Robbie's 1.272

[tilt]

my 2 cents:

1. I think the majority of us believe voltage to be a placebo effect , and do nothing outside of potentially causing the game to glitch in graphics (or not boot at all) if too low, and rather, be simply a motivation tool to those who believe that's the reason they are achieving the scores they did.
If anything, i feel it works in the opposite way - in that the player is NOT giving their own skill the credit it deserves for the score they achieved.. They achieved it, because they achieved it - not alteration of the psu...
I'd imagine a lot of cabs being used to submit scores, are probably running with weak 40 year old caps and components on their psus (just not intentionally)

2. I personally see (and rely on) the DKF score list as the most 'complete' and accurate source & collaboration of DK scores as a whole.
If the absence of sound is not a rule for authenticating a score for anyone - then I vote to accept his submission.

I think it would always be in the back of peoples minds when they see that score list that 'oh actually, that score was beaten (and had a verification at the end), but wasnt recognised/updated due to reasons 1,2,3 ' etc

3. My feelings (and hope) would be that if DKF now move to accept the score with open arms, that Robbie will see this to be the case, and truly hope that this action would further discourage any complaints he may have towards other players submissions (when the case in contrast, would be that his own score was not a 'perfect' example of a submission  / accepted with no audio, yet was accepted)


Not sure this helps, just my opinion.

And on another note, Xelnia, really appreciate the effort and time you put into all of this and can imagine the frustrations that come along with it.

Unfortunately, attempted murder is still attempted murder even if you accidentally bring a toy gun to the hit. We obviously aren't a legal entity, but it is a good basis. Robbie attempted to gain an unfair advantage compared to his previous scores through hardware modification, and made active changes in an attempt to further his better RNG theory. Regardless of whether these changes worked or not, that's how it is. Robbie's current cheating attempts do not change his history of WRs that were totally clean. That's why Billy's last legit score before the score debacle is still listed here, and Robbie's last WR is still listed as well.

I think people are truly missing the point here. Robbie's score was not rejected because the voltage changes do anything (they don't, and Jeremy acknowledges that). It also doesn't set a precedent that future scores need a voltage measurement because that's not even the point of the rejection. It was rejected because he was trying to cheat, justified by the lie that he believed everybody else was already cheating besides him. I don't speak for Jeremy, but Robbie, at the very least, would have to do a lot to come back from actively admitting to wanting to submit scores with an unfair advantage.

Just as an example for precedents, Corey Chambers was banned from TG for submitted a real run that he said in the comments was cheated just to get banned: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/153539-Nintendo-Entertainment-System-Double-Dragon-NTSC-Points-521-890-Corey-Chambers

"Please reject this submission. I cheated by offering evidence that was not original. I spliced together the boot up seemlessly with the previous video that I did in order to make it look like it was all one recording. This is an example of how easy it is for anyone to do this. As a result of my cheating I formally request that all my scores be removed from the database and my account be restricted. Thank you for your co-operation."

ok let me prephase this with a few things. i know i'm really just a dkf observer not a member for all practical purposes, so you guys site you guys rule, also in general i respect you but i disagree with this a bit.

"attempted" doesnt apply to all cimres. there is no such thing as attempted speeding for example. funny side story a cop actualy pulled my buddy over for attempted running a stop sign and of course let him go. he was about to run the stop sign, saw the cop and slammed on the break, the cop realized he only stopped cause of him, didnt use the phrase "attempted running a light" but effectively called him on that and then had to let him go.  "attempted" crime matters because theres a fear for every attempt failed one might go through. as long as robbie is transparent about his attempts and they're ruled out as harmless then theres no danger of one slipping through

Also the corey situation is different, he falsified info. whether you believe he spliced (falsed evidence) or lied about the slice (false statement) there was false info given, someone who will give false info cant be trusted.

how far will the "he did something that makes no difference but he thought it would so its cheeat" mentality go?  If he says a prayer zeus believing zeus will bestow him will extra abilites, thats ridiculous, but if he honestly believes it will it count as cheating?  What if he buys some charmed bracelet that he believes give an advantage any other number of other ridiculous things that some people actually believe it. if he believes any of those nonsense will give him an advantage will that be grounds for rejection as well?

when someone breaks a rule but transparently lets everyone know they're breaking the rule, and is testing to see what the response, well, that happens alot.  I cant help but to think if someone in good standing did the exact same thing it would be viewed as a discussion point as opposed to a troll thread.

