The Elite Forum

The Big Three Plus One => GoldenEye 007 => Topic started by: RWG on January 13, 2015, 10:28:27 am

Title: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 13, 2015, 10:28:27 am
Throughout the week at AGDQ2015, we all had the opportunity to meet and chat with the OWNER, FOUNDER and WEBMASTER of this very website and community, Derek Clark.  For those who don't know him, he is a very soft spoken, generous and intelligent fellow who prefers to avoid confrontation.

One topic that got brought up was of course Dan Berube's Dam Agent 0:53.  Jimbo (rankings administrator) has already attempted to remove the time, only to be "bitched out" by Thiradell (rankings moderator) and have the time reinstated.  From what I gather Come (some phantom position within the elite?) also supports the time being up.  Both Thiradell and Come's argument for the time being up is that "it was decided a long time ago."

Jimbo and I shared our case with Clark, and Clark agreed with us that he is in favor of the time being removed.  I told Clark that sometime after AGDQ I would make this very thread and Clark agreed that he wanted to post in it to share his thoughts and decision on the matter.  Clark obviously as the OWNER, FOUNDER and WEBMASTER of this website has a complete veto on literally every single thing that passes through, should he wish to use it.  Furthermore, since he wishes to post in this thread, removing it, locking it or deleting it would be a direct disordinance to the OWNER, FOUNDER and WEBMASTER of this very community.

Just to reiterate the points made by Jimbo and I, as well as the counter arguments, here are the cases FOR and AGAINST Dan Berube's Dam Agent 0:53 on the rankings.


AGAINST

- no video proof of the time exists
- it is highly improbable that Berube actually achieved this time, and no proof was ever provided despite the largest proof request in elite history
- removing it would restore historical accuracy to the site's rankings (history is something we pride ourselves with greatly here with the database and all) as well as restore prestige to Dam 53, one of the most significant records in elite history
- Berube has not been seen for years and likely does not care at all about this time anymore
- Boss is still around and likely DOES care about the historical accuracy of his untied
- deletion of this time would be like exonerating a criminal who was found not guilty years later. This would help to give closure to Boss and anyone else deeply involved in the situation
- correcting past mistakes is actually a good thing and gives precedent that we can always go back and change a decision when needed


FOR

- "it was decided upon a long time ago and should remain up"
- perhaps some belief that some higher ups in the community still care about the time and want it up there? (which is obviously a flawed argument given that Clark is the highest up and is in favour of the time being taken down.)


I've made this thread essentially as a placeholder for Clark to come in, post his thoughts and decision to remove the time.  The thread is open for everyone to share their thoughts as well as any supporters of the time (if any still exist?) to give one last case before Clark comes in here and makes his decision.

Cheers to all, and may this new era of the elite be ever prosperous, robust and thriving.  I look greatly forward to Derek's post in the near future.

Sincerely,
R. White "Goose"
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: DYM on January 13, 2015, 10:37:31 am
Posting here just to say I ,being the most relevant speedrunner of both games, also support the time being removed. While we're at it we should remove WAR! 0:54 as well for the same reasons.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 13, 2015, 10:38:09 am
take it down boys
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flukey lukey on January 13, 2015, 10:42:03 am
take it down boys
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Time was untied when set. on January 13, 2015, 10:44:56 am
Take it down and return it to the bakery for some ez money  :nesquik:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jimbo on January 13, 2015, 11:05:54 am
Now there's suddenly a bunch of support for this, interesting. With the removal of the time, Dam 0:53 ends up being a 2 year untied record we take one more step towards fully proving all past records.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 13, 2015, 11:54:23 am
Was there anything at all behind Berube tying this record? If there's like some huge history or whatever evidence that makes the time more believeable then there's a case for letting it in, otherwise, if it was just him saying "hey guys I got dam 53 ^^" or some bullshit, not removing it is just absolutely ridiculous.

My FOR argument is: I would no longer the "last initials" boy, and jonyboy becomes the last initials boy instead of the initials killer boy, and Ogran takes the place for initials killer boy, and it makes me sad. So ignore it and take the time down :v
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Taylor on January 13, 2015, 11:58:38 am
Wording this thread
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: OHMSS on January 13, 2015, 12:15:53 pm
Was there anything at all behind Berube tying this record? If there's like some huge history or whatever evidence that makes the time more believeable then there's a case for letting it in, otherwise, if it was just him saying "hey guys I got dam 53 ^^" or some bullshit, not removing it is just absolutely ridiculous.

http://forums.the-elite.net/index.php?topic=18219.msg378202#msg378202
"The mods made a specific ruling on Dan Berube's 53.  I believe Goldeneye experts Derek Clark and Jon Ngamer Bearder came to a conclusion that Berube got 53 for real.  He sent in a tape with a bunch of 54s or something.  Tyler that jerk was his buddy who claimed he saw the 53.  I dunno.  There's no real evidence Dan Berube even existed."
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 13, 2015, 01:01:39 pm
I'm basically quoting myself here from the previous Berube-topic (http://forums.the-elite.net/index.php?topic=19488.msg402566#msg402566):

If a player possess skill or not is hardly relevant in this case (besides, not many Berube videos exists so it's a bit hard to determine his "skill level"). What people are upset about is that Berube was the first to tie an untied WR. But using this logic, Ben Southward's Caverns A 1:03 should also be removed (he was the first to tie the untied by WJ). Southward's 103 was also achieved at "an insane date" (even earlier than Berube's 53), and barely no PRs of Southwards has video proof. And by looking at Ben's timepage, 103 is by far his best time. Yet, people fail to look at this issue objectively, and Southward's 103 is overlooked just because 103 isn't the WR anymore.

Tim Greneby also claimed several insane untieds. 2:13 on Train 00A was a 4 sec untied when set but was never proven (probably because Tim was a proof mod or so at the time). Same thing with his Cav 00A 2:02. Those times were untied for more than a year, and barely any Greneby videos are in existence. So please don't come and say that "Greneby at least had skill, unlike Berube" because a) it's arbitrary, and b) barely any Greneby videos exists. Greneby was banned in PD because he lied about all his times, so it's certainly possible he could've lied about some of his GE times as well. But no one gives a damn about his times anymore because they have been beaten. But when originally set, they were insane.

Please give me a good reason as to why we only should remove Berube's 53 but not Southward/Greneby etc times. Because 53 is still a WR? Well, what if Dam 52 is achieved tomorrow?

Personally, I'm an huge supporter of proven times and therefore want 53 removed. But doing so is at the same time very inconsistent and establishes a dangerous precedent. From a strictly objective standpoint, if 53 goes, other times need to go too. If we should remove 53 because it's a WR, then Adam Matis's Arch 16 needs to go too. If we should remove it because it's a significant time i.e. 80+ points, then many of Glen Stevens claimed 80+ PRs needs to be removed as well because, according to Goose, Shawn + every active player, "agrees that every 80+ pointer should have a video", and especially since those times were claimed as late as in 2006-2008 but somehow were never proof called.

I'm not defending Dan's 53 or anything. What I can't stand though is partiality.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 13, 2015, 01:27:33 pm
Fairly simple decision isn't it?

Proof or GTFO.

yeah

and not just for DB 53
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 13, 2015, 01:28:13 pm
Axel - I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately diplomacy is slow.  There are many times which should be taken down.  And they will with time.  This is the first step in something greater.  That's all you need to understand right now.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Shadow on January 13, 2015, 02:07:44 pm
I'm leery of this idea because I wonder where it will stop.

The vast majority of times of all players, even new ones being submitted today were/are never proven, or may have at one time with merely a picture or a now lost video. Should those be taken down simply because proof requirements changed over time?

I understand that this is a "high-profile" one, but what's to stop this from all happening again when someone decides some other time isn't trustworthy? There's lots of previous records and untieds that are "unproven" by today's standards.

The rankings will never be perfect. I can live with that. All our top times have video proof to show it's possible. Maybe one guy didn't actually get it, but who cares? Maybe we should stop judging the past by today's criteria.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Scrambler Fanny on January 13, 2015, 06:00:48 pm
Can I agree with Goose and Axel?

Because I do.

Kudos to Axel for really hitting that side of the argument, but like Ryan said, this is the first step in doing what Axel is saying should be done... or so I think.

Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: deletedprofile.u on January 13, 2015, 07:02:32 pm
Remove 'em all, I say.  :v
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 13, 2015, 08:18:38 pm
I'm in favour of this being removed and have wanted it to be removed since I heard about it.

There may be other times as well that should have been proven, but this is definitely the one that stands out the most. The more time goes on the more we realise how unlikely this time was achieved.

Southward and Greneby's times might be sketchy but it's my opinion that are easier than dam 53, even for back then. A lot of strats weren't optimised back then so huge untieds were normal. Dam 53 is in a league of its own.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Shadow on January 14, 2015, 07:12:09 am
Axel, could you clarify what you meant. Some seem to think you're saying "yeah, let's be consistent and remove everything". I thought you were saying "Regardless of my feelings on this particular record, let's be objective and ask ourselves where this will end, if we're going to be consistent."

Questioning 10-year old decisions. Where does it stop? 10 years from now, what will the "new mob" decide? Will deleted youtube channels lead to records being removed? Or poor quality records like Dam SA 1:16 being removed because 2025's standards for video quality are so much higher? Are you going to remove all those past records that merely had a photo to prove it? Or that only a few people remember ever seeing a video for? Or those records that were sent on VHS to some mod who approved them but no one else saw? Or gosh, how about those 15-year old records of Wouter's that never had any proof?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Thiradell on January 14, 2015, 07:52:33 am
Both Thiradell and Come's argument for the time being up is that "it was decided a long time ago."

impeccable summary
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 14, 2015, 08:47:48 am
Whoa @ this thread.  I'm just one counsel vote and told Goose and Jim that I'd use that vote if Berube's 53 came up.  Goose mentioned that he'd create a topic.  And that was that.

I completely disavow the notion that I have veto power and disavow the suggestion that I asserted a "decision" (or even the thought that I -- or anyone -- could do so without democratic process).  There were a few "witnesses" to the conversation that can hopefully attest to the fact that I vocally dismissed the notion of having "veto power" when Goose mentioned it. I'm just one (counsel) vote.

Goose, I do appreciate your kind words, of course.  You were correct to mention that I don't like confrontation which is why I'm taking so much care to soften the tone here and clarify my outlook.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 14, 2015, 09:10:41 am
As for a real action plan here, what does the proof policy advise in this situation?  If it's not clear, let's make it clear for a case-by-case handling method, such that, for example, at least X% of counsel members must vote for a time's removal (for cases of times being included solely because of legacy policies).  yes we have the slippery slope problem as Axel points out, so there can't be a simple rule that defines a line to be drawn.  i propose that counsel members must nominate a time for secondary review.  the key is defining a minimum % of "yes" votes.  if that # cannot be attained, either too many oppose the change or simply not enough care to vote on it.  non-counsel members can influence an outcome by lobbying to counsel members to nominate times for secondary review.  perhaps we just do one vote on any/all nominated times once a month or something.  if there are concerns of too many times being nominated, pls suggest solutions.  but if we're just dealing with grandfathered times from the past, i would expect the # of times raised to vote would diminish over time and this will become a non-issue.  there will always be some unknown contingent of false times from the past, but the only ones that would survive would be so non-controversial, people wouldn't even care to vote on them.  that's the idea.  the slippery slope / arbitrariness exists either way (it exists now and it will exist then) -- at least this way we can nip the times that have bugged people the most.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 14, 2015, 09:16:44 am
Btw, Goose, I kindly request that you change "decision" to "opinion" in the topic title.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 14, 2015, 02:17:34 pm
Yes, Dan Berube here, I heard this shit was going on again.  I really don't understand why you people continually bring this up again and again, the most vehement of whom seem to be people who joined the community in the last 5 years and should really keep their mouths shut as they weren't around when I tied Bosshardt's record.

I had only tried speed-running on about 5 different levels at the time, and had made like 25 posts.  I didn't realize the importance or the standard of taping runs when I dedicated myself to getting 0:53, nor did the television in my room have taping capabilities.  It wasn't until later I figured out how to do it.  I sent like 10 0:54 runs to NGamer afterwards, one of which would've been a 0:53 with a better gate, and the screen clearly lists 0:53 on the end screen.  Not complete proof but it's something.

The decision was made to keep it by the person in charge back then, and should be respected.  I'm amazed at the arrogance of the newcomers on this site that you think it wasn't deliberated on before and needs to be now.  Isn't the record so common now you just list a number instead of individual players?  Why is it so unbelievable I could've gotten the time? 

Anyway myself and God know I nailed that 0:53, sorry if it means so much to you to have to take down my accomplishment because it keeps you up at night.  I'm deeply sad for you. 
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 14, 2015, 02:34:33 pm
aaaaaaaand the plot thickens.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jimbo on January 14, 2015, 02:49:02 pm
Dig up the old N64 and start streaming big dog. It's like riding a bike and shouldn't take too long to dupe.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wody on January 14, 2015, 03:01:42 pm
Yes, Dan Berube here, I heard this shit was going on again.  I really don't understand why you people continually bring this up again and again, the most vehement of whom seem to be people who joined the community in the last 5 years and should really keep their mouths shut as they weren't around when I tied Bosshardt's record.

