Time to up the ante in that proof policy!
I froze Kent's timespage back in 2013 when he didn't respond to any of my messages where I kindly asked him to make videos of his latest/future PRs.
Kent was dedicated as a rankings updater and a solid contributor altogether, albeit a very reserved eliter.
I tried to message him on the forums and sent long e-mails to him throughout the years praising all his cool pages (http://www.angelfire.com/vt2/Vulpex/the_elite_net/GE64.html) but Kent never replied to anything I wrote.
I remember discussing the Vulpex situation briefly with Come and remember him saying to me that Kent "seems pretty set in oldschool ways" meaning he probably doesn't record his gameplay.
Wiff, yes "most players go through inactive periods." Kent didn't. Never. If he was about to fall out of the Top 50, he would reappear and post fake times. That was consistent over 10 years. You really think that his "inactivity" just happened to coincide with his timespage being frozen?
Wiff... do you not know how the PR history page works?
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've bring this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've bring this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
from checking out the video url, it looks like the youtube account was terminated apparently lolWhile we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've bring this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
Only times with vids are Duel 3/6
"This video is unavailable"
:nesquik:
Would love to see a video on the Andrew Kent Conspiracy
Would love to see a video on the Andrew Kent Conspiracy
Would love to see a video on the Andrew Kent Conspiracy
Would love to see a video on the Andrew Kent Conspiracy
mate where's the TTYD stream
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've brought this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
So just do it now. I don't know why you guys are so hesitant with these obvious actions.
Alec, enough is enough. This is the tipping point. You've deflected responsibility for too long.
You need to instantly be striped off your duties.
mate where's the TTYD stream
And being that it is currently the year 2018, there are many new players in both games who are working hard, and legitimately, to rise up the rankings.
all members involved in this community, old and new players alike, have put in to the game and the growing community that continues to keep it alive.
Goose has been the main driving force behind all proof efforts for over 10 years
what the resolution was, if any
I'm not sure what the hesitation here is
if, as is pointed out above, many of those very times were still in violation of proof rules even back when they were first posted
(everything should be proven, so the complete list is here (http://www.the-elite.net/GE/elite.htm))
.....
If you don't prove what's being asked here, you'll be rolled back to your best proven times until you do provide proof.
GE is proof is bad these days.
they've most certainly been proof-called, on multiple occasions, apparently...
As far as I know, Andrew Kent has never been proof called, backrolled or banned. Including the rule named after him is therefore somewhat misleading since technically he has never been "caught" and punished (yet). Larkin, on the other hand, was eventually backrolled.
Remove Kent tbh
Those saying ‘you cant prove he cheated’ do not understand the burden of proof and how it works. We dont have to prove that he cheated, he had to prove he got the times.
If i am not remembering incorrectly we did in fact attempt to contact Kent to request proof. Why he was not removed after this failed is a valid question tbh gg
Remove Kent tbh
Those saying ‘you cant prove he cheated’ do not understand the burden of proof and how it works. We dont have to prove that he cheated, he had to prove he got the times.
If i am not remembering incorrectly we did in fact attempt to contact Kent to request proof. Why he was not removed after this failed is a valid question tbh gg
Yes you need some proof or else we're gonna have the goose/karl types of just getting whoever they wanted removed just b/c they felt like it and could get away with it which those types of people totally would do.
In this particular instance it's not likely to matter, it seems he's certainly moved on at this point and he only has a handful of times that will hold up for awhile.
Wow this was from long ago. Andrew Kent joined our community around 1999 if i remember correctly. Then by around turn of the millenium he was claiming very fast times way too fast on PAL SMK, some were WRs and the rest were near WRs. At this time we decided to question him thoroughly as we suspected something was not right. After lots of digging he came clean to us and admitted that he was writing false times to us because he wanted to have WRs etc.
So we removed him from the site. However after this he wanted to create a VHS tape to prove his actual level. At this time we didn't have video cameras and things, players were sending photos (which werent a good proof option anyway) but some of us on SMK and MK64 made VHS tapes or met up. So he created this and posted it to me all the way from Australia. His actual level was a lot lower as expected, but he was still a good driver.
So after discussion of his VHS tape (which I was surprised he even made the effort to do) and his promises, we decided to give him one last chance and that was it. But from here we kept a close eye.
He started sending PRs again over the next weeks / month or two, not very fast ones but he sent photos in from there. We then had a look at the photos and noticed he was doing something to them in photoshop to claim faster times again. While they were not even fast claims on this second occasion, he was still proven to fake times. Was he trying to gradually cheat maybe to see if we notice it? So we confronted him on this. He was backed into a corner at this point. He said something like "ok fine, you caught me, i cheated again, just remove my times"
So we deleted them for good and banned him. We never heard a word from him again ever since, and that was around 18 years ago.
