terencew's Feed

The dispute is open, and I find it likely it'll pass. Then all those blind voters will get the credibility hits they've earned.

Fly, Snowflake, datagod liked this post

i feel for all the effort all the inp analyzers put in, but especially you. as far as i can tell, once any of you give your inp analysis thats all the blind voters need to amass. im pretty sure if you have ran the analysis, and the analysis showed an error but you didnt explicilty highlight the error, the score would still go through.

Blind voters will be punished.

Looks like you did the correct thing, @terencew with a full account of reasoning. Alas, people don't read. Dispute it is - the fail safe of TGSAP.

The track's rules are indeed inadequate, so I probably would've removed my vote, if I'd gotten a notification of your comment. From my point of view, the fault is with the thread subscription notification system, not with TGSAP. If I'd come to the thread, after you'd made your comment, I wouldn't've voted. Useless comments, made by members who obviously didn't adjudicate Mr Gronski's submission, don't change the fact that said submission is valid, according to the rules.

Sometimes, Mr Wong, occurrences such as this are necessary. This poorly written track has existed for about a decade, and the acceptance of Mr Gronski's submission is the only reason its faultiness has finally been revealed. So, cool down your temper, and use this opportunity to make a positive change.

SincerelyFranny thanked this post

terencew liked this post

This situation is troubling for a couple of reasons.

First, the listed rule set for the track. Normally, for games where there are both hard and soft (internal) DIPs applicable, the rules list the settings for each...in the case of soft DIPs, sometimes it's as mundane as "internal settings are default", but usually there is something listed if the settings can affect gameplay/scoring - for this track, only hard DIPs are listed, and there is no mention at all of the internal settings. In the rare case where nothing at all is listed, the general assumption is that the setting should remain at its default. I ran the analysis for the submission in question - the hard DIPs set for it match the rule set, and the soft DIPs were left at default, adhering to all listed rules. We now know that this is one of those uncommon cases where a fix in a later version of WolfMAME resulted in the modification of a default internal setting, and that this setting just so happens to affect scoring - the fix was noted in the MAME dev logs for version 0.153 (something I always check for), but the notes do not mention the effect on the starting lives setting. Without being familiar with the game and its scoring (as I was not, never having seen it before), not having the soft DIPs listed in the rules (number of starting lives), nor having any other TG .inps to compare it to, nothing in the general .inp analysis alone would point to there being a question about the settings...that would have to come from the TGSAP process, which it did, thanks to @Blair Weston 's original question, and @terencew 's follow-up.

Second, despite having posted a reply in this thread (the .inp analysis), I received no notifications in my feed letting me know this discussion was going on - I've logged on several times per day the last few weeks, but saw nothing about this. I received only the notice that the submission had been accepted (a couple of hours ago), and then had to see Terence's wall post before finding out about what had happened. I also double checked my historical notifications, and see no record of the comments from anyone, despite the submission being in my subscription list. If I had received a notification about this discussion, I would have at a minimum removed my yes vote, and I would also have confirmed the difference in internal behavior between 0.106 and the version used for the submission. Is it possible that for some reason, this submission did not generate notifications to anyone that replied on it, and that is the reason it was accepted without the discussion being completed? Can someone else on that thread let me know if you received notifications of replies?

Bottom line is, based on the other scores on the board, it seems pretty clear that although the listed rules were followed, they are incomplete as they don't list an important setting (the starting lives), which led to Doron most likely getting an advantage, unintended as it was. The voters pushed this one through before the discussion could be completed, either because they saw my analysis listed and looked at nothing else, or due to lack of notification about the questions brought up (like in my case)...unfortunate, but I guess this is where the dispute system can help clear things up.

terencew thanked this post

Almighty Dreadlock, Barthax liked this post

I didn't participate in the original adjudication, but I examined the submission thread based on this wall post. I left comments in the score dispute, but I'll leave them here as well.

The point difference between first and second is 13,791. For comparison, the point spread between the last place score and the former top score (now second) is a little over 10,000.

