Donkey Kong Forum
High Score Lists => Donkey Kong High Score Lists => Topic started by: Ohrami on September 01, 2021, 09:20:07 pm
-
Since the Robbie Lakeman high score thread (https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=2866.0) was locked for discussion, post further discussion about the atrocious decisions the moderators make relating to this website and its leaderboard here. Further discussion of Robbie Lakeman and his legitimate record being barred from submission to the site is welcome and is the most expected content for this thread but I'm sure with enough digging people can find other examples of poor moderation given that it has already been seen here. For anyone who didn't read the previous thread (I recommend starting there), I can summarize it:
Robbie Lakeman set the world record for Donkey Kong and currently, as of the writing of this post, does hold the highest score ever set in the entire game. However, he modified his machine's voltages to within the tolerances accepted by the leaderboard on DKF, which he falsely believed conferred some advantage to him in-game and made it more likely for him to achieve high scores. Furthermore, he publicly stated that he was under the false belief that other users were using voltage modification to gain an advantage in their own score runs. Robbie Lakeman made many aggressive social media posts attempting to provoke members of DKF relating to the voltage issue, but he was told repeatedly by DKF moderators that independent analysis all but proved that there is no measurable difference between a machine with stock voltage and the voltage he was running his machine at. In spite of this, Robbie Lakeman was denied the right to submit his world record to DKF, and it currently does not stand on DKF, because Robbie Lakeman modified his machine's voltage. Why would the moderators care that he modified his voltage when they had previously stated that voltage doesn't matter at all and has no effect on the gameplay at all? It's a technicality, you see; by modifying his voltage but also being of the false belief that it confers some in-game advantage, the DKF moderators concluded that Robbie has participated in "unsportsmanlike" behavior and attempted to cheat, which, to them, is just as bad as actually cheating.
Now, anyone who wasn't familiar with the situation at all and who read everything I just wrote in the above paragraph surely realizes that what the moderators did makes absolutely no sense, and that their decision was horrible, hence the reason for this thread opening up further discussion about this subject.
-
Since editing posts isn't possible in this site, I have to make a new post to add: The ruling relating to Robbie Lakeman isn't because of voltage. It is not a blanket ruling against allowing high scores from machines with modified voltages. In fact, modifying voltages is still allowed, if the player modifying their machine's voltage does not believe that it will give them an advantage in-game. Whether or not the score is accepted is simply based around what the player publicly states he believes. Essentially, the moderators judge a score's validity based on the player's intelligence and honesty first and foremost, and their ability to achieve high scores in Donkey Kong comes second. People who are both unintelligent and honest, in that they falsely believe that modifying voltages has any effect at all on gameplay, but are also honest enough to publicly state that they believe it, are not allowed to submit Donkey Kong scores with modified voltages. Anyone else is free to do so.
-
Ok. I know this is still a sore subject for a lot of people, so let's do this one more time, for the last time.
Since the Robbie Lakeman high score thread (https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=2866.0) was locked for discussion, post further discussion about the atrocious decisions the moderators make relating to this website and its leaderboard here. Further discussion of Robbie Lakeman and his legitimate record being barred from submission to the site is welcome and is the most expected content for this thread but I'm sure with enough digging people can find other examples of poor moderation given that it has already been seen here. For anyone who didn't read the previous thread (I recommend starting there), I can summarize it: Robbie Lakeman set the world record for Donkey Kong and currently, as of the writing of this post, does hold the highest score ever set in the entire game.
Some points in here will be addressed below, but if people want to dig around, please keep this thread on topic and we can broach other topics in other threads. Also, I'm pretty sure this (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/469199132) is the highest score ever set in the game. :)
However, he modified his machine's voltages to within the tolerances accepted by the leaderboard on DKF,
Please cite the DKF rule that specifically addresses PCB voltages.
which he falsely believed conferred some advantage to him in-game and made it more likely for him to achieve high scores.
Is Robbie saying he falsely believed that, or are you saying he still believes it's true but you know it to be false?
Furthermore, he publicly stated that he was under the false belief that other users were using voltage modification to gain an advantage in their own score runs.
Same question...he believes it's false, or he believes it's true and you're saying it's false? Also, "they're doing it so it's ok for me to do it" is one of the most childish behaviors ever. And you of all people should know that public statements can have consequences.
Robbie Lakeman made many aggressive social media posts attempting to provoke members of DKF relating to the voltage issue, but he was told repeatedly by DKF moderators that independent analysis all but proved that there is no measurable difference between a machine with stock voltage and the voltage he was running his machine at.
I am the only active score moderator. I've been the only active score moderator for years. In that time, Robbie has submitted many verified scores and asked for my help privately in analyzing his games. He never once asked me if modifying PCB voltages was acceptable. I don't recall him asking me if I thought other players were doing the same thing, or to investigate other players for doing the same thing. There are other moderators for other sub-forums but none of them deal with score verification. Your point seems to be that some person(s) in a position to verify his scores told him that what he was doing was ok. This is false.
