Thanks Mike for all your great questions and observations. In order to obtain a list which we think is completely accurate with absolute and infallible certainty would be difficult to obtain for the reasons that you have given. For the purposes of this list I think that a reasonable amount of certainty is sufficient. If a score can withstand a decent level of scrutiny based upon the established criteria, then I think it merits great consideration. If for example, a new player shows up with a high score, we don't have to immediately place the score. Of all the criteria, I believe that the most important is the peer-review aspect. Even if a score fits most of the criteria, it still must get through the DK Community as a whole. In the case of Ben Mazowita, I believe that even though he is considered less well-known, there are those that have seen him play live that has given him more credibility. People have posted videos from him as well that demonstrate that he is the real deal.
I have mentioned early 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." This still remains a good question. Is the present criteria sufficient enough, along with the peer-review aspect of it, in order to spot edited videos and bogus scores if they come our way? I would like to think that we would do well to handle these cases as a community. Infallible? No. But with a high enough certainty that we can be proud of our list, and keep it accountable.
I have also mentioned in another place that "...the list mentions the source of the scores. This offers degrees of certainty concerning scores. The scores that are sourced from TwinGalaxies obviously ensures that the highest standards and verification has occurred. Some have done some higher scores live on Twitch, no verification done on the machines, but have slightly lower scores on the TG scoreboard. We know that it is likely that if they are using the same machines that they have been verified at one time. And then there are those that have done live on Twitch that don't have any scores on TG. Some have seen the score live at an event. For some we may only have partial video of their games, and we could list these as sourced by YouTube. So on and so forth. Even on the list that we have there are degrees of certainty, as far as evidence is concerned." I think that this is an important function of the source information.
Is is perfect? No. Does it meet the general consensus of the DK Communities need for a list of high scores? I believe that it does. However, if anyone thinks that there should be some additional criteria that needs to be considered then that is fine with me. We are not accepting photographs due to editing issues. As far as I know Ben Mazowita's score is the only one that has been allowed from a partial video showing the 3 lives setting. That particular video seemed unedited, was offered as evidence by Hank Chein, at least some of us have seen him play live. I like to think Ben was a fair candidate for our list. I think that once all of the criteria is applied, including Community support, peer-review, and meeting the rest of the standards, I don't think that a lot of bogus scores will get through us, if any at all. I feel pretty confident in our competence in this matter. Maybe that is just me.
