Jace to clarify on his own history with the topic. I just wished to point that phrasing out.)

    What was being discussed was Jace's initial decision to repost to his own blog my comments to the effect that Billy Mitchell is "a liar, a cheater, and a fraud," rather than choosing to merely link to my evidence post which contained such comments, as well as his later decision to change it to such a link.

    At the outset, one might think it silly to introduce screenshots printed off the Internet in a court of law, waving them around as if they prove something. But it's really not that silly in this day and age. I don't believe I have personally been party to the introduction of such Internet screenshots (unless I've forgotten one), but in cases I worked on, I've seen it happen twice that I recall. One of those instances directly resulted in a mistrial. (That was a fun day.) Suffice to say, it's totally a thing, and the material will be weighed on its merit.

    I have said many times that Billy has no case, or his case is "dead on arrival", or similar. When I say that, I mean specifically with regards to the technical merits. His guilt is objectively proven. However, like Super Bowls and speedrun relays, it doesn't always come down to whoever's the better team. There are a myriad of factors at play in civil litigation. To use a famous example, there are several reasons why O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court and found liable in Fred Goldman's later civil case; while the standards of proof were different, the demographics of the two juries also played a massive part, such that if the two juries were swapped, the outcomes would likely have been swapped as well. Decisions by the judges in allowing or disallowing evidence and arguments also played a role in the outcomes. Also, comparing to Super Bowls and speedrun relays is a bit ironic, in that those cases are intended to come down to the "better team", whereas in court cases, which are intended to be determined by the truth, a "better team" advocating a lie can sometimes prevail over a "lesser team" advocating the truth. While Team Billy would be foolish to follow through on their threats of legal action with regards to his score removals (especially with SLAPP laws being a thing), it is possible, in which case these myriad factors can come into play. Certainly, with all the statements Jace has made about legal liability in disputes, he has no basis for saying Billy can never sue him, which means he must take it into consideration.

    If Billy's team is to make a case, it won't be on the basis of the technical evidence. And truthfully, their case wouldn't even be about the process particularly, except to the extent to suggest it was shoddy and that any conclusions drawn from it can't be trusted. Their case would be one of defamation. They would make the case that the finder of fact in the TG dispute (Jace Hall) was prejudiced against Billy, that he perhaps had an ulterior motive for the whole exercise, that the others investigating the case were also prejudiced against Billy, and that the whole exercise was a pretense to besmirch Billy's good name. To that end, they will attempt to portray Billy as an innocent and charitable man, while portraying the people criticizing him as disreputable. Sprinkle in just enough technical mumbo-jumbo to cloud the issue, to make the objective evidence seem a lot less definitive, and there you have the only case they're going to make. In fact, you already see the seeds of all of this in Billy's evidence packet from September.

    Jace said this distinction about what statements are being quoted won't matter to a judge (something which I disagree with), with Jace apparently under the bogus impression that the judge would be the ultimate finder of fact in this case. I can't speak for every jurisdiction everywhere, but in a civil case such as this, both sides should have the right to request trial by jury, and such a request is a no-brainer for Team Billy.

    Let me tell you something about juries: They suck! It's not that they're bad people, it's more that they're hopelessly unqualified. In fact, it's standard procedure to strike potential jurors based simply on having qualifications relevant to a given case. (Or for things like being educated - I feel like one of the easiest ways to get disqualified from jury duty is to simply say you teach at the university.) The jury deciding on such a case won't consist of any retro gamers, arcade enthusiasts, speedrunners, or Twitch streamers. The jury will be an over-worked single mom, a youth minister, the manager at Jiffy-Lube, a liberal arts college student, a couple middle-aged church-goers, some guy with a hat that says "Gone fishin'", and two elderly retirees who are happy just to have something to do.

    The legal system can layer over everything all the objective definitions and criteria they want, but at the end of the day, someone has to be the "finder of fact". This is an important designation. Someone has to go into a room, consider the evidence, come out, and say "Yup, dude did it." Sometimes, that's a judge (that's called a "bench trial"), but typically in this country, it's a "jury of your peers". Now, juries are not simply left to their own devices. If it's a bribery case we're talking about, they're not asked to go decide if it feels "bribe-y" to them. They get legal instructions, proposed by both plaintiff and defense. "If you find that X and Y are true, then the defendant is guilty of bribery." "Z is considered an affirmative defense for bribery, so if Z is true, defendant is not guilty." These all get approved by the judge, as does the evidence that gets presented.

