Robbie's 1.272

[Snowflake]

cheating often has two elements, intent and action. proving the score broke rules is often easier than proving if it was done on purpose on accident.  What i find interesting here is all the people that think intent is easier to prove than action. quite the narrative spun.  Can anyone point me to where Robbie said he wanted the score rejected?  Or do the mind readers just need to make that up to feel better about themselves.

i really could respect rejecting it for the wrong voltage.  but all this "he thought he was cheating" when it seemed to me he thought was leveling the playing field and he "wants a reject", wow.

again you guys club you guys rule. if you wanna reject a score because you dont like the color of someone's socks thats fine and i'd respect it, well, i'd respect it if that reason was honestly stated.

everyone is so busy pointing out what robbies words from facebook indicate -- where i noticed the responses telling him how votlages differences arent an advantages are left out, that i'm not sure any of you noticing that everyones words matter. 

lets say robbie "thought he was cheating" lets say he "wanted it rejected" (two premisses i reject by the way), well you know what else i'm seeing, i'm seeing DKF rejects score that by their own admission are valid. 

At this point i could see proof robbie cheated andall that would prove to me is biased people got lucky and made the correct decision for the wrong reason.

robbied "wants a reject" is even more absurd than the accusation he thought it was unfair advantage (he thought it made a difference but leveled the playing field, no different than when he thought different boards made a difference).  billy really did, and its not clear to me that jealous haters really did catch him. the two arent mutulaly exclusive. well done guys. i dont even care if this comment gets me banned cause i no longer care to even see the comments going on here other than to remind myself why tg should never ever this sites decisions and why we need to decidde foro urselve.s i've never felt more vinidcated in rejected scores 5 minute video of his killscreen.  now that i know the sort of people that vouch for him we were right to treat that word of mouth as meaningless.

[prok]

Hi.  I rarely post here and have only met Robbie once at a convention so I'm looking at this from a distance.  For whatever reason I watch the DK drama mostly for entertainment value.  However, this one has somewhat made me wonder a few things.

-  Robbie has been quite open about his supposition that some of the scores posted in the past exhibited what he felt to be unusually favorable barrel behavior.
-  He was also very open about his efforts to in his opinion replicate that behavior.
-  If that behavior could be replicated, not only could it demonstrate how much voltage means to scores, it would also demonstrate that some scores were obtained under potentially imperfect conditions.
-  A score achieved under imperfect conditions would not be invalidated I would think because nobody has truly proven it to be so.  Rules shouldn't change or be applied retroactively IMHO.
-  Once a new variable that some players may have never known was potentially assisted them is found it should just be added to the known possibilities for players past/present/future. 
-  In this case, any dk could be running a little low or a little high on +5.   All Robbie has done is point it out and attempted to replicate the scenario on a WR run.

There has to be more than simply a clash of personalities to erase someone from the scoreboard.  He found a new variable and used it quite openly (to his benefit or not I couldn't tell you due to the reality that he's capable of the score with or without some kind of barrel odds being altered).

I'd suggest just saying hey, thanks for pointing that out and demonstrating it with transparency.  Validate the score and impose whatever rule is needed going forward because you simply can't prove one way or another who might have submitted a score under those same conditions unknowingly.

[homerwannabee]

Funny how I've gotten over Twin Galaxies rejecting my score years ago, but apparently one of the people who rejected it still hasn't. 

[datagod]

Did Robbie state publicly that he was going to cheat?  Did he state it privately?  Without proof, claiming he wanted to cheat is mind reading, and that form of Loserthink(tm).  Scott Adams writes about several ways that people fail at debating, and mind reading is right at the top.

If I was playing a video game and I believed that playing loud music affected the gameplay in my favor, would that be rejected even if it had no effect whatsoever?  Is my intention to game the system enough to reject a score?

Very odd to see people so passionate about legitimacy of high scores doing two things: 
1.  Rejecting the very idea that voltage can affect game play.
2.  Rejecting scores because somebody believed the low voltage can affect game play.

[datagod]

Funny how I've gotten over Twin Galaxies rejecting my score years ago, but apparently one of the people who rejected it still hasn't. 

Hey George, as you know I was one of the ones who voted to reject the score because the rules required full submission.

You may NOT know that I spoke with TG leadership about making an exception for accredited tournaments.  My idea was to have a person on site that was highly trustworthy and sanctioned by TG to verify all the machines and the players, and not have to have every single game recorded.

My idea was shot down.  I still think it is a good idea, but TG seems to want to not have any volunteer employees at all, even if it is for tournaments.  Given the scandals and lawsuits, I can understand, but I still think it sucks.