I had only tried speed-running on about 5 different levels at the time, and had made like 25 posts.  I didn't realize the importance or the standard of taping runs when I dedicated myself to getting 0:53, nor did the television in my room have taping capabilities.  It wasn't until later I figured out how to do it.  I sent like 10 0:54 runs to NGamer afterwards, one of which would've been a 0:53 with a better gate, and the screen clearly lists 0:53 on the end screen.  Not complete proof but it's something.

The decision was made to keep it by the person in charge back then, and should be respected.  I'm amazed at the arrogance of the newcomers on this site that you think it wasn't deliberated on before and needs to be now.  Isn't the record so common now you just list a number instead of individual players?  Why is it so unbelievable I could've gotten the time? 

Anyway myself and God know I nailed that 0:53, sorry if it means so much to you to have to take down my accomplishment because it keeps you up at night.  I'm deeply sad for you. 

I know man I feel you.I told the-elite I got all three 45s on egypt last week, tied train 58,silo 100 and noone believes me.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 14, 2015, 03:05:20 pm
It has nothing to do with if you achieved it or not, it has to do with there being no video proof for the public to see. I don't care if you got it. I don't even care if i saw you get it live back then. There is no video of the run. Sure, i believe you. But there is still no vid.

You're a lazy fuck. Dupe it. It's a cake time and there is even 2.x control style now making it pathetic easy.

Case closed.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 14, 2015, 03:05:36 pm
Dig up the old N64 and start streaming big dog. It's like riding a bike and shouldn't take too long to dupe.

Proving the time now would be a great conclusion to this topic.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wody on January 14, 2015, 03:09:01 pm
It has nothing to do with if you achieved it or not, it has to do with there being no video proof for the public to see. I don't care if you got it. I don't even care if i saw you get it live back then. There is no video of the run. Sure, i believe you. But there is still no vid.

You're a lazy fuck. Dupe it. It's a cake time and there is even 2.x control style now making it pathetic easy.

Case closed.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 14, 2015, 03:09:42 pm
Hitler did stuff that was allowed in 1939

in the later 40s and 50s people were like "hey that stuff wasn't cool, we're going to charge you and your cronies with war crimes now."

just because something was approved of, decided upon and allowed at one point "a few years ago" doesn't mean it still flies today.

Clark - I'll abide with your requests when I get back from class in a few hours (and probably send you an email too.)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: OHMSS on January 14, 2015, 03:23:11 pm
The 53 has to go.

Good post Inkosi, you are a wise man.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Shadow on January 14, 2015, 03:30:34 pm
just because something was approved of, decided upon and allowed at one point "a few years ago" doesn't mean it still flies today.

So we'll take down Marc's Dam times and some of Clemens' times? Because those clearly violate the current proof policy too. Trust me, I understand wanting to take the time down, but where does it stop?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 14, 2015, 03:37:19 pm
It has nothing to do with if you achieved it or not, it has to do with there being no video proof for the public to see. I don't care if you got it. I don't even care if i saw you get it live back then. There is no video of the run. Sure, i believe you. But there is still no vid.

You're a lazy fuck. Dupe it. It's a cake time and there is even 2.x control style now making it pathetic easy.

Case closed.

Who the f*ck are you, you harping c*nt?

Quote
Hitler did stuff that was allowed in 1939

in the later 40s and 50s people were like "hey that stuff wasn't cool, we're going to charge you and your cronies with war crimes now."
How would they charged him in 1939 when he was at the height of his national support and possessed such a large standing army?  The Allied forces would've still had to defeat him first in order to position him in a criminal court. 
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 14, 2015, 03:45:29 pm
Who the f*ck are you, you harping c*nt?

this isnt the kind of attitude that helps your cause
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 14, 2015, 03:52:17 pm
Who the f*ck are you, you harping c*nt?

this isnt the kind of attitude that helps your cause
Yes, because him calling me a "lazy f*ck" without any provocation or previous communication with me is something I should take as a jubilant welcome. 
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 14, 2015, 04:02:27 pm
retaliation is bad

anyway he's just mad because you havent proven your time after twelve years
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 14, 2015, 05:48:01 pm
Yes, Dan Berube here, I heard this shit was going on again.  I really don't understand why you people continually bring this up again and again, the most vehement of whom seem to be people who joined the community in the last 5 years and should really keep their mouths shut as they weren't around when I tied Bosshardt's record.

I had only tried speed-running on about 5 different levels at the time, and had made like 25 posts.  I didn't realize the importance or the standard of taping runs when I dedicated myself to getting 0:53, nor did the television in my room have taping capabilities.  It wasn't until later I figured out how to do it.  I sent like 10 0:54 runs to NGamer afterwards, one of which would've been a 0:53 with a better gate, and the screen clearly lists 0:53 on the end screen.  Not complete proof but it's something.

The decision was made to keep it by the person in charge back then, and should be respected.  I'm amazed at the arrogance of the newcomers on this site that you think it wasn't deliberated on before and needs to be now.  Isn't the record so common now you just list a number instead of individual players?  Why is it so unbelievable I could've gotten the time? 

Anyway myself and God know I nailed that 0:53, sorry if it means so much to you to have to take down my accomplishment because it keeps you up at night.  I'm deeply sad for you. 

I know man I feel you.I told the-elite I got all three 45s on egypt last week, tied train 58,silo 100 and noone believes me.
FFS Woody I laughed louder than jesus here do you want me to wake up my neighbors?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 14, 2015, 06:45:53 pm
LOL good entertainment.
 
Anyway, regarding Shadow's post, i don't mind if all my old crappy ntsc videos that are still on the rankings including Dam SA 1:16 got removed (Let 155 stay though would ya  :pimp: :kappa:) I actually encourage to remove them. It's mind blowing how my runs were allowed at the time. I told AZ a long time ago to remove them, but he wouldn't/couldn't. On the top of my head they are Dam 116, S1 SA 148, B1 SA 23, Frigate 23 and SA 102, S2 49 and 00A 126, B2 00A 0:55, All Archives, Caverns Agent 101. That would also give me something to play/motivate me to dupe these times with captured quality.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Reverv on January 14, 2015, 07:43:05 pm
(https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F33.media.tumblr.com%2F2ad742932e832110666be0786986d006%2Ftumblr_mok4u8Xd4k1sppmago1_500.gif&hash=25775987d278d3dbd21cd82270e7ed5c44929907)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: hotshott on January 14, 2015, 07:46:03 pm
(https://p.gr-assets.com/540x540/fit/hostedimages/1397094288/9230164.gif)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 14, 2015, 08:35:37 pm
So we'll take down Marc's Dam times and some of Clemens' times? Because those clearly violate the current proof policy too. Trust me, I understand wanting to take the time down, but where does it stop?

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use 'one' principle to dictate decisions. It's not just 'one' thing that would make us want to remove the time. I don't really know how many times people can state that.

It is several reasons. 1. standard deviation between the time in question and the other times, 2. the time is not proven with video, 3. the date the time was achieved 4. The significance of the date/time achieved.

You ask where it stops but there really aren't many times that also meet these criteria. Dave/Marc times do violate current proof policy however the standard deviation factor isn't there and marc has videos even if they are shit. Pretty sure Dave also did provide vids at one point but they are deleted now. So completely different scenario.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 14, 2015, 08:38:17 pm
I don't like this new Dan Berube. I prefer the old one that wasn't here.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: 50 on January 14, 2015, 09:47:20 pm
Yes, Dan Berube here, I heard this shit was going on again.  I really don't understand why you people continually bring this up again and again, the most vehement of whom seem to be people who joined the community in the last 5 years and should really keep their mouths shut as they weren't around when I tied Bosshardt's record.

I had only tried speed-running on about 5 different levels at the time, and had made like 25 posts.  I didn't realize the importance or the standard of taping runs when I dedicated myself to getting 0:53, nor did the television in my room have taping capabilities.  It wasn't until later I figured out how to do it.  I sent like 10 0:54 runs to NGamer afterwards, one of which would've been a 0:53 with a better gate, and the screen clearly lists 0:53 on the end screen.  Not complete proof but it's something.

The decision was made to keep it by the person in charge back then, and should be respected.  I'm amazed at the arrogance of the newcomers on this site that you think it wasn't deliberated on before and needs to be now.  Isn't the record so common now you just list a number instead of individual players?  Why is it so unbelievable I could've gotten the time? 

Anyway myself and God know I nailed that 0:53, sorry if it means so much to you to have to take down my accomplishment because it keeps you up at night.  I'm deeply sad for you. 

I know man I feel you.I told the-elite I got all three 45s on egypt last week, tied train 58,silo 100 and noone believes me.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Shadow on January 15, 2015, 08:06:45 am
So we'll take down Marc's Dam times and some of Clemens' times? Because those clearly violate the current proof policy too. Trust me, I understand wanting to take the time down, but where does it stop?

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use 'one' principle to dictate decisions. It's not just 'one' thing that would make us want to remove the time. I don't really know how many times people can state that.

It's not the criteria or this particular scenario at all that bothers me. It's the precedent that is set.

What if you hadn't come back to the board this many years later and found that War A :25 had been completely removed as an untied because it didn't fit the proof criteria and was "suspicious"? Expert's :54?
What if 10 years from now, you and Goose and others are gone and someone doesn't know Clemens once had videos: all they know is that he doesn't now.
Axel has been invaluable in posting video evidence that everyone else either had forgotten or never knew about. What if he's not around?

I worry more about setting a precedent of "we can retroactively backroll times we don't think should have been there", years after the fact. It also seems like a case of double jeopardy to me (this case has already been decided what, twice?). For now, this seems to be the "big one" that bothers some people. What if 5 years from now there is another "big one" that bothers a different set of people? Your War :25 for example? Some people still think it's a fishy but in your own words "This was also a time where this was acceptable."

Can you promise me that this is the only time anyone will ever want to retroactively backroll? No. That's why I am concerned.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Bikers on January 15, 2015, 12:19:38 pm
can you stop covering for this fucking loser and show us the god damn 53.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: DYM on January 15, 2015, 12:48:05 pm
can you stop covering for this fucking loser and show us the god damn 53.
looool golden post
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wyst3r on January 15, 2015, 02:53:26 pm
Quote
You're a lazy fuck. Dupe it. It's a cake time and there is even 2.x control style now making it pathetic easy.

Even if the time were to be duped, it wouldn't prove the original 53 (which is a very significant time in the-elite history, while a 2.x 53 today is a joke). So duping it wouldn't really accomplish anything except keep Dan's name on the rankings (although it'd have to be moved to the end of the list). The timestamp (which is the important thing here) would be removed either way.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Taylor on January 15, 2015, 02:58:03 pm
can you stop covering for this fucking loser and show us the god damn 53.

based
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flukey lukey on January 15, 2015, 03:01:50 pm
so has the 53 been removed yet?

all talk no action
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jimbo on January 15, 2015, 06:57:24 pm
That's all we ever are sometimes. I have the power to zap the time from the ranks but I know exactly what will happen.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: deletedprofile.u on January 15, 2015, 07:00:49 pm
so has the 53 been removed yet?

all talk no action
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 15, 2015, 07:02:45 pm
Just take it down and we'll never speak of it again.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 15, 2015, 07:09:05 pm
Yeah I'm actually very disappointed in Clark here.  We didn't speak of anything related to a potential council vote at AGDQ (which inevitably would go nowhere.)  Jimbo and I told him that he does have complete veto power, whether he likes it or not, and Clark agreed that he is in favour of removing Berube's 53.

I didn't expect it to play out like this.  Clark is just trying to avoid confrontation (with whom? one kid who really doesn't care that much about a time he submitted over 10 years ago?) as usual when the reality is that 95%+ of the elite would support a veto decision by him to remove the time.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 15, 2015, 09:57:23 pm
All message board badgering aside, I'm not sure it's fair to proclaim that you know the exact mindset of Derek and what his concerns are regarding this time you guys continually bring up, Goosey Loosey. 
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Taylor on January 15, 2015, 10:17:19 pm
That's all we ever are sometimes. I have the power to zap the time from the ranks but I know exactly what will happen.

What would that be?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 15, 2015, 10:41:55 pm
Yeah I'm pretty sure if you removed the time the majority of members would be pretty happy.

On the note regarding precedent. I'm not worried about it as no one person has veto power and there would need to be a discussion and majority approval before a time gets removed. If my war 25 were removed it would have to go through the same process this is going through. Basically, arguements would need to be made and there would need to be a majority of people wanting it to be taken down. I really don't think this is a bad thing at all.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jimbo on January 15, 2015, 11:25:34 pm
Edit: What about a revision that mandates all current world records must have video proof? Dan's 53, Trent's 53, and Adam's 16 would fall under this removal policy then, but past WRs like Southward's 1:03 would escape doom so there's not some crazy panic by older players.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 15, 2015, 11:44:16 pm
Dumb and unnecessary revision. Those other times are no where near as much of an issue as this time.