Points are awarded based on total number of targets hit before time expiration and a percentage of overall accuracy until the final stage, where additional points are also awarded based on remaining hearts. Rather than look to the superior skill of the recent submitter to explain the score difference, it's been asserted that all previous submitters used only the default one life/heart, but there's no evidence to support this assumption. Why not presume that MAME submitters sought to create game conditions that matched arcade settings in order to compete on the same footing? Similarly, one could just as well assume that the current second and third place scores also started with additional lives/hearts to explain the 10,000 point difference with the last place score.

to the secondary issue about notification i've experienced this bug myself. I've found absolutley no pattern. some things trigger notifications, some dont. the excess notification are at least predictable. the missing notifications are sporadic.

JasonV91 thanked this post

Blackflag82 liked this post

Originally Posted by The Evener

I didn't participate in the original adjudication, but I examined the submission thread based on this wall post. I left comments in the score dispute, but I'll leave them here as well.The point difference between first and second is 13,791. For comparison, the point spread between the last place score and the former top score (now second) is a little over 10,000.Points are awarded based on total number of targets hit before time expiration and a percentage of overall accuracy until the final stage, where additional points are also awarded based on remaining hearts. Rather than look to the superior skill of the recent submitter to explain the score difference, it's been asserted that all previous submitters used only the default one life/heart, but there's no evidence to support this assumption. Why not presume that MAME submitters sought to create game conditions that matched arcade settings in order to compete on the same footing? Similarly, one could just as well assume that the current second and third place scores also started with additional lives/hearts to explain the 10,000 point difference with the last place score.

Superior skill would only of netted 33,000 not 53,000 if only one life was used instead of 3

Originally Posted by The Evener

The point difference between first and second is 13,791. For comparison, the point spread between the last place score and the former top score (now second) is a little over 10,000.

Points are awarded based on total number of targets hit before time expiration and a percentage of overall accuracy until the final stage, where additional points are also awarded based on remaining hearts. Rather than look to the superior skill of the recent submitter to explain the score difference, it's been asserted that all previous submitters used only the default one life/heart, but there's no evidence to support this assumption. Why not presume that MAME submitters sought to create game conditions that matched arcade settings in order to compete on the same footing? Similarly, one could just as well assume that the current second and third place scores also started with additional lives/hearts to explain the 10,000 point difference with the last place score.

Note that Mr Gronski gave up 3,000 points, by not shooting with 100% accuracy, in three of the four stages. Additionally, hitting all of the available targets would have given him at least another 3,000 points. In other words, better gameplay would yield a score over 20,000 points above the former high score. It is therefore possible that the score difference is attributable to the extra 20,000 point bonus, based on the assumption that the previous record holder played a very good game. Said assumption is not unreasonable, as the game's "training mode" is easy.

terencew thanked this post

Barthax liked this post

Good eye, Blair, for sure.

Definitely unfortunate that a MAME change caused an inadvertent error on the players part-no one can know everything about every game.

I missed this one in adjudication, (phew!), but even it being addressed this way seems like TGSAP will get it right eventually, tho it will require a dispute.

ILLSeaBass liked this post

It's these little things you don't even think about is why I always say reject to things like this. Picked continues but didn't use them. You just never know the little things in the background that are being effected by every choice.

Originally Posted by swaggers

It's these little things you don't even think about is why I always say reject to things like this. Picked continues but didn't use them. You just never know the little things in the background that are being effected by every choice.

I too have noticed the failing notification system. And it is annoying.

However, Blair's comment and all subsequent posts came within 12 hours of the analysis being posted. The submission was then accepted after a whole week of silence.

And while I'm happy it's taking place at all, the discussion that should have happened in the submission thread is now both here & in the recently opened dispute.

I find it unlikely that the submission was pushed through by the volume of votes in the 9 hours between the analysis and Blair's first comment. And that the main culprit here was the lack of adequate notification. It surely didn't help, but come on... that's our villain?!

It would be interesting to see the number (or "weighted number", however the system works) of votes that were lodged after the last comment in the thread.

We can't be certain that all our rules are watertight - all we can do is address them when we find them. Blair & I tried that, and instead of being better as a community, we now have at least two problems.

So I beg to differ - the acceptance of this score is NOT the only reason its faultiness has been revealed. It was revealed while the score was still in adjudication, but TGSAP did something else about it.

Rogerpoco, GibGirl thanked this post

Rogerpoco liked this post

Originally Posted by terencew

I too have noticed the failing notification system. And it is annoying.

