Dispute: Brandon Finton - Atari 2600 / VCS - Kaboom! - NTSC - Game 1, Difficulty B (Points) - Player: Robert T Mruczek - Score: 999,999

Is this a valid dispute?

    You have no permission to view/vote this poll.
You may not vote on this poll
  1. 06-13-2020, 07:37 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by redelf View Post
    It would be nice if we could set the times to the correct dates or at least get them closer to the actual date. Maybe Jace will get something like that set up so that we can avoid some of these discussions on the future.
    This was the next thing I was going to bring up. What would you suggest? Like I said, when you dispute this score it shows the date was 2001-05-11. Why would you have a score backdated when you didn't even have ties to tg during the year it said it was submitted?

    Glad you see that we aren't saying he cheated but merely bringing to light issues with data.
    Likes Marcade liked this post
  2. 06-13-2020, 08:10 PM
    Are some of you guys saying that there "might" have been a self entered correction to the date the score was actually made?

  3. 12-14-2020, 11:35 AM
    I decided to bump this dispute to get discussion going again after new things have come to light. I for one find it suspicious that the only known Kaboom score that had evidence from this player was only 5% of what this disputed score is. Also with recent evidence coming out that the player in question in face self entered scores on a massive level.
    Thanks Foot0fGod thanked this post
    Likes starcrytas liked this post
  4. 12-29-2020, 04:55 PM
    still not sure why this was inactivated, or why wayback machine is considered zero evidence or speculation but heres the 98 twin galaxies book of records entry for kaboom

    i still stand by my speculation that time travel is impossible and that mruczek after becoming a ref did not go back in time and get the first perfect kaboom in 1985 somehow only affecting our timeline for the tg scoreboard but not altering the timeline for any other documents preserving the original timelines history.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
    Likes starcrytas, Ninglendo liked this post
  5. 06-07-2021, 10:23 AM
    wanted to add this additional circumstantial evidence. I feel the need to point out this evidence is weak, and i hope it doesnt distract from the iron clad evidence earlier mentioned, but i think of how "circumstantial evidence" has been needed in the past in addition the provable evidence so i'm adding this in that context


    Name:  image.png
Views: 94
Size:  6.9 KB

    here we see in decemeber of 2002 from the wayback machine, Robert, while remember getting such a score a long time ago, wants to set it on ronbs atari 2600 world record site -- reminder, rons snipercade was twin galaxies atari partner, tg didnt have atari scores and imported those, so robert is talking about setting a max which means he recongized at the time he didnt have the score. I know this is just his word, so take it for what its worth, but its one more reason to say no, he did not get the first perfect kaboom.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
  6. 06-07-2021, 10:32 AM
    here we have a july 26 2003 reference of roberts kaboom. yes its a comment not a screenshot, but it would imply that we can now narrow the entry date to between december of 2002 and july 26 2003

    Name:  image.png
Views: 88
Size:  75.5 KB
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
  7. 06-07-2021, 11:09 AM
    I'll ask again for the umpteen time. How was the score entered into the database and was it on tape or not? Every time I ask these two questions I get a reply that is 10 paragraphs long that never answer those two basic questions.
    Likes Snowflake, starcrytas, datagod liked this post
  8. 06-09-2021, 02:59 AM


    This dispute had been previously set to inactive at the time of last review as it was found to contain primarily speculative evidentiary entries and insufficient objective and definitive evidence compelling enough to establish the dispute claim as valid.

    For clarity, this dispute claim is focused in regard to the validity of the listed date of the score record, and not the validity of the score performance itself.

    TG Member @Snowflake requested that TG consider reactivating the dispute claim thread.

    TG does not consider reactivating disputes without additional compelling objective and definitive evidence warranting it doing so.

    As per TG policy, once a score has been accepted into the TG database, the submitting player is under no obligation to defend their score or participate in a dispute process regarding their accepted score.