Have you removed the time yet?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 15, 2015, 11:45:06 pm
Trent originally had a video for his Dam 53, but it was removed from Youtube due to some violation.

EDIT: Jimbo is not going to remove Berube's 53 because the last time he tried that, Thiradel forced him to put it back on the rankings.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 15, 2015, 11:49:40 pm
pretty sure more people support removing this time than keeping it, why is it still there?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 15, 2015, 11:51:09 pm
Who is Thiradell to say what goes or doesn't go on the elite rankings?  What power does he actually have?  Who gave him this power?

These are the questions we need to start asking ourselves to get anywhere with this.

53 needs to go down.  I thought Clark agreed to veto it down.  Apparently not.  Now I need to find another way.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Thiradell on January 15, 2015, 11:51:57 pm
pretty sure more people support removing this time than keeping it, why is it still there?

because the policy says it should be. If you guys want a majority rule policy, okay, separate discussion. That's not the current policy

Who is Thiradell to say what goes or doesn't go on the elite rankings?  What power does he actually have?  Who gave him this power?

By the same token, who is Jimbo, or who is Clark? The policy is what's been agreed upon by the community and the council.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 15, 2015, 11:54:52 pm
Clark created the website.  I'm pretty sure that's the equivalent of God when it comes to companies, organizations, communities, etc.  When you create something you can do whatever you want with it.

The Council is completely useless.  It's usually Goose, Cara, Jimbo and Thingy discussing stuff and then when it's time to vote random dinosaurs like Infil, Youse and YE vote to oppose whatever change was going to be made anyways.  Come only made the Council to appease Cara and I one night in 2012.  It holds no real power.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 16, 2015, 12:05:13 am
so when will the policy change to allow unproven WRs to be removed happen?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 16, 2015, 12:22:52 am
then when it's time to vote random dinosaurs like Infil, Youse and YE vote to oppose whatever change was going to be made anyways.

loooooooooooooooool
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Taylor on January 16, 2015, 12:37:19 am
I understand that exceptions to site policy undermine the integrity of the whole system, but for fucks sake, is there NO wiggle room? Not even when literally everyone (including Clark) agrees it should be removed, and the opposition's only argument to the contrary is "because the policy says it should be"? Like I said, I know that being a hard-ass on policy rules is something that admins have to do sometimes and that not everyone will be happy with a decision, but when NO ONE is happy with a decision save the person who's making it, the reasoning behind your authoritarian policy following should come into question.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 16, 2015, 12:39:26 am
https://twitter.com/caivz/status/555942845215830016

Wow guys, guess what? The 16 Star World Record from 7 years ago was discovered being a SPLICE! Can you imagine that? Someone got a big time in the past and it was proven to be a fake...

But that never happened here, right? No splicers, no gamesharkers... No people simply "claiming" WR's they didn't have, without any proof...  ;)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 16, 2015, 01:08:10 am
What saddens me most about this situation is how the people that have little interest in GoldenEye/Perfect Dark are the ones making the decisions. The majority has spoken yet nothing has been done.

This is a recurring issue on this website.

I would also like to know the IP address of this "Berube account"
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 01:17:54 am
Tomorrow I will do this;

a poll in the form of a THREAD, in which you have to personally post.

I will categorize votes and opinions in three areas;

- Goldeneye Top 20
- those who have Dam 53
- everyone else

Information gained from that should be telling, and if there is still overwhelming support to remove the time then I'll bring those results to the council and hope for the best.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Soft-Hedwig on January 16, 2015, 01:52:06 am
53 still being up is a fucking joke

bye
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: youseinthehouse on January 16, 2015, 02:11:22 am
then when it's time to vote random dinosaurs like Infil, Youse and YE vote to oppose whatever change was going to be made anyways.

loooooooooooooooool
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 16, 2015, 05:35:24 am
When you say "everyone thinks it should be removed", you're talking about an elite.net that is composed of entirely different people than it was when I achieved the goal, not all the great veterans who built up the site and when competition and strategy discovery was in its golden years.  The community today hardly resembles from the community of 2002/3 or whenever I achieved the time, so obviously I'm not going to get any support today as hardly any of the active players today know who I am or can make any accurate judgment of my character.  I do find it funny that some of you are calling me a "loser", when you are the ones acting personally hurt and are livid about a 10 year old speed race in a video game community you didn't even know existed at the time I got it.  I repeat, a VIDEO GAME.  I could see how if I claimed that I f*cked Megan Fox or am personal friends with Leo DiCaprio you might call bullsh*t or be very suspicious, but dude, c'mon, why would I have made up a video game time like this?  To try and impress and f*ck one of you?  To garner your respect and brag about it in grade 11 to the popular kids and maybe f*ck that hot Christian girl Amanda in my Bio class?   

You do realize that taking the time down is not going to further your professional lives or create any lasting happiness or personal fulfillment, or get your hot neighbour to blow you, right?  Or maybe it gets you off somehow, you sick cretins.  But here's a point to ponder,  I had a load of support for the time to remain up and a lot of belief behind me back then.  Youse, Tyler, comeasaurus rex, Randy, Matthijs, Lovins, Clark, Lovins, Moore to name a few. Other than a few angry people (Wouter and Bosshardt), it because a non-issue within less than a month.  My best REAL LIFE friend at the time, Tyler, vouched for the fact I got the time and he has been a member since the near beginning, and for most of the community then, he was a trusted and popular member who wouldn't lie about something like that.   

I'd like to point out something else I think is extremely valid:

Jim Barrett, I'm finding the aggression and highhandedness with which you are approaching this issue slightly surprising as you're one of the few people who straight up LIED about attaining world records, and were subsequently caught.  Caverns Agent 1:02 if I'm not mistaken?  Dude, that's f*cked, regardless of your age at the time.  People's personalities and morals are pretty concrete from the age of 10 onward, and you didn't claim those times as a joke - you would've let people continue believing you had those times until this very instant in 2015, had they been fooled. Think about it, you disingenuous cheat, you don't see them letting Lance Armstrong or Ben Johnson being permitted to compete again - you're fortunate everyone was so forgiving of your nefarious misdeeds!  So don't act like I'm disgracing the community when you are one of the most egregiously dishonest members in history. 

I got 0:53 Dam, and I accomplished quite a lot given how short my tenure was in this community.  I believe I held 7 WRs at one point, not bad given how horny I was in Grade 11 busily trying to bang all the harlots in the grade below.  My point is, I did quite a bit considering how much of a disgusting teenager I was and how GE wasn't my main hobby, fingerblasting some trashy hussy named Brandi was.  Can you believe that bitch pretended she was pregnant by me?  Nearly ruined my senior year.  God damn scumbag of a chick.  I digress.

Example of my abilities:

I went over to Renemesis's one day in 2002 or 2003 and we recorded our tape for Ngamer - Ty showed me how to tape and  we got a few times down - I got Depot 0:26 twice in about 10 minutes.  This was at a time when only 5 people had it.  So yeah, I am pretty good at Agent speedruns, or was at least.  It's been about a 9 years since I've gone for a time so who knows how I am now.  We shall see, Jimbo ya fat dingbat.  I know Wisconsin is a miserable shithole to be situated in, but don't take it out on me, simply because I got some great times back when I was a sweet baby boy, and you were still banned for being a fibbing f*ckface.  Anyway here's some vids for those who don't believe I ever played at all:

One of my Depot 0:26's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIaOUwgBcIU

Surface A 1:04 (that used to be a sweet time!  :rollin: )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GReCWzB9jVY

Dam 0:54 with the 0:53 visible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUz1XqPOMZo

I donno, I think it's pretty obvious that I was capable of 0:53 and that I didn't somehow hack the game to make it appear that I had 0:53 as a best time.  I am not even sure how one would go about that.  Seriously, if someone held a gun to my head right now and told me to fake a time or they would shoot me, I would unfortunately be shot.  I am not an electrical engineer who can hack the innards of the N64.  I went for an ambitious world record, put like 30 hours in, and got it.  That's all there it to say. 

And yeah, there are plenty of more difficult non-WRs than my 0:53 that don't even possess the degree of proof I have for my time, so if you really shall gain such legitimate satisfaction from taking down my accomplishment, then those should all be deleted at the same time.  It's silly mine gets all the attention simply because I tied one of the more impressive untieds back then!  It's truly irrelevant. 


Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flicker on January 16, 2015, 05:52:30 am
nice story.

i dont know if you've noticed, but the-elite is extremely "clique-y" and popular opinion usually takes over quickly, but some people are unbiased all the time as well.
i use that term "clique" lightly and in quotation because it's really just an outer shell, and everyone in the community gets along rather well, especially after meetups.

in your first paragraph you pointed out how we are discussing a "10 year old speed race in a video game community you didn't even know existed at the time"
i find this point completely irrelevant, could turn it right around on you for the same reasons. you are fighting to keep something that you are insulting the relevance of, it's stupid.

if you care about the time, you can get it again. it's easier now. walk down to the fucking bakery and pick up your cake, it has a bow on the box, on the bow it reads "END THIS BULLSHIT"
if you ultimately dont care about the time, because its "a 10 year old speed race in a video game ... i repeat a VIDEO GAME." then it can be removed from the rankings. there is a proof policy, we're proofcalling your time, so prove it or lose it.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 16, 2015, 06:45:21 am
I got 0:53 Dam

Incorrect.

But seriously, so much irrelevant crap in that post. Almost as bad as Arie's posts.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Bikers on January 16, 2015, 07:58:37 am
I got dam 53

then show us the fucking video holy shit
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jimbo on January 16, 2015, 08:24:20 am
You could also just as easily fire up a GameShark with wall through doors on and get 0:53 first try.

Impressive memory for some things btw.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Carathorn on January 16, 2015, 08:28:51 am
The Council is completely useless.  It's usually Goose, Cara, Jimbo and Thingy discussing stuff and then when it's time to vote random dinosaurs like Infil, Youse and YE vote to oppose whatever change was going to be made anyways.  Come only made the Council to appease Cara and I one night in 2012.  It holds no real power.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Council is useless, because the bigger part of the current proof policy (which is already 50x better than what it used to be) has been created it as a result of democratic voting. Who thought that would ever be possible in this community :kappa:

I personally agree that the council consists of all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, and I've always been a fan of electing people to represent the community in groups like this. There has never been a election process, just a bunch of people put into a closed off board chosen by Come.

Even so, in terms of organisation and making new rules and updating the proof policy, the Council could very well be the best thing that ever happened to the elite.

The matter of Dan's 53 should imo be part of a much bigger discussion, which is about the community evolving as time progresses (as it should). Old records with no video whatsoever don't seem to fit the standards of the community any longer, and the policy being as unforgiving as it is today doesn't seem to fit old records still being up without any proof whatsoever.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 16, 2015, 08:46:04 am
Dan's post was terrible lol. Coming back just to say how pointless and meaningless the community is.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 16, 2015, 09:02:50 am
Alright Dan. I'll read your irrel post when you have a video up :nesquik:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Illu on January 16, 2015, 09:08:45 am
Maybe there's some super advanced technology that could capture the 53 from 1980 or whenever it was achieved, the signal/data flew off somewhere from that TV and it might still be out there, maybe those things they try to pick up potential extraterrestial communication signals with?

I believe the truth is out there.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: danimule on January 16, 2015, 10:16:37 am
Dan's post was terrible lol. Coming back just to say how pointless and meaningless the community is.

I spent a wonderful 10 months in your country last year by the way! Those Queenslander chicks give it up like no one else.  I should've looked you up, we could've gone for a night of sarging at The Embassy ya bogan c*nt, what's this I hear that you're a dating coach now?  I really had to see it to believe it.  The f*cking albino Neil Strauss of Australia's most boring city!  Sorry dude, glancing at what's available on your public Facebook profile, and noticing that nearly everyone who likes your photos is a dude/member of this gaming site, I'm going to go ahead and say with confidence you are to the pickup community what Vanilla Ice is to rap.  That is, a deluded pariah living a very unfortunate lie.  At least he got on TV though with his bullsh*t. 

Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flicker on January 16, 2015, 11:30:23 am
keeping discussion to this thread rather than muck up the poll thread

Do you support Dan Berube's Dam 0:53 being removed from the rankings? - NO
Explain why? - I think we need to follow the established rules of the site instead of just acting on things based on who has the loudest voice.

http://rankings.the-elite.net/proof#Subsection_iv.29_Grandfathering
Quote
Current significant world records (set before December 31, 2013) will be grandfathered.

grandfathering refers to video quality rather than the complete nonexistence of proof

Quote
There will be no need to duplicate WRs which are in bad quality.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 16, 2015, 11:32:30 am
wasnt the creation of the grandfathering policy the result of who had the loudest voice at the time?

the rules are shit and wrong if they allow unproven WRs on the ranks. change the rules.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 16, 2015, 11:45:47 am
change the rules.

