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. 06-20-2021, 03:31 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES View Post
    As suggested by @Snowflake, and based on the evidence provided, a new estimated date has been applied to the score entry to address the core issue of the dispute claim regarding the innacurate date. As a result, the submitter is no longer listed as the first person to achieve a Kaboom maxout.
    That's assuming evidence was ever shown or submitted to TG to support Mruczek achieving a 999,999 score. And considering the widespread self-entering that went on at the time, it's purely speculative on TG's part to assume there was evidence. Besides, the entry was marked "verified by referee", so if you're going to assume anything, assume a videotape recording of this score never existed.

    The evidence of the score performance's existence is the fact that it is listed in the TG database. Someone with the historic authority to enter score data into the database, placed it there. This means that TG presumes validity until definitive and objective evidence showing score performance invalidity can be substantiated.
    Again, a database entry by itself is meaningless w/o evidence to support it. Let's have Mruczek make a statement here about this. Did he create the entry, and if so, who was the referee who verified his score? Otherwise changing the date on the database entry does nothing to make the score any more valid or accurate. Someone intentionally created that 1985 database entry, much like how Corcoran and Rogers created database entries for themselves (and the existence of their database entries didn't mean much in the end...). The only reason that database entry was created was to bestow an achievement that wasn't earned or deserved. It was no typo.
    Likes Snowflake liked this post
  2. 06-20-2021, 03:57 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    That's assuming evidence was ever shown or submitted to TG to support Mruczek achieving a 999,999 score. And considering the widespread self-entering that went on at the time, it's purely speculative on TG's part to assume there was evidence. Besides, the entry was marked "verified by referee", so if you're going to assume anything, assume a videotape recording of this score never existed.



    Again, a database entry by itself is meaningless w/o evidence to support it. Let's have Mruczek make a statement here about this. Did he create the entry, and if so, who was the referee who verified his score? Otherwise changing the date on the database entry does nothing to make the score any more valid or accurate. Someone intentionally created that 1985 database entry, much like how Corcoran and Rogers created database entries for themselves (and the existence of their database entries didn't mean much in the end...). The only reason that database entry was created was to bestow an achievement that wasn't earned or deserved. It was no typo.
    i'm pretty much in agreement with you, but perhaps i can explain why i'm at least satisfied for the moment.

    The fake date was the biggest issue. thats resolved. Like you i doubt the score itself, and like you i have my suspicions this wasnt an honest mistake, but i also understand TG has a high burden of proof for score removal.

    Consider this, anyone can see this dispute. Can see the date was wrong and can see the wrong date just coincidentally matches the time period mruczek claims he got his maxout (his heyday)? The one statment we do have from him, he claims the score was added pre 2002, when ron was running things, we know this to be incorrect. He could forget, could admit he forgets, butinstead he went with a time fram we know to be incorrect, a timefram that if believed distracts people from the fact the score was entered while he was chief ref. So not only do we have the timing be suspicious, but we also have his incorrect statement on time, which you and me will take as evidence of intentionally hiding the truth but tg has to consider honest mistakes and memory issues.

    A case for the date itself met TGs high standards and was resolved now showing the score with an estimated date that at least reflects it was entered while he was chief ref.

    A strong case but not strong enough for TG was made to the score itself being invalid and all reading this can form their opinion.

