thegamer1185's Feed

thegamer1185
01-11-2020 at 05:58 PM
163 Comments
Rate this Entry

Pausing - Is it allowed?

So it has been brought to the attention of some of us adjudicators that a run has been accepted into the TG database that has several pauses in it longer than 15 seconds. While I have always been told that pausing for any reason is not allowed, (except for recording purposes...which isn't written anywhere either) there is now a submitter who is using this already accepted submission that has pausing in it to pass there own. Rightfully so, equal across the board and I have no issue with them using that as reason to allow the submission to clear through adjudication.

Here is the issue. There is literally nothing in any TG policy about pausing.....except when it comes to tracks specifically labeled as "Marathon" which rule 3.0.B says pausing is not permitted. That is it. Nothing anywhere says you can't pause for any reason. While you could use the "spirit of the game" argument, which is a completely unclear discussion of it's own based on the individual/game/other circumstance, technically pausing is allowed then right? If the rules don't say anything about it, it's not against them.

@Jace Hall , @RTM "> @GibGirl "> @starsoldier1 "> @MyOwnWorstEnemy "> @timmell "> @RaGe , @Desidious , @Marcade , @starcrytas , @Barthax . Tag anyone else who used to be a ref or has any experience with this the more thoughts the better.

It's been brought up about 6 times over the last 3 years that the policies are out of date for what is allowed in this day and age of TG. I really think these rules and others need updating sooner than later. For example...pretty much all of my submissions should be rejected because I use Everdrive cartridges, AKA NOT ORIGINAL HARDWARE. I break rule 1 right out of the gate. Yep, can't call me a hypocrite because I just called myself out. However, Everdrives ARE accepted. Lots to discuss here.

This is rule 1 for reference. What needs changing? Mods are allowed, Everdrives, non original controllers, I can't comment on Arcade stuff but I know things have been changed a little on some of them parts wise.

"Unless otherwise specified in a game leaderboard variation rule set, the general rule is that all games are to be played with original controllers, on original hardware, with original game software. "

ThanksRagequit thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
Comments
  1. Snowflake's Avatar

    we need to distinguish between stopping blind voting and stopping the harmful effects of blind voting


    you cant stop blind voting, that invovles stopping human choice. you cannot remove peoples free will

    you can howver make it so that the blind voting is severly mitigated or possibly even harmless. that is why cred over 4000 still matters, that is why cred hits need to be large. a large cred hit does nothing to stop the blind voters as we have seen, but a large cred hit does at least make it so that the blind voters have less power to do harm in the future

  2. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    Think we are starting to get side tracked, myself included. I'll just ask this and lets get this matter settled since we are now starting to go round and round.

    1. Is everyone OK with moving the Puyo Puyo scores over to a newly created track that allows pausing since there is nothing in the Global rules or otherwise stating pausing isn't allowed? This would solve the lack of pausing rule not being written, the scores remain under a track that would make them valid.

    2. @Jace Hall , I believe the consensus is that Pausing under any normal circumstance unless stated otherwise is not allowed and should be written into the rules somewhere.

    Does everyone agree with these two statements, phrasing of the rules pending of course?

    I was hoping that TheGamer's post would move this thread back on-track and work toward a solution. That's another conversation that really needs its own space to flex and contract until ideas are polished enough to influence change. I'm sure it will make it to the back of the queue <insert sarcasm>.

    As for this matter, I agree with Kyle's solution. The other option that I've read is to reject the current submission and dispute the one that was accepted. That way we can hold those 'blind' adjudicators responsible and put a dent in their credibility. The problem is your assuming all voters knew or should have known of a global rule that's not codified and available for everyone to read. If there's nothing written anywhere on this site or anywhere that it can be easily found, how can we hold adjudicators who are unaware of the 'pass-around' tribal knowledge accountable? Folks may have reviewed the full video and noted pause time. They checked the rules and came to the conclusion, "I guess its allowed since its not stated in the rules".

    When I was in the hospitality service industry (tip your bartenders and servers), there was a saying that went something like "You're responsible for cleaning up your own breakage". @admin staff - we need your help to clean up your breakage. I think collectively, we've taken this as far as we can and provided a two-step option that only you have the authority to fix in a reasonable amount of time.