Good idea....much better than leading a public witch hunt that doesn't follow any established rules.

Instead of doing this in a public "power play" topic, why not start a topic among the Elite Council asking to remove the time?  It seems like the rules indicate they could vote and make a clear decision.  I'm guessing they would vote to remove the time (I probably would).  They could also amend the rules as necessary to avoid having this happen again.

I don't really care at all about the end result here -- it doesn't matter to me one bit whether this time is on the rankings or not.  I don't stand to gain or lose any ranking because I'm not even on the site.  What does matter to me is how we get there.  If we're going to take all this time and make rules and committees and all that, I really think we ought to follow through by using those tools to manage the site.

If there are deeper issues with the rules/proof policy or the Elite Council, those should be addressed as well.  But just make sure you go about it all the right way.  Can't we ever have a civilized discussion here?

Quote
The council will vote on any necessary matters and come to a consensus decision. The votes and decision will be made public to the elite after decision is made. When a decision is needed, there will be a 72 hour voting period. Any member of the council who does not cast a vote in that period will not have their vote count.

Quote
This policy is subject to change at any time due to constant improvements in technology or unusual circumstances that could lead to situations not outlined within. All changes will be discussed within The Elite Council with the ultimate goal being what is best for the rankings and community of The-Elite.net.



grandfathering refers to video quality rather than the complete nonexistence of proof

Quote
There will be no need to duplicate WRs which are in bad quality.

You and I both know you are absolutely correct.  My point in making that post is more that the rules are poorly written and don't cover nearly as many situations as they should.  Loopholes everywhere.  When stuff like this comes up, we need to take it as an opportunity to fix the rules.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 12:15:19 pm

Instead of doing this in a public "power play" topic, why not start a topic among the Elite Council asking to remove the time?  It seems like the rules indicate they could vote and make a clear decision.  I'm guessing they would vote to remove the time (I probably would).

wrong

I'd bet $5000 that none of Infil, YE, Youse, Come nor Thiradell would vote to remove Berube's 53.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 16, 2015, 12:22:31 pm
I'd bet $5000 that none of Infil, YE, Youse, Come nor Thiradell would vote to remove Berube's 53.

So? What about Ngamer, Clark, Axel, Cara, Icy, Boss, Jimbo, DK, Karl, and Goose?  Seems like out of that crowd you'll find several backers.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RK on January 16, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
Where are some of those guys?  :-\

they ought to be showin up

*cough* ngamer *cough*
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 16, 2015, 12:45:34 pm
Where are some of those guys?  :-\

they ought to be showin up

*cough* ngamer *cough*

I don't think any of these guys would take offense to me posting these lines here.  Several people absent from this topic are well aware of the situation and have spent time considering what should be done about it.  I'm leaving this here so you can see that these Council members actually are keeping themselves informed and following developments as they happen, even if they aren't posting.  This topic has been very volatile and I can see why they would not want to post here themselves.

*shrug* just trying to stand up for them.

Quote
Infilament: so you're going to handle the worst case
Infilament: then someone will talk about the second worst case
Infilament: and it won't end until all unproven times are removed
Infilament: imo either just remove all unproven times and piss off a ton of people
COME as u r337: experts war 54 is a better example tbh
Infilament: or just accept that it doesn't really affect anything and move on   
Thiradell: if it was a case-by-case basis, it was case-by-case 10 years ago
Thiradell: if you're going to change it now, it has to be due to a sweeping rule 
ngonhislaptop: case by case means we have to spend 4 hours arguing every time something comes up, versus having clear rules written down that we can apply to everything and everyone's aware of up front

DKK5: If it's not clear in the policy maybe that should be, uh, fixed   
DKK5: The only reason that I suggest this is because, in the past, people have been satisfied with council decisions. So putting this to an official vote would help put the issue to rest one way or the other

Thiradell: my first thought is being in favor of taking it down
Thiradell: then I filter that thought through the things that matter
Thiradell: in the end it doesn't really matter what my thought is   

ngonhislaptop: for real though how much does 2.x cut on Dam A, a half second?
Jim Barrett: .3
ngonhislaptop: hmmm could be my target on the uh, 21st, is that the day?
Jim Barrett: Jan 23rd
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 12:55:39 pm
I'm sorry if this post appears long. Didn't really intend for such a long post. But I want to cover everything.

Anyway, regarding Shadow's post, i don't mind if all my old crappy ntsc videos that are still on the rankings including Dam SA 1:16 got removed (Let 155 stay though would ya  :pimp: :kappa:) I actually encourage to remove them. It's mind blowing how my runs were allowed at the time. I told AZ a long time ago to remove them, but he wouldn't/couldn't. On the top of my head they are Dam 116, S1 SA 148, B1 SA 23, Frigate 23 and SA 102, S2 49 and 00A 126, B2 00A 0:55, All Archives, Caverns Agent 101. That would also give me something to play/motivate me to dupe these times with captured quality.

You making it sound like I'm ultimately the guy deciding if your poor quality vids stay(ed) on the ranks or not. It's not that simple. Back then a quality policy didn't exist. This can btw be applied to this topic as well: Derek is not the sole person deciding whether or not 53 should stay.

It's true that I might've been too lenient in the past, and that I in retrospect probably gave you too many warnings, but I'd rather have a video than no video at all. Others are free to disagree.

When I did backroll other times that had the same poor or even worse quality than your runs people still got upset. Many people even want Clemens 356 back up on the ranks, ironically.

Even if I or any other mod never removed Marc's times, they can still be reviewed today, like Berube's 53. If there's enough support, they can be removed from the ranks with relative ease. Marc himself wants them removed, which might be a good indicator that he achieved the aforementioned times illegitimately :nesquik:. Personally I don't really care what happens to them, just as I don't really care if Berube's 53 goes down or not, but I will have Marc's times stored for historical purposes.


On another note, why are everyone using current WRs as an argument? This has always puzzled me. A WR might be improved, you know. There are loads of questionable times that were WRs when set, that as soon they stopped being the WR, people forget about them. They are also part of the WR history. I'm now extremely assured that if Illu or anyone else went ahead and got 52 a year back or tomorrow, literally NO ONE would care the slightest about Berube's 53. 100% guaranteed.

Karl: Berube's 53 might be more significant (today at least) than Southward/Greneby's times. And it might've been harder to achieve back then. In that sense I agree with you (but that's only our opinions). I'm just not sure where this will end, that's what's worrying me. Are we just gonna remove the most controversial time on the ranks "for the sake of it" and not review the other "sketchy" times? Is there a line somewhere? If so, where is it etc

Axel, could you clarify what you meant. Some seem to think you're saying "yeah, let's be consistent and remove everything". I thought you were saying "Regardless of my feelings on this particular record, let's be objective and ask ourselves where this will end, if we're going to be consistent."

2nd quotation is what I meant basically. But many people here overlook principles and prefer to view issues such as this on a case by case basis. It's cool I guess in some sense, even though you know you're dangerously close in becoming subjective the moment you abandon set rules/principles. For instance, if more Eliters would've met Berube IRL, people would be more tolerant about the 53. This is exactly why everyone is more OK with Stevens/Matis times than perhaps they should be etc. Because people already know they possess skill and have met them and are friends with them. This is where subjectivity starts.

Actually, one could use Berube's sketchiness as an argument for removing the 53. It's perfectly fine. Matis and Stevens are skilled and have attended meetings (unlike Berube who's skill we're unsure of meaning he probably never got 53). But at the end of the day they, like Berube, failed to provide proof of their times.

Why is everyone making a fuss about a single 53 but noone cares about Glen Stevens, Trent, Lanfredi being fairly high ranked with absolutely shitty proof?

To sum it up: we need a proven rankings to our current rankings more than ever. It shouldn't be that hard to implement. It would make everyone happy and solve all the recurrent issues.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 12:55:57 pm
this is how the council vote would shake down (YES - remove, NO - keep);

Infil - NO
Ngamer - NO
Come - NO
Thiradell - NO
Clark - NO (would rather appease Ngamer & Come and not be the guy who shakes things up)
Boss - NO (similar to Clark, feels pressured to vote NO because he thinks people will think poorly of him for voting to remove the time that tied his own untied.)
Axel Z - NO (though he was "removed" from the council after the Henning incident, he still shows up in topics and votes occasionally... that shows you the structure of the elite council...)Y
Youse - NO (I don't even remember him being democratically added to the council. He wasn't an original member. I'm pretty sure Come snuck him in one night.)

YE - absent, I'd wager $10k he doesn't vote on this (I'm not sure he's ever voted on any council issue, everyone knows he's only on the council because he made the rankings [the same rankings he holds hostage by not allowing easy access for anyone to make changes or edits even when they are minuscule])

Jimbo - YES
Goose - YES
Cara - YES
Karl - YES

DK and Icy I don't know, but it wouldn't be enough to push the vote to remove the time.

There, no need to hold a council vote.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 01:02:33 pm
If I had to choose, I'd be in favor of removing it actually.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 16, 2015, 01:08:23 pm
I also agree that the elite council is useless. It is extremely one-sided and fixed. It is just like when countries such as Russia and Iran claim to hold "free elections". It is just a method of controlling the people and giving them the illusion of having choice.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 16, 2015, 01:26:21 pm
Axel Z - NO (though he was "removed" from the council after the Henning incident, he still shows up in topics and votes occasionally... that shows you the structure of the elite council...)

He was only "removed" by a vote of the Elite Council, which isn't a valid way to remove a user from the Elite Council. It requires a public discussion of some sort.  Doesn't seem to require a public vote, just a public discussion.  As far as I can tell, there was no specific topic set up to discuss this. (There was a short public discussion regarding his rankings admin status.)  He's still listed as being a member of the elite council on http://rankings.the-elite.net/proof.

Quote
If public opinion of a council member becomes negative, discussion will be held in public forum to remove or replace members of the council.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 01:28:13 pm
It actually seems like people might be in favour of removing all unproven WRs from the rankings.  Perhaps voting this way would be civil and productive.  A council thread has just been made so I'll give it a few hours or a day and make this new one.

fwiw the "grandfathering" article in the council was just written as a little addendum so that not too much fuss would get kicked up and we could actually instate a real proof policy for the first time in elite history.  It was never intended to necessarily stay around.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Icy on January 16, 2015, 01:51:47 pm
I'm for removing his 53 (and a lot of other WRs with no videos), but as others have mentioned, it may lead to many/all other similar runs getting wiped. I'm actually for that as well, though there's a lot of sentimental attachment to the historical data, especially if we're clearing out times from a decade or longer ago by players who haven't been here since, and that proving times wasn't as quick and simple as it is now. The other thing is that since the issue is about having proper proof, a lot of Marc's and others' old runs can be brought up in the future (as others have mentioned), despite that they fall under being grandfathered in the proof policy. Sure, they're fine now, but so were some of the older times that were fine back then, that we're planning on removing now. The discussion is less about removing the individual time (seem like most agree with removing 53), and more about what leads from doing so.

I think it'd be much more useful if players compiled a list of times similar to Berube's 53 that they think should be removed, and discuss the whole issue of old times with zero proof, rather than individual cases like this one.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wyst3r on January 16, 2015, 01:58:39 pm
Grandfathering is good in the sense that it takes into account the technical limitations of the past, when today's quality video wasn't available and VHS was still the standard. However, to me it seems it'd be going too far to include times that have no proof at all, even if the non-existing policy of the past allowed it. We need to set a reasonable standard and keep the current rankings as trustworthy as possible, without erasing all of the history of this site.

Removing WRs that have never had vids at all  seems like a good starting point (the case of lost videos is tricky, but should be discussed as well). How far to go beyond that, i dunno. I think the best option might be to go by the current proof policy, and remove times that require proof today. That way, you at least keep the rankings as accurate as the current proof policy requires them to be (obviously, there would be no point in removing times below this point, since we don't proof call them today anyway).
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flukey lukey on January 16, 2015, 02:21:10 pm
I agree with henrik
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SgtRaven on January 16, 2015, 02:44:52 pm
How possible is it for someone to compile a list of ALL non-proven world records?
Also, are we talking about all of today's WR's? Or if they were a WR when they were got and they aren't a WR anymore?

I think that DB's case is opening ourselves up to the bigger issue and I think he may feel as if he's being singled out in the matter.

I would like to know what all unproven WR's there are (GE and PD), and the impact it would make on the elite.

We should then vote to either KEEP them ALL, or REMOVE them ALL. Picking on just DB alone isn't the solution.

I'm about as irrel as they come and I still taped my Chicago A 16 from October, 2001. It wasn't that hard back then.

My thoughts are this:
The dinosaurs from long ago probably don't give two shits about their times coming down, and if they do, It's fair to ask them to dup. If they care enough to fight for their times to stay up, then they should care enough to just dup the sum-bitch. Even in 2001 I knew going for WR's without taping was a no-no.