    i can live with this and move on.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
    Thanks Scott S. thanked this post
  3. 06-20-2021, 05:50 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    That's assuming evidence was ever shown or submitted to TG to support Mruczek achieving a 999,999 score.
    As mentioned previously, this is the base assumption made by new TG regarding all pre-TGSAP scores. This TG position on this pre-TGSAP score is not new or inconsistent with other historic dispute claims made against pre-TGSAP scores - Once a score has been accepted into the TG database, it is considered valid until compelling objective evidence definitively proves an invalidity claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    And considering the widespread self-entering that went on at the time, it's purely speculative on TG's part to assume there was evidence. Besides, the entry was marked "verified by referee", so if you're going to assume anything, assume a videotape recording of this score never existed.
    There is no currently presented objective evidence of a hacker or other non-authorized entity placing this score data into the database, therefore it is currently understood that an authorized individual who was capable of accepting and placing scores into the TG database was how this score entered the database. Until it is irrefutably proven otherwise, an assumption must be reasonably made that the required evidence was presented and available according to the TG submission standards at the time, for the authorized individual to perform their function and include the data. This is the basic TG position on pre-TGSAP score data. All of these scores are treated equally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    Again, a database entry by itself is meaningless w/o evidence to support it. Let's have Mruczek make a statement here about this. Did he create the entry, and if so, who was the referee who verified his score?
    The dispute claim process does not require participation from the original score submitter. The original score submitter can optionally choose to participate if they wish to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    Otherwise changing the date on the database entry does nothing to make the score any more valid or accurate.
    The score performance itself is considered valid until compelling objective evidence definitively proves an invalidity claim. The date change, while not definitively accurate, helps the score entry reflect more accuracy around the timing of acceptance by specifically eliminating the 1985 possibility of that score being the "first maxout of Kaboom" in the TG database. This is an improvement and eliminates the unintended additional accolade of being "first" to maxout being awarded to the submitter.

    Additionally, the dispute claim record now contains centralized information and discussion in relation to this specific score, so any potential party of interest can be fully informed on the topic and come to their own opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott S. View Post
    Someone intentionally created that 1985 database entry, much like how Corcoran and Rogers created database entries for themselves (and the existence of their database entries didn't mean much in the end...). The only reason that database entry was created was to bestow an achievement that wasn't earned or deserved. It was no typo.
    There is currently no objective evidence presented in dispute claim thread that demonstrably shows and proves exactly how the 1985 date was attributed to the score in the database. There is only speculation and opinion. Why the date was created, and by whom or by what is not factually known at this time.

    What we do know is that this score data was present in the database at the time of the 2014 acquisition, and previous ownership represented and warranted in the Purchase Agreement that the Twin Galaxies Score Database did not contain any untrue, or misleading statements of fact.

    Thank you to everyone for their participation in this matter.
    Likes Snowflake liked this post
  4. 06-20-2021, 06:12 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES View Post

    There is no currently presented objective evidence of a hacker or other non-authorized entity placing this score data into the database, therefore it is currently understood that an authorized individual who was capable of accepting and placing scores into the TG database was how this score entered the database.
    Thank you. Should more evidence be presented in the future I hope you'll stand by this comment. I think we can all agree it wasnt a hacker and was indeed an authorized individual who entered this.
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
  5. 06-20-2021, 06:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES View Post
    The dispute claim process does not require participation from the original score submitter. The original score submitter can optionally choose to participate if they wish to.
    It should. We know the entry for Mruczek's score was created during Mruczek's time as chief referee. Either he created it himself for his own personal gain (which is the most likely scenario), or another ref created it with the intent to set Mruczek up, which is a pretty thin possibility IMO (bordering on preposterous) because I find it hard to believe Mruczek wouldn't have noticed such an error in the last nearly 20 years and not have contacted someone in order to correct it. So fine, let this Kaboom entry of his remain as a 'scarlet letter', and as an example to look at his 1,377 records here with greater scrutiny because, aside from the MAME records he has, everything else is marked verified by either referee or video, and I've never see so much as a single video or a photo for any of them.
    Likes Snowflake liked this post
  6. 06-21-2021, 04:57 AM
    Update:

    New information has been found.

    Context -

    When we asked @admin staff to update the score date to 2003-03-01, and the date was changed, it was noticed that the listing order of players on the leaderboard did not change for some reason.

    Normally, when multiple competitors hold the same rank position, oldest submission date is placed higher in the rank list.

    When the date on this score was changed, we saw this:



    The score was still listed at the top, despite the submission date no longer being the oldest among the tied-rank positions.

    We asked @admin staff how this could be the case and it was explained that TG scores contain two associated dates, the "submission" date, and the "verification" date.