    All of that said, many juries will simply go into the deliberation room, decide they don't understand or care about these legal instructions, agree that the case feels "bribe-y", and come to a ruling against the defendant. It's a fact of jurisprudence, and one to be considered. I've known lawyers who know their stuff, and are fantastic in pre-trial in front of the judge when arguing with other lawyers, but who are just death in front of a jury. And while I can't think of having met any who are the opposite, who are weak on law but masterful in front of the jury (one does have to have some decent grasp of law to become an attorney), I'm sure they exist as well. So again, while I say Billy's case is "dead on arrival", that doesn't mean there's literally no chance of him winning a case. If one is taking a potential case into consideration (as you often claim to do), one should be considerate of the fact that casual statements that could prejudice a jury against you are indeed a part of such a case.

    This pertains to statements in the Rodrigo case, but for now, I'll focus on the provided example of the statement pertaining to the Billy case. The distinction of whether my words, "Billy Mitchell is indeed a liar, a cheater, and a fraud," appear on Jace's blog or are merely linked to from Jace's blog, is an important one. First of all, a plaintiff doesn't get to just present what they want to a jury; it has to be approved by the judge. Knowing that the plaintiff's case relies on attempts to discredit Jace as an impartial adjudicator in the dispute, a judge will almost certainly allow such a statement quoted onto Jace's blog to be entered, the same as if Jace had said aloud "Billy Mitchell obviously cheated." The idea is, the judge is allowing the opportunity for the plaintiff to discuss it and for Jace to address it as well, allowing the jury to be the one to decide its relevance.

    However, it's far less likely to be entered when it is simply linked to from Jace's blog. What is the nature of this link? How much of a role did these remarks play in the linked material? How much material gets linked from defendant's blog on a routine basis? Even if somehow those questions all get addressed in the plaintiff's favor, which is a big if, that's a significant hurdle they have to fight to cross, both in justifying it to the judge, and again in justifying it to a jury. And that's all before the actual contents of the quotations comes into play. It becomes a much more awkward conversation to have, and it weakens their case in that regard. It's much easier to dismiss. I'd compare it to if Jace linked to the actual dispute thread, with people such as myself and others saying "Billy's a cheater, Billy's a fraud", etc. Billy's attorney could maybe try to make something out of that (meaning, out of the fact that Jace linked to the dispute thread), but it's clear that's the forum for legitimate discussion of the case. It's very easy to deny it and say "I'm linking there because I want to point to evidence. I don't care about the other stuff."

    On the other hand, if the material is posted straight on your blog, everything is much more straightforward for the plaintiff. This becomes a point of questioning, as well as one more item to add to any other unfortunate remarks they can find to go along with it. Here's an illustration of how that would play out, in the form of a closing argument:

    "People of the jury, you all saw how Mr. Hall, having taken on the role of both judge and jury in this Internet dispute, chose to repost and reprint derogatory and slanderous remarks about Mr. Mitchell, all while claiming to be impartial. He did this during the dispute process! Right while people are discussing evidence for Billy, trying to decide if these allegations are true, here comes the judge, saying 'Billy Mitchell did this, Billy Mitchell did that, he's a bad guy.' Could you imagine if the judge in this case here had said 'Mr. Hall is a liar'? You'd probably think, 'What is this judge doing?' Now imagine, the judge says 'Mr. Hall is a liar'... and nothing happens! Well, you'd probably think, 'He said it, and no one objected. It must be true. It must be true, because the judge said it.' This is the [air quotes] 'impartial' process by the [air quotes] 'impartial' self-declared judge [gestures at Jace] who wants to sit here and tell you that they didn't have this outcome decided well ahead of time, the [air quotes] 'impartial' one-man jury [gestures at Jace] who wants to tell you he hadn't already made up his mind before he saw a lick of evidence."

    Like, I can write this sh*t in my sleep. Note that much of that is misleading. For instance, it wasn't strictly "during" the dispute, but it was during the period where the dispute was re-opened and new evidence was being considered, so it is in a sense "during" the dispute. But a jury, serving as finder of fact, isn't going to care about little squabbles over details. Jace putting those remarks on his blog gives his opposition an unnecessary opening. Something like that will stick because of how it's portrayed, and how it's portrayed is not entirely up to you. In court, the other team isn't interested in being fair, or recognizing nuance. Sure, you can respond in your closing arguments, but there are no grounds to make a formal objection to anything I wrote above, because none of it was decidedly untrue, illegal, or otherwise against the rules (for instance, it did not contain specific legal instructions, which must be submitted through a different process - I made that mistake once).

