thegamer1185's Feed

thegamer1185
07-13-2020 at 04:58 PM
32 Comments
Rate this Entry

For **** sake people!!!!

Seriously?! I literally wrote the post in the submissions about an hour ago about how the score entered was INCORRECT, and I get a cred hit because it's been accepted. Blind voting is clearly controlling these submissions at this point. Wow

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/217937

Thanksdatagod, kernzyp, JJT_Defender thanked this post
Comments
  1. Snowflake's Avatar

    its a problem. the cred reversal will hit those cred chasing. nothing an be done about the sub point chasers, but fortunately its the cred chasers that are most important to hit since too much cred in their irresonsbile hands does have to be dealt with

    Thanksdatagod thanked this post
    Likesthegamer1185 liked this post
  2. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I have been mostly inactive all summer. The second score I vote on ends up being a cred hit and injury to insult the site lets me know it twice. Hmmm.

    Thanksdatagod thanked this post
  3. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I'll just say, there are almost nothing but cred chasers voting at this point. That's why the submissions are being accepted at such a lightning pace. How many errors in the database have passed in the last several months??

  4. thegamer1185's Avatar

    TGSAP seems to be about SPEED instead of ACCURACY now. Seems backwards to me. Of course I could be completely wrong not having been overly active the last4-5 months. I just had a submission clear in a day and that NEVER happened 6 months ago when I was very active.

  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    ah the logic there is, thx to disputes now going faster its ok if some bad subs go through since the dispute will fix it quickly enough. i actualy agree with that logic as long as dipsutes go fast -- and they have been. the other issue would be an unfair reject since you cant challenge those, but thats not an issue since blind voters tend to blind accept not reject

  6. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I guess, but if those who actually watch the submissions don't get a chance to watch because they are passing so quickly, we then need to patrol every score that passes just to double check it. Which is much more work than letting things pass after a few weeks. Whatever, I haven't been around so I can't say how accurate it's been. Just doesn't seem like the best way for accuracy.

    Thanksdatagod thanked this post
  7. timmell's Avatar

    Yeah from one extreme to another

    Likesthegamer1185, datagod liked this post
  8. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    Here's another example of folks casting a yes vote without carefully watching the video submission. Except for Paul .... he pointed out that I uploaded the wrong video. The others may have relied on my screenshot to cast a vote.

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/218204-Dispute-Paul-Ford-PlayStation-2-Midway-Arcade-Treasures-3-NTSC-San-Francisco-Rush-2049-Single-Race-Civic-Forward-Track-Fastest-Lap-Player-Shaun-Michaud-Score-01-20-914

    Ultimately, I made the mistake in the submission so I'll own it. However, there needs to be some accountability for those not taking adjudication seriously. This is one of the more obvious ones... score does not match submission. I hope Twin Galaxies is keeping an eye on these 'no look' adjudication. In this case, Paul really is the only one to catch this error. If he hadn't spoken out I would have assumed I uploaded the right video and it was approved. Basically, I wouldn't have challenged it since I wouldn't know the error existed. It might have taken another five years before someone even plays this game and noticed the error.

    This has been in the dispute section for two weeks. I doubt this will reach admins attention strictly on Yes votes (maybe know it will). These disputes quickly fall down and off the first page.


    Likesthegamer1185, Snowflake, Ragequit liked this post
  9. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    I still prefer this to the old method of waiting weeks to pass simple scores. The score you are talking about didn't need weeks to be analized, it is pretty simple to adjudicate and the typo in the numbers could have scaped even the eye of non blind voters. This isn't accepting a 3M score on Donkey Kong, it is an error and blind voters should be punished and Kyle given his reputation points back.


    If Jace wouldn't have implemented this faster method, there would be 2,000 scores in the queue now and new members just going away because their scores were accepted months later when they no longer cared about it.


    Kyle has disputed the score and he should have his rep back and blind voters will be punished.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  10. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I don't know, scores were clearing through at about 2 weeks this last Dec/Jan. The ones that didn't seemed to clear quickly typically had the bare minimum evidence package/no time stamps/no pictures/where speed runs/very unpopular game. Now they clear through in a day. That makes it hard for the sharp eyed people to catch something if they never get to see it.

    I'm not checking the accepted scores that clear through adjudication unless I'm actually competing on the game. That 2 weeks seems like a reasonable time for most legit voters to have a glance if they cared too, and it didn't seem rushed like they do now. When you think about it, the blind voters are going to start stealing the SP from the people who actually do vote and compete. Sooner or later that will turn TGSAP into a race just to earn some SP.

    Just by looking at the queue there are at least 40-50 blind voters. Once they get enough CR, which they will, they will start to pass all submissions on their own. Accuracy of the leaderboards goes to hell. We shall see, it is what it is right now I guess.