In spite of this, Robbie Lakeman was denied the right to submit his world record to DKF, and it currently does not stand on DKF, because Robbie Lakeman modified his machine's voltage.
He was not "denied the right to submit" anything. He submitted it and it was rejected. He made exactly 0 posts in defense of his submission. The very post you link to was his submission post, later moved to its own thread for larger discussion.
Why would the moderators care that he modified his voltage when they had previously stated that voltage doesn't matter at all and has no effect on the gameplay at all? It's a technicality, you see; by modifying his voltage but also being of the false belief that it confers some in-game advantage, the DKF moderators concluded that Robbie has participated in "unsportsmanlike" behavior and attempted to cheat, which, to them, is just as bad as actually cheating.
Again, I'm curious about the "false belief" here. And again, moderators (plural) is not accurate. I am the sole moderator responsible for the outcome. And if you see attempted cheating as a "technicality," then I'm not sure your concern about the integrity of any leaderboard is grounded in good faith.
Now, anyone who wasn't familiar with the situation at all and who read everything I just wrote in the above paragraph surely realizes that what the moderators did makes absolutely no sense, and that their decision was horrible, hence the reason for this thread opening up further discussion about this subject.
Any dissatisfaction with this issue should be directed at me...not the mysterious "moderators."
Since editing posts isn't possible in this site, I have to make a new post to add:
Editing posts in the High Score Lists sub-forums is disabled because some people were rage-quitting the site and deleting their submission posts. Editing posts on the rest of the site should still be enabled.
The ruling relating to Robbie Lakeman isn't because of voltage. It is not a blanket ruling against allowing high scores from machines with modified voltages. In fact, modifying voltages is still allowed, if the player modifying their machine's voltage does not believe that it will give them an advantage in-game.
There is no rule specifically allowing or banning voltage modification. Enforcing a rule like that is not something I'm interested in doing. I am, however, very interested in promoting fair play and integrity...something Robbie and his cheerleaders don't seem interested in doing.
Whether or not the score is accepted is simply based around what the player publicly states he believes. Essentially, the moderators judge a score's validity based on the player's intelligence and honesty first and foremost, and their ability to achieve high scores in Donkey Kong comes second. People who are both unintelligent and honest, in that they falsely believe that modifying voltages has any effect at all on gameplay, but are also honest enough to publicly state that they believe it, are not allowed to submit Donkey Kong scores with modified voltages. Anyone else is free to do so.
You don't seem to have a very high opinion of Robbie's intelligence, but I leave that between you two to work out. But let's be real here, man. You don't like the outcome and you don't believe my justification is valid. Ok, fair enough. Enough time has passed and enough arguments have been made that you would have changed your mind by now. This merry-go-round can't go on forever. So, if there has been some misunderstanding on my part, I request that you answer the following questions:
1) Which high score moderator did Robbie consult about modifying PCB voltages and when?
2) Which high score moderator told Robbie it was ok to modify the voltages on his PCB in order to gain an advantage and when?
3) Which high score moderator did Robbie approach with his concerns about potential cheating-via-voltage and when?
4) Is attempting to cheat in any competitive endeavor an acceptable behavior if you believe others are cheating?
5) Is attempting to cheat in any competitive endeavor an acceptable behavior, even if the attempt fails?
6) What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
-
Is Robbie saying he falsely believed that, or are you saying he still believes it's true but you know it to be false?
The latter.
Same question...he believes it's false, or he believes it's true and you're saying it's false? Also, "they're doing it so it's ok for me to do it" is one of the most childish behaviors ever. And you of all people should know that public statements can have consequences.
The latter.
I am the only active score moderator. I've been the only active score moderator for years. In that time, Robbie has submitted many verified scores and asked for my help privately in analyzing his games. He never once asked me if modifying PCB voltages was acceptable. I don't recall him asking me if I thought other players were doing the same thing, or to investigate other players for doing the same thing. There are other moderators for other sub-forums but none of them deal with score verification. Your point seems to be that some person(s) in a position to verify his scores told him that what he was doing was ok. This is false.
It's irrelevant regardless. You stated the following when denying Robbie Lakeman's submission to the DKF leaderboard: "My decision is not based on whether the actual gameplay in this submission is legitimate, illegitimate, or malfunctioning." This means that even if you did conclude that voltage modification to the extent Robbie Lakeman did it should be illegal (despite many users' analysis within this own forum verifying that it has no effect), it wasn't the deciding factor for his rejection anyway.
He was not "denied the right to submit" anything. He submitted it and it was rejected. He made exactly 0 posts in defense of his submission. The very post you link to was his submission post, later moved to its own thread for larger discussion.
Pointless semantics.
Again, I'm curious about the "false belief" here. And again, moderators (plural) is not accurate. I am the sole moderator responsible for the outcome. And if you see attempted cheating as a "technicality," then I'm not sure your concern about the integrity of any leaderboard is grounded in good faith.
Refusal of a score submission on the basis of something that, by all measures anyone can conceive, has absolutely no effect on the actual outcome of the game, is doing it on a technicality. You have refused his score because of your own personal belief regarding Robbie Lakeman's intentions, despite his intentions being completely irrelevant to the actual outcome of the game as it was played.