At tg i used a camera for a memory game, and made very clear i was doing it, got rejected, meanwhile to this day people still accept direct feed on memory games, but noone other than lexmark tried to accuse me of cheating there.  my point was to force a decision, either demand camera show no helping device like camera/pen and paper is used, or allow such aids.  There needed to be a decision, and to my annoyance there really wasnt other than, if you're honest about it its rejected, but anyone using direct feed is free to use pen and paper for memrooy games all they like. 

Is that where this will be headed? anyone that uses a voltmeter will be DQed for attempted cheating, but noone has to show the power supply meaning others can get away it if theyr'e not as honest as robbie?

anyway thats my take, you guys site, do as you like

Since we're already down this rabbit hole:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/attempt/

"Because an attempt does not result in the actual commission of a crime, prosecuting an individual for attempt requires clear evidence of intent to commit the crime. Individuals cannot be charged with attempt for accidentally committing a crime. Rather, a prosecutor must show that the defendant specifically intended to commit the crime that he attempted, and he simply fell short. Attempt is therefore categorized as a ?specific intent? crime. This means that acting negligently or recklessly is not enough to support a charge of attempt."

The screenshots Jeremy posted indicate intent. Any person who accidentally has low voltage or whatever is not trying to do anything nefarious. However, in our situation, are we going to just keep allowing the score submissions like this until Robbie or somebody else manages to cheat for real without any kind of reasonable suspicion on that individual score? This isn't a thought crime, as a I suspect some people will compare it to. This is someone saying they are committing a crime (hardware manipulation, in our case) and failing. If anybody is wondering where the line is, it's saying you want to cheat in public and are actively doing what you think works. That's the line.

Just for the record, I was initially 100% okay with the acceptance of this score just on the basis of there not being any reason to believe the score is fake. However, are we really to just ignore when someone says for months they are trying to cheat and then gets a world record? This is not as cut and dry as some are making it.

[tilt]

And just to reiterate, hardware manipulation is cheating. That means doing anything to influence gameplay that is not inside the game itself.

[Snowflake]

even with that definition you gave for law, to attempt a crime, the thing you're attempting has to be a crime

i understand the general rule against hardware mods.  Arent exception ever asked for and given?  Cheating implies some sort of deception.  Robbie had been talking about voltages forever and people have been saying it doesnt matter.  i guess he should've explcitly asked permission but the transparency is what makes it so different to me

Also, i think dkf and TG do have a real difference here.  Yes, here at dkf robbie could've explicilty asked the mods if its ok, if they said yes hes clear, if they say no he's free to point to that as evidence they think it makes a difference and declare victory all he likes.  At TG though, often times the only way to get disucssion if something is ok, is to do it, be transparent and get peoples input.  Pete Hann using a nes clone wasnt cheating, cause he was open about it and looking to get the rules changed, he intentionally broke a rule but he broke it in a way that came with no punishment other than a rejection.  McAllister broke the rule on where the first life is to be earned, he knew it was against the rules and argued for an except on the basis of it not mattering and that was granted.  There's likely other examples that just arent coming to mind as well.

but ok, if DKF's policy is that, even when transparently done and with no effect on gameplay, hardware is purposely modified thats treated as cheating and all the punishments that come with it, then thank you for the clarification.  At TG i'll argue as i have more of a vested interest in the scoreboard, here i really am just trying to make sure i understand how things work.

[Snowflake]

actualy i think i do see a distinguihsment you're drawing. attempting to lower the voltage is fine, attempting to change rng is not, is that correct? the voltage lowering is ok, which is why theres no need to check others, its the attempt to influence rng that matters?  just as any number of actions that a person thinks will lead to murder is fine, its that they were trying it to another effect is what matters?

thats an interesting distinguishment. i still think the particular method for the attempt factors in (again if someone was trying to caste some spell to kill someone i doubt an attempted murder chargg would stick, usually the attempt has to make some reasonable sense).  Which is why i was focused on the voltage itself if its against the rules to modify. but yes, if i'm understanding that point correct i get the distinguishment

[Snowflake]

sorry for the spamming but i really have been trying to be see both sides and i've found myself still largely being ok with it but also sort of seeing the attempted point (also i'm tired so i spent longer on this than i should've where as if i went to sleep i probably would've arived at the conclusion in 5 minutes in the morning)

anyway it keeps coming back to the transparency aspect for me.