    LikesBRaG, thegamer1185, The Evener liked this post
  3. Ninglendo's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    we need to distinguish between stopping blind voting and stopping the harmful effects of blind voting


    you cant stop blind voting, that invovles stopping human choice. you cannot remove peoples free will

    you can howver make it so that the blind voting is severly mitigated or possibly even harmless. that is why cred over 4000 still matters, that is why cred hits need to be large. a large cred hit does nothing to stop the blind voters as we have seen, but a large cred hit does at least make it so that the blind voters have less power to do harm in the future

    A good compromise to that would be to make each wrong vote take more of a percentage of a cred hit. So the more mistakes or bad motives you have the harsher the penalties get.
    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  4. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Again, if you don't care about CR this doesn't do anything. As I mentioned earlier, yes you do gain more voting power with more CR, but there still needs to be a certain number of votes required to pass the score. So CR really doesn't give you more voting power, it's a catch 22. You have more, but only if others eventually vote the way you voted. You don't gain anymore access to anything over 4000 CR either, mainly the dispute system. Which can be bypassed by simply asking someone to start a dispute for you. You can't ban someone for just voting incorrectly either. We have all done that based on what we believe the rules are stating so you can't just have an increase the penalty every time you vote incorrectly because some of the track rules suck and we are simply voting on how we view them.

    You could raise the number of votes needed to approve a score, but that number can vary greatly based on the popularity of the game. Some scores just aren't viewed nearly as much, so even getting a certain number votes is already a daunting task.

    Honestly asking because it seems to really, really piss some of you off; How many scores have been incorrectly accepted because of blind voting only? Adding to that, is it enough to even be concerned about changing things since TGSAP seems to be doing the job with great accuracy? I really don't think blind voters have the power you think they do. I think the TGSAP system works, and I think it needs blind voters to push scores through because of how the current formula is written. Perhaps that is the solution to our blind voter problem, the formula may need to be changed to counter the blind vote. I would like to see the number of accepted scores since TGSAP mandatory video uploading was established vs how many have needed to be disputed because of a blatant blind voter acceptance. I'm not talking about disputed scores where there was a debate over how a rule was perceived, I'm talking about a score specifically like the Puyo Puyo score. I'll bet it's less than 1% that's how good TGSAP is working.

    I can only think of 2. This Puyo Puyo...which didn't brake any written rules so I shouldn't really include it but I am, and a Mathew Felix submission that had the wrong video evidence uploaded but then had the proper video evidence uploaded, only one person said they were rejecting it and that's all it took for EVERYONE to reject it.

    Updated 01-14-2020 at 07:17 PM by thegamer1185
  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    oh come now. sure if the increase cred gave you 1.2 votes versus 1 vote, fine its negligible. but when the blind voters gets 20-40x the votes of a new person, and 10x the votes as a lot of us, yes one blind voters alone counts for alot, two together can absoultey overpower a bunch of people.

    20-40 votes in the hand of a blind voter makes a difference, i dont see how you can realistically argue it doesnt

    how many people are even voting for a sub to go through? we dont know, but we do know the community aint all that huge, so yes i think 40 votes in the hands of a single person is alot.

  6. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I thought every vote was just worth one vote? Why would it be worth more, that defeats the purpose of TGSAP being a community thing. It also allows people with "more votes" to collude just as you say a blinder voter swarm could. I thought there had to be a threshold for CR to be met, and a threshold for number of total votes to be met before a score was accepted/rejected?

    Who has 1 vote counting as 40? That doesn't even make sense why ANYONE would have that great a value on there vote.

  7. Snowflake's Avatar

    the entire purpose of cred is to make sure the better votes count for more. that way one person can just have twent friends force a sub through. your cred = your votes. so if 1000 cred is a new person, than i usually casually refer to 1000 votes as one vote (though technically its 1000).

    jjt's votes are worth 40 votes of a new person.

    yes its community, but given everyone equal vote would mean experts and noobies, as well ascorrupt all get same power. the cred system is good in theory. and as bad as it is with some votesr getting too much i still admit i like it better than everyone having one vote cause with one vote each think of how easy fake accounts could swarm and manipulte subs.

    cred hits were supposed to keep things in check. again, i like the idea in theory that expert votes be worth more, but i think the formula needs a lot of tweaking, because yeah, i really dont feel jjt deserves 40 votes.

    FYI top adjudicator currently gets 70x the votes of a new person. so 40 isnt even the highest number out there. its just the number thats currently making issues

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    as for top members colluding. they reall cant collude to force a bad sub through, cause even if they did, it would be challenged and thx to 5% hit they'd take a YUGE wack each time they colluded. I believe that concern alone stops them from colluding in the first place, but should they collude they'll quickly lose their power to collude in the future

    top members could collude to reject good submissions i guess. nothing to stop that. i think usually were more worried about collusion for accepting than rejecting though. i dont think its an issue,but sure, it theoretically could be.

