Lots of discussion today. When people look at this list I want them to feel like we have maintained a serious, peer-reviewed list that has a decent level of accountability. And I think the fact that we have been discussing the criteria for the list demonstrates that we are taking the list seriously. I would like to look back at this day with confidence that we created a great list that will endure, a list that one will feel honored to be on, and something to work towards, truly being recognized by the DK Community as a serious contender. I would also want people to look at the list and be able to trust that we did our best as a community to consistently apply the criteria to all claims in an unbiased manner avoiding all favoritism.
I understand that this list has become more than just a fun list but that it comprises an honest attempt of compiling real, authentic scores that can be verified to a certain extent. I understand that there are lots of real, authentic scores that will be omitted from this list due to the criteria. What I am saying is that we could create 20 different lists with differing degrees of strict criteria, and that some scores may be on the lists on one end of the spectrum and not on ones furthest to the right. Where is our list? I would like to think that it would be our desire to have a list that is more on the right side of the spectrum. Obviously, I don’t expect anyone to drive over to anyone’s house and start dismantling their Donkey Kong machine. But what I do mean is that for a list to have relevance, and to endure the test of time, all scores that are submitted must endure a decent level of scrutiny. I think that we all agree that we want an evidence-based list, and not one that contains scores simply by word of mouth.
In view of the growing concerns, I have added two new criteria. "Any videos, such as those posted on youtube, which shows only the final moments of a game must demonstrate a restart to prove that the game was started with a 3 lives setting. All scores achieved on an Arcade machine must be an original DK machine, the 3 in 1 machines being excluded." If anyone disagrees with these additions then please feel free to share your ideas.
I think that a reasonable among of certainty must be established. This is the role of the criteria, and the active peer-review process. It keeps us honest, and it helps to guard the list from being watered down by doubt and suspicion. Since we are not asking for complete and thorough verification such as is required for an official score on the TG scoreboard, we nevertheless expect reasonable certainty. Given the criteria which we have established so far, I think that we have a high level of accountability that keeps this a serious list. If anyone thinks that we should have more criteria so that the list may not seem as relaxed please share your thoughts and ideas. Since this list is still being developed I would ask that we continue to give shape to the criteria, and if there are any scores on the list presently that any one has any concern or question, then part of the peer-review process is for us to discuss it.
Since the criteria allows for TG scores to be listed, this is why Billy Mitchell is listed. If people don’t accept his score, then leaving it on their will only go to show how many players have achieved a higher score than “his†whether fictitious or it. I mean, if there is that much suspicion over his scores, and if there is a general consensus then maybe we should not have it on their. Yep, I said it, one of the peer-review aspects is to look suspiciously upon a score, and if it does not stand up to a reasonable amount of scrutiny then maybe we should not accept it on this list, particularly since it is questionable whether or not TG at that time had acted honestly concerning this matter. I am not trying to persuade anyone on the matter. I just want to be thorough and consistent with what we mean by a peer-review process. Do we want a score on this list that has drawn so much suspicion and controversy, but then easily throw off another score without a benefit of the doubt? Just asking some questions.
If we include the criteria concerning the proof of 3 lives setting on videos that only show the final moments of a game such as the ones by Ben Mazowita, and Mike's, then it seems as if these particular scores will not be included. Can someone remind me again why Steve Wagner's score is present? Is it because someone has a video or saw it live? Or are we just believing that it happened? And if so, is that sufficient enough according to our established, though growing, criteria?