    If, on the other hand, Jace merely links to that text elsewhere, and if there is a legitimate reason for the link (say, that Jace is bringing peoples' attention to important evidence in the case), then it's a much harder connection to make. Jace didn't "repost" or "reprint" any derogatory statements, and Jace has a legitimate reason for the link he offered (whereas, Jace had no legitimate reason for including the derogatory remarks in a full repost on his wall). Billy's representatives can try to stitch together the same case, but now in doing so they look a lot less confident, a lot more like they're reaching, grasping for anything they can use to discredit Jace. Such attempts can actually work to Jace's advantage, if his lawyer knows how to play that angle to the jury.

    Jace, I suppose what I'm saying is, while only you can truthfully say whether it was a consideration in removing the quote from your wall, it certainly should have been a consideration. That should have been your reason. When you posted it, I was immediately surprised you had copied those words of mine, given the position you were in. And when you offered to move it to my wall (setting aside the silly reason you gave), whether I was correct or not, I recognized it right away as an attempt to correct this oversight. Truthfully, I wasn't as sure you had realized this problem yourself, as much as an attorney or consultant had noticed the item and suggested to you, "Hey man, that should come down." It's not that it pertains to the technical, objective evidence of whether Billy cheated, but it plays directly into the case Team Billy would attempt to make against you.

    Now, this comes to the question of, if this was so dangerous, why preserve a link at all? Why not take any mention of it down from Jace's blog altogether? Truthfully, that's probably what a lawyer would advise. Their job is to not get you in trouble, and the best way to do that is to advise over-caution. That's why lawyers will always tell you, "Keep your yap shut," because anything you say can be used against you. A lawyer would have advised not making many of the statements Jace made throughout the process. That said, sometimes you don't always do exactly what the lawyer advises. An example would be when a celebrity publicly addresses some scandal. The lawyer would rather they say nothing and reserve any remarks for court, but the celebrity may find that unacceptable given that they rely so much on public perception, and so a middle ground is found, to where a statement can be made. If the statement is unscripted, then some coaching is done as to what not to say. I would assume Jace's reason for posting the bit about the Mruczek MTV interview to his wall was about highlighting key evidence in the case (though if Jace has some wacky other reason for that, I'd like to hear it). Turning it into a link to another portion of the website which contains that evidence gives one the ability to highlight that evidence while also the deniability to claim side remarks were not of interest to you.

    "Hey ersatz, wait a moment," I can imagine a reader saying, if anyone is bothering to read this exchange at this point. "You're saying Jace shouldn't have been calling Billy a liar, a cheater, and a fraud, but you did exactly that! So doesn't that make you a hypocrite?" Not in the slightest. Jace and I are in starkly different positions. Jace actually has been threatened with litigation by Billy, whereas I was merely quoted a couple times in one of his evidence submissions. Jace has a lot to lose, and while I'm not broke, it really wouldn't be worth Billy's time and energy to go after me. Billy would only be giving me attention by suing me, whereas Jace is in no need of attention (aside from any personal desires of his for stirring up drama). Plus, there's the little matter that, while I'm not a real lawyer and thus can't represent anyone else.... if Billy sues me.... I could represent myself!! Which would be H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!!! I do in fact know how to relate to a jury. I've done it before. I already have ideas on how to convey the technical evidence to the type of jury I described above. And the best part would be, I would get to call Mr. Mitchell himself to the stand and question him, under oath, myself. Holy cow, I would pay actual money for that opportunity. To be clear, I don't want to get sued, but should it happen, let's just say it would be quite entertaining, for all of us. But it ain't gonna happen.

    This has gone on long, so I'll wrap up with some quick observations on the Rodrigo case which relate to all this.

    Jace, it is plainly, patently, absurdly obvious that you haven't seriously consulted with a lawyer on how you conduct score disputes. I would advise doing so.

    First, there should be no case to be made at all from de-listing any scores or banning any player. Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that's different from there being any actual case. Twin Galaxies should have language making clear the choice to list or de-list scores is at the sole discretion of the organization for any reason. (And if somehow that language doesn't exist, for goodness' sake, get on that!!)

