Regarding the interpretation of the rules:Let me break this down into two different score performances.
First, a player reaches the killscreen but later learned that they were award their 4th man upon reaching the 10,000 point threshold instead of at 7,000, where they did not lose their 3rd man prior to 7,000. Do we reject this legitimate performance? No, we do not. There would be no reason to reject this game performance because for the present submission the point threshold was irrelevant.
Second, a player was practicing on 5+ 1 settings but had an incredible break out game. He reaches the killscreen and losses his 4th man. That score which he achieved after his 4th man is a legitamate score and the game performance exceptional. Do we reject this legitimate performance? No, we do not. There would be no reason to reject this game performance because there is no advantage since they are only playing out 4 men as one would with 3+1 settings.
This is the spirit of the normative/auxiliary rules. This is why they were created in the manner in which they have been created.
There is just no brief way to outline how fundamentally flawed this thinking really is. People love using sports analogies when it comes to gaming (because omg e-sport athlete) so maybe that will work here:
Usain Bolt runs the 200m dash in the Olympics. He has a “breakout†first 100 meters and knows that he just beat the actual 100m dash world record. So, he pulls up, stops running, and trots over to the stat keeper and says “omg new wr lit
.†Think that will fly?
Rules exist to standardize performances before they happen…not after. Why not just film Olympians running around the track all day and review the tape later to see when they’re best performance happened? Whether you realize it or not, you’re advocating for a position that says “Play however you want, we’ll see which rules fit afterwards.†It’s like trying to hit a moving target in the dark.
You’re arguing a position from an almost academic, legal standpoint. “Did a score performance occur using only 4 lives in direct sequence and without being affected by the Bonus setting?†Write a legal brief and take that shit to court. DK competition has existed and was standardized long before you decided to make a HSL. Part of those standards of competition were the Lives and Bonus settings. The rules reflect those standards. The rules should NOT be written or interpreted in a way that alters the standards. If your system of Normative and Auxiliary rules does so, then the system should be changed. The rules, the system by which they are outlined, the people who interpret/implement/adjudicate…they all serve the game and standards of competition. Not the other way around. Maybe you’re uncomfortable with or don’t understand the fact that those standards originally rose from a dark, nebulous place called “80s arcades and operator manuals.â€
Regarding the implementation of the rules:One could create an Absolute division in the rules but as I stated before the historical development of the list has been to avoid all absolute rules which is why the normative/auxiliary rule structure was used. Haven't you ever wondered why the rules are either categorized as normative or auxiliary and that the language that defines the nature of the normative rules state: "The normative rules are the most preferred manner for scores to be submitted to the High Score List. It is the players responsibility to be familiar with these rules and should follow them as precisely as possible." Many posts and hours of explanations were used to this effect.
This isn’t a freshman philosophy class, so yes…I initially wondered why. But the community supported it, accepted it, and there it is. To say there are no absolute criteria by which a Donkey Kong performance should be judged shows a fundamental misunderstanding of competition and score performances.
In fact the rules also state that if a score is accepted by TG then it will be accepted at DKF. I know that submissions like the ones I propose can and most likely will get accepted at TG.
I would vote to reject those submissions at TG and would put it up to a community vote at DKF regardless of the outcome at TG. Since accepting TG scores are part of the Auxiliary rules then, according to your system, these situations would be perfect for case-by-case peer review.
But like I said, since I am the one who crafted these rules and adopted the normative/auxiliary rule structure I can tell you that what you disagree with is contrary to the purpose and intent of the list which can be clearly seen from its development.
Believe it or not, I was around at the beginning of the HSL, so I’m aware of its historical development. You managed it for, what, 4 months after its finalization (which took a few months)? Scott and I jointly managed it for roughly 13 months, and I have been the sole manager for roughly 5 months. In all of that time the structure and “philosophy†has remain unchanged. I am not the owner of the list. The community owns it. If they agree with your take on the rules then so be it. It is actually possible to disagree with an opinion and still be committed to its implementation.
Since the list has been handed over to the community you and Jeremy, with or without support from the majority of the community, can feel free to do as much violence to the list as you wish.
As you felt free to abandon it and the forum because you got into a little tiff with Ken House? And that’s a more appropriate term: abandoned. Nothing was handed over. You’re implying that Scott and I haphazardly handle the High Score List in your absence. We are not disinterested caretakers awaiting your return or blessing. We have put an enormous amount of effort into the maintenance and adjudication of the HSL. Community input has been used to update the rules and allow for a wider range of score performances. There have been no significant alterations to the letter or spirit of the rules without community input, nor will there be. Since you seem to lack faith in either Scott or myself you’re more than welcome to rally the community and call for our (or at this point, my) removal.
But let it never be said that I didn't voice against these alterations nor made it clear that it would lose my endorsement.
Your name will be etched in stone for all to see, I’m sure. If you would like we can put a big banner above the list that says “Endorsed by Donkey Kong Genius.†Or maybe you’d prefer the more humble route of placing “Endorsed by Corey Chambers†at the bottom.
Some people might catch that they used the wrong settings but that does not address the two hypothetical submissions. Neither propose that either player was trying to ignore the rules or express any type of defiance. This is not part of my concern here.
All hypothetical situations regarding the rules should concern you, not just the ones that make for fun little thought experiments.
Using the rules that I crafted for the community to reject submissions which should be handled with more care is repugnant to me.
Go fuck yourself.