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  11. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    I don't know, scores were clearing through at about 2 weeks this last Dec/Jan. The ones that didn't seemed to clear quickly typically had the bare minimum evidence package/no time stamps/no pictures/where speed runs/very unpopular game. Now they clear through in a day. That makes it hard for the sharp eyed people to catch something if they never get to see it.



    Not really, most M.A.M.E. submissions are still taking months and at least some kind of analysis from others in order to pass.

    Uninteresting submissions are still taking a lot like they did before.

    And new submissions don't just pass in 24 hours, if there is something to be clarified about them, the stay in the queue like the submission you just commented on.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    When you think about it, the blind voters are going to start stealing the SP from the people who actually do vote and compete. Sooner or later that will turn TGSAP into a race just to earn some SP.

    You are watching too much TV shows my friend, why would people just go on a race for SP? Having any ammount of SP, short or large does not mean anything. You can't do anything with SP other than submitting scores and creating tracks and I don't see anything wrong about that.

    If you meant Cred Points, again, why would people just go on a race for Cred? other than Juan, I don't see anybody on the leaderboard trying hard to gain positions.

    In the whole top 100 in cred, I couldn't name 1 person that I suspect of stealing SP or acting in bad faith to get an advantage or something.


    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    Just by looking at the queue there are at least 40-50 blind voters. Once they get enough CR, which they will, they will start to pass all submissions on their own.


    I would be surprised if there is 30 people actually adjudicating in the whole site.

    Lets say they get enough CR "which they will", what kind of submissions are they going to start passing on their own? Wrong submissions? Submissions where they are cheating? Abd if they do, are these submissions going to be undisputable? Can the few honest members that will remain at that point in the TG apocalypsis try to correct the situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    Accuracy of the leaderboards goes to hell. We shall see, it is what it is right now I guess.

    Again, watching too much TV my friend.

    LikesBarthax, thegamer1185 liked this post
  12. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    There's a Goldilocks event going on... the old way is too cold, this ones too hot, and we need to find one that is just right. I share a similar view as the Gamer1185. This is an error that was caught but what about the submission that go through without someone even looking at the video. Is that enough time for someone who is actually looking at the video to identify the error, post a response in the adjudicating thread, and influence other (who read the comments) to scrutinize the evidence? I'm not aware of any incentive for someone to review the submissions that were approved by the 'quick-click' blind voters. Unless you have a personal connection to that score such as voted No (credibility hit) or going for / taking back the record, no one really cares to open up disputes. How many times does it take to clean-up other folks messes before the few people trying to defend the scoreboard integrity throws up their hands in defeat on such a losing cause?

    There's already several examples where valid objections were raised during the adjudication period and was approved anyway. Also to be fair, this has happened in the old, slower paced adjudication process. Perhaps the real problem is not the speed of the adjudication but not offering the right incentive to promote proper adjudicator behavior.

    Here's a few ideas about fixing the underlying issue.

    1) Credibility should only be awarded to adjudicators that oppose the acceptance of the score (for valid reasons) and raise disputes that result in a score / removal.

    Why this works?

    Adjudicators with a critical eye and focus on database integrity are rewarded for their efforts with more voting power. Blind voters are not awarded credibility for simply voting YES!. However, a credibility penalty still applies for wrong votes. Overtime blind voters' credibility diminish closer to zero and good adjudicators credibility grows, since they have demonstrated well a credible approach to adjudicating submission.

    2) Incorrect adjudication votes are penalized by loss of submission points. That means they actual loss submission points from their 'bank account', As it is now, wrong adjudications only result in not getting awarded a submission point - this is not a loss or penalty.

    Why this works?

    Blind voters are driven by submission points - not credibility. They could care less about credibility ratings.. which is really only used to determine which members can open up a dispute. If they don't care enough to watch and verify a submission during the adjudication phase, I highly doubt they care enough about the ability to open a dispute. If you impose a penalty of lets say.... 10 submission points for every wrong vote, does this provide a negative incentive for blind voters to actually review the video? Too low... what about 50 or 100 SBs? There's a breaking point in which either the blind voter behavior changes since they're not getting the submission points they want, or they leave the site since the don't want to put in the work to maintain integrity of the scoreboard... Either way seems ok to me.

    3) Establish a credibility minimum on who can submit.

    Why this works?