We then should establish a clear as day set of guidelines so everyone understands what requires a vid, and what doesn't. I've heard several different things thrown around (Any UWR and 80+ pointer, any 60+ pointer etc) We need to stick to it unless there is enough discussion to have it changed. It was easy to record in 2001, it's even easier now so much that I don't see why any serious speedrunner shouldn't be recording ALL of their PR's. 
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 03:07:35 pm
I'm in favour of this:

Removing ALL times which were WRs at the time they were submitted but never had a video provided.

This would include Berube's Dam 53, Expert's WAR PA 54, Matis' Archives 16 and a handful of others.  The impact it has on the ranks is likely minimal.

When we take this to council in a bit we will likely include a few options to vote YES or NO on...

1) Should we remove all current WRs which have no video proof?
2) Should we remove all times which were WRs at the time they were posted which have no video proof?
3) Should we instead deal with each unproven WR on a case-by-case basis and have a council vote to determine whether or not a WR stays up?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SgtRaven on January 16, 2015, 03:29:58 pm
I think that is a great idea Goose. Thanks for your commitment on this matter.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 03:31:41 pm
Removing ALL times which were WRs at the time they were submitted but never had a video provided.

This would include Berube's Dam 53, Expert's WAR PA 54, Matis' Archives 16 and a handful of others.  The impact it has on the ranks is likely minimal.

I hope this is a troll.

A "handful of others"? I don't think so. Do you realize what this would lead to? The impact it would have on the ranks would be astronomical.

Times such as Manhood's Runway SA 23, Sellati's Cav 103, Max Bout's Depot 26, 50 or so Runway A 23s would have to be backrolled whereas much better times such as Kirkness B1 107, Santos Cradle 00A 37, Stevens times 30 etc would stay up. And all of Andrew Kent's times (:nesquik: :kappa:). Also all the untieds on a level such as Aztec would go: Vincent Rolin, Woll, Vitor among others would lose their untieds. Pretty much all the times achieved before 2001 or so would have to be deleted. I haven't even mentioned any PD times. I could go on.

The solution to all this mess is an implemented proven rankings :)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 03:41:56 pm
I would like to know what all unproven WR's there are (GE and PD), and the impact it would make on the elite.

A rough guess would be around 1100.

For current WRs, only 2 if you exclude Duel (there are 22 unproven Duel 9s and endless unproven 3/6s): Berube's 53 and Matis's 16.

Also should we remove times that were proven at some point but now do not have a video anymore? (Clemens/Trent).
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wodahs-Reklaw on January 16, 2015, 03:42:50 pm
I agree with Henrik, like with everything he said exactly.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 03:43:37 pm
Could you compile a list of those 1100?  Ngamer is requesting it for council discussion.

I personally think it is EXTREMELY SILLY to put Expert's WAR 54 on the same level as dozens of Runway Agent 23s.  Hopefully anyone who can think rationally understands why.

What if we changed the criteria to "All times which are still WRs or were once claimed as untied WRs which never had videos?"  How many records would that affect?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Discombobulator on January 16, 2015, 03:47:17 pm
how about instead of erasing the past, we use an "asterisk" with a "foot note" system.  Same as is used in sports. something along the lines of

Dan berube dam 53*

*denotes time acquired before 2015, that does not meet 2015 proof standards

I don't know exactly how to word it, but something along those lines.

Just a thought. may or may not work.  either way, I've really enjoyed watching a lot of GE streams recently. agdq was really inspiring, and I'm glad to see so many people still playing the game, as well as streaming it.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 16, 2015, 03:56:22 pm
Slow down, peoplez, there's no need to decide right here and now to REMOVE ALL or NOT REMOVE ALL. Slowly analyzing case by case or person by person is better than rush into things. Berube's case is probably the most controversial one that's why it's currently the main target.

About old proof policies: If "video" wasn't always the standard, do we have an archive of picture proofs?

If you know how to look down, Runway A 23 becomes very easy, even if it was 2001 or so.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 03:56:49 pm
cool to see you, former dual champ :)

Goose: 1100 was just an estimate, there's likely more.

What if we changed the criteria to "All times which are still WRs or were once claimed as untied WRs which never had videos?"  How many records would that affect?

This is a better criteria. I would add these times as well: "are currently worth ~80 points or more that were never proven". Why is ALL the focus on WRs?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 03:59:57 pm
About old proof policies: If "video" wasn't always the standard, do we have an archive of picture proofs?

I believe Woll has a fair collection of picture proof (mostly Sterling pics iirc).

edit: http://thengamer.com/woll/ancient/runwaySASterlingNeblett.gif

If you know how to look down, Runway A 23 becomes very easy, even if it was 2001 or so.

lookdown was invented in 2002 :kappa:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SgtRaven on January 16, 2015, 04:00:37 pm
Woah Disco, Holy shit... Nice to see you here.

I don't think we are deciding right here and now to remove all unproven WR's. I don't think removing just DB is the solution, even though it is the main focus. I am asking that we explore all of the possibilities and go from there. Removing one time alone when there are many other like it is silly. I don't think any of us have anything tangible against DB as to why his time wouldn't be real, just that there isn't proof. When I read all the comments about why this time should be removed I see the same thing.... "No proof" well there are 1100 times+ without proof, so now what? Seems silly IMO.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SgtRaven on January 16, 2015, 04:02:05 pm
If you know how to look down, Runway A 23 becomes very easy, even if it was 2001 or so.

Quote
lookdown was invented in 2002 :kappa:

lookdown was invented discovered in 2002 :kappa:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 04:04:29 pm
nooooooooooo

 :kappa:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 16, 2015, 04:05:52 pm
They found me, goddamit :kappa:

Year was totally not randomly guessed btw
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Wodahs-Reklaw on January 16, 2015, 04:07:25 pm
I just realized that I really don't care what happens here, this always happen where the elite community has no real drama, so then we start getting anal about stupid shit like DB's time. If it stays who cares if it goes who cares its not like anything current or ground breaking any more.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all just a Coup de Grace by goose to get more power and influence by getting people to side with him!!!

Just go back to playing and chilling in everyone streams everyone and lets just let this silly matter pass.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 04:11:13 pm
I agree with Dan...Berube :kappa:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flukey lukey on January 16, 2015, 04:48:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/75SSWhg.jpg)

image credit goes to Dugg
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 05:01:09 pm
#tyrannosaurus-rekt

definitely a top tier image in elite history
Title: Arie2929's opinion on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Arie2929 on January 16, 2015, 05:12:30 pm
I've been around a short amount of time and I just want to get some things off my chest. (don't worry this will all tie in later)
Yesterday one of my threads was removed mainly because it was a terrible thread and included some very lewd topics, and this is fine with me. That thread was pure cancer and should be removed.
Now obviously that thread does not reflect my personal views or opinions because It was posted in the FFA forum simply as a joke.


Now how does this tie together with Dan 53?

It's simple, this topic of Dan's dam time has been discussed and re-hashed a multitude of times and SHOULD NOT be needed to be discussed again. This is a form of shit posting that is far more annoying than what I was doing. Mine was obvious and most sane people wouldn't even give it the time of day, but this topic gets people all fired up and causes extremely unnecessary drama. Granted, I have not been around that long and my opinion shouldn't make a difference to you. HOWEVER, I'm not going to be in the community long if all you do is argue about a pointless time that was set before most of you have been in this community!


The reason I wanted to make a post of my opinion is because I have learned facts about his time that makes me believe it should stay on the boards.

Argument: "Clemens time should still be on the leaderboard if Dan's is."
Fact: Clemens clearly did not follow the rules, Dan did. There was not a hard rule that every WR had to be proven by video back then. It was strongly encouraged, but the final say was left up to the rankings moderators.

Argument: "How can we trust his time if there is no video?"
Fact: Berube is good friends irl with a guy named Tyler Prober t who had been around for a long time and Prober t vouched for him, Dan sent a tape with a bunch of 54s and some other times.
This included depot 26 (WR) and some others.

Argument: "No video, no Proof"
Fact: He had very little proof but had met with/known some of the proof mods and was verified by them, the rankings mod at the time accepted the 53 on the ranks and Berube was never asked in a reasonable time period to have a video for 53.

All in all the argument can be viewed from either side but the fact of the matter is that most people weren't around then and the rules were different. Moreover this is a dumb thing to argue about and is bad for the community and the outsiders looking in just like myself.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 05:26:17 pm
Easily Arie's best post so far (even though by the looks of it many disagree with you). Keep it up!
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Scrambler Fanny on January 16, 2015, 06:00:25 pm
#tyrannosaurus-rekt

definitely a top tier image in elite history
(https://i.imgur.com/75SSWhg.jpg)

image credit goes to Dugg

#lifeover#happyforeternity
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 16, 2015, 08:07:42 pm
WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all just a Coup de Grace by goose to get more power and influence by getting people to side with him!!!

probably, but unproven times is still fucking dumb

removing unproven times that are currently WRs is a good starting point

removing unproven times that were once WRs can be discussed later
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Boss on January 16, 2015, 08:10:46 pm
The only thing I will bring up is that Sucram's Def PA 123 was taken down years ago and kinda falls under this same category. If 53 stays up, then 123 should be reinstated perhaps for consistency purposes. If 53 is backrolled, then something like WAR PA 54 should also be backrolled as that is in this category too.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Jonesy on January 16, 2015, 08:21:39 pm
Clark created the website.  I'm pretty sure that's the equivalent of God when it comes to companies, organizations, communities, etc.  When you create something you can do whatever you want with it.

We get it (it's not like you contempt for some members of the council is exactly subtle and nuanced), but your logic is flawed. The entire reason this community is still alive and around after all these years is exactly because Clark isn't some tyrant that arbitrarily imposes his will. Anyone worth their salt in a position like Clark's understands that following your suggestion is a recipe for disaster. Having Clark do what you suggest would feasibly be very easy, but easy isn't always right. You really should be thankful that this community has someone in his role who is capable of exercising such restraint and sound judgment.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Thiradell on January 16, 2015, 08:27:56 pm
I would like to know what all unproven WR's there are (GE and PD), and the impact it would make on the elite.

A rough guess would be around 1100.

"oh, but we don't want to remove them all!" you want to consider 1100+ WRs case-by-case? How many people in this topic have now said "I think we should look at this and then go from there." Okay, so look at whatever, and then go. Do it. Do some research and post all the unproven WRs with the ones you want removed based on some rationale. If somebody actually did that, I would totally consider it and chime in on discussions for what makes sense to remove and what not. The entire process would be very time-consuming and tedious, and would essentially STILL be picking and choosing between times based on a relative scale of difficulty that is now clouded by 10+ years of stuff happening.

Personally, I won't be compiling that list. My opinion is that the past is the past. Case closed unless there's a very compelling reason to re-open it (discovering an SM64 splice is totally legitimate, for instance). As someone who does current proof calls and has made several decisions over the past few years, I think the present is plenty to deal with. The rankings should just stay as they are. No, they're not perfect. Yeah, some buddies said it was okay for Berube's time to be up because he probably got it and had a lot of support. As often happens in mainstream media or other places, what's being used as the example (Dam 0:53) is far from the most egregious oversight or act of leniency. If someone dug into it (as Axel Z has), there's clearly other cases that are worse, and digging up every single one would result in a frighteningly large (and inevitably inaccurate) changing of the-elite's history.

Hopefully it's been made clearer why we can't reach in and pick Berube's time out from a history filled with a multitude of unproven times. It's wildly inconsistent. If you really want to go as far as unearthing almost 20 years of PR history (good luck with anything before 2000) just to get rid of Dam 0:53, okay, that's completely fine. Otherwise I can't see myself agreeing to it.

P.S. "all current WRs should have video proof" is just a weird justification that doesn't make any sense. Again, times arbitrarily get spared because it happens they've been beaten, while other times (probably on more maxed levels, often requiring less skill) are taken down
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 16, 2015, 08:42:22 pm
The rankings should just stay as they are. No, they're not perfect

in other words, "the rankings could be improved, but nah, fuck it, who cares, let's not try to improve them"

this post actually sickens me.  I feel dizzy and almost like throwing up reading it.  What did me and dozens others spend 10000 hours playing this game for if this is how we, the players, are being treated by the rankings administrators and moderators?

There is a BLATANT disrespect between the admin (Come, Third, Ngamer, etc) and the players here.  I've said it a million times before but this post proves it.  They don't care about us.  They hold onto their power and they make this place as miserable as possible for us, the players.

How can anyone in any organization justify having people in charge who don't care about improving their organization for its own members?  This is a fucking joke.  I'm really upset.  I might need to leave the elite for a bit.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Thiradell on January 16, 2015, 08:55:19 pm
Sorry Goose, it's not my intention to upset you (and never is). I was trying to be realistic about the monumental task of digging up all the unproven WRs. You seem to read everything I say with the worst connotations possible. Also this entire issue has nothing to do with how I treat anybody; your singlemindedness to redirect everything to that makes it tough to have any real discussion.