1) Which high score moderator did Robbie consult about modifying PCB voltages and when?
2) Which high score moderator told Robbie it was ok to modify the voltages on his PCB in order to gain an advantage and when?
3) Which high score moderator did Robbie approach with his concerns about potential cheating-via-voltage and when?
4) Is attempting to cheat in any competitive endeavor an acceptable behavior if you believe others are cheating?
5) Is attempting to cheat in any competitive endeavor an acceptable behavior, even if the attempt fails?
1) I don't know but it's not relevant when it's accepted by more or less everyone that modifying voltages to the extent Robbie did in his own game doesn't confer any in-game advantages.
2) Same answer as 1.
3) Same answer as 1.
4) Whether or not something is "acceptable behavior" really should not be up to a leaderboard for a video game to judge. The leaderboard isn't judging people's character; it's judging their Donkey Kong ability.
5) Same answer as 4.
-
When you make multiple demonstrably false statements and your reaction to being called out is:
It's irrelevant regardless.
Pointless semantics.
...then I know you're not arguing in good faith.
Furthermore, if this is really how you think leaderboards should or shouldn't work:
4) Whether or not something is "acceptable behavior" really should not be up to a leaderboard for a video game to judge. The leaderboard isn't judging people's character; it's judging their Donkey Kong ability.
...then we have nothing more to discuss. As far as I'm concerned, the discourse between you and I on this topic is over. If others want to chime in or ask questions in this thread, then I'm all ears. But I'm done wasting time on you.
-
Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about DKF moderation, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just post, or don't post, and :-X either way!
-
gonna do my best to avoid the never ending argument, but a point was made that yes i think might allow some progress
xelnia, you made the point robbie never explicilty asked you. well tecbnically you asked who he asked, but yes going with that. That was kind of a major point of mine with his facebook posts that you clearly saw as well as him transparently showing his voltage. Are you suggesting if he explicilty asked you for permission to use a lower voltage that would've made a difference in your ruling? As a follow up, had he explicitly asked you (I emphasize explicit because i really do feel the public posts your saw that he knew you saw and the transparent voltage shown at the end were an implicit request), what would your reply have been?
-
Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about DKF moderation, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just post, or don't post, and :-X either way!
lol
gonna do my best to avoid the never ending argument, but a point was made that yes i think might allow some progress
xelnia, you made the point robbie never explicilty asked you. well tecbnically you asked who he asked, but yes going with that. That was kind of a major point of mine with his facebook posts that you clearly saw as well as him transparently showing his voltage. Are you suggesting if he explicilty asked you for permission to use a lower voltage that would've made a difference in your ruling? As a follow up, had he explicitly asked you (I emphasize explicit because i really do feel the public posts your saw that he knew you saw and the transparent voltage shown at the end were an implicit request), what would your reply have been?
If Robbie had asked me, I would have told him that what he was doing was unacceptable. If he had still chosen to submit after that, then the outcome would have been the same.
-
There can't possibly be any peanuts left to pick out of this turd.
-
Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about DKF moderation, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just post, or don't post, and :-X either way!
For someone who doesn't even fucking play the game, you sure do seem to have a lot of stakes in this.
-
For someone who doesn't even fucking play the game, you sure do seem to have a lot of stakes in this.
How do you know how I spend my time?
-
Do not criticize, question, suggest or opine anything about DKF moderation, no matter how constructive or positive your intent may be. You will find nothing but pain and frustration, trust me. Just post, or don't post, and :-X either way!
For someone who doesn't even fucking play the game, you sure do seem to have a lot of stakes in this.
Some people just like drama (TheKD). If they aren't involved in drama, they have this gaping hole in their life. This person will move on to another drama at some point to fill that hole or manufacture some fake drama to try and suck people in. Daddy issues most likely. <Billy>
-
Did somebody mention drama?
I love drama. I admit it. I love drama TV, radio, podcasts. I love learning about what people debate about.
If humans didn't enjoy drama we would not have movies.
The only gaping hole in my life is the one that Joel West left when he passed away. Him and I used to stir up the craziest amount of drama. Fun times!! RIP Joel. BibleThump
-
For someone who doesn't even fucking play the game, you sure do seem to have a lot of stakes in this.
Following your logic, I just yelled at my mom for watching old Tyson matches. I mean hell, she doesn't even BOX!!! How dare she enjoy watching.
-
For someone who doesn't even fucking play the game, you sure do seem to have a lot of stakes in this.
Following your logic, I just yelled at my mom for watching old Tyson matches. I mean hell, she doesn't even BOX!!! How dare she enjoy watching.
I fail to see how the two situations are comparable, but whatever, dude.
-
I'd rather not use my poor moderation skills to lock this thread, so let's try to keep it on topic. <Pigger>
-
Following your logic, I just yelled at my mom for watching old Tyson matches. I mean hell, she doesn't even BOX!!! How dare she enjoy watching.
That?s your mistake. She can watch, but she can?t comment.