the attempted thing, you said it yourself, what if someday he pushes something through. thats the entire reason why attemps matter.

so, someone cheats and they get caught. they then submit another score that has nothing wrong, its still rejected because we're worried they cheated again and we missed it. This makes sense.
someone attempts to cheat, fails, gets caught, same principle right? it begs the question if they made that attempt, then did they make another attempt which was succesful that we missed

what are we worried about in this case though considering robbies tranparency. his "attempts" are inherently linked to have talking about it. thats how intent was established right. and not some private conversation but a very public one. So is this concern that if this is allowed, eventually, robbie will find a cheat that does work, tell everyone about it, perform the cheat, and then have noone notice?  You see how that aspect of tranparency makes all the difference when talking about attempts.  The idea that he didnt truly cheat, but just tried to cheat while publicly showing how he did so, is dangerous cause it could lead to him one day succesfully cheating withnoone knowing while telling everyone about is pretty preposteours.  At that point you have to turn the concern into, "well based on think i think he'll someday attempt to cheat but not tell anyone how", but this just doesnt support that. if we're gonna use past actoin to predict future action, you cant look at the half where he thinks it affects rng but ignore the half where hes tranparent about it, and no offense robbie, but obnoxioiusly over the top in everyone's face for months transparent

[Perfectpacman]

Why doesn't the admin just split the comments into a poll?

A) I accept this score submission
B) I do not accept this score submission
C) I'm friends with Wes Copeland and John McCurdy
D) I'm not friends with Bill Mitchell and Robbie Lakeman

Job done.

[Ninglendo]

Can anybody point out the exact moment Robbie cheated in this run? Thanks in advance.

[tilt]

Can anybody point out the exact moment Robbie cheated in this run? Thanks in advance.

I don't think anybody thinks he cheated in this run.

[tilt]

sorry for the spamming but i really have been trying to be see both sides and i've found myself still largely being ok with it but also sort of seeing the attempted point (also i'm tired so i spent longer on this than i should've where as if i went to sleep i probably would've arived at the conclusion in 5 minutes in the morning)

anyway it keeps coming back to the transparency aspect for me.

the attempted thing, you said it yourself, what if someday he pushes something through. thats the entire reason why attemps matter.

so, someone cheats and they get caught. they then submit another score that has nothing wrong, its still rejected because we're worried they cheated again and we missed it. This makes sense.
someone attempts to cheat, fails, gets caught, same principle right? it begs the question if they made that attempt, then did they make another attempt which was succesful that we missed

what are we worried about in this case though considering robbies tranparency. his "attempts" are inherently linked to have talking about it. thats how intent was established right. and not some private conversation but a very public one. So is this concern that if this is allowed, eventually, robbie will find a cheat that does work, tell everyone about it, perform the cheat, and then have noone notice?  You see how that aspect of tranparency makes all the difference when talking about attempts.  The idea that he didnt truly cheat, but just tried to cheat while publicly showing how he did so, is dangerous cause it could lead to him one day succesfully cheating withnoone knowing while telling everyone about is pretty preposteours.  At that point you have to turn the concern into, "well based on think i think he'll someday attempt to cheat but not tell anyone how", but this just doesnt support that. if we're gonna use past actoin to predict future action, you cant look at the half where he thinks it affects rng but ignore the half where hes tranparent about it, and no offense robbie, but obnoxioiusly over the top in everyone's face for months transparent

Hm, well this is less about Robbie's specific case and rather a point I was trying to generalize. Not everybody would be as open about this as Robbie, for one, and second I think there are a lot of assumptions there on whether or not someone would continue to be transparent if they found a truly significant, undetectable exploit. Regardless, this is all pure speculation.

[dnickolas]

Can anybody point out the exact moment Robbie cheated in this run? Thanks in advance.

He wanted to cheat, but his method was as effective as rubbing olive oil on his balls. He has made that intent clear.

Bottom line is that everyone is pretty sure the run is totally legit, but he's going out of his way to make it controversial by omitting the sound.

[80sArcadeKid]

I've encountered the voltage conversation twice in Twitch chats where Robbie has come along spouting about it. The claims are absurd and all based on conjecture.

As the voltage makes absolutley no proven difference to game mechanics (other than in the mind of the individual), and the score has been attained without any (known) game altering glitches, the performance and score is valid if the "no sound required" rule is acceptable and all other criteria is meet.