I guess I probably won't post anymore because it just seems to stir up trouble, and I don't want that. If somebody comes in and actually looks at my post (i.e. not taking one line entirely out of context), I'm happy to respond to you. Feel free to PM or IM me any time as well. My opinion has been made clear.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 16, 2015, 09:08:14 pm
Removing ALL times which were WRs at the time they were submitted but never had a video provided.

Does this include LTK/DLTK times as well btw? If so, bye Ace/Clemens current untieds. And have fun whoever ends up going through the LTK/DLTK topics and check if videos were posted or not for all claimed WRs.

There is also this problem that ancient times might have been proven by video when they originally were set, but were subsequently never captured and preserved for future generations. We can never know for sure exactly what times were proven and what times were not. Sterling and Zwartjes might even have a few of their early tapes lying in a closet.

Three people saw me get Archives 16, and five reviewed the run by my side. Would that be enough proof for a 2001 time? For a 2008 time? For a 20xx time? When is a time considered proven? When it is achieved during a meeting? How many people need to see it? What about partial runs? etc

And just how should we deal with times that were WRs when set - some untieds even - that were shortly improved by the same player that untied them. For example: Henrik's Train SA 1:36/1:34/1:33. Should these times get removed as well even though Henrik shortly after provided proof for 1:31 and 1:29? What about all claimed untieds on Aztec after the glass strat was discovered?

Quote
Grandfathering is good in the sense that it takes into account the technical limitations of the past, when today's quality video wasn't available and VHS was still the standard. However, to me it seems it'd be going too far to include times that have no proof at all, even if the non-existing policy of the past allowed it. We need to set a reasonable standard and keep the current rankings as trustworthy as possible, without erasing all of the history of this site.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 16, 2015, 09:31:50 pm
Sorry Goose, it's not my intention to upset you (and never is). I was trying to be realistic about the monumental task of digging up all the unproven WRs. You seem to read everything I say with the worst connotations possible. Also this entire issue has nothing to do with how I treat anybody; your singlemindedness to redirect everything to that makes it tough to have any real discussion.

I guess I probably won't post anymore because it just seems to stir up trouble, and I don't want that. If somebody comes in and actually looks at my post (i.e. not taking one line entirely out of context), I'm happy to respond to you. Feel free to PM or IM me any time as well. My opinion has been made clear.

It's not that much of a "monumental" task. Going level-by-level, whenever there's free time, it's a few days work (even faster with more people). I've done worse than it while analyzing SM64 castle movement for 120 star, checking for video times is just copying and pasting information. Having times marked as "video proven", "unproved" (and perhaps picture proofed only or endscreen?) would've come handy in this situation, that can be useful for future oranization on the ranks. :p
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: wheatrich on January 16, 2015, 10:39:15 pm
council dinosaur pic is excellent
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Thiradell on January 16, 2015, 11:10:48 pm
It's not that much of a "monumental" task. Going level-by-level, whenever there's free time, it's a few days work (even faster with more people). I've done worse than it while analyzing SM64 castle movement for 120 star, checking for video times is just copying and pasting information. Having times marked as "video proven", "unproved" (and perhaps picture proofed only or endscreen?) would've come handy in this situation, that can be useful for future oranization on the ranks. :p

Sure, but it's not quite that simple. In the past, videos have been provided in a variety of ways (uploading them as .mp4s to self-hosted sites, sticking them in AIM getfiles, mailing tapes to a mod). The process of determining whether videos exist for what's not currently linked on the ranks, as well as tracking those videos down, would take quite awhile. Most times would be simple, but for some you'd have to do some detective work. You'd have to figure out how thorough you wanted the detective work to be before dismissing a time and removing it.

To really complete this fully, you'd also need collaboration from a lot of old schoolers to dig up those videos. Putting together a team of people would certainly be the most efficient way to knock it out. Axel mentioned a proven rankings side thing--this might be more suited for something like that, because at the end of the day, you're making several hundred judgment calls about what does and doesn't stay (I don't anticipate very many videos being readily available).
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 16, 2015, 11:12:00 pm
which is why we start by removing times that we know for sure have no videos
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 16, 2015, 11:41:57 pm
Man, this topic.  In no particular order

- These threads are a good thing, ultimately

- A lot of ppl posting that it's ridiculous that 0:53 is still up simply don't realize the underlying factors.  Mainly, that we've done our best to standardize the methods by which times are accepted (via proof policy, the formation of a "council" to guide it, etc)

- Third, I trust that your prerogative (in keeping up the time) is strict adherence to the proof policy. I know that you would/will take down the 53 if we amend or revise the policy and I have no objection to the time being up in the meantime.  Due process.  This thread makes it pretty clear that we are taking steps toward making that happen.  Berube will be martyr and we'll make a few bucks off #berube53 magnetic ribbons.

- Disco's idea about the asterisk is a good idea to explore.  Would only apply to times once validated but later invalidated due to future changes to the proof policy.  Berube's 0:53 would have an asterisk; Clemens' 3:56 would still be excluded.  Perhaps there can be another notation for times that did not meet proof standards but are strongly believed to being real (like, if we ran a vote on a selection of nominated times).  A time like Jimbo's 0:16 Archives would make sense on this sort of ballot (achieved with several credible witnesses; I saw the complete screen).  When that time happened I was rejected it was maddeningly absurd to me, but in hindsight I think it was the right way to handle it.  Standardizing proof protocols has been a critical part of developing the reputation of the Elite (as highly authoritative/legit)

- Goose, I'm not trying to appease anyone -- I'm trying to be diplomatic because I think that's my best chance at influencing the outcome we're both pursuing.  Diplomacy and logic work best here.  I not going to push that hard on this though... 99% of my inclination (to support you on removing it) was to extend an olive branch to you and show you that when you talk, I listen. I believe we're going to have to get the proof policy amended first.

- Thingy's post was on the mark, everyone reread it

- I am bugged by the idea of pissing off decent people because of my barely-sustained opinion about the possible exploits of a person I don't actually know to exist.  On the bright side: the fact that something this petty constitutes a controversy shows me how far we've come

- I'm actually in favor of Third taking down the 0:53 "temporarily" so that the newbs chill out

- If we had a total proof rollback I'd lose most of my times, including Statue 2:26.  And pretty sure my video quality wouldn't pass for any so I'd have an empty profile and nullified legacy.  DESPITE that, it would be easy to concede the loss if there was a clear vote (or clear proof policy change) that enacted it.  Can quote me on this.  I believe strongly in the importance and necessity of upholding an amendable doctrine -- like the US Constitution, etc -- to standardize policy.

- Goose TY for updating the title.  More importantly, TY for being proactive and getting a process started -- the ultimate tool for affecting change around here is logic, seriously.  I once again implore you to be less cynical (and malicious, honestly) toward the "old boys" (or any of us, really) -- it makes it so much harder to resolve things.  I will get back to your other specific concerns via email.

- "OWNER, FOUNDER and WEBMASTER" - i honestly lost any sense of those titles after the logo debacle.  Very demoralizing.  I could have "vetoed" the logo, but what would that have gotten me?  Just re-emphasizing a major theme here -- diplomacy is how things get done around here.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: flicker on January 16, 2015, 11:54:04 pm
- I'm actually in favor of Third taking down the 0:53 "temporarily" so that the newbs chill out

perfect solution, because then we can all just forget about it (unless it gets re-added)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 16, 2015, 11:59:05 pm
"newbs" have to prove irrelevant 60-pointers

unproven WRs should not stay, they hurt the legitimacy of the rankings

kinda annoying that this is way more complicated than it should be, why is the proof policy 30,000 pages long, just replace it with "proof pls"
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:06:50 am
DISCUSSION OF ANY OTHER TIME EXCEPT FOR BERUBE'S DAM 53 IS A RED HERRING.

Be extremely weary of people trying to derail the argument by linking this to as many other times as possible. Seriously, watch how the people who want the time to stay will say things like 'if this time gets removed you need to removed a, b, c, d, e and f, also you'll need to change the proof policy, also you'll need to change the elite council, also you'll need to change the name of the community and also we'll have to change the game we play.

These are tactics (whether they are conscious of it or not) to confuse people and lead the conversation elsewhere. Each time is a different, stand alone case that should be assessed as such. If you don't realise this I'm sorry but you're stupid.

If you want to discuss Expert's 54 that's fine but it's a completely different discussion that does not hinge on the outcome of this decision.

The old-school (irrel) council members are trying to turn this into a 'remove all unproven WR's' debate because they know that's easier to win than just debating this single time. Again, be weary of this tactic. There is no slippery slope here, only one that the opposition wants you to believe.

If we can't discuss an individual time on its individual merits than we're fucked. Stop the bullshit and stick with the topic at hand and stop trying to mislead people.
Title: Here's a serious post about why DB's 53 should stay.
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 12:10:26 am
I'm personally against Berube's 53 staying on the rankings. But I gotta say, most of the points made in Goose's OP are absolutely irrelevant. They're more persuasion attempts than actually trying to solve this once and for all. And people from "the elite council" or whoever defends the time are just dabbling around with irrel stuff, and all over the place without making a solid point. Here's a better organization of the arguments, along with, regrettably, defending FOR's point:

- - FOR's proof of the time:
The recording of various 54 dupes, showing the 53 endscreen (with the bonus of the strat used being the same as 53). Perfectly accepted by the 2003 proof policy (let's not forget that, ok?).

- - AGAINST - reasons to suspect:
- Unlikelihood of him getting the time
It's no news that a few eliters like to target only a few levels in the game, and get really good times at them. People like me, Austin, Cosmo, TaylorTot, which at some point had 80% N/As and one or two world records, notable mentions being Cliff Hampton, Luke Pettit, Twiii (frigate 23 grind, etc), among other people (or maybe not those, or including people who admit to go only for sick records and not points, or the same case, but in other single-player competitive scenarios, etc etc etc).
Among Dan Berube's PRs are S1 104, B1 18, Streets 114, Depot 26, Runway A 23 (which were world records at the time), Surface 2 A 55 (2nd best around-the-hut strat), Archives 17 (WR?), among other PR's that are still worth points nowadays.
Today we, of course, see tons of players with this little goldeneye experience that are capable of being 5/5 on the easy agent WRs, due to the game popularity having increased, tons of players to help each other out, and the hours of grind being reduced because of 2.X.
BUT, given that the strats of those records haven't changed since then, neither for Dam 53, he could be perfectly capable of getting it. It just happened that, of all angle-shooters in the elite who grinded 10/60 levels, he went for Dam 53, and roughly 4~5 months after it was untied, he got it.
This "skill judgment" is a huge grey area, and I'm not sure that it should be taken seriously at all. You wanna make a case that "Dam 53 was an INSANE time back then", ok, insane for who? You? A community, perhaps, full of underachievers back then? Berube saw an opportunity, and took it, not uncommon to have someone in a decent-sized community to reach for farther than his/her perceived expectation.
This case of the AGAINST group is nothing but baseless conjecture, which only has subjective opinions to stand on.
- Not having a video
You wanna question 2003's proof policy and demand videos for very, very, very old times, go ahead (ironically, that would actually be PREJUDICIAL against the rankings history). But many times that had, for example, only a picture endscreen for proof, etc, would be vanished just because, suddenly, we decided to demand higher standards for the 12-years-ago records.
Uncovering cheated PR's is something that should absolutely be done, but as long as it's done in the right way, with proper proof and a solid case (good examples being the Frigate cinema weapon contradiction and the use of emulator).
If you wanna question DB's 53 by questioning the old proof policy itself, be aware of the grounds you're about to stand on. 2003 was NOT like 2013, never forget to consider it, just because you think a video is needed just like it is needed nowadays (except for the quality demands).



Also, just a curious thought, no one questions that in 2003 it was hard to gather up a setting to record speedruns, but everyone seem to agree that getting a gameshark and using the doorclip code to fake an endscreen was THAT easy. This is a completely biased line of thought that most players seem to blindly agree with, just to fit into a group of 2015-accessible-cheap-capture-cards-generation-people's "argument" and their pity demands. A complete joke, seriously.



And, to finish:
Quote
AGAINST
- removing it would restore historical accuracy to the site's rankings (history is something we pride ourselves with greatly here with the database and all) as well as restore prestige to Dam 53, one of the most significant records in elite history
- Berube has not been seen for years and likely does not care at all about this time anymore
- Boss is still around and likely DOES care about the historical accuracy of his untied
- deletion of this time would be like exonerating a criminal who was found not guilty years later. This would help to give closure to Boss and anyone else deeply involved in the situation
- correcting past mistakes is actually a good thing and gives precedent that we can always go back and change a decision when needed


FOR
- "it was decided upon a long time ago and should remain up"
- perhaps some belief that some higher ups in the community still care about the time and want it up there? (which is obviously a flawed argument given that Clark is the highest up and is in favour of the time being taken down.)
All those arguments are either tangent or personal opinions.