    When TGSAP was created with the new twin galaxies database display, it was determined that TG should always list/show/rank accepted scores by submission date and NOT verification date. This is because the length of time that the TGSAP verification process can take for each score can vary greatly.

    If TG listed scores by TGSAP verification date it would be theoretically possible for one competitor's score performance to be submitted well after another competitor's submission but still attain a listed achievement date that implies they performed the accomplishment before the competitor they were lagging behind - all purely because their submission made it through TGSAP faster, not because they actually accomplished the achievement earlier.

    Within TGSAP, score display listed by submission date makes sense and works logically - however, as it turns out, old Twin Galaxies did not list their scores consistently in the same manner, and the unilateral application of the score display listing policy seems to have produced some confusion.

    Just like today's TGSAP score performance data entries, the Pre-TGSAP scores contain a submission date and a verification date.
    @admin staff explained that the reason that this score did not change its listing order, is that we only altered the submission date.

    It was explained that in the case of this particular score, the submission date was listed as 1985-07-01 but the PRE-TGSAP VERIFICATION date (which was not accessible to anyone but the engineers) was actually 2001-05-11

    Here is a screenshot of how this score appeared in the original, unaltered, TG database:



    "Verification date" is on the left and "Submission date" is on the right.

    The different dates in the database seem to indicate that the score was not imported from somewhere else, but instead, entered by an authorized TG referee or administrator.

    Pre-TGSAP scores that have been imported into the TG database in the past, are shown to have identical submission and verification dates.

    Here is an example of what that looks like within the database:



    Given this new and additional information here is the current view:

    It is possible that this listed "submission date" was never intended to be front facing or given much thought, if in fact the old TG database did not display this submission date information and instead focused on and only displayed the verification date information.

    New TG's display method to facilitate TGSAP scores may have been the likely cause for the incorrect date being displayed. Essentially pre-TGSAP scores should be listed by verification date, and TGSAP scores should be listed by submission date.

    Regardless of what old TG did or did not display, new TG still agrees that the 1985 date is not reflective of when the score was verified, and the original submitter has also clarified and confirmed that.

    However, the existence of an in-database TG verification date of 2001-5-11 is relevant and compelling.

    Whereas, the dispute claim evidence so far presented is compelling and definitive enough to demonstrate the 1985 date as inaccurate , the same evidence presented in the dispute claim is not currently compelling and definitive enough to demonstrate that a 2001-5-11 verification did not occur.

    Given the choice between listing the score date as an estimation of 2003-03-01 as verification versus utilizing the actual verification data that was present in the TG database when it was acquired in 2014, it becomes clear that TG must utilize the already present verification date until there is compelling and objective evidence that definitively proves that verification date as invalid.

    Certainly, it would have been helpful to know earlier about pre-TGSAP scores having both submission and verification date data, but the engineers do not always read dispute claims. Now we know, and we will be doing some work so that the database lists by verification dates for any score in the database that has a date prior April 2014.

    Lastly, the discovery of this information being available caused us to ask our engineering staff to show us what info exactly what is in the score database. Attached to this post is a snippet to show all of the current categories. Please note that there is a "VERIFIED BY" column, however there is no data. That information was not stored with the score database.

    Thank you for your patience and contributions.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
  7. 06-21-2021, 05:18 AM
    Can I get some clarification on this:

    What is Twin Galaxy's official stance on a Twin Galaxies referee / employee / member entering their own scores? On the surface is seems dubious to allow referees to do this, and from what I understand this played a role in removing Todd Roger's scores.

    For the record during the Richie Knuckles / Jordan Adler reign, I was hired as the official database administrator for Twin Galaxies. It was anounced on the Arcade Culture podcast, but before ANY access was granted I was laid off. Richie phoned me from a limo he was sharing with the head of Insignia (or whatever that web design firm was) and explained that my services would no longer be required. It was the shortest job I never had.

    If during that time I was able to access the database and enter my own scores AND that was clearly demonstrated, would my scores be stripped from the database? What about the owners themselves entering scores? Richie and Jordan *may* have entered their own scores -- I have no idea, just postulating here.