So yeah, this proves that Andrew Kent used to be a compulsive liar, and that he didn't hesitate to falsify evidence.
Ok so what's the vendetta against this one guy that people are stalking his online and personal history?
There's clearly something people aren't saying here
This is becoming rather creepy.
Instead of all this. Why not this
Any time that doesn't have video proof for say 6 months or something is automatically deleted.
You can set that up on the site to be done by code, without any manual review.
Surely if youre this serious about it. 6 months with no proof is grounds to remove it.
What smells odd is the need to do this soo publicly, surely this is easily settled in private
Shadow, I don't believe that we can call Andrew Kent's presence on the rankings historical at all, as he never once posted a time with any means of proof.
Shadow, I don't believe that we can call Andrew Kent's presence on the rankings historical at all, as he never once posted a time with any means of proof.
Which is also true of what, hundreds of others? I see these hunts pop up every few years when new people join. Will this finally be the last one or when does it stop? I personally just don't think it's worth the effort.
*cough*
I think it worth pointing out that there's more than one proven "compulsive liar" still in The Elite, who were warned and allowed to stay. I'll be the first to say that this doesn't help Mr Kent, but it's not quite proof he cheated everywhere, especially 10+ years after this event. There's at least one member on this site that I know cheated on other games' leaderboards, yet I'm not trying to get him banned everywhere because I simply can't know whether he cheated everywhere or not.
*cough*
I think it worth pointing out that there's more than one proven "compulsive liar" still in The Elite, who were warned and allowed to stay. I'll be the first to say that this doesn't help Mr Kent, but it's not quite proof he cheated everywhere, especially 10+ years after this event. There's at least one member on this site that I know cheated on other games' leaderboards, yet I'm not trying to get him banned everywhere because I simply can't know whether he cheated everywhere or not.
May I just point all out of the incorrect presuppositions and false equivalencies.
1. Who was a compulsive liar in The Elite that has unproven times on the ranks? Those who lied were not only warned but required to provide proof.
2. Who is saying that he cheated? This is not how proof works on the rankings. If you fail to provide proof that you got a time it doesn't mean you cheated. It just means that your time may be backrolled or removed from the ranks due to insufficient evidence.
3. Generally as time goes by people/communities get more experience and wisdom. This newly found wisdom often causes older decisions to be overturned. The fact that this is happening quite a long time after the fact only serves to strengthen the decision, as it has been one that has been talked about/thought about/discussed for such a long time.
4. No one is suggesting that Kent be banned. Who said that? He would be removed due to insufficient evidence. If at any time he provides evidence his times would be reinstated.
Goose wrote out an entire post explaining the behaviour of Kent and why his times are being scrutinised. Please do not strawman others by claiming that we 'think he cheated so we want to ban him'. A completely false accusation that both ignores and attempts to belittle the case presented.
And to response to Falzy.. being removed due to insufficient proof or failing to respond to a proof call is not a 'public execution'. You are treating this as some extremely harsh punishment/witch hunt. Please understand that it is a privilege to be ranked in this community, it is not a right. You may be proof called for any time if your behaviour is suspicious or suspect. If you do not provide proof for your times you can rest assured you have absolutely no assurance that your times will remain on the rankings. There are plenty of unproven times that will remain on the ranks and are in no danger of being removed. If you are under the impression this is 'random' or that we need further policies then I would suggest rereading the OP and appreciating the case that was provided.
If you are going to deal with things publicly, there's a way to do it
singling people out or calling them out can look a bit bullish. There was an example of this with some guy maybe a month or 2 ago, as a very casual onlooker I thought it looked really unprofessional how it was handled
I just thought it seemed unfair is all
I think then if you do things like this you need to (ironically) do it like twin galaxies. The thread needs to be a succinct, formal challenge in the title . It should focus on the issue, not the individual. It most certainly shouldn't be posting a picture of the manWhile I'd like to agree, the person & his character are very important for coming a reasonable conclusion.
The first 2 paragraphs if this challenge are the problem. They're unnecessary and seem rather to sully the guys reputation
You might not like what i have to say, but it is a problem I've seen before. Judge the record, not the person
1. Who was a compulsive liar in The Elite that has unproven times on the ranks? Those who lied were not only warned but required to provide proof.
2. Who is saying that he cheated? This is not how proof works on the rankings. If you fail to provide proof that you got a time it doesn't mean you cheated. It just means that your time may be backrolled or removed from the ranks due to insufficient evidence.
3. Generally as time goes by people/communities get more experience and wisdom. This newly found wisdom often causes older decisions to be overturned. The fact that this is happening quite a long time after the fact only serves to strengthen the decision, as it has been one that has been talked about/thought about/discussed for such a long time.