If you wanna add or disagree with anything of this post , please do, but make sure you have a very solid point.
Title: Re: Here's a serious post about why DB's 53 should stay.
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:14:49 am
You wanna question 2003's proof policy and demand videos for very, very, very old times, go ahead (ironically, that would actually be PREJUDICIAL against the rankings history). But many times that had, for example, only a picture endscreen for proof, etc, would be vanished just because, suddenly, we decided to demand higher standards for the 12-years-ago records.

Note the red herring. We're discussing Berube's 53 not other times. Stop misleading people.

I'll just add that cheating with a gameshark was well known and easy to do back then. I remember reading GE times in n64 mags showing stupid fake times from 1998-1999. Gameshark abuse was around from the earliest times of GE speedrunning.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 12:17:03 am
fair enough

r e m o v e  b e r u b e
Title: Re: Here's a serious post about why DB's 53 should stay.
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 12:17:47 am
You wanna question 2003's proof policy and demand videos for very, very, very old times, go ahead (ironically, that would actually be PREJUDICIAL against the rankings history). But many times that had, for example, only a picture endscreen for proof, etc, would be vanished just because, suddenly, we decided to demand higher standards for the 12-years-ago records.

Note the red herring. We're discussing Berube's 53 not other times. Stop misleading people.
Have you got anything else to suspect that he didn't get it or just the video demand? It is not misleading, it's making a point and being congruent with it. Videos weren't needed back then, why would we want them now and why only on berube's 53?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:20:44 am
If you don't understand why Berube's 53 is the time being questioned then you haven't been listening? It's been mentioned a lot (I think?).

I'm tired of explaining it so much.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:21:48 am
So we'll take down Marc's Dam times and some of Clemens' times? Because those clearly violate the current proof policy too. Trust me, I understand wanting to take the time down, but where does it stop?

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use 'one' principle to dictate decisions. It's not just 'one' thing that would make us want to remove the time. I don't really know how many times people can state that.

It is several reasons. 1. standard deviation between the time in question and the other times, 2. the time is not proven with video, 3. the date the time was achieved 4. The significance of the date/time achieved.

You ask where it stops but there really aren't many times that also meet these criteria. Dave/Marc times do violate current proof policy however the standard deviation factor isn't there and marc has videos even if they are shit. Pretty sure Dave also did provide vids at one point but they are deleted now. So completely different scenario.

By suggesting that if you remove 53 you will have to remove other times is 100% misleading because this particular time has features that others do not. They aren't the same thing and it's not the same discussion.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's decision on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 12:35:25 am
So we'll take down Marc's Dam times and some of Clemens' times? Because those clearly violate the current proof policy too. Trust me, I understand wanting to take the time down, but where does it stop?

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use 'one' principle to dictate decisions. It's not just 'one' thing that would make us want to remove the time. I don't really know how many times people can state that.

It is several reasons. 1. standard deviation between the time in question and the other times, 2. the time is not proven with video, 3. the date the time was achieved 4. The significance of the date/time achieved.

You ask where it stops but there really aren't many times that also meet these criteria. Dave/Marc times do violate current proof policy however the standard deviation factor isn't there and marc has videos even if they are shit. Pretty sure Dave also did provide vids at one point but they are deleted now. So completely different scenario.

By suggesting that if you remove 53 you will have to remove other times is 100% misleading because this particular time has features that others do not. They aren't the same thing and it's not the same discussion.
Reread the thread. Funny enough, the "if one should, all others should" was something massively brought up by the AGAINST people. Saying that it's "misleading" can be kinda ironic...  :p

1. standard deviation between the time in question and the other times
3. the date the time was achieved
- Covered those in my post.

2. the time is not proven with video
- Covered it as well.

4. The significance of the date/time achieved.
- Your opinion and you're 100% entitled to it.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:38:37 am
Yeah it doesn't really matter to cover an individual point. You can cover each separate point individually and act like that means something... when in reality it doesn't. The thing about this particular time is all of them combined.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 17, 2015, 12:40:58 am
And the elite freak show continues once again. You all lose. :smokin:

Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 12:42:00 am
yeah not sure why i tried to get involved in this shit

admins who dont play ge always win

move along boys
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: TheFlash on January 17, 2015, 12:43:33 am
I'm the only one here who never played GE or PD.  I guess I win?
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:44:01 am
Inkosi, DSX your dumb posts are what makes this stupid. Some people actually give a shit about the rankings. If you don't, definitely move along as you advise. Others who care to make a positive change can stay and discuss.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 12:45:24 am
have fun
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Arie2929 on January 17, 2015, 12:45:32 am
I'm the only one here who never played GE or PD.  I guess I win?

no no no, I definitely win, my argument was the best and I've never played ge and I've been around for less than a week ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

(https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.firstcovers.com%2Fcovers%2Fuserquotes%2Fi%2Fi_tried_so_hard_and-79102.jpg%3Fi&hash=b1c2f6ea9be3ff73076267d9f8c96f592cf0362a)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 12:48:25 am
if i didnt care about the rankings why would i get involved in this in the first place

it doesnt seem like we can win this one

stop being so aggressive
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 12:50:00 am
Yeah it doesn't really matter to cover an individual point. You can cover each separate point individually and act like that means something... when in reality it doesn't. The thing about this particular time is all of them combined.
I really want to get the feeling of what meaning "Dam 53" possibly had, but there's still no reason why some irrel angle shooter who played 15% of the levels seriously couldn't have grinded for it and got it. And however big was its perceived value back then is not a solid basis to judge if the guy was capable of or not to get the time. After all, a guy with the name of Denis Lucid *supposedly* exists, right? (just to mention an example)

For those who are making a joke out of this case, I, personally, reccomend you to review your value system. If we don't have discussions like that how the hell would we sustain as a community? For example, check someone's capture-card-recorded outdated PR and it ends up having a spectogram inconsistency, should we just say "oh it's irrel he improved the time anyway" and stay away from that? Welcome to 20XX, the goldeneye age of loose cheaters.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 12:58:58 am
Well the discussion isn't about 'did he get the time', it's about 'can we allow the time on the rankings without proof'. So your argument about his ability to grind for the time and get it I feel is not relevant. Dennis Lucid actually did provide videos for his insane times. The discussion really isn't about if he's capable, but rather about did he prove he was capable. The problem is that given the strength of his other times 53 is way above what he previously achieved. It's ok to theorize about probability but there is no evidence either way.

In response to Dsx, didn't you read the other topic? It's pretty obvious that the majority support the time being removed and it probably will be removed. So we actually likely will 'win'. Atm I'm against the red herrings such as 'we need to change the proof policy', or 'we can't take action because of the proof policy', or 'if we remove this time we need to remove this other time', etc logical fallacies that should be rebutted.

Edit: Ok so whether or not he is capable IS relevant, but his other times don't give enough evidence for this.

Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 01:04:58 am
yeah i read it

majority means nothing if the admins block it, but yeah im just really pissed off about this whole unnecessary drama and have made some dumb posts, sorry about that
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 17, 2015, 01:23:54 am
Karl bringing the truth as usual

the "omg dis time needs to be removed too" discussion needs to end.  This is a joke.

The council thread will be made to remove all current WRs which have no video proof.  This will take care of the 53 and other stuff like Matis' 16 and some Duel 9s will go too.  That's a fine start and I really hope that vote goes through, especially given how many of the players are in favor of it in the poll thread.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 01:25:05 am
Well the discussion isn't about 'did he get the time', it's about 'can we allow the time on the rankings without proof'. So your argument about his ability to grind for the time and get it I feel is not relevant. Dennis Lucid actually did provide videos for his insane times. The discussion really isn't about if he's capable, but rather about did he prove he was capable. The problem is that given the strength of his other times 53 is way above what he previously achieved. It's ok to theorize about probability but there is no evidence either way.

In response to Dsx, didn't you read the other topic? It's pretty obvious that the majority support the time being removed and it probably will be removed. So we actually likely will 'win'. Atm I'm against the red herrings such as 'we need to change the proof policy', or 'we can't take action because of the proof policy', or 'if we remove this time we need to remove this other time', etc logical fallacies that should be rebutted.

Edit: Ok so whether or not he is capable IS relevant, but his other times don't give enough evidence for this.

You say that his other times don't add up with him being the 1st Dam 53 tie. And I say that it's perfectly reasonable that he was just a "10/60 level player" who went for the one-hit-wonder and got it. (or my argument first, karl's second, read it in whatever order you want or whatever bias you desire) I believe we may have reached a grey area here. (unless someone can gather up all the elite data and make some sort of bell curve, and prove mathematically that DB getting a 0:53 is highly unlikely, with a whatever% of error the community accepts)
(personal touch here - I'm sorry if I sound arrogant here by just mentioning what me and karl said... but then again, the FOR people don't even know how to make a proper point, and ofc, Karl, if you have a different view of both sides, apart from the policyboys, do tell)

IIRC the default decision would be to just stick to the fact that it met the proof requirements and let it (unfortunately :( ) stay, although I'm not the one who decides that. (or to just go full yolo and do the proof policy revolution LOL)

I also want to add up, just to make a note of, even if it's far too obvious, that if Dan Berube indeed cheated his 53, which only proof was the video endscreen, one of those criteria has to be met:
- He gamesharked it (or used other ways of cheating) (which is obv proven possible)
- He had someone else get the time for him (either live or by playing on the person's cartridge)
- Video editing?
By no means I'm saying that we need proof of one of those to remove it, but if it exists, it has to be, of course, considered as a major priority over the other stuff.


The old proof policy revolution is a completely different matter and it should be treated as such. Sure, DB's 53 has brought it up, and it's the time that most people want to be taken down, but that is a total digression from this case. (even though if this proof revamp thing does happen, DB's 53 would go down)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Spec on January 17, 2015, 01:31:08 am
BY THE WAY: By "The old proof policy revolution is a completely different matter and it should be treated as such.", it means also that Goose's poll should be "redirected", and not be about whether or not DB53 should be removed, but, rather, if the proof policy regarding old times should be changed. I believe that's the main regarding Karl's complaints the "Red Herrings"/digressions.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: sweetener on January 17, 2015, 01:47:03 am
actually i like the idea of having the current rankings and proven rankings

one to keep the minority happy
one to keep the majority happy

everybody wins

not sure if people want to consider this, idk
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: deletedprofile.u on January 17, 2015, 01:47:34 am
The council thread will be made to remove all current WRs which have no video proof.  This will take care of the 53 and other stuff like Matis' 16 and some Duel 9s will go too.

Don't forget Trent's B1 17.  :kappa: :kappa: :kappa:
Title: Re: LIST ALL CURRENT WRS WITH NO PROOF
Post by: RWG on January 17, 2015, 01:52:06 am
if someone (anyone) would be so kind to stop making posts which are going nowhere and instead do this, the council would be greatly appreciative:

create a list of all WRs in both GE and PD which have no video linked to them on the rankings.  This is a good start.  Some of them have proof somewhere, just not on Youtube.  But creating this list will be useful.  Axel Z, Thiradell & others can then whittle it down by removing the WRs for which we have seen proof off the list.

I don't really care for Duel WRs (ignore 3 and 6 completely, maybe do 9.)  And Goldeneye is more important here right now anyways.  But yeah just click on all of the 40 levels, look at the WR listing, and note each WR time which doesn't have a video linked.

This would be a huge help and would help the council's discussion continue as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 17, 2015, 01:59:58 am
For GE

Dam Agent 0:53 - Dan Berube, Trent Hovis

B1 Agent 0:17 - Trent Hovis

Archives Agent 0:16 - Adam Matis

Egypt SA 0:45 - David Clemens (Used to be vid?)

-------

For PD

CI Agent 0:49 - 50 Cent

Duel PA 0:09 - Discombobulator, Infiltrater, Cck, ExpertGamer, DMan, Sucram, Dark Avenger, Carnski, Wabs, Quiet Bol, Slayer, Greg K., Goldenvinze, Dark Master, xXDarkLightXx, Falcon, Jim Barrett, Mg, DarkOne, Keefer, Lec, Vulpex
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 17, 2015, 02:06:09 am
I've said this before. Trent's dam 53 originally had proof. It was removed from Youtube due to some violation. Just trying to be objective here.

Matis' archives 16 is a separate issue however.

EDIT: Yes, Clemens also originally had proof of that egypt 45, it was also removed for some reason.

It might be wise to focus on Berube's 53 and Experts WAR 54 for starters. Let's worry about all other times later.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Icy on January 17, 2015, 02:10:17 am
All current Perfect Dark WRs have videos, except for Duel.

Edit: Missed one. :kappa:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 17, 2015, 02:11:23 am
All current Perfect Dark WRs have videos, except for Duel.

Apparently, 50 doesn't have a vid for 0:49.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 17, 2015, 02:13:20 am
thank you guys

I'm going to sleep now.  Tomorrow the council will have this information ready for more discussion.