    Historically, this particular dispute has been devoid of participation from the player of record, however recently we have received additional voluntary information from the player that submitted this score performance which now provides us justification to grant @Snowflake's request to reactivate the dispute. This will allow us the ability to add the new information to the dispute claim file and consider it in any decision made regarding this specific score record.

    The information is as follows:

    The year of submission would have been within 1998-2002 range.

    MOST likely I sent this on-par with my other Activision max-out score of "Chopper Command" which according to the TG database was 6/01/2000 and by my "Keystone Kapers" Activision max score submission of 9/29/2000. Back in that era of pre-2001 before I was a referee I started to submit on titles that I was comfortable on from decades past and then as time marched on I tried newer challenges. "Kaboom" was one I had been comfortable with from decades past.

    With this information we can establish that the submitter did not accomplish and does not currently claim to have accomplished the score on the 1985-07-01 date that is currently listed in the database.

    On this point specifically there is now general agreement and corroboration. Therefore that date will need to be addressed.

    As is known by the community, it is not unusual for pre-TGSAP records to have inaccurate dates listed. This is partially due to the way that previous administrations chose to "import" scores into the database, effectively making the import dates become the date of record for numerous scores any time this was conducted - and it is also partially due to previous administrations only having manual submission fields for all score related entry data which further allowed for potential error or discrepancy.

    Due to limited information it has not been possible for new TG to correct all these dates, and so they have been left as they are while trying to limit whatever negative impact that brings. However, with this record in particular the inaccurate date has a particularly larger negative impact than most, due to the fact that it inadvertently creates an unearned accolade for the player associated by awarding that player the honor of being the first known person at TG to ever get a Kaboom maxout.

    This inaccuracy will be corrected.

    Based on all presented evidence, we are unable to discern a specific and absolute definitive date of submission, therefore we will decide the best way to handle a date estimation entry for the record soon. If there are suggestions you have for consideration on this you can place them in this thread.

    Also, based on all submitted evidence, we can not definitively conclude exactly how, why, or by whom the inaccurate date was entered.

    We can identify many known examples of date entry errors in the database due to a variety of reasons therefore TG can not isolate the cause of this particular erroneous date entry with absolute certainty at this time. For this record, there is only speculation regarding this point and TG Admin can not make conclusive dispute claim decisions based on speculation or conjecture.

    *Special note - The initial dispute claim thread discussion put forth an assumption that it would be definitively indicative of record date falsity if the listed date for that score performance record actually predated the player's TG user registration date by 10-15 years.

    Certainly in today's new TG that assumption would be true. However, due to the nature of individual referee based adjudication in old TG administrations, it was reasonably possible for a submitter to claim a performance had occurred in the past and ask for that past date to be deliberately recognized with the score for historic purposes. Due to the reality of this, there would likely not be a way to know if this occurred without the participants themselves providing that information.

    Fortunately in this particular case, we now have reasonable confirmation that such an event did not occur, allowing us to eliminate that possibility.

    Thank you.
    Thanks Snowflake, RTM thanked this post
  9. 06-09-2021, 04:58 AM
    to two points you made on date

    1. import dates. Import dates would give a later date, not an earlier one, at least according to what you said here as well as what i've noticed. This however is an earlier date, so if this was caused by import that would be pretty unusual for import to backdate like this. also import dates tend to affect many scores and many import dates are known because of that due to so many scores sharing that date.
    2. estimate date. i believe i've narrowed down this score to december of 2002 to june of 2003 At that point i feel safe saying it was 2003. if an estime is wanted, in abscence of better info, i dunno, maybe split the def and call it march. i'm not a fan of rounding to deal with innacurracies but i do appreciate the effort at resolving this and understand imperfect solutions may be needed.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
    Likes RedDawn liked this post
  10. 06-17-2021, 04:50 PM
    Since there's no evidence the 999,999 score was ever achieved at any time (and certainly not prior to 2001), the only score we can be reasonably certain of being true and accurate is the 51,849 score from 10-20-99. If any evidence is later found to support a higher score, the database entry can be updated to reflect that.
    Likes Snowflake, starcrytas, Foot0fGod liked this post
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 109
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Join us