[tilt]

Did Robbie state publicly that he was going to cheat?  Did he state it privately?  Without proof, claiming he wanted to cheat is mind reading, and that form of Loserthink(tm).  Scott Adams writes about several ways that people fail at debating, and mind reading is right at the top.

If I was playing a video game and I believed that playing loud music affected the gameplay in my favor, would that be rejected even if it had no effect whatsoever?  Is my intention to game the system enough to reject a score?

Very odd to see people so passionate about legitimacy of high scores doing two things: 
1.  Rejecting the very idea that voltage can affect game play.
2.  Rejecting scores because somebody believed the low voltage can affect game play.

He says he believes he's cheating in this attachment, and it is clear he thought it was doing something to modify the gameplay. This was not framed as a scientific investigation at any point. It was more of a "Everybody else is doing this cheating thing that I just now figured out about". It's possible to see why a score was rejected while still disagreeing with the decision. I think that's where a lot of people stand here.

[Muerto]

Now, with sound:

"I uploaded the new video with sound in this submission, and on YouTube. I had to edit out excessive swearing, and other sayings that could be used against me later in the form of mockery, since other players have done that to me in the past. Thanks again everyone for being so patient!"

[ersatz_cats]

Nice little 'click' you have here.

I thought that his score would be accepted based on the score and not by your feelings towards him.
Don't try and smother your feelings with 'submission rules' either, you clearly only have your own agenda.
Any newcomer coming here should be directed to this thread. A new WR and that is littered with personal feelings towards a particular gamer and not the video evidence and subsequent voting up of his score.

As I mentioned earlier, you're a disgrace to your forum and your kind of bias behaviour and 'closed club' should be avoided.

Guinness will of course accept this score, like most open minded people out there will congratulate hard work and dedication in the face of bullying and harrasment.

Who really cares what 'DKF' think.

Guinness and mature people mean so much more.

I was responsible enough to preface my remarks by acknowledging that I'm not really a DK competitor (my highest score is just over 100k), and that it therefore doesn't really matter what I think. But I also can't help but notice that many of the loudest people in this thread attacking Jeremy's or DKF's character over this decision have no scores submitted here whatsoever, nor any DK scores submitted to TG.

The DK people can make their decision. They don't need my input or consent. But to the others, I say...

Jeremy works his ass off for this site and for this community. It's not just a case of "He's within his right to make this decision." It is simply the right decision. If Robbie wants his scores accepted by the community, he can stop acting on an expressed intention to cheat, while publicly bullying and attacking the character and legitimacy of the scoreboard adjudicating the scores (which I would argue is another, more toxic way of trying to cheat).

Anyone who thinks Robbie is the victim here is out of their mind.

Also, it's pretty silly to say Guinness cares about hard work and/or dedication when they still recognize a certain DK score as "first million", which is proven to have been cheated, and which the cheater himself still can't make up his mind on whether it was officially submitted it or not. Frankly, anyone who still supports that man is either a psycho, or hasn't looked at the evidence (or both).

[datagod]

He says he believes he's cheating in this attachment, and it is clear he thought it was doing something to modify the gameplay. This was not framed as a scientific investigation at any point. It was more of a "Everybody else is doing this cheating thing that I just now figured out about". It's possible to see why a score was rejected while still disagreeing with the decision. I think that's where a lot of people stand here.

Well, if he is cheating by lower the voltage then lowering the voltage is a cheat.  And a known cheating tactic. 

Moving forward will everyone have to show their voltage before playing?  I am certainly no DK expert, I am not saying it works.  I have always said I would not be surprised if it did work, and more importantly others have known about it and have been using it as a way to increase their odds.

Maybe this is why having an authentic / original power supply is so important.

If Robbie gets banned for cheating, but nobody can prove his cheat worked, things will get really weird.

[VIMikey]

Kongrats on the new high score, Robbie!
Keep it Kong-in! 👍🦍🕹

DKMikey77

[Synappzz]

Congrats Robbie,on, as you said, finding a way to play on a level playing field !

[gstrain]

Robbie, I have one question about your submission: Did you intentionally modify the original DK hardware in order to gain an advantage over using unmodified hardware?

[Reinke314]

Seems to be alot of us are being pretty biased here. I thought we look at the video evidence submitted, gameplay, board set, so on and so fourth. Why even bring up whether Robbie or any other player has kissed babies and hugged mom's at conversations, and just left it at the video evidence at hand. Some of us have even stated that Voltage cannot and will not make a difference in gameplay. So why even bring it up?

[Barra]

How do so many people not have a problem with this?

Robbie:
"I'm going to cheat by manipulating the hardware" ..... "New world record!"

[Reinke314]

Honest question here. How is it "cheating" or " board manipulation" if others have stated in the past that it is simply a "placebo" effect (changing voltage, etc).