I'm aware of Trent's 53 and Clemens' 45.  We'll have to see what people think on these issues.  Hopefully we don't get red herringed too hard.  I'll phrase things as closely to "times currently on the rankings which are WRs and have NEVER had a proof video at any time."
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: deletedprofile.u on January 17, 2015, 02:18:41 am
Unproven (Current) World Records on The-Elite.net  (UWRs)  :kappa:


GoldenEye:
~Normal Mode~
Dam 53 - Dan Berube, Trent Hovis

Bunker 1 17 - Trent Hovis

Archives 16 - Adam Matis

Egypt SA 45 - David Clemens

~LTK / DLTK~
Runway LTK 44 - Garrett Sellati

S2 LTK 131 - David Clemens

Archives DLTK 107 - Rayan I.

Train LTK 245 - Rayan I.

Control LTK 423 - Marc Rutzou



Perfect Dark:
~Normal Mode~
CI 49 - 50 Cent

Duel 9 (:kappa:) -

(https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F5475b88485c1880ae6ff8103031fd66a.png&hash=07ff149badcaf216982cb3f1c74538364e20299f)

~LTK / DLTK~
Defection LTK 130 - Sucram

Investigation DLTK 547 - Taka

Rescue LTK 326 - Taka

Resuce DLTK 409 - Taka

Escape LTK 336 - Taka

Air Base LTK 212 - Taka

Air Force One LTK 128 - Taka

Crash Site LTK 204 - Funky Buddha, Taka

Crash Site DLTK 217 - Funky Buddha

P2 LTK 204 - Perfect Ace

Skedar Ruins LTK 130 - Taka

Duel LTK 0:09 -

(https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F75efff02253d676accc21245037ee99d.png&hash=f5ef2e647fb6acaa81d7ee30b5b52954b7adb222)

Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Taylor on January 17, 2015, 02:18:52 am
ez access list with links

Goldeneye

Dam A 53
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dan+Berube/goldeneye (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dan+Berube/goldeneye)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~TreAKAHotdog/goldeneye (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~TreAKAHotdog/goldeneye)

Bunker A 1 17
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~TreAKAHotdog/goldeneye (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~TreAKAHotdog/goldeneye)

Archives A 16
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Adam+Matis/goldeneye (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Adam+Matis/goldeneye)

Egypt SA 45
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~True+Faith/goldeneye (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~True+Faith/goldeneye)


Perfect Dark

Defense A
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~50+Cent/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~50+Cent/perfect-dark)

Duel PA
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Discombobulator/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Discombobulator/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Infiltrater/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Infiltrater/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Cck/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Cck/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~ExpertGamer/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~ExpertGamer/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~ExpertGamer/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~ExpertGamer/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~DMan/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~DMan/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Sucram/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Sucram/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dark+Avenger/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dark+Avenger/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Carnski/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Carnski/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Wabs/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Wabs/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Quiet+Bol/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Quiet+Bol/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Slayer/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Slayer/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Greg+K./perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Greg+K./perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Goldenvinze/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Goldenvinze/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dark+Master/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Dark+Master/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~xXDarkLightXx/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~xXDarkLightXx/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Falcon/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Falcon/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Jim+Barrett/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Jim+Barrett/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Mg/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Mg/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~DarkOne/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~DarkOne/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Keefer/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Keefer/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Lec/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Lec/perfect-dark)
http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Vulpex/perfect-dark (http://rankings.the-elite.net/~Vulpex/perfect-dark)
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: DYM on January 17, 2015, 03:55:09 am
There was a video of 1:07 100%. Was in Wouter's GetFile. It's not my fault that noone saved the vid.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 17, 2015, 05:30:11 am
You guys were super clutch with those lists, nice

Karl -- are you really saying this thread is solely intended to discuss Dan Berube's Dam 0:53?  And that Goose and others are specifically depressed by the existence of this time on the ranks (despite the existence of many other such unproven, tied records?)  The Berube 53 was chosen as the "face" of this issue because, among the unproven records, it's the perfect combination of absurd and uncontroversial, easily agreed upon and likewise creating momentum for the real agenda -- calling attention to current issues with times/policies/council.  That is inarguably the purpose of this thread, and at this point I think most of us are OK with that.  Fruitful changes are going to happen because of this thread, so that's good.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 17, 2015, 05:55:03 am
I was only really against the red herrings used by people trying to keep the time on the ranks. If the discussion opens up seperately about other global issues that's fine. I think there is an overall consensus on the 53 so it's not dangerous to open up discussion. However before I think it was a bad idea to confuse things.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Imperfect Clark on January 17, 2015, 05:59:01 am
Thank you for clarifying -- I did misinterpret you slightly.  My comment was a bit aggro (my bad) and I appreciate your mellow reply.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: AZ on January 17, 2015, 08:53:37 am
Not sure what's the deal with 50 Cent's CI 49. It used to have video proof (http://forums.the-elite.net/index.php?topic=15687.msg359008#msg359008) so it's pretty unfortunate it's gone.

Trent and Clemens' normal mode GE times were also at one time proven.

Also for Duel 9, it is very likely that videos of some of those 9s were made (Jimbo claims a webcam vid, Mg achieved it in VA etc) but they're no longer with us.

Removing LTK times such as Garrett's Runway 44 seems pretty arbitrary in the sense that "it just happens to be the WR atm" but yeah everyone is only focusing on WRs. I'm just saying that there are objectively better and stronger unproven times than the 44. It's not even an untied and the DLTK record on Runway is 43. I know 44 is a WR and removing it would be consistent if we do proceed with this removal process but you have to agree it would be pretty random to remove it only because "Bozon hasn't bothered going for lower" or whatever. If Rayan hadn't recently lowered Jungle from 1:56 to 1:49, I guess Garrett's 1:56 would have to go too, no?

As for PD LTK, I'm pretty sure Taka provided proof for most, if not all, of his WRs. Sucram's Defection is the longest standing untied in the elite currently and on paper looks like a good time to backroll. Keep in mind though that he has proof of 128 PA.

As for Duel LTKs, :kappa: - it's a 5 minute time. I think that everyone who got proof of PA 0:09 and not LTK 0:09 should not be backrolled (for the record that's Neo, ParagonX9, Perfect Ace and myself. Maybe Taka as well). That's my opinion. If people however still want them removed for consistency purposes, then fine, I for one will get the time again.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 17, 2015, 09:17:02 am
Inkosi, DSX your dumb posts are what makes this stupid. Some people actually give a shit about the rankings. If you don't, definitely move along as you advise. Others who care to make a positive change can stay and discuss.

Yes, please. Continue. The freak show must go on. :rollin:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 17, 2015, 01:05:12 pm
man all those unproven Duel 9 times really make me want to get Duel removed from the rankings.  Another discussion entirely but research like this is always the first step.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 17, 2015, 01:22:13 pm
Ok for transparency, here is the exact post I made in the council just now:
---------------------------

Okay so here we go with the information:

Here are the current WRs in Goldeneye & Perfect Dark which do not have videos linked to them on the rankings

GoldenEye:
~Normal Mode~


Dam 53 - Dan Berube, Trent Hovis
Bunker 1 17 - Trent Hovis
Archives 16 - Adam Matis
Egypt SA 45 - David Clemens

~LTK / DLTK~
Runway LTK 44 - Garrett Sellati
S2 LTK 131 - David Clemens
Archives DLTK 107 - Rayan I.
Train LTK 245 - Rayan I.
Control LTK 423 - Marc Rutzou

Perfect Dark:
~Normal Mode~

CI 49 - 50 Cent
Duel 9 - Roughly 30

~LTK / DLTK~
Defection LTK 130 - Sucram
Investigation DLTK 547 - Taka
Rescue LTK 326 - Taka
Resuce DLTK 409 - Taka
Escape LTK 336 - Taka
Air Base LTK 212 - Taka
Air Force One LTK 128 - Taka
Crash Site LTK 204 - Funky Buddha, Taka
Crash Site DLTK 217 - Funky Buddha
P2 LTK 204 - Perfect Ace
Skedar Ruins LTK 130 - Taka
Duel LTK 0:09 - Roughly 10

This post lists all the normal mode WRs with no vids and links to the timespage on the rankings: http://forums.the-elite.net/index.php?topic=20005.msg416694#msg416694

---------------------------------------------------------------

Not to make it semantic, but most of Trent's times listed once had videos before they mysteriously disappeared from Youtube.  Clemens' Egypt SA 45 was streamed live on Twitch, verified proven by Axel Z or Thiradell, and then was eaten by the Twitch VOD system.  Ace claims his archives DLTK 107 had a video which was passed through getfiles.

There should be two slight variations of possible clarifications to the proof policy we will vote on, as well as a few others:

"Are you in favour of removing all times which are currently WRs and *never at any time* had video proof to go with them?"

"Are you in favour of removing all times which are currently WRs and currently do not have video proof to go with them?"  (this may contravene situations like the Ngamer/Jimbo Archives 16, other times that proof moderators have "verified" with the vids disappearing, etc.)

"Should LTK/DLTK times be treated the exact same way as normal mode times?"

"Are you in favour of removing every single time throughout history which has no video proof and at the time it was set, was a WR?" (in this case we will need to dig up the list of ~1100 times that Axel Z claims fall into this category.  Keep in mind that this list doesn't need to be created immediately.  If this gets voted through, we can start with the more obvious examples and then remove the old Runway A 24 WRs when the list gets created.)

Are you in favour of removing the "Grandfathering" section of the proof policy and replacing it with a section that reads "any time or set of times may be subject for allowance on the rankings pending a council vote, if desire from the community merits it."? (Be prepared that this will likely launch several more votes in the immediate future about times that are currently not WRs but fall into a similar boat as Dan's Dam 53, including Expert's War PA 54 and others.)

And for reference, to see how strongly the community feels about Berube's Dam 53, read this thread: http://forums.the-elite.net/index.php?topic=20018.0

of 23 respondents, 22 are in favour of the 53 being removed from the rankings.  That is substantial and should not be ignored.

If anyone thinks I missed any possible changes to the policy that would solve the issues we're facing with this situation, feel free to suggest or add in anything.  Once we get a list of things to vote on, we will go ahead and do the vote.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: 50 on January 17, 2015, 01:36:01 pm
My WRs youtube account was deleted in 2013 because of music copyright issue.

I just reuploaded the missing original vids:


Don't know if I can send the original files to Ax or anyone in charge to still have a back up proof. PM me.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Lark on January 17, 2015, 02:08:04 pm
Excellent work, Brio. Way to take the initiative. One less world record video to worry about now.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 18, 2015, 12:23:59 pm
There is now no video proof for Marc's:

Dam SA 1:16
S1 SA 1:48
B1 SA 0:23
Frigate Agent 0:23
Frigate SA 1:02
S2 Agent 0:49
S2 00A 1:26
B2 00A 0:55
All Archives
Caverns Agent 1:01


If Clemens' Egypt SA 0:45 gets removed, these clearly needs to as well. They were filmed with a shoe at the time as well. You could barely make out what the hell is happening. You couldnt even tell if they're real or not LOL. And they are on The Elite Goldeneye World Record Rankings. Jim just thinks he can do whatever he wants. I remember when he changed my rankings name back to my real name as well without asking a single soul, before i had it changed back again. Talk about real disrespect here, no regard for anything.


The Elite is a complete joke.


Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RWG on January 18, 2015, 12:37:05 pm
The irony Marc?  The elite is only a complete joke because of people like you, Clemens and Berube who disrespected the site enough to not care about quality proof when you played for WRs in the past.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 18, 2015, 01:52:57 pm
The elite is not a joke (or a circus like you keep repeating like a parrot), youre a joke.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 18, 2015, 02:22:40 pm
The pale pussy populist returns!
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: SimThreat on January 18, 2015, 09:11:51 pm
Pls drink your kool-aid already.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Rützou on January 18, 2015, 09:27:50 pm
Ok pale populist pussy. LOL.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Aztec Exemplar on January 18, 2015, 09:37:33 pm
If Clemens' Egypt SA 0:45 gets removed, these clearly needs to as well.

Stop acting like an idiot.

Dupe your times first and then replace the videos.
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: RK on January 19, 2015, 01:04:39 am
My WRs youtube account was deleted in 2013 because of music copyright issue.

I just reuploaded the missing original vids:


Don't know if I can send the original files to Ax or anyone in charge to still have a back up proof. PM me.

Nice vids dood. :nesquik:
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: 50 on January 19, 2015, 01:12:28 am
Hey thanks dood :nesquik: I just posted a new defense pa alternative strat in the pd boards, tell da tip
Title: Re: Derek Clark's "opinion" on Berube's Dam 53 [NEW]
Post by: Shadow on January 26, 2015, 10:44:48 am
If trying to get people to think of broader issues is a "red herring" then you've closed the door to any intelligent discussion, and resorted to emotional, mob-ruled arguments. The level of disdain for people urging caution in this thread has been mind-blowing.