Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1
I had around 500 105 or lower fails in the 120 hours or so I put in a couple years ago. Shit level. About 100 104s
2
37 Tank is way cooler than 34 Nade because 37 Tank has been a thing of myth since like 2005... "34 Nade" never had the same sort of lore behind it.
3
If you are going to deal with things publicly, there's a way to do it

singling people out or calling them out can look a bit bullish. There was an example of this with some guy maybe a month or 2 ago, as a very casual onlooker I thought it looked really unprofessional how it was handled

I just thought it seemed unfair is all

Quite the opposite, in fact... these sorts of issues are best handled publicly, because even if a higher group (like the Council) makes the final decision in private, the public vetting and discussion beforehand ensures multiple voices - as many as possible - are part of the conversation, and the ultimate decision-makers have a wealth of information to help in reaching a resolution.

And frankly, having these sorts of discussions in public is what makes a community a community; it's what brings out passion in members of the community, makes them really think about it, how to improve it, and invest time in it, and for many, results in them caring about it more and keeping it alive and active longer.

It's also a very good deterrent to those who would seek to subvert or devalue the integrity of the rankings, because there's clear, public evidence that the community cares about keeping them accurate, and will pursue and investigate discrepancies and times that are questionable. It all comes down to the classic argument of how seriously we all take this... do these times and world records matter? The answer is obviously yes... members of The-Elite spend countless hours working to attain them, some have even made a little income on the side popularizing what goes on here - so if it matters, then the rules matter, and the integrity of the rankings matter.

It's no wonder how many of the game's more successful record holders and streamers are among the most vocal voices here and elsewhere calling for the integrity of the rankings to be upheld and improved - they're the ones who have by and large invested the most time and effort into the game, and by extension it matters a lot to them. So, too, does it matter to many (though understandably not all) of the other members of the community, including new and up-and-coming members, who are inspired by and aspire to reach the levels of excellence established long before they were here (for example: me).

Whether this community is a hobby, part of a business venture, a kind-of e-sport, or whatever... the argument is pretty much over of whether or not it matters - and by extension, whether the integrity of the rankings matter - and the evidence is everywhere you look. The central question of the debate is how much does it matter? Well, that's a question that seems to be mostly answered, too - aside from a handful of hold-outs sticking to the "it doesn't matter enough to go through all this" - as especially over the last year-plus, enough has happened to grow and bring attention to The-Elite that the "how much" question's answer is clearly "a lot."

Every generation of this game's speedrunning history has seen it evolve to include higher standards over the last 20 years; perhaps finally removing unproven high-points times on the rankings is the next, long-overdue evolution of that process - it seems that a majority of the community are ready for and supportive of it. Clinging to totally unproven old times for nostalgic purposes, or because the rules have been painfully slow to catch up, or because things that matter more now didn't matter so much in the past... none of those are good reasons to hold the community's overall improvement back. Does anyone actually feel that removing Andrew Kent's unproven, high-points times from the rankings will somehow make the community worse and have less integrity? If you do, is that downside really outbalanced by the positives gained from keeping proven, accurate times on what's supposed to be the one, true, real, official collection of the fastest times in the world?
4
Perfect Dark / Re: Post New PRs Here!
« Last post by mw on Yesterday at 08:20:09 PM »
Defection Perfection Agent 1:29


Puts me on my first leaderboard ever, by one point!
5
GoldenEye 007 / Re: RTA vs IGT Timing Investigation
« Last post by gideon on Yesterday at 06:44:42 PM »
Maybe also include what version each run was done on? Could also help spot weird times. Say if pal is average +1 delta and ntsc -1 delta and suddenly someone has -1 on pal, that might be a sign something is off.
6
*Karl
7
*cough*
I think it worth pointing out that there's more than one proven "compulsive liar" still in The Elite, who were warned and allowed to stay. I'll be the first to say that this doesn't help Mr Kent, but it's not quite proof he cheated everywhere, especially 10+ years after this event. There's at least one member on this site that I know cheated on other games' leaderboards, yet I'm not trying to get him banned everywhere because I simply can't know whether he cheated everywhere or not.