-
I fail to see how the two situations are comparable, but whatever, dude.
It is an analogy. People seem to get a high amount of hate thrown at them if they don't actively play donkey kong, but are showing an interest in the high score chasing and possible issues that arise during those pursuits.
If you don't want spectators, keep up the attitude.
-
It does suck that I can?t edit my posts, since this information being added to the OP would be useful, but as anyone can glean from a cursory review of my back-and-forth with xelnia (which he halted prematurely), it appears that the primary issue at hand is that xelnia is of the personal belief that a leaderboard which only measures Donkey Kong scores as its sole heuristic should primarily measure the ethics of the player submitting a score before considering the score the player achieved in the game. Clearly, that is a fundamental disagreement between just about every person who understands a leaderboard?s purpose, and xelnia?s own personal beliefs.
That leads me to a question that I suggest others propose, as xelnia publicly stated he will not engage with me: Are there other ethical concerns at hand? Would a murderer or rapist be accepted on the leaderboard if he submitted a score? How about if George W. Bush, who is arguably accountable for the deaths of millions of people, submitted a score? Would that be allowed? What if it?s proven that a person had lied about various things related to their personal life while posting online? Perhaps they said they were a rich businessman with a beautiful wife but were actually a loser with no job who is single. Would that person be allowed to submit Donkey Kong scores to the leaderboard? After all, once they?ve lied about that, there?s no way to know if they thought they tried but failed to cheat and simply lied about it. You would have no way to really know their intentions since they are dishonest about so many other things, so perhaps you could simply ban anyone who was proven to have ever lied before from submitting?I?m sorry, not from submitting, but from actually having their score accepted after submission. Those pointless semantics really matter a lot to xelnia, you see.
You could have a leaderboard that just measures the score achieved and ranks players based on their score as well. I quite like that system.
-
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"
It does suck that I can?t edit my posts, since this information being added to the OP would be useful, but as anyone can glean from a cursory review of my back-and-forth with xelnia (which he halted prematurely), it appears that the primary issue at hand is that xelnia is of the personal belief that a leaderboard which only measures Donkey Kong scores as its sole heuristic should primarily measure the ethics of the player submitting a score before considering the score the player achieved in the game. Clearly, that is a fundamental disagreement between just about every person who understands a leaderboard?s purpose, and xelnia?s own personal beliefs.
That leads me to a question that I suggest others propose, as xelnia publicly stated he will not engage with me: Are there other ethical concerns at hand? Would a murderer or rapist be accepted on the leaderboard if he submitted a score? How about if George W. Bush, who is arguably accountable for the deaths of millions of people, submitted a score? Would that be allowed? What if it?s proven that a person had lied about various things related to their personal life while posting online? Perhaps they said they were a rich businessman with a beautiful wife but were actually a loser with no job who is single. Would that person be allowed to submit Donkey Kong scores to the leaderboard? After all, once they?ve lied about that, there?s no way to know if they thought they tried but failed to cheat and simply lied about it. You would have no way to really know their intentions since they are dishonest about so many other things, so perhaps you could simply ban anyone who was proven to have ever lied before from submitting?I?m sorry, not from submitting, but from actually having their score accepted after submission. Those pointless semantics really matter a lot to xelnia, you see.
You could have a leaderboard that just measures the score achieved and ranks players based on their score as well. I quite like that system.
If you brush off your untrue statements as "irrelevant" and "pointless," then why should I continue to engage you?
If you don't believe my justification and continue to create your own narrative full of my supposed beliefs, then why should I continue to engage you?
For the bajillionth and last time, my decision was not based on my personal feelings about Robbie or his overall character. It was based on his attempt to cheat.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're confused about the difference between a person's overall character and their individual actions. Otherwise you're actually saying that attempting to cheat should not be a consideration for any leaderboard.
-
?
-
SNIP
it appears that the primary issue at hand is that xelnia is of the personal belief that a leaderboard which only measures Donkey Kong scores as its sole heuristic should primarily measure the ethics of the player submitting a score before considering the score the player achieved in the game. Clearly, that is a fundamental disagreement between just about every person who understands a leaderboard?s purpose, and xelnia?s own personal beliefs.
SNIP
You keep making this point. You're really making this the center of your argument? You're mischaracterizing the situation and then using that mischaracterization to cry foul. The only foul is how you are spinning the situation. If I were to enter any competition and I carried with me a reputation of intentionally trying to manipulate the competition, I would deserve every ban every moderator/judge/organizer would care to throw at me. They are doing that in the direct interest of competition. They are not doing it because Cheaters Are Bad because if I cheated on tests in school and I told them they'd probably not ban me from a pie eating contest or wtf ever. Now if I told them I had cheated on pie eating contests they'd probably ban me. Its about the competition not about the ethics.
-
You keep making this point. You're really making this the center of your argument? You're mischaracterizing the situation and then using that mischaracterization to cry foul. The only foul is how you are spinning the situation. If I were to enter any competition and I carried with me a reputation of intentionally trying to manipulate the competition, I would deserve every ban every moderator/judge/organizer would care to throw at me. They are doing that in the direct interest of competition. They are not doing it because Cheaters Are Bad because if I cheated on tests in school and I told them they'd probably not ban me from a pie eating contest or wtf ever. Now if I told them I had cheated on pie eating contests they'd probably ban me. Its about the competition not about the ethics.
