is the command to show history this (con_filter_enable 1 ) or (con_filter_enable 1; con_filter_text "") ?

Jace Hall thanked this post

Originally Posted by MaxyAims

is the command to show history this (con_filter_enable 1 ) or (con_filter_enable 1; con_filter_text "") ?

Further clarity provided above.

MaxyAims thanked this post

MaxyAims liked this post

Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES

Further clarity provided above.

Okay so the command you need to do is only the weapon_accuracy_ thats it right?

Originally Posted by MaxyAims

Okay so the command you need to do is only the weapon_accuracy_ thats it right?

Yes it is important to show these settings at minimum. However, the more settings you show to help people feel confident that your run is legit, the better it is. Remember, all the other people competing against you are reviewing your run and helping to verify its legitimacy!

MaxyAims, datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES

Yes it is important to show these settings at minimum. However, the more settings you show to help people feel confident that your run is legit, the better it is. Remember, all the other people competing against you are reviewing your run and helping to verify its legitimacy!

Okay but how do I show more what commands I usually never use the console I always use settings for example changing sens or volume but some people do it on console but I dont, so is there any other commands you recommend? or is this enough to be eligible?

datagod liked this post

Its good that it got declared but weapon_accuracy_nospread command can be binded onto a button and can be turned on or off at any part of the run so the best it would be if you show full log of the console.

MaxyAims liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Its good that it got declared but weapon_accuracy_nospread command can be binded onto a button and can be turned on or off at any part of the run so the best it would be if you show full log of the console.

Okay but I just made my new PB and I didnt have this off but you can check give your opinion on my run and I swear I dont cheat and I showed the console at the end. but yeah when I play more i will shut it down for better and safer scores :)

Nosacz liked this post

LOL this has been running for how many days now and just now TG catches up...

This is why SRC is superior as each track over there has a set of admins/mods who know the game on a professional level and validate scores with actual knowledge.

TG just has a bunch of randoms who aren't specialists in any game (for the most part) and are expected to validate scores for which they know nothing about. The cracks are showing TG...

MaxyAims liked this post

Originally Posted by Rotunda

LOL this has been running for how many days now and just now TG catches up...

This is why SRC is superior as each track over there has a set of admins/mods who know the game on a professional level and validate scores with actual knowledge.

TG just has a bunch of randoms who aren't specialists in any game (for the most part) and are expected to validate scores for which they know nothing about. The cracks are showing TG...

thats what im talking about too go look my run and give your opinion how I did and did I do something wrong it would be appreciated <3

Originally Posted by Rotunda

LOL this has been running for how many days now and just now TG catches up...

This is why SRC is superior as each track over there has a set of admins who know the game on a professional level. TG just has a bunch of randoms who aren't specialists in any game (for the most part) and are expected to validate scores for which they know nothing about. The cracks are showing TG...

Yea and still this type of verification is completely useless because you dont have to show the whole console so you can turn the command on and off mid run which is absurd. Also proving that someones cheating to some of the members with high voting power seems to not be worth anyones time. Right now anyone can cheat if he turns the command on and off almost at the end of the run because the command log is filling throughout the whole run which means that changing these command be hidden. Made a rule change which still doesnt make sense because someone wrote it without thinking about other possibillites of usage of that command, that me as an user have to point out so obvious gap in the rules. Also me personally I think pointing out that someones cheating is not worth it if you have to explain it to users with no knowledge of the subject I tried once and wouldnt ever try again, completely absurd and dissapointing system.

Rotunda thanked this post

Rotunda liked this post

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Also me personally I think pointing out that someones cheating is not worth it if you have to explain it to users with no knowledge of the subject I tried once and wouldnt ever try again, completely absurd and dissapointing system.

Yep, the TGSAP system is really flawed. It's coasted along with the community as it was with the familiar faces of the submitting but now people have come in from the outside to mix things up a bit and challenge the system it's exposed so many flaws.

TGSAP as it stands isn't reliable. I much prefer SRC for accurate score keeping.