4. No one is suggesting that Kent be banned. Who said that? He would be removed due to insufficient evidence. If at any time he provides evidence his times would be reinstated.
Goose wrote out an entire post explaining the behaviour of Kent and why his times are being scrutinised. Please do not strawman others by claiming that we 'think he cheated so we want to ban him'. A completely false accusation that both ignores and attempts to belittle the case presented.
I sincerely worry for anyone who does not think character and behaviour is important when deciding the trustworthiness of a person. Both in this context and in their personal lives.
Well first of all he isn't cheating he's just flat out lieing...He's obviously lieing in this case, no doubt about it...
"it hasn't been proven that he lied."
Dude that's not how it works.
"I won the 2007 Canadian National Championships in Orienteering and almost successfully petitioned for it to become an Olympic sport at the 2012 Games!"
Can you prove I lied, Shadow?
What Goose is saying the burden of proof is upon you if you make the claim. If I say there is a video of my Pelagic II 1:37 being played on repeat 24/7 to aliens on Mars who are fapping to it, you do not have to prove it is false. I have to prove it is true."it hasn't been proven that he lied."
Dude that's not how it works.
"I won the 2007 Canadian National Championships in Orienteering and almost successfully petitioned for it to become an Olympic sport at the 2012 Games!"
Can you prove I lied, Shadow?
http://www.orienteering.ca/events/canadian-champions/
said player has no relevant times.
For a person who NEVER put a single video up as proof of his skill or any of his submitted times, you can't say he didn't care enough about the GAME. He was *LAZY* about recording his times, OR he lied. One or the other, or a mix of both.
I would GLADY bring about a topic like this one for any such cases similar to Andrew Kent if it means ensuring the integrity of the rankings. It's that simple.
looking back at a time that was backrolled in 2015 because of no video (defection SA 39), no offense but if you were too lazy to just buy a capture card which does not cost much at all (still probably didn't cost much in 2015) then that is just pathetic
"it hasn't been proven that he lied."
Dude that's not how it works.
"I won the 2007 Canadian National Championships in Orienteering and almost successfully petitioned for it to become an Olympic sport at the 2012 Games!"
Can you prove I lied, Shadow?
http://www.orienteering.ca/events/canadian-champions/
"it hasn't been proven that he lied."
Dude that's not how it works.
"I won the 2007 Canadian National Championships in Orienteering and almost successfully petitioned for it to become an Olympic sport at the 2012 Games!"
Can you prove I lied, Shadow?
http://www.orienteering.ca/events/canadian-champions/
Yeah, this list is incorrect because I actually won, but a competitor whose father worked for Orienteering Canada faked a urine sample so I was unfairly and corruptly banned.
Can you prove I'm lying?
Ok fine.
I got all the WRs in Mario Kart 64 in 1999, but never posted them because I was 10 years old and didn't really know how to use the internet very well. They're no longer the WRs, but I would like them to go up on the rankings and for Mario Kart history to recognize the time I had 32/32 WRs in the game.
Prove I'm lying.
"it hasn't been proven that he lied."
Dude that's not how it works.
Shadow and friends, could you please live out your urge of discussing rigorous application of law principles elsewhere and not bother people with it who just want to get rid of (beyond reasonable doubt) clear bullshit on the rankings?
I got 60 times in Goldeneye back in 2002, and kept updating my times page to keep me in the Top 50 just as I was about to fall out of it. I kept doing this for about 10 years solid... every time I was just about to fall out of the Top 50, I'd play a little bit, get 4-5 PRs which were usually worth around 40 or 50 or 60 points, and post those to stay inside the Top 50.
I also happened to retire at the exact same moment (exact moment btw, in a 10+ year period) when my timespage was locked by proof moderators at their own discretion. In fact, I don't even know that my timespage is locked because I retired and I haven't tried updating my timespage since then (even though I did it consistently for the 10+ years before that.) ((and not only that, but I didn't have any contact with the community since about 2005, so when I "moved on" it was just moving on from the game, and not the community, which I had already moved on from years before.)) ((I mean how random is that? Lol happening to retire at the exact same moment my timespage got frozen, without even knowing it's frozen, without ever contacting anyone in the community at all for the 7 or 8 years leading up to this moment.))
Oh also I have no proof of any of this. It's YOUR job to prove I am lying!!!!
C) Remove all times without videos across the board, and being logical.Removing the history which is part of what makes the elite such a unique community is not the logical step. There's a clear difference between an unproven Sterling time from 2000 & Kent's behavior, and the idea that both should be removed entirely is nonsensical. Obviously there