    Leveraging the credibility formula described in #1, eventually the blind voters' credibility will diminish closer and closer to zero. Remember you gain 0 credibility from a Yes vote and lose credibility for an incorrect vote. At a certain threshold, the blind voter is no longer able to submit their submission. They've demonstrated again and again that they are not willing or simply unable to adjudicate a submission with a critical eye. Until they are able to demonstrate they can properly adjudicate scores and become gatekeepers to keep unsubstantiated submissions out of the database (gain credibility with successful NO votes), they get NO SOUP!. They either learn to adjudicate properly or leave the site... either way seems ok to me.




  13. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Besides, if what a person is looking for is to have lots of credibility to pass scores on their own, blind voting does not work. It only works up to a certain point. I dare anyone here to just blind vote on all submissions in the queue, I assure you that you will be stuck below 4 or 5k. You cannot get to 10k in cred without caring and investing a lot of time adjudicating.

    I used to adjudicate a lot, I don't blind vote and I rarely make a mistake in voting and still took me a lot to pass the 10k mark. I have voted in 5490 submissions and only got 17 wrong which means I only get 1 vote wrong every 350 votes. And I still don't have the power to pass submisions on my own I don't even think that's how the algorith works, I don't think that even if you had 1,000,000 points in CR you could pass a score on your own, I'm sure a minimum number of people has to vote for the tally to be activated.

    Blind voting does not worry me in the least, in my opinion the people who blind vote are doing it to get easy SP to submit their scores and I don't care about it. Sure there will be inconveniences like this one where an honest voter got hit, but in general the new faster TGSAP system works.

    Obvioulsy I don't believe that there is people aout there blind voting to get a lot of SP quickly, accept fake scores and turn TG on its head. And even if that were the case then they are very stupid because they won't get far in the Cred leaderboard by blind voting.

  14. Snowflake's Avatar

    i'm pretty curious where the 30 blind voters estimate comes from as i also think thats very high, but i would listen to the explanation

    Daniel i think eveything you said, while literally true, may miss a key point. its true that truly blind voters who just accept everyting will get very low cred, what about blind voters that follow comments? its not hard at all for voters to mass accept, and then change their vote when somoene else finds an issue. thats still lazy voting that can get bad subs through as these blind (blind to the video not to comments) voters amass cred.

    this is why by the way when i adjudicated your 5 life scores i refused to say where your deaths were. i wasnt about to help that type of blind voter get cred off my work.

    I will still raise questions actually complext areas. I will point out things i think an honest person could miss. But i'm no longer giving the blind to video, follower of comments the heads up. If i see an obvious error i'm done helping hte blind voters amass cred at the expense of others and i'll just hit them in the dispute
    and yes i see downsides to this. 5 life scores for example its easy for someone to miss a life. so my method prvents the swapping of notes that would be useful among honest adjudicators. but i've learned if i list the 5 deaths, there is no note swapping, everyone will just blindly take my list on faith so it does no good. the blind voters have resulted in only bad options.

    that said, the dispute system works, the system as a whole works. a working system does NOT have to prevent errors, it just has to correct them. lets spend less time talking about adjudicating and more time adjudicating. the more we bulid up cred, the less relative power the blind voters have

    ThanksPixe Sukola thanked this post
    Likesstarcrytas liked this post
  15. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    i'm pretty curious where the 30 blind voters estimate comes from as i also think thats very high, but i would listen to the explanation

    I estimated 30 members adjudicating in total, and this is based on the people that I see are active. Of those, about 5 to 10 are blind voters.

    I think Kyle's estimation of 40-50 blind voters comes from the number of views that took to pass the submission he is talking about but I'm not sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    Daniel i think eveything you said, while literally true, may miss a key point. its true that truly blind voters who just accept everyting will get very low cred, what about blind voters that follow comments? its not hard at all for voters to mass accept, and then change their vote when somoene else finds an issue. thats still lazy voting that can get bad subs through as these blind (blind to the video not to comments) voters amass cred.

    I'm counting the people that vote based on comments as blind voters too. Lazy voting just following comments won't get you far, specially with this faster system.

    This submission is a perfect example of how the faster system is better than the older. Before, the blind voters had more time to review the comments, lets say somebody says "accepted" and the blind voters cast their vote, 2 weeks later somebody finds a mistake, points it out, and the score still takes another week to be rejected, plenty of time for the blind voters to change their vote.

    Now, with the current system they can't change it as easily. Kyle found a mistake, voted No and quickly activated the tally, the score was easily disputed and the blind voters are now sort of trapped, they will be punished for have voted without examining and Kyle will be rewarded with his cred back and I guess, the 3 points for having the right vote in the end.

    I will say if you are not in the top 100 in Cred you aren't really influencing any decisions when it comes to accepting or rejecting scores, and I honestly couldn't name you two shady people out of those 100. If they want to amass big ammounts of cred they are not doing a good job.

