Robbie's 1.272

[Snowflake]

to eleborate i'm not saying what robbie would or wouldnt do or others

i'm saying its weird to use him being transparent and open as a cause of concern to speculate others may not, or he may one day stop. of course all these things are possible.  i'm not saying its impossible, i'm saying though using transparency to "speculate" that he'll one day stop is absurd.  i'm not using his transparency to say it'll remain, i'm saying it makes no sense to use this scenario against him.

can we talk about honest bias? the thing all humans have. its a spectrum. good people have biases and try to fight it but it slips in especially in small case and grey areas where the answer is tough.

i think the vast majority of people have biases but also want to do the right despite those biases.  So for good people trying to fight their biases, play the though game of imagingin what if it was someone else. an honest person will tell themslevs "well sure if soemone else did x,y,z..." but that forces you to explcily lay out why. it forces you to admit to yourself whats factoring into your decision

So are the only factors sound, voltage, and discusssion of it? ok lets pretend thats someoen else.

also as far as "attempted cheating" we dont need a hypothetic we can loook at robbie himself pre-hard feelings.  remember when robbie thought different board revisions mattered? he used a different revision thinking it would give him an advantage. everyoen thought he was wrong but let him do it and didnt make rules on board revisions because it was believed he was wrong and it didnt matter.  i wonder if in todays environemnt his board revision tests would get thrown out as attempted cheating since he beleived it gave him an advantage

[Perfectpacman]

OK, now we've discussed everything bar splitting the atom.........
is his score accepted yet? 🙄

[Flobeamer1922]

OK, now we've discussed everything bar splitting the atom.........
is his score accepted yet? 🙄

I will be busy Thursday-Saturday and probably won't have time to respond to anything in that timeframe.

[Muerto]

OK, now we've discussed everything bar splitting the atom.........
is his score accepted yet? 🙄

Oh my, what's your goal here - besides the obvious?
Sound or no sound, the score is legit in my opinion - maybe Robbie decided to mute it because he finally understood that ppl was tired of hearing hem moaning??

[homerwannabee]

Just to add, although I disagree with the decision, I do understand the reasoning behind the decision, and am OK with the reasoning.

[CraigT]

I get where xelnia is coming from, but if the submission looks good after the verification process, then I think it should be accepted.

[bensweeneyonbass]

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/232686-Arcade-Donkey-Kong-Points-Hammer-Allowed-1-272-800-Robbie-Lakeman?p=1123009&viewfull=1#post1123009

[Rolledcigs]

He got it and that's it. Aside from splicing mame footage there's no cheats in this game. Whatever disagreements we have about life or whatever dont matter.

[Adam_Mon]

My view is to accept the score.

While DataGod raised some interesting points about electronics in this thread, I don't see any concrete evidence that heat or voltage manipulation can affect RNG in the game. Robbie himself seems to be mentioning that these factors influence gameplay (whether he's trolling or serious). Either way the onus is on the community to find faults in the submitted score files, much like the MAME finger in BM's videos (please don't sue me, I'm poor).

If there are statistical anomaly's they should show up in the stats breakdown as LMDave mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, Robbie could say a UFO flew over his house and gave him better RNG and helped him 'cheat', but unless we can fault the evidence it should be allowed.   

[Perfectpacman]

Time to update the Scoreboard?

[Flobeamer1922]

Time to update the Scoreboard?

Consider having some patience.

[Perfectpacman]

Time to update the Scoreboard?

Yes Dad 
Consider having some patience.

[Xermon54]

In my humble french canadian opinion, someone should always be innocent until proven guilty. As of right now, if it seems we can't find any reason of any way Robbie did cheat, so the score should be accepted. I know Jeremate is not bff with Robbie, but emotions mustn't come into play when it's about a wr.

Even if Robbie did try to manipulate the rng, if we can't prove that he successfully did, we must accept the score.

I know Robbie's craziness and paranoia can make it hard to be impartial, but we gotta be.

[Xermon54]

I know Robbie's craziness and paranoia can make it hard to be impartial, but we gotta be.

I re-read my last sentence, and I realized it sounded quite bad toward Robbie. By saying it, I didn't want to say anything about mental health, I just wanted to point out the fact that he's crazy and paranoid into trying to find new ways to improve his game (playing with voltage, etc). That's not a bad thing to me, but to some, his ways it might be too crazy.

Where I'm from we use the word paranoid quite often when someone is obsessed with something. Fking english im outta here. Robbie's my mate I don't wanna sound mean toward him 

[xelnia]

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful input on this issue. It sounds like the majority of the community believes this is a valid score. However:

I will not be accepting this submission by Robbie, nor will I be accepting any other submissions from him in the foreseeable future. The outcome of the TG submission will not affect my decision.

My decision is based solely on the reality that Robbie has demonstrated a desire to find a shortcut to achieve his scores and that this behavior violates the spirit of fair play (Section D, Paragraph d of the DKF submission rules).

My decision is not based on any personal feelings I have towards Robbie or vice versa. My decision is not based on any bias I have for or against Robbie or any other player. My decision is not based on Robbie's long history of treating other players poorly. My decision is not based on whether the actual gameplay in this submission is legitimate, illegitimate, or malfunctioning.

I believe I am doing the right thing and acting in the best interest of the community. But since my decision appears to be contrary to popular opinion, there is more to discuss here.

Over the years, the community has trusted me (and Scott Cunningham and others) to verify or reject scores based on the standards we have collectively agreed upon. For the most part I or the past score moderators have done this alone. On occasion, the community has been called upon to decide the validity of scores with questionable evidence or to debate new rules. In those instances I have implemented the majority decision. In this case, I am not doing that. The reason is pretty simple: it's more important to me to do the right thing than it is to do the popular thing.

I am asking the community to trust me that this is the right decision. If this was a new or unknown player, would the community reaction be the same? If it was a known player but a non-WR score? Robbie doesn't get a pass just because he's Robbie. This score doesn't get a pass just because it's a potential world record.

If the community believes their trust in me has been misplaced then the path forward is pretty simple: I'll step aside as score moderator and the community can move ahead in whatever way they deem best. Otherwise, we can put this submission to rest and I can turn my attention back to the amazing scores still waiting in the submission queue.

I am not asking or expecting anyone to be happy with me. There is no easy outcome here and, for my money, Robbie probably wants it that way. He's in the driver's seat. If he wants to run himself off the road, fine, but he shouldn't take the rest of us with him.