Dispute: Jason Vasiloff - M.A.M.E. - Metal Slug - Super Vehicle-001 - Points [Single Player Only] - Player: Jorge Gutierrez - Score: 3,379,280

Is this a valid dispute?

    This poll is closed
This poll is closed
  1. 04-14-2021, 12:48 AM
    theres definiltey imperfections on the system and i share some concerns you have. i disagree on solutions, as well as how big a concern things are with trade offs at play, but yes. Its unfortunate the 'video required rule" was added to mame despite plenty of people saying it was unneeded -- and now worse than unneeded we see adding video can even harm. I also agree theres an unavoidable conflict of interest in voting on disputes. This is why disputes dont yield cred (at least not directly) nor is there a leaderboard for them, to keep votes honest, but yeah the conflict of interest is an issue.

    i'm at a loss to suggest better alternatives though
    Lode Runner Champion
    Likes redelf liked this post
  2. 04-14-2021, 03:33 PM
    I logged in to TG yesterday for the first time in probably 5 months, so I have no idea what's been going on here since then, but I didn't expect this dispute to spur any big discussion at all - I honestly can't think of another example that would be more open and shut for removal of a score.

    I don't agree with using a submission or dispute thread to get into a lot of hypotheticals or philosophical arguments, but as I get the feeling I've kinda been called out for some reason, I guess I'll respond to a few points:

    Quote Originally Posted by redelf View Post
    This seems counterproductive to the entire community. As a whole the community is trying to do the right thing and clear up the que. Jace made it clear that voting to accept a submission without an inp analysis would be ok to do as the analysis could be done later. This seems to be a good example of that not being the case.
    "Do the right thing" is a subjective statement - based on your comment, we can infer that clearing the queue is the right thing to you. I see merit in that certainly, but in my opinion, making sure only verified, accurate scores hit the leaderboard is more important than a short waiting time for acceptance. The whole point of TGSAP is that submissions are vetted properly, so that fewer unverified scores get through - if the main goal is just to get them on the board ASAP, why have a review period?

    If an incorrect submission manages to get through, no big deal, we have the dispute system to correct things, and it should be used - I can only assume this is what Jace was referring to when he said it was ok to accept MAME submissions without analysis. But now the analysis HAS been done (or in this case, not even an analysis, but just a simple playback of the .inp), there is rock-solid proof the submission is invalid, and yet there's still debate as to whether the score should be removed and the cred reversed? I don't understand why there's so often a call for making exceptions, changing global rules, etc. every time some people get a decision wrong and lost some credibility. TG decided they wanted to try and quantify how "credible" a person is in their adjudication ability - if the argument is that we should do everything possible to prevent anyone from ever losing credibility, what's the point of even tracking it? I wouldn't care one bit if credibility disappeared from the site today, but if TG insists on having it, I think they should enforce it.

    Quote Originally Posted by redelf View Post
    If people knew that the inp wasn't the same as the provided video they should have shared that information with the rest of the community. I try to make an effort to point out errors to the community if I find something wrong with a submission.
    After having analyzed literally hundreds of MAME performances over several years, having put together tutorials, and working with multiple TG users one-on-one to help them fix their issues or get started with MAME to properly set up for recording, I really hope you're not inferring I kept information to myself here just to trap people. This submission is from 7 months ago, and I can't even remember having voted on it, but apparently did. Maybe I played it back all that time ago, and that's why I made the post that @Snowflake previously mentioned warning people? No idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by redelf View Post
    As far as self analysis. I believe that doing your own is fine. Every track or system that games are played on and need settings and such to be shown are the sole responsibility of the submitter.

    In my self analysis I try to show via video and screenshot that the game is on the correct settings. This can be determined by using the F11 key that shows current frame count and the recorded speed that the game was recorded at. I show the settings using the " -iv 1" in the command line so that you can use the DELETE key to show them. Being recorded in wolfmame I believe it means that NVRAM can't be used. I believe I make the best effort and show enough evidence that everything can be determined to be correct.

    Now that I stated all the above I realize the two flaws in my statements.
    1. The inp can't be verified to be the correct one without someone else testing it.
    2. The inp can't be known to playback correctly on someone else's computer.

    Just great also as I have around 25 mame submissions with self analysis already done just waiting to be submitted. In the future I will no longer be doing my own analysis.
    There's nothing wrong with including self analysis in your submission, I agree - there are a few subs where I've done the same thing, as at the time, no other users on TG were providing that. However, self analysis should only be viewed as an additional piece of reference, and NOT solid evidence for adjudicators. Why? Like you did with your comments, I'll leave the text below that hopefully helps explain to others the reasons, and fills in some gaps in understanding about MAME (i.e. NVRAM).