    So for the record is it forbidden for a Twin Galaxies Employee of any sort -- from any time period -- to have entered their own scores?

    Thank you for your answer during these troubling times.
    Your friend, datagod
    https://www.twingalaxies.com/album.php?albumid=73
    ~~Raspberry Pi Enthusiast~~
  8. 06-21-2021, 06:08 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by datagod View Post
    Can I get some clarification on this:

    What is Twin Galaxy's official stance on a Twin Galaxies referee / employee / member entering their own scores? On the surface is seems dubious to allow referees to do this, and from what I understand this played a role in removing Todd Roger's scores.

    For the record during the Richie Knuckles / Jordan Adler reign, I was hired as the official database administrator for Twin Galaxies. It was anounced on the Arcade Culture podcast, but before ANY access was granted I was laid off. Richie phoned me from a limo he was sharing with the head of Insignia (or whatever that web design firm was) and explained that my services would no longer be required. It was the shortest job I never had.

    If during that time I was able to access the database and enter my own scores AND that was clearly demonstrated, would my scores be stripped from the database? What about the owners themselves entering scores? Richie and Jordan *may* have entered their own scores -- I have no idea, just postulating here.

    So for the record is it forbidden for a Twin Galaxies Employee of any sort -- from any time period -- to have entered their own scores?

    Thank you for your answer during these troubling times.
    Twin Galaxies today does not allow employees with database access to submit scores, self-entry or otherwise.

    Old historic Twin Galaxies allowed self-score entry and submitted score entry from people who had direct database access. Self-entry became frowned upon at some point when abuse of privilege was discovered and restrictions were put in place to prevent further self-entry activity - however, scores could still be submitted by administrative staff for review by other administrative staff for database entry. This was the active policy of previous eras of TG.

    So for the record is it forbidden for a Twin Galaxies Employee of any sort -- from any time period -- to have entered their own scores?
    No. It is only forbidden during the new TG era. Prior to new TG, it was allowed under various circumstances and time frames. So analysis of fact around any individual score entry or activity during that time should be specific and contextual. Outside of suspected abuse cases that warranted historic TG action, previous ownership seemed to be comfortable with their policy and clearly viewed any score entries added under this method as valid unless there was specific reason not to.

    When the TG database was acquired in 2014 - the previous owners represented and warranted in the Purchase Agreement that the Twin Galaxies Score Database did not contain any untrue, or misleading statements of fact. This would be inclusive of any self-entry scores that would have occurred under their adjudication policy and supervision.
    Thanks datagod thanked this post
  9. 06-21-2021, 06:16 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES View Post
    Update:

    New information has been found.

    Context -

    When we asked @admin staff to update the score date to 2003-03-01, and the date was changed, it was noticed that the listing order of players on the leaderboard did not change for some reason.

    Normally, when multiple competitors hold the same rank position, oldest submission date is placed higher in the rank list.

    When the date on this score was changed, we saw this:



    The score was still listed at the top, despite the submission date no longer being the oldest among the tied-rank positions.

    We asked @admin staff how this could be the case and it was explained that TG scores contain two associated dates, the "submission" date, and the "verification" date.

    When TGSAP was created with the new twin galaxies database display, it was determined that TG should always list/show/rank accepted scores by submission date and NOT verification date. This is because the length of time that the TGSAP verification process can take for each score can vary greatly.

    If TG listed scores by TGSAP verification date it would be theoretically possible for one competitor's score performance to be submitted well after another competitor's submission but still attain a listed achievement date that implies they performed the accomplishment before the competitor they were lagging behind - all purely because their submission made it through TGSAP faster, not because they actually accomplished the achievement earlier.

    Within TGSAP, score display listed by submission date makes sense and works logically - however, as it turns out, old Twin Galaxies did not list their scores consistently in the same manner, and the unilateral application of the score display listing policy seems to have produced some confusion.