    Notice I said above that the only case Team Billy had to make was one of defamation. They have to address the dispute process only as a way of discrediting the outcome, but that's not what their case would focus on. Which brings us to the next item: You say waaaaaaaaay too much about all of this. But it's not just that you talk a lot, it's that you say a lot of the wrong things. For instance, you talk often about how de-listing a player's scores can make you liable in court (even though it wouldn't). You said five times in the Rodrigo dispute that removing his scores could open you up to legal action if not done correctly. That's like confessing to a crime you haven't committed! You aren't liable for removing someone, unless maybe you go around throwing out a lot of quotes about how you are liable, in which case, if you word it poorly enough even one time, such things can be used against you.

    But then, we get to another problem, as seen here:

    Name:  TG 'Banned for cheating' examples.png
Views: 92
Size:  30.1 KB

    Why are you slapping that on peoples' accounts in one instance while claiming some hyper-sensitivity to legal action in another? (Someone will undoubtedly point out that three of those four are believed to be the same user, but I believe the point still stands.) And that's to say nothing of the several instances of "BANNED FOR POOR BEHAVIOR". Like, I get it. It's fun to slap those labels on people, and I've seen it on other forums, but not on forums where the administrator constantly claims they can't do the thing people demand because gosh golly if everything isn't done just perfectly they could get sued (even though they can't and won't).

    Jace, you use the "But I might get sued" defense very selectively, and it's clear that you don't have a particularly solid grasp on the matters yourself. This Rodrigo dispute really highlighted that for me. Which means, frankly, either you really are that foolish and incompetent, or you're using the "But I might get sued" excuse where it's convenient simply because it's hard for people to argue against.
  6. 12-17-2019, 12:14 AM
    Well, that was lengthy.

    Apparently I am either a "plans-within-plans" mastermind, or completely incompetent - OR - I suppose I could be a completely incompetent "plans-within-plans" mastermind. Or something like that.

    I have to admit, when you spent a whole paragraph trying to hyper-analyze my random "phrasing" - I felt super "mysterious." Seriously. Like there's some guy out there doing this with my post on TG - breaking down every word, looking for the 'connections' of the possible meanings behind the "unsaid." Untold speculation.

    I genuinely feel even more "mysterious" now.

    I have a choice to make.

    1.) I can keep going back and forth with you and once again point out all the various things you said that highlight your tendency to incorrectly assume (or create) things that you do not actually know so you can make a point that speaks to your decided narrative.

    OR

    2.) Just thank you for your passion and feedback.

    So i'm just going to thank you for your passion and feedback.

    Onward.
    Likes RTM, Sonic7978 liked this post
  7. 12-17-2019, 12:23 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post

    But then, we get to another problem, as seen here:

    Name:  TG 'Banned for cheating' examples.png
Views: 92
Size:  30.1 KB

    Why are you slapping that on peoples' accounts in one instance while claiming some hyper-sensitivity to legal action in another? (Someone will undoubtedly point out that three of those four are believed to be the same user, but I believe the point still stands.) And that's to say nothing of the several instances of "BANNED FOR POOR BEHAVIOR". Like, I get it. It's fun to slap those labels on people, and I've seen it on other forums, but not on forums where the administrator constantly claims they can't do the thing people demand because gosh golly if everything isn't done just perfectly they could get sued (even though they can't and won't).
    Forgot about this part:

    This person was actually found definitively to be specifically cheating, and was specifically banned for it. Don't know what else to tell you. Pretty straightforward.

    And yes I believe all those accounts were determined to essentially be the same user. Hence the same label.

    If you know of others that were specifically banned for cheating who currently do not have that label you can feel free to point them out and we will happily put it on their profile.

    "BANNED FOR POOR BEHAVIOR" is exactly that. I'm not sure where the mystery is here. It's pretty self-descriptive.

    Not sure what the "problem" is on this you are trying to point out?
    Likes Sonic7978 liked this post
  8. 12-17-2019, 10:56 PM
    how did that happen?
  9. 12-17-2019, 10:58 PM
    how many strikes cheaters get?
  10. 12-17-2019, 11:03 PM
    I think I Know MKwizard he is one the legend and icon player from retrouprising for mortal kombat franchise and mortal kombat champion my questions is what is he doing here at twin galaxies and what did he do what did cheat for?
Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 15 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 261
Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 15 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Join us