    As TG is a peer-review site, it seems logical (to me) that a person's performance should be evaluated and confirmed primarily by others. In the case of MAME submissions, a playback and some kind of analysis of the .inp is the most important adjudication evidence - this means at the very least, someone else should download and play back your .inp to ensure it actually does play back, check that the right version of the ROM was used, check that the DIPs were set properly, and that the .inp plays back to the submitted score. Playing back your .inp yourself in a video doesn't necessarily mean everything is set correctly, as NVRAM could still be an issue. Just because you're using WolfMAME doesn't mean that NVRAM can't be enabled - if you have it enabled on your machine and don't realize it, you'll be able to play back your .inp, and everything will appear ok to you...only when someone else tries to play it on their machine will the .inp desync, letting you know there's a problem.

    Ok, that's enough from me...always open to hearing differing viewpoints, but not sure what else I can add about this specific dispute.
    Likes Ragequit, RedDawn liked this post
  3. 04-14-2021, 08:18 PM
    jason, not an argument (well half an argument) more a question

    self analysis. i partially disagree with you when you consider full context of how tg works. an honest mistake results in a score pulled, deception however results in a ban and all scores removed. For that reason i think self analysis has some merit. self analysis rules out honest mistakes (or at least i think it does, you tell me). So if the self analysis/honest mistakes is done with, and an error is found, bam, person is banned. this has two side effects. the first is that the person is less likely to lie about self analysis, the second is that we have less to fear in trusting in it, since if we're suckered the person wont get away with it for long. Both those effects give self analysis some credence

    i think my logic makes sense? but i also know i know nothing about inp analysis, which is why this is only half an argument and more a question.
    Lode Runner Champion
  4. 04-15-2021, 04:43 AM
    Wrong inp in submission seems pretty straightforward. Voting yes.
  5. 04-15-2021, 11:04 PM
    The following INP downloaded from MARP is the correct INP for this disputed submission and plays back to the correct score and matches the video.nge_mslug_3379280_wolf106.zip


    D:\mame\wolf106 analyze>wlfview mslug.wlf mslug.inp
    WLFVIEW 0.3 - Apr 5 2006


    Info loaded. WLF rev 9


    Recorded for the game 'mslug'
    MAME version string: 0.106 (May 16 2006)


    -- CPU info --
    Vendor: AMD
    Processor Family: 15 Processor Model: 1
    Approximate clock speed: 3111360148Hz


    -- OS info --
    Operating System: Windows NT 6.1 Service Pack 1


    -- INP info --
    Number of frames: 364171
    Average record speed: 99.999286%
    System time at start of emulation: Wed Jan 17 19:43:52 2018
    Sound: 44100Hz Samples: Enabled
    GUI: 0 Artwork: 0
    68000 CPU Core: C
    NVRAM Usage: Disabled
    BIOS used (0=default): us-e


    -- Validity --
    Check 1: INP header: OK
    Check 2: INP file: OK
    Check 3: WLF file: OK


    Beginning of INP

    00000000 6D 73 6C 75 67 00 00 00 00 57 6A 00 00 00 01 02 mslug....Wj.....
    00000010 94 96 73 B9 00 00 00 00 F8 17 60 5A 08 30 B2 92 s.....`Z.0
    00000020 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ............
    00000030 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 ...?...........
    00000040 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000060 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000070 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000080 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3E 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF ........>C...
    000000A0 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F ............?
    000000B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    000000C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000110 00 00 00 00 3E 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ....>C......
    00000120 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 .........?....
    00000130 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    00000140 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000150 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000160 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000170 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000180 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................



    Middle of INP

    0148A310 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A320 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A330 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ....C......
    0148A340 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 .........?....
    0148A350 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    0148A360 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A370 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A380 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A390 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A3A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A3B0 A2 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF C.........
    0148A3C0 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 ......?.......
    0148A3D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A3E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A3F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A400 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A410 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A420 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 ............C
    0148A430 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ............
    0148A440 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 ...?...........
    0148A450 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A460 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A470 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A480 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A490 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    0148A4A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF ........C...
    0148A4B0 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F ............?