Originally Posted by Nosacz

Yea and still this type of verification is completely useless because you dont have to show the whole console so you can turn the command on and off mid run which is absurd. Also proving that someones cheating to some of the members with high voting power seems to not be worth anyones time. Right now anyone can cheat if he turns the command on and off almost at the end of the run because the command log is filling throughout the whole run which means that changing these command be hidden. Made a rule change which still doesnt make sense because someone wrote it without thinking about other possibillites of usage of that command, that me as an user have to point out so obvious gap in the rules. Also me personally I think pointing out that someones cheating is not worth it if you have to explain it to users with no knowledge of the subject I tried once and wouldnt ever try again, completely absurd and dissapointing system.

You may want to read this post as it may provide some useful information on this topic:

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/284253-Bounty-Challenges-Bounty-Challenge-Aim-amp-Run-by-Logitech-G-49-99?p=1248052&viewfull=1#post1248052

Originally Posted by Rotunda

Yep, the TGSAP system is really flawed. It's coasted along with the community as it was with the familiar faces of the submitting but now people have come in from the outside to mix things up a bit and challenge the system it's exposed so many flaws.

TGSAP as it stands isn't reliable. I much prefer SRC for accurate score keeping.

Not sure what the flaw is you are referring to? Happy to improve it where needed.

If you are referring to the rules, that is different than the system.

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

Not sure what the flaw is you are referring to? Happy to improve it where needed.

If you are referring to the rules, that is different than the system.

People voting on nothing but a video, knowing nothing about the cheats or exploits possible in an individual game let alone where to look for validation such things aren't being used. It's taken people who play the game to submit to us, the adjudicators and tell us what's gone wrong with thing's we've already let through the cracks now we need those same people to dispute a number of wrongful entries into the database by working their butts off to gain cred (which no one will and i can't blame them) and then explain to us who aren't aware of the games workings/exploits for us to then vote on something we would at that point kinda know, till the next game we don't know comes around. Oh and lets not forget the severe CR hit people are going to take now because they weren't aware.

Even your biggest adjudicator @JJT_Defender had no idea about the flaws in Counter Strike 2 (but hell props to him for at least asking!) https://www.twingalaxies.com/jjtdefender/wall/14003/what-are-glitches-for-counter-strike-2-aim-amp-run-prefire-course

Very, very flawed. If you don't see it then you chose not to.

@Jace Hall

There are currently comments on multiple submissions from yesterday, and I think it would be best to address them as a group here rather than individually as there will be 1 answer that applies to all.

The rules update effective date is shown below

The rule update was applied at 11:52 PM 02-23-25.

I believe the intent was "effective at the time/date of this posting" which was effectively 11:52 PM on 02-23-25. So, any submissions with a date of 02-23-25 and a time prior to 11:52 PM could not have known about the rules update and should not be rejected for it. It would be best to address this before any get rejected due to a misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Rotunda

LOL this has been running for how many days now and just now TG catches up...

This is why SRC is superior as each track over there has a set of admins/mods who know the game on a professional level and validate scores with actual knowledge.

TG just has a bunch of randoms who aren't specialists in any game (for the most part) and are expected to validate scores for which they know nothing about. The cracks are showing TG...

Are you sure SRC is superior? I just visited for the first time and the first speed run I looked at didn't follow the rules. And it's obvious because it's an Atari 2600 game and the difference in Difficulty A and Difficulty B is very easy to recognize. Your claim of their admins/mods knowing the game on a professional level and has actual knowledge of the games has been proven false within the first 10 minutes of visiting their site. And I don't see a dispute button?

Now your turn. Find a score or time verified by the TG community that doesn't follow the rules and isn't under dispute? This Logitech challenge doesn't count as it's still a work in progress.

Rogerpoco, JJT_Defender thanked this post

Rogerpoco, JJT_Defender liked this post

Originally Posted by Troy_Whelan

@Jace Hall

There are currently comments on multiple submissions from yesterday, and I think it would be best to address them as a group here rather than individually as there will be 1 answer that applies to all.

The rules update effective date is shown below

The rule update was applied at 11:52 PM 02-23-25.

I believe the intent was "effective at the time/date of this posting" which was effectively 11:52 PM on 02-23-25. So, any submissions with a date of 02-23-25 and a time prior to 11:52 PM could not have known about the rules update and should not be rejected for it. It would be best to address this before any get rejected due to a misunderstanding.

We will deal with it on a case by case if anything comes up.