May I just point all out of the incorrect presuppositions and false equivalencies.

1. Who was a compulsive liar in The Elite that has unproven times on the ranks? Those who lied were not only warned but required to provide proof.

2. Who is saying that he cheated? This is not how proof works on the rankings. If you fail to provide proof that you got a time it doesn't mean you cheated. It just means that your time may be backrolled or removed from the ranks due to insufficient evidence.

3. Generally as time goes by people/communities get more experience and wisdom. This newly found wisdom often causes older decisions to be overturned. The fact that this is happening quite a long time after the fact only serves to strengthen the decision, as it has been one that has been talked about/thought about/discussed for such a long time.

4. No one is suggesting that Kent be banned. Who said that? He would be removed due to insufficient evidence. If at any time he provides evidence his times would be reinstated.

Goose wrote out an entire post explaining the behaviour of Kent and why his times are being scrutinised. Please do not strawman others by claiming that we 'think he cheated so we want to ban him'. A completely false accusation that both ignores and attempts to belittle the case presented.

And to response to Falzy.. being removed due to insufficient proof or failing to respond to a proof call is not a 'public execution'. You are treating this as some extremely harsh punishment/witch hunt. Please understand that it is a privilege to be ranked in this community, it is not a right. You may be proof called for any time if your behaviour is suspicious or suspect. If you do not provide proof for your times you can rest assured you have absolutely no assurance that your times will remain on the rankings. There are plenty of unproven times that will remain on the ranks and are in no danger of being removed. If you are under the impression this is 'random' or that we need further policies then I would suggest rereading the OP and appreciating the case that was provided.

Truly excellent post from Ace. Couldn't have said it better myself.
8
The Gentlemen's Club / Re: Post funny discord convo's here!
« Last post by Fac 42 confirmed possible on Yesterday at 11:24:42 AM »
37 Tank is up there as a Level 2 Ace Challenge (so prizes for achieving it). I highly recommend people give it a try.
9
There should be zero controversy removing him since there are a bunch of good reasons listed to do so, clearly not just a "witch hunt".
10
*cough*
I think it worth pointing out that there's more than one proven "compulsive liar" still in The Elite, who were warned and allowed to stay. I'll be the first to say that this doesn't help Mr Kent, but it's not quite proof he cheated everywhere, especially 10+ years after this event. There's at least one member on this site that I know cheated on other games' leaderboards, yet I'm not trying to get him banned everywhere because I simply can't know whether he cheated everywhere or not.

May I just point all out of the incorrect presuppositions and false equivalencies.

1. Who was a compulsive liar in The Elite that has unproven times on the ranks? Those who lied were not only warned but required to provide proof.

2. Who is saying that he cheated? This is not how proof works on the rankings. If you fail to provide proof that you got a time it doesn't mean you cheated. It just means that your time may be backrolled or removed from the ranks due to insufficient evidence.

3. Generally as time goes by people/communities get more experience and wisdom. This newly found wisdom often causes older decisions to be overturned. The fact that this is happening quite a long time after the fact only serves to strengthen the decision, as it has been one that has been talked about/thought about/discussed for such a long time.

4. No one is suggesting that Kent be banned. Who said that? He would be removed due to insufficient evidence. If at any time he provides evidence his times would be reinstated.

Goose wrote out an entire post explaining the behaviour of Kent and why his times are being scrutinised. Please do not strawman others by claiming that we 'think he cheated so we want to ban him'. A completely false accusation that both ignores and attempts to belittle the case presented.

And to response to Falzy.. being removed due to insufficient proof or failing to respond to a proof call is not a 'public execution'. You are treating this as some extremely harsh punishment/witch hunt. Please understand that it is a privilege to be ranked in this community, it is not a right. You may be proof called for any time if your behaviour is suspicious or suspect. If you do not provide proof for your times you can rest assured you have absolutely no assurance that your times will remain on the rankings. There are plenty of unproven times that will remain on the ranks and are in no danger of being removed. If you are under the impression this is 'random' or that we need further policies then I would suggest rereading the OP and appreciating the case that was provided.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10