  9. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    the entire purpose of cred is to make sure the better votes count for more. that way one person can just have twent friends force a sub through. your cred = your votes. so if 1000 cred is a new person, than i usually casually refer to 1000 votes as one vote (though technically its 1000).

    jjt's votes are worth 40 votes of a new person.

    yes its community, but given everyone equal vote would mean experts and noobies, as well ascorrupt all get same power. the cred system is good in theory. and as bad as it is with some votesr getting too much i still admit i like it better than everyone having one vote cause with one vote each think of how easy fake accounts could swarm and manipulte subs.

    cred hits were supposed to keep things in check. again, i like the idea in theory that expert votes be worth more, but i think the formula needs a lot of tweaking, because yeah, i really dont feel jjt deserves 40 votes.

    FYI top adjudicator currently gets 70x the votes of a new person. so 40 isnt even the highest number out there. its just the number thats currently making issues

    I get what you are saying, where are you finding this information at? I can't find a specific formula I guess. I do agree also that people who have voted more/higher CR their votes should have a little more power, but to a certain extent. If a score needs 100 votes, I wouldn't want a person to have say more than 10% of that total needed. That still leaves at least 10 more votes of that power needed. There is no perfect way.

  10. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    as for top members colluding. they reall cant collude to force a bad sub through, cause even if they did, it would be challenged and thx to 5% hit they'd take a YUGE wack each time they colluded. I believe that concern alone stops them from colluding in the first place, but should they collude they'll quickly lose their power to collude in the future

    top members could collude to reject good submissions i guess. nothing to stop that. i think usually were more worried about collusion for accepting than rejecting though. i dont think its an issue,but sure, it theoretically could be.

    Again, how many accepted TGSAP mandatory video submissions have been accepted, and how many have needed to be disputed? I am going of that time period because youtube submissions have been removed for missing links and whatnot. This will show how much the blind voters are really screwing with the TGSAP system. Since Apr 2017 (I think that is when the madatory policy kicked in) I bet it's below 1%. Not all disputed scores, just completely missed blown acceptance. Rule arguments IMO are debatable and don't count towards a blind voters submissions. I'll try to find out numbers since I have nothing better to do, but some help may be needed.

  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    jace has been over it a few times. heres an example in post 403 explaining your cred is your number of votes

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/140631-Questions-for-upcoming-State-of-the-Galaxies?p=789731&viewfull=1#post789731

    we were never told the exact formula on passing a score -- and we were explicity told that we wont be told as keeping the exact formula secret should make collusion harder. sorry dont have the link for that.

    but we do know one wrong vote gets 5% ding, one correct gets 3 points bonus, and your votes equals your cred

    i also strongly suspect the formula sometimes slightly changes since we've all seen the queue suddenly have dozens of submission go through all at once. or maybe dates are built in the formula as well so its some sort of combo of cred/vote threshold balaneced with time. who knows, all we can do is speculate on the formula as to what it takes to complete a submission

  12. Snowflake's Avatar

    oh and i agree we cant use honest differences of opinion as proof of blind voting. however, there are sometimes indicators given in the comments that indicate a sub wasnt watched. some clues are accepting a marathon within minutes of it being posted. another clue is claiming footage of a board is missing -- despite that board being shown for 5 minutes -- but since after board was shown other things were happened the adjudicator clearly just skipped to end saw no board and believed board was never there.

    now sure people can miss things. if a track has 5 lives total its tough to be sure if its blind voting an honest miss. however, i'll say this, whats the odds multiple people miss the exact same death? when i see two people make the exact same mistake my guess is one person watched and found the deaths and made a mistake but the second one just copied them, admittedly thats more opinion based.

    but you get my point. blind voting in some cases is more clear than others.

    oh, i should also emphasize i use the term loosely. when i say "blind voter" yes some voters really do just mass accept if all they care about is sub points. but for those chasing cred, they need to watch the beginning for setting and end for score. if you wanna argue semantics thats not truly blind, but i think just watching the very beginning and very end is still something i'm willing to call blind voting and shoddy work.

    Likesthegamer1185 liked this post
  13. thegamer1185's Avatar

    There have been 59,645 TGSAP accepted scores and 314 disputed scores accepted with another 130 being disputed. Many of those disputed scores are not TGSAP related either. That equals .007% of ALL scores in the database. TGSAP is apparently working quite well. I suppose some of those 59K TGSAP scores could be incorrect, but I think there are more voting properly than there are blind voters. I'd rather see the rules updated than worry about blind voters affecting anything.

    LikesJace Hall, Barthax, Garrett Holland liked this post
  14. BRaG's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185
    I suppose some of those 59K TGSAP scores could be incorrect, but I think there are more voting properly than there are blind voters.