    The best example of somebody getting lots of cred in a relative short ammount of time is Garrett Holland and he did it by carefullly examining a ton of videos and investing many, many hours adjudicating scores for people and he is excellent at it, I assure you he didn't get there by blind voting. And I have no problem with him having a lot of credibility because based on what I've seen, I trust him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake


    this is why by the way when i adjudicated your 5 life scores i refused to say where your deaths were. i wasnt about to help that type of blind voter get cred off my work.

    I will still raise questions actually complext areas. I will point out things i think an honest person could miss. But i'm no longer giving the blind to video, follower of comments the heads up. If i see an obvious error i'm done helping hte blind voters amass cred at the expense of others and i'll just hit them in the dispute
    and yes i see downsides to this. 5 life scores for example its easy for someone to miss a life. so my method prvents the swapping of notes that would be useful among honest adjudicators. but i've learned if i list the 5 deaths, there is no note swapping, everyone will just blindly take my list on faith so it does no good. the blind voters have resulted in only bad options.

    And I respect that way of adjudicating, you don't want others that are just lazy to benefit from your well done work that took you 20 to 40 minutes (in the case of my Mario subs) and I see that as a good thing. However I don't mind the comments that just say "accepted", I do that myself because I trsust my vote and if others are voting based on my desicion I don't care becasue I know I did my best to review the evidence and I don't believe they are amassing a lot of cred up to this point.



    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    that said, the dispute system works, the system as a whole works. a working system does NOT have to prevent errors, it just has to correct them. lets spend less time talking about adjudicating and more time adjudicating. the more we bulid up cred, the less relative power the blind voters have

    Exactly, Kyle excersiced his right to dispute right away and if the dispute systems efficient he will get his cred back and the no good BV will get punished.

    Besided, this is a kind of honest mistake, I didn't vote on this particular score, but I can see myself missing a misplaced number like that. Like I said before, blind voting is not causing the fall of World Records left and right, John McCurdy's DK score is not going to be undermined by a few lazy people voting on a fake record. Only scores that no one cares about will be likely to pass without good scrutinization and whenever someones puts a little interest in them and try to beat them, they will see something wrong with the evidence and they can be disputed.

    Updated 07-13-2020 at 10:54 PM by Pixe Sukola
  16. lexmark's Avatar

    What do you guys think about the idea of every adjudication when passed or rejected having a list(at the bottom) of members names and how they voted?


    john

    LikesPixe Sukola, Snowflake liked this post
  17. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by lexmark

    What do you guys think about the idea of every adjudication when passed or rejected having a list(at the bottom) of members names and how they voted?


    john

    I don't think that's a bad idea. But I don't think that's neccesary for every submission, this being done for disputed scores will be great.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  18. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola


    I don't think that's a bad idea. But I don't think that's neccesary for every submission, this being done for disputed scores will be great.

    How would it help with disputed scores? members don't have much influence with them. TG makes the decision.


    john


    .

  19. Max's Avatar

    Adjudication is currently a 24 hour process. If an honest mistake is found after say 12 hours, some voting incorrectly during that period won't have a chance to review the new findings anyway unless one is glued to TG watching every post every minute of the day. You are at risk if you vote, and most everything will pass anyway. What's the point of 24 hour adjudication?

    Everything can be disputed. Jace decides all disputes.

    ----------

    Remove adjudication. Remove CR. Remove SP. Allow all submissions at no cost from anyone (this would certainly be new user friendly). All scores pass immediately. Dispute anything that isn't correct.

    Now there are no discussions or concerns about blind voting, CR chasers, SP chasers etc. and we essentially have the same system we have now, without the mess brought on with CR/SP discussions.

    Everything can be disputed, Jace decides all.

    ----------

    If we don't allow adequate time to review adjudiations, the adjudication process serves no purpose.

    Likesthegamer1185 liked this post
  20. timmell's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Max

    Adjudication is currently a 24 hour process. If an honest mistake is found after say 12 hours, some voting incorrectly during that period won't have a chance to review the new findings anyway unless one is glued to TG watching every post every minute of the day. You are at risk if you vote, and most everything will pass anyway. What's the point of 24 hour adjudication?

    Everything can be disputed. Jace decides all disputes.

    ----------

    Remove adjudication. Remove CR. Remove SP. Allow all submissions at no cost from anyone (this would certainly be new user friendly). All scores pass immediately. Dispute anything that isn't correct.

    Now there are no discussions or concerns about blind voting, CR chasers, SP chasers etc. and we essentially have the same system we have now, without the mess brought on with CR/SP discussions.

    Everything can be disputed, Jace decides all.

    ----------

    If we don't allow adequate time to review adjudiations, the adjudication process serves no purpose.


    Max for commissioner.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us