However, Blair's comment and all subsequent posts came within 12 hours of the analysis being posted. The submission was then accepted after a whole week of silence.

And while I'm happy it's taking place at all, the discussion that should have happened in the submission thread is now both here & in the recently opened dispute.

I find it unlikely that the submission was pushed through by the volume of votes in the 9 hours between the analysis and Blair's first comment. And that the main culprit here was the lack of adequate notification. It surely didn't help, but come on... that's our villain?!

It would be interesting to see the number (or "weighted number", however the system works) of votes that were lodged after the last comment in the thread.

We can't be certain that all our rules are watertight - all we can do is address them when we find them. Blair & I tried that, and instead of being better as a community, we now have at least two problems.

So I beg to differ - the acceptance of this score is NOT the only reason its faultiness has been revealed. It was revealed while the score was still in adjudication, but TGSAP did something else about it.

The "something else" which TGSAP "did" is known as making the correct decision.

The "whole week of silence" to which you refer is known as not making a case for a 'no' vote.

No notifications is the reason I didn't remove my vote. Reasons for others' votes are unknown to me. But, since you're looking for a "villain", how about yourself? You didn't reply to the MAME analyst's comment, didn't tag anyone, didn't mention anyone. Replying, tagging and mentioning are all functions of TGSAP, aren't they? You didn't use any of them, yet here you are, playing the "blame TGSAP" game. All that effort into one comment, zero effort into making sure it prevented this gross miscarriage of justice you're so upset about.

I love a good argument, but even I have my limits. I'll just let the "community" pat you on the back, as your comments show such great wisdom and forbearance, and you can get admin to sort this little mess out any way you please. I have ceased to care.

Please ,gentlemen,do not fight over my game submission!

All of you have valid points.
I have a suggestion. Why don't we amend the rules in this game.
Old Point Blank submissions ( pre-0.153 MAME) will be put in a new "One Life Only" track and the rest of the submissions will be in a normal 3 lives track (same as the Arcade)
Cheers!

EVN thanked this post

EVN liked this post

Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

No notifications is the reason I didn't remove my vote.

Yeah. That's unfortunate. (i havn't been getting notifications for wall posts lately. just saying)

Simon. How many cred points did you lose on that one?

john

.

datagod thanked this post

datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

The "something else" which TGSAP "did" is known as making the correct decision.

The "whole week of silence" to which you refer is known as not making a case for a 'no' vote.

No notifications is the reason I didn't remove my vote. Reasons for others' votes are unknown to me. But, since you're looking for a "villain", how about yourself? You didn't reply to the MAME analyst's comment, didn't tag anyone, didn't mention anyone. Replying, tagging and mentioning are all functions of TGSAP, aren't they? You didn't use any of them, yet here you are, playing the "blame TGSAP" game. All that effort into one comment, zero effort into making sure it prevented this gross miscarriage of justice you're so upset about.

I love a good argument, but even I have my limits. I'll just let the "community" pat you on the back, as your comments show such great wisdom and forbearance, and you can get admin to sort this little mess out any way you please. I have ceased to care.

I'll correct you, the week of silence was meant to highlight my frustration of the lack of diligence displayed here, and that we had plenty of time to ponder the issue before we got here - it was not meant as supportive evidence either way. Apologies if I led you to think that

Now I just don't understand... how many people are you suggesting that I should have tagged? And how was I to know who to tag?

I could have replied to Jason or Jared. They're the only people who had commented on this thread in a way for which I could have any reason to assume may have already voted 'yes'. If I'd done so, who else would have been notified?
Due to a failing system, anyone else who didn't get notified STILL would not have been notified.

And just because the TGSAP process was followed as per design does not mean that the correct decision was reached. Because strictly speaking, this did not breach any rules either...

I continue to care. Because this is not about the argument - it's about the integrity of the scoreboard.

Originally Posted by lexmark

Simon. How many cred points did you lose on that one?

john

.

Never mind. I withdraw that dumb question.

john

.

Talks of a commissioner hybrid tuoe judge system have been discussed. I certainly don’t want the return of refs but I think things like this are one more reason for tg to consider a hybrid approach. Mame doesn’t have such clear cut rules all the time. The voters should still get the last word but we need some experts to be able to determine policy for things like this

dedmunds liked this post