    End of INP

    02B109E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B109F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 ............C
    02B10A00 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ............
    02B10A10 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 ...?...........
    02B10A20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10A30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10A40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10A50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10A60 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10A70 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF ........C...
    02B10A80 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F ............?
    02B10A90 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    02B10AA0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10AB0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10AC0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10AD0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10AE0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10AF0 00 00 00 00 A2 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ....C......
    02B10B00 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 .........?....
    02B10B10 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    02B10B20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10B30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10B40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10B50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10B60 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    02B10B70 A2 82 43 E1 C


    Sample good INP

    00000000 6D 73 6C 75 67 00 00 00 00 57 6A 00 00 00 01 02 mslug....Wj.....
    00000010 A0 2A AD 9A 00 00 00 00 EE 33 79 60 FF 33 F8 07 *.....3y`3.
    00000020 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ............
    00000030 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 ...?...........
    00000040 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000060 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000070 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000080 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3E 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF ........>C...
    000000A0 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F ............?
    000000B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    000000C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    000000F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000110 00 00 00 00 3E 82 43 E1 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF ....>C......
    00000120 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 FF 00 00 00 3F 00 00 00 00 .........?....
    00000130 00 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...............
    00000140 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000150 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000160 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000170 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    00000180 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................

    I provided the correct information and analysis for the accepted submission. Can we just add this information to the accepted submission and be done with it. It seems a waste if we remove this score for something that is so easily fixed by just adding this little piece of information to the already accepted submission.
  6. 04-16-2021, 10:58 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
    jason, not an argument (well half an argument) more a question

    self analysis. i partially disagree with you when you consider full context of how tg works. an honest mistake results in a score pulled, deception however results in a ban and all scores removed. For that reason i think self analysis has some merit. self analysis rules out honest mistakes (or at least i think it does, you tell me). So if the self analysis/honest mistakes is done with, and an error is found, bam, person is banned. this has two side effects. the first is that the person is less likely to lie about self analysis, the second is that we have less to fear in trusting in it, since if we're suckered the person wont get away with it for long. Both those effects give self analysis some credence

    i think my logic makes sense? but i also know i know nothing about inp analysis, which is why this is only half an argument and more a question.
    As I mentioned in my previous post, there is nothing wrong with a submitter including self-analysis with an evidence package - they are free to include anything they like to convince people they've achieved a score. I also mentioned that I myself have included self-analysis in a few subs over the years, basically out of necessity, as literally no one else on the site was analyzing .inps at the time. My position is that while the submitter CAN include an analysis, adjudicators shouldn't view it with anywhere NEAR the same regard as an analysis provided by someone else - I've explained above in more detail some of the reasons for this, but self-analysis will not find errors such as the submitter misunderstanding confusing DIP settings for a track (i.e. Century Electronics games like Hunchback), misunderstanding which ROMset to use (due to version changes), or not realizing that they haven't disabled NVRAM (since the .inp WILL play back correctly on their computer, but WON'T on anyone else's).

    Any of these example reasons could be honest mistakes - whether they were intentionally done to mislead adjudicators or not is irrelevant (not to mention difficult to prove), they all still invalidate a submission. You mention "not getting away with it for long" - errors like the ones I've mentioned can only be found if someone other than the submitter plays back the .inp...if no one ever does, and adjudicators just instantly accept submissions with self-analysis only, how will these bad subs ever be found out? There is no rule against accepting subs that have self-analysis only, or self-analysis only from people an adjudicator trusts - of course, adjudicators are free to trust anything they want, that's part of the beauty of the site. That being said, in my opinion, doing so reduces the efficacy of the review process in finding bad subs before they hit the leaderboard, and if they DO get there, people need to be prepared for more disputes to be opened (like in this case). I can tell you right now, in a random audit I did yesterday, I found multiple bad MAME subs that have been accepted over the past few months, and if I get around to it, I'll open disputes for each.

    Quote Originally Posted by redelf View Post
    I provided the correct information and analysis for the accepted submission. Can we just add this information to the accepted submission and be done with it. It seems a waste if we remove this score for something that is so easily fixed by just adding this little piece of information to the already accepted submission.
    Again though, what about the credibility implications? Does it all just get reversed, like the sub never happened? Fine by me, although it makes "credibility" completely meaningless, and you'd be asking TG to completely change the way their system works. Plus, how many other subs will be allowed this special treatment? I've said before I couldn't care less if credibility disappeared tomorrow, but TG and some of the users may think differently.
    Thanks redelf, Snowflake thanked this post
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 16 of 16
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Join us