    Orrrrrrrr....


    The huge majority of those submissions are just legit and blind voters are lucky.

  15. Snowflake's Avatar

    well there were actually several points you made there kyle
    1. I agree TG for the most part is accurate. However part of the reason its accurate is the vigilance of people guarding against innacuracy. once we say "hey its accurate relax" it will stop being accurate. we need to continue to stay on top of things
    2. yes, if its only one or the other updating the rules is in fact more important, however, why not both?
    3. as pointed out above, with the majority of subs being good, not to mention the few that are bad the non-blind voters speak up and in turn the blind voters (not blind to comments) see the comments and adjust.

    also, people's creds havent stablized yet, just cause its working now doesnt mean it'll go on working. as the shoddy mass voters grow their cred more and more it becomes more of an issue. so what wasnt an issue yesterday could well be an issue tomorrow if something isnt done today.

  16. Garrett Holland's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185
    I get what you are saying, where are you finding this information at?

    This is on the wiki page under Guidelines. Not sure it answers your question, though.

  17. Jace Hall's Avatar

    Hello all.

    Good discussion and many valid points raised.

    I did find where I had modified the rules regarding Everdrives and etc. in the TG Policy. It was located here:

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/wiki_index.php?title=Policy:Adjudication-Basic-Guide:-What-to-look-for

    You will see it discusses some other elements such as controllers as well.

    The placement of these particular policies in this location is a legacy throwback to previous TG eras, as we just took the rules as they were historically presented and organized on the old websites.

    With that being said, I have copied these rules into the General Ruleset page so that everything can be in one place (finally). And as a result I have updated the General Rules with contemplation of items raised within this overall thread. You can find the update here:

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/wiki_index.php?title=Policy:General-Gameplay-Global-Rules-and-Guidelines-for-all-Submissions

    Also, I have altered the rules of the Puyo Puyo track.

    Pausing has been allowed for this track - as per Twin Galaxies administrative decision. (Due to the general rules regarding pausing only being informally documented until recently.)

    All voters may re-evaluate the submissions on that track as per the change.

    Twin Galaxies will sponsor and create a "non-pausing" track and move any necessary scores to it if any current track record holders request it.

    Please let me know if anything has been overlooked.

    @SallowDay - Welcome to Twin Galaxies and thank you for your contribution.

    Thanks to all.

    LikesFly liked this post
  18. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall

    Hello all.

    Good discussion and many valid points raised.

    I did find where I had modified the rules regarding Everdrives and etc. in the TG Policy. It was located here:

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/wiki_index.php?title=Policy:Adjudication-Basic-Guide:-What-to-look-for

    You will see it discusses some other elements such as controllers as well.

    The placement of these particular policies in this location is a legacy throwback to previous TG eras, as we just took the rules as they were historically presented and organized on the old websites.

    With that being said, I have copied these rules into the General Ruleset page so that everything can be in one place (finally). And as a result I have updated the General Rules with contemplation of items raised within this overall thread. You can find the update here:

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/wiki_index.php?title=Policy:General-Gameplay-Global-Rules-and-Guidelines-for-all-Submissions

    Also, I have altered the rules of the Puyo Puyo track.

    Pausing has been allowed for this track - as per Twin Galaxies administrative decision. (Due to the general rules regarding pausing only being informally documented until recently.)

    All voters may re-evaluate the submissions on that track as per the change.

    Twin Galaxies will sponsor and create a "non-pausing" track and move any necessary scores to it if any current track record holders request it.

    Please let me know if anything has been overlooked.

    @SallowDay - Welcome to Twin Galaxies and thank you for your contribution.

    Thanks to all.


    Lots of great subtle confirmations included, thanks Jace.

    I would recommend expanding:

    "System boot up and game application launch/startup should be shown for Arcade and Console platforms in any evidence video provided."

    To include the note that on Computer platforms application launch/startup should be shown.

  19. Jace Hall's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    Lots of great subtle confirmations included, thanks Jace.

    I would recommend expanding:

    "System boot up and game application launch/startup should be shown for Arcade and Console platforms in any evidence video provided."

    To include the note that on Computer platforms application launch/startup should be shown.

    Done. Thank you.

    ThanksBarthax thanked this post
  20. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    "System boot up and game application launch/startup should be shown for Arcade and Console platforms in any evidence video provided."


    That's going to be a very tough ask in some arcades. Ones I go to often have the whole row of cabs on the same switch. Fine for console and PC but making system reboot an absolute mandatory requirement for Arcade is going to hurt some folks.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Join us