What if I told you that I intended to cheat by praying real hard before the game for some favorable RNG? Is it cheating or intending to cheat only if I believe it will work (even if you are sure it doesn't work).
What if I believed that carrying magnets in my pocket would give me better RNG. Is that cheating / manipulation?
My point is this: if it has no affect whatsoever, how can it be considered cheating? What if the only goal was to cause people to question their own beliefs? What if the goal was pure mischief? Is that still cheating? Attempted cheating?
Too much of this revolves around personal opinion and bias against Robbie. That is what lessens the value of this score board in the eyes of non competitors.
You can't be taken as a world authority when the best DK player to ever live has been banned because you don't like him.
-
You can't be taken as a world authority when the best DK player to ever live has been banned because you don't like him.
You were so close to not giving us any bullshit. So close.
-
He made all perfectly reasonable points, in fact similar points to the ones I would have made, and you disgraced him with that shitty of a response. The only bullshit in that exchange is how terrible and pointless your own reply was.
-
My reply was actually not bad. I quoted the part that was bullshit. The rest was perfectly reasonable which is why I did not "disgrace" him because of those parts.
Please tell me how "You can't be taken as a world authority when the best DK player to ever live has been banned because you don't like him" is perfectly reasonable and in line with the points you're trying to make.
You still have yet to address my prior quote of yours. It's cool though you can take your time.
-
Datagod already addressed what you said sufficiently enough and you agreed with him, so I saw no point in formulating my own response. It?s reasonable to say what he said because despite xelnia?s thin facade of genuine concern for the leaderboard and its integrity, it is so obvious that he is wrong, and xelnia is so obviously not a very stupid person (he manages this website?s high score list and is an admin for it, he managed to expose a major fraud that fooled millions of people for decades, and he clearly has the organizational skills and intelligence to manage a community in a relatively orderly fashion), that any rational person viewing this thread will come to the obvious conclusion that datagod came to: The reason for Robbie Lakeman?s ?punishment? is personal. Regardless of how many times xelnia absolutely insists it isn?t the case, to me, and to datagod, it?s clear that it is.
Go pull some random somewhat stupid person from your life, maybe a dumb family member who is anti-vax or something, or just a random person online who you can tell through discussion with them that they just aren?t that bright but are otherwise somewhat normal. Explain to them the entire situation and everything that happened, exactly as I described in my OP, and then ask them who?s right. I would be willing to bet money that they give the right answer. This isn?t rocket science. It?s extremely obvious who is correct, which is why xelnia?s insistence that he is correct despite being obviously wrong and while obviously not being a stupid person leads to datagod and me to conclude what we did.
Note that before this thread, I in fact still had given xelnia some benefit of the doubt on this. However, all of his replies were very clearly just attempting to attack my character and make sure that he can end his interaction with me as quickly as possible. It is very clear that he simply doesn?t want to have a discussion about this and just wants voices of dissent gone as soon as he can get them to go away without doing something very obviously wrong like banning them or completely ignoring them. This is yet another reason why it is obvious to datagod and to me that there is some personal bias against Lakeman being displayed here.
Absolutely nothing he said was unreasonable, including the final statement he made, which is why your post in response to him was disgraceful. You in no way addressed anything he said and just said it was bullshit without giving any reason. Go ahead and explain some other rationale for Robbie Lakeman?s rejection when it?s so obvious what the correct course of action is and given that xelnia obviously isn?t a moron. You gave none.
-
You were so close to not giving us any bullshit. So close.
I am not sure why you are ALWAYS being so rude to me. I have been nothing but pleasant and welcoming to you for the past 2 years.
Anyway, I'll rephrase just to make sure there is no confusion.
In my humble opinion:
Robbie Lakemen dominates Donkey Kong Arcade. He routinely ups his own world record, defeating anyone who takes the top spot from him. Nobody else in the history of Donkey Kong retakes the throne like he does.
Wen Wes got the world record and Robbie took it back 6 hours later, I was kinda pissed. I was cheering for Wes and felt it was mean to not let him have his day. But hey, that is competitive score chasing for you.
Over the years I have come to respect Robbie's passion and dedication to this game. He is a true champion.
The Donkey Kong Forum claims to be the world authority of high scores for Donkey Kong. That same forum banned Robbie for "attempted cheating" which on the surface might seem ok, but when you really look at the details the argument falls apart.
1. Robbie had a theory that low voltages could lead to a variation in RNG which could lead to easier game play or more opportunity for scoring.
2. Robbie made it clear that he was not hiding his theory, and that he was in fact testing it out.
3. Robbie achieved a high score using this method (lower voltage).
5. DKF members as well as players from across the world claimed outright that it is IMPOSSIBLE to affect gameplay by lowering voltage. The code was analyzed by a great young man (Tanner) and it was confirmed.