However, if the dude's been a c*** to almost every other high level player and scoreboard and site admins, perhaps he could just start his own scoreboard and shove his score there.

[John73]

I can't help but feel there is some ulterior motive behind this submission.

Why is there no sound when his previous videos have sound?  Why show voltage when he has been going on and on about it in the last six-twelve months?

Accept the score or reject the score - nothing good is going to come out of this for the community.   I really don't know what Robbie is trying to achieve here, but I'm 99.9% sure who is backing this.

[LMDAVE]

Is low voltage the new gummy substance? 

@xelnia I would be curious to see your kongtrac summary on this game, if you are doing one, to show if any outliers in the data exist on pie factory (or other boards) compared to the top 5 scores. This is the first I'm hearing of voltage manipulation in games, but I'll admit I've been out of the loop a while. I have seen arcade machines do crazy stuff on low end voltages though.

[Scoundrl]

Tricky slippery slope here. Almost certainly the low voltage didnt positively effect his game, I'm sure stats will prove that out.

When I asked about the audio Robbie said "Ken House the sound was fine. I?m just editing out swearing, bitching, etc. I mean, unless you really want to hear that ". That seems reasonable, he is quite the complainer but seems inconsistent with previous streams and videos filled with that stuff without 2 F's givin what people think of it. After other players submitted allegedly faked games with certain aspects missing that would have cleared it up, you know, why would you?

Is the 'score' legit, probably. Is the submission of games where you are actively trying to manipulate the gameplay by manipulating hardware Ok? There is precedent for it, Asteroids was modified to get higher score per hour than original hardware but there were known examples of scores that uses speed up kits, not really apples to apples.

For the record I encouraged Robbie to look into weather or not the voltage would make a difference. I gave some hints on how to make lowering the voltage easier (its a pain to do on Nintendo arcade power supplies) I didnt think he would submit anything but a normal submission and the evidence would be clear to the observers one way or the other. This isn't that. The observers are missing a large portion or the evidence that the game is not effected by the lowering of the voltage,.

-Ken

[Snowflake]

sorry for the spamming but i really have been trying to be see both sides and i've found myself still largely being ok with it but also sort of seeing the attempted point (also i'm tired so i spent longer on this than i should've where as if i went to sleep i probably would've arived at the conclusion in 5 minutes in the morning)

anyway it keeps coming back to the transparency aspect for me.

the attempted thing, you said it yourself, what if someday he pushes something through. thats the entire reason why attemps matter.

so, someone cheats and they get caught. they then submit another score that has nothing wrong, its still rejected because we're worried they cheated again and we missed it. This makes sense.
someone attempts to cheat, fails, gets caught, same principle right? it begs the question if they made that attempt, then did they make another attempt which was succesful that we missed

what are we worried about in this case though considering robbies tranparency. his "attempts" are inherently linked to have talking about it. thats how intent was established right. and not some private conversation but a very public one. So is this concern that if this is allowed, eventually, robbie will find a cheat that does work, tell everyone about it, perform the cheat, and then have noone notice?  You see how that aspect of tranparency makes all the difference when talking about attempts.  The idea that he didnt truly cheat, but just tried to cheat while publicly showing how he did so, is dangerous cause it could lead to him one day succesfully cheating withnoone knowing while telling everyone about is pretty preposteours.  At that point you have to turn the concern into, "well based on think i think he'll someday attempt to cheat but not tell anyone how", but this just doesnt support that. if we're gonna use past actoin to predict future action, you cant look at the half where he thinks it affects rng but ignore the half where hes tranparent about it, and no offense robbie, but obnoxioiusly over the top in everyone's face for months transparent

Hm, well this is less about Robbie's specific case and rather a point I was trying to generalize. Not everybody would be as open about this as Robbie, for one, and second I think there are a lot of assumptions there on whether or not someone would continue to be transparent if they found a truly significant, undetectable exploit. Regardless, this is all pure speculation.

this is about robbies case since robbie was transparent. and yes its about speculation.  the entire case against robbie is speculation and i'm discussing the speculation that you used against him.  seems weird to speculate againt robbie and then why i draw out issues with that speculation to fault me for speculation.

so great, lets remove speculation. withotu speculation, without concerns of future cases, lets just talk about robbies submssion. is it valid or not? or right we dont wanna take about his case we wanna speculate where an accept might lead