    Just like today's TGSAP score performance data entries, the Pre-TGSAP scores contain a submission date and a verification date.
    @admin staff explained that the reason that this score did not change its listing order, is that we only altered the submission date.

    It was explained that in the case of this particular score, the submission date was listed as 1985-07-01 but the PRE-TGSAP VERIFICATION date (which was not accessible to anyone but the engineers) was actually 2001-05-11

    Here is a screenshot of how this score appeared in the original, unaltered, TG database:



    "Verification date" is on the left and "Submission date" is on the right.

    The different dates in the database seem to indicate that the score was not imported from somewhere else, but instead, entered by an authorized TG referee or administrator.

    Pre-TGSAP scores that have been imported into the TG database in the past, are shown to have identical submission and verification dates.

    Here is an example of what that looks like within the database:



    Given this new and additional information here is the current view:

    It is possible that this listed "submission date" was never intended to be front facing or given much thought, if in fact the old TG database did not display this submission date information and instead focused on and only displayed the verification date information.

    New TG's display method to facilitate TGSAP scores may have been the likely cause for the incorrect date being displayed. Essentially pre-TGSAP scores should be listed by verification date, and TGSAP scores should be listed by submission date.

    Regardless of what old TG did or did not display, new TG still agrees that the 1985 date is not reflective of when the score was verified, and the original submitter has also clarified and confirmed that.

    However, the existence of an in-database TG verification date of 2001-5-11 is relevant and compelling.

    Whereas, the dispute claim evidence so far presented is compelling and definitive enough to demonstrate the 1985 date as inaccurate , the same evidence presented in the dispute claim is not currently compelling and definitive enough to demonstrate that a 2001-5-11 verification did not occur.

    Given the choice between listing the score date as an estimation of 2003-03-01 as verification versus utilizing the actual verification data that was present in the TG database when it was acquired in 2014, it becomes clear that TG must utilize the already present verification date until there is compelling and objective evidence that definitively proves that verification date as invalid.

    Certainly, it would have been helpful to know earlier about pre-TGSAP scores having both submission and verification date data, but the engineers do not always read dispute claims. Now we know, and we will be doing some work so that the database lists by verification dates for any score in the database that has a date prior April 2014.

    Lastly, the discovery of this information being available caused us to ask our engineering staff to show us what info exactly what is in the score database. Attached to this post is a snippet to show all of the current categories. Please note that there is a "VERIFIED BY" column, however there is no data. That information was not stored with the score database.

    Thank you for your patience and contributions.
    this is all very interesting. I absolutely have a follow up though. Both dates were manually entered right and not autopopulated? So the 2001 date isnt necessary when the score was entered, the person who entered the data merely, well, entered that? I dont see how that date is possible considering TwinGalaxies didnt even track atari games back then, the atari scores were on snipercade. I mean sure i wasnt an employee then, i dont the internals, i suppose back then twin galaxies could've kept atari scores in its database and kept all those scores secret, but at least for scores they displayed, they displayed no atari scores and just directd people to snipercade. To claim that tg was secretly holding this score in its database before it started tracking atari scores on its own is definitely an interesting claim to say the least
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
  10. 06-21-2021, 06:22 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES View Post
    ...

    When the TG database was acquired in 2014 - the previous owners represented and warranted in the Purchase Agreement that the Twin Galaxies Score Database did not contain any untrue, or misleading statements of fact. This would be inclusive of any self-entry scores that would have occurred under their adjudication policy and supervision.
    from an article i was reading on TG's counter suit against billy mitchell it specifically lists this, but also lists this as being known false info given to TG. If TG is going to argue in court that the previous owners claim of no untrue or misleading statesments of fact was in fact knowingly false, then it seems in the disputes itself that statement should still be as knowingly false -- note the semantics are complex here, i'm not saying what you are saying is false, i'm saying if you're to claim what the previous owners told is false then shouldnt it be consistently considered that what they said was false and not use someting that you claim to be false to here in this one case be treated as true?
    Lode Runner champ, also, Roy was right
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 109
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Join us