6. Nobody knows the affect that power voltage could have on the inner physics of the electronics on these 40 year old machines. Not unless they take multiple machines and study them forensicly, running test code through them over and over. I would seriously love to take part in that.
7. Robbie was not the most polite person on stream when talking about members of the DKF, and they were offended and insulted. No surprise there.
8. People would come into Robbie's streams to mock him.
9. Tensions escalated. Feelings were hurt.
10. The DKF members and leadership decided that Robbie's lowering the voltage now constitutes attempted cheating -- despite having no discernible affect on the gameplay (according to DKF the world experts at Donkey Kong gameplay).
11. A ruling was made that Robbie "Attempted to Cheat" and his world record score (Recognized by Twin Galaxies and Guinness) was thrown out.
12. That ruling appears to me and others to be personal in nature and biased.
Cheating either occurred or it did not occur.
Officer: I saw the man attempt to speed, your honor. He smiled at me, gave me the finger, then floored it!
Judge: what was he driving?
Officer: A moped.
Judge: Top speed?
Officer: It was a 2 stroke, so top speed was about 30 in a 80 zone. But he WANTED to go faster. I could see it in his EYES! HE LOOKED RIGHT AT ME AND GAVE ME THE FINGER!!! I DEMAND HE BE PUNISHED!!
Judge: Holy shit dude. Case dismissed.
TLDR: Robbie good. DKF bad.
-
While there is something to be said about meeting the challenge and retaking the thrown.
There's also something to be said about setting a score so high that you don't have to retake the thrown for over a decade. 8)
-
You were so close to not giving us any bullshit. So close.
I am not sure why you are ALWAYS being so rude to me. I have been nothing but pleasant and welcoming to you for the past 2 years.
Anyway, I'll rephrase just to make sure there is no confusion.
In my humble opinion:
Robbie Lakemen dominates Donkey Kong Arcade. He routinely ups his own world record, defeating anyone who takes the top spot from him. Nobody else in the history of Donkey Kong retakes the throne like he does.
Wen Wes got the world record and Robbie took it back 6 hours later, I was kinda pissed. I was cheering for Wes and felt it was mean to not let him have his day. But hey, that is competitive score chasing for you.
Over the years I have come to respect Robbie's passion and dedication to this game. He is a true champion.
The Donkey Kong Forum claims to be the world authority of high scores for Donkey Kong. That same forum banned Robbie for "attempted cheating" which on the surface might seem ok, but when you really look at the details the argument falls apart.
1. Robbie had a theory that low voltages could lead to a variation in RNG which could lead to easier game play or more opportunity for scoring.
2. Robbie made it clear that he was not hiding his theory, and that he was in fact testing it out.
3. Robbie achieved a high score using this method (lower voltage).
5. DKF members as well as players from across the world claimed outright that it is IMPOSSIBLE to affect gameplay by lowering voltage. The code was analyzed by a great young man (Tanner) and it was confirmed.
6. Nobody knows the affect that power voltage could have on the inner physics of the electronics on these 40 year old machines. Not unless they take multiple machines and study them forensicly, running test code through them over and over. I would seriously love to take part in that.
7. Robbie was not the most polite person on stream when talking about members of the DKF, and they were offended and insulted. No surprise there.
8. People would come into Robbie's streams to mock him.
9. Tensions escalated. Feelings were hurt.
10. The DKF members and leadership decided that Robbie's lowering the voltage now constitutes attempted cheating -- despite having no discernible affect on the gameplay (according to DKF the world experts at Donkey Kong gameplay).
11. A ruling was made that Robbie "Attempted to Cheat" and his world record score (Recognized by Twin Galaxies and Guinness) was thrown out.
12. That ruling appears to me and others to be personal in nature and biased.
Cheating either occurred or it did not occur.
Officer: I saw the man attempt to speed, your honor. He smiled at me, gave me the finger, then floored it!
Judge: what was he driving?
Officer: A moped.
Judge: Top speed?
Officer: It was a 2 stroke, so top speed was about 30 in a 80 zone. But he WANTED to go faster. I could see it in his EYES! HE LOOKED RIGHT AT ME AND GAVE ME THE FINGER!!! I DEMAND HE BE PUNISHED!!
Judge: Holy shit dude. Case dismissed.
TLDR: Robbie good. DKF bad.
ROFL
-
I still can't believe we are discussing this lol, if you don't like the decision you could always make your own scoreboard ROFL
-
While there is something to be said about meeting the challenge and retaking the thrown.
There's also something to be said about setting a score so high that you don't have to retake the thrown for over a decade. 8)
If this is a *segway* (can't spell it, damn the french) into DK3 skills. Contrats. If you are referring to Billy's scores from the 80s not being beaten...well...uh...ok then.
-
sorry bro, love you and all, and dkf still resepcts billys scores with no vid, but to me no vid no did, so i dont know what you're talking about
-
Was the game played on unmodified hardware? No.
On that basis alone I can understand why a decision may be made to reject the submission. Robbie is an AWESOME DK player and he hasn't tried to hide anything, but did he stick to the expected norm of playing the game on unmodified hardware? Apparently not.
Do the following reasons allow for an exemption to playing on unmodified hardware?
- "He was trying to cheat", or
- "He was trying to cheat, but it didn't work"
I think it's disingenuous to provide a special exemption for someone trying to cheat, when they can simply opt to play on unmodified hardware.
5. DKF members as well as players from across the world claimed outright that it is IMPOSSIBLE to affect gameplay by lowering voltage. The code was analyzed by a great young man (Tanner) and it was confirmed.
6. Nobody knows the affect that power voltage could have on the inner physics of the electronics on these 40 year old machines. Not unless they take multiple machines and study them forensicly, running test code through them over and over. I would seriously love to take part in that.
I would LOVE to read/watch/hear about Tanner's analysis! I figure I have missed out on this so please fill me in. I must admit I would have thought the processing of a DK board would fail spectacularly if voltage was altered beyond a certain point, however this video - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/469199132 (the 20M+ DK game) suggests that meddling with the electronics can create multiple glitches but yet allow the game to be playable.
Point 6. above seems to contradict point 5. We don't know if changing the voltage has an effect. I don't think it is reasonable that a player should be allowed to meddle with the hardware and then move the onus of proof (that it didn't affect gameplay) onto the community. As you say, no one knows. It is like Billy Mitchell demanding that every possible DK hardware setup in the known universe has to be tested to show that it doesn't show "the finger".
I think the basic suggestion is "How can changing the voltage effect just the RNG on barrels?" Well, I am a total noob at this but have done a bit of analysis myself (using the popular disassembly). I'm not sure who else has looked at what but I am happy to learn and happy to be corrected if I am mistaken anywhere. The RNG is DK is quite interesting. It's not consistently applied, but locations #6018, #6019, #601A are used in various situations to provide RNG. For example #6018 is used for blue barrel smashes (300 Vs 500 Vs 800) and wild barrels, #6019 is used to animate the oilcan fire, whereas a subroutine from #0057 (below) combines the lot for pie production -
; #6018 = constantly changing ... timer of some sort?
; #6019 - constantly changing timer - very fast
; #601A - Timer constantly counts down from FF to 00 and then FF to 00 again and again ... 1 count per frame
; this subroutine takes the value of #6018 and adds into it the values from #601A and #6019
; it returns with A loaded with this result and also #6018 with the answer.
; random number generator
0057 3A1860 LD A,(#6018) ; load A with timer
005A 211A60 LD HL,#601A ; load HL with other timer address
005D 86 ADD A,(HL) ; add
005E 211960 LD HL,#6019 ; load HL with yet another timer address
0061 86 ADD A,(HL) ; add
0062 321860 LD (#6018),A ; store
0065 C9 RET ; return
I think the fireball / ladder RNG is determined by #3221 in the code:
; fire is moving left or right, not on a ladder
3216 DD7E19 LD A,(IX+#19) ; load +19 value. has 2 when random event occurs when firespeed > 2
3219 FE02 CP #02 ; compare with 2. has this fire been targeted with reversal ???
321B CA7E32 JP Z,#327E ; if equal jump away, check for firefox change direction, returns to #3229
321E CD0F33 CALL #330F ; call check to change direction. randomly reverses direction if timer is correct
3221 3A1860 LD A,(#6018) ; load A with random number
3224 E603 AND #03 ; mask bits, now between 0 and 3. is it zero?
So this particular aspect (fireballs changing direction up a ladder) appears to rely solely on #6018. But what is #6018? I suspect it is the Z80's refresh register, which increments with every line of instruction / machine code. This seems to me to be a terrible overhead, but it does provide a great source for semi-random numbers. So as the game plays and loops through various lines of code the last two bits of #6018 will provide a decent RNG. If, for example, #6018 was affected by a voltage change and reset several times a second we could end up with a quite non random RNG, which WOULD affect gameplay. I see no way we could rule this out as a possibility (unless of course the game was played at a standard voltage). I would suggest that #6018, #6019, and #601A are not mere memory locations in the code but are key memory locations tied to the essential operating of the chip.
We can't test every possibly in the known universe, but I would be interested to know if the function of memory registers #6018 and #6019 change when voltage is altered.
PS. I love Datagod's question of whether praying would be cheating! I guess if it was phrased as "I sold my soul to the devil for an extra 5% in points!" there would be devout people saying "No! Deals with the devil are not allowed!"
TLDR: Was the game played on unmodified hardware? No.
-
Thanks for the great post, Rev John. You make great points. I don't know how active Tanner is here anymore. I'll reach out to him on facebook and see if he is interested in commenting.
Thanks for also showing your findings. I love seeing people dig into the code like that. :)
-
Rev John, thank you for your well thought out answer.
The piece that seems to get lost in this whole drama is that point of Robbie doing this WASNT just to get another high score. For some time Robbie has claimed he felt other top players had been doing something to affect their RNG. When he first posed the voltage theory EVERYONE said it would have zero affect on gameplay. Robbie publicly lowers the voltage on his game, sets a new world record, then gets blackballed by DKF.
This is the big picture of this whole experiment.
-
Was the game played on unmodified hardware? No.
This is technically not correct. The hardware was not modified per se, the hardware's built in adjustments we used to lower to voltage.
Datagods 'Prayer' analogy is perfect here.
He used the hardware as it was intended. That adjustment is used to set the +5VDC and -5VDC levels. Different hardware draws different current so there is a built in mechanism to address that. My +5vdc is 4.83 right now and its turned all the way up. It needs rebuilt. It's not 5.0V, Am I cheating? Like I told Robbie, if the logic is working to the extent you cannot tell it cannot be effecting RNG in your favor somehow. All he did was prove that. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. I understand he was trying to test the RNG and though it was effecting it, but it didnt and he knew that was a possible outcome to.
-
Was the game played on unmodified hardware? No.
This is technically not correct. The hardware was not modified per se, the hardware's built in adjustments we used to lower to voltage.
Datagods 'Prayer' analogy is perfect here.
He used the hardware as it was intended. That adjustment is used to set the +5VDC and -5VDC levels. Different hardware draws different current so there is a built in mechanism to address that. My +5vdc is 4.83 right now and its turned all the way up. It needs rebuilt. It's not 5.0V, Am I cheating? Like I told Robbie, if the logic is working to the extent you cannot tell it cannot be effecting RNG in your favor somehow. All he did was prove that. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. I understand he was trying to test the RNG and though it was effecting it, but it didnt and he knew that was a possible outcome to.
Thanks Scoundrl. I was going to edit my post above but can't, so I hope anyone who reads my post goes on to read yours. I was under the impression that something external to the proper hardware had been used, which is why I felt a strict line had been crossed. I apologise for my ignorance! I should try to fix up the old cab (not a DK) I have downstairs and teach myself a few things :-[
I had read someone saying something like "it would be impossible for the game to be affected in such a specific way as to only affect fireball RNG on barrels" so I was interested to look at the code to see if there might be a possible mechanism for such RNG. Hence my speculation above. I'd also speculate that the game may well just stop with a dead PCB if the voltage was low low low enough?
Has Robbie's game been run through the Kongtracker? The stats could only help inform this discussion.
-
Has Robbie's game been run through the Kongtracker? The stats could only help inform this discussion.
No, he has been refused. Blackballed.
-
the "strict line" wouldnt actually have been so strict as jeremy has said he has no interest in enforcing power supply/votlage rules on others. noone is expected to do anything to prove their power supply is operating properly, the rule to original hardware in that regard is completely unenforced. Its only when someone explicity admits to it it becomes enforced.
-
Was the game played on unmodified hardware? No.
This is technically not correct. The hardware was not modified per se, the hardware's built in adjustments we used to lower to voltage.
Datagods 'Prayer' analogy is perfect here.
He used the hardware as it was intended. That adjustment is used to set the +5VDC and -5VDC levels. Different hardware draws different current so there is a built in mechanism to address that. My +5vdc is 4.83 right now and its turned all the way up. It needs rebuilt. It's not 5.0V, Am I cheating? Like I told Robbie, if the logic is working to the extent you cannot tell it cannot be effecting RNG in your favor somehow. All he did was prove that. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. I understand he was trying to test the RNG and though it was effecting it, but it didnt and he knew that was a possible outcome to.
Thanks Scoundrl. I was going to edit my post above but can't, so I hope anyone who reads my post goes on to read yours. I was under the impression that something external to the proper hardware had been used, which is why I felt a strict line had been crossed. I apologise for my ignorance! I should try to fix up the old cab (not a DK) I have downstairs and teach myself a few things :-[
I had read someone saying something like "it would be impossible for the game to be affected in such a specific way as to only affect fireball RNG on barrels" so I was interested to look at the code to see if there might be a possible mechanism for such RNG. Hence my speculation above. I'd also speculate that the game may well just stop with a dead PCB if the voltage was low low low enough?
Has Robbie's game been run through the Kongtracker? The stats could only help inform this discussion.
Here's some of Robbies stats from that game.
-
Thanks for the work Mitch!
-
A very major oversight in the arguments of Rev John and Snowflake is that they are missing a major point, that being that Robbie Lakeman did not have his score rejected because he used modified voltage. He had his score rejected because he used modified voltage and was of the belief that it would give him some advantage in-game. Whether or not you think modifying voltage should be allowed is certainly a valid discussion, but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is that Robbie Lakeman was rejected from this leaderboard because of his opinion regarding something about the game and then his action based on that opinion. It's purely based on his supposed intent (something only a mind-reader could truly know regardless), and not based on the modification of gameplay or hardware whatsoever.
-
wasnt an oversight on my part at all. in fact i heavily explicilty hit on that point before. This time to avoid buzzwords i slightly softened it but my comment still adressed it was not just about the voltage.
i've largely been on your side, perhaps with a different tone, as well as more resigned and ready to move on at this point, dont confuse my lack of reiteraton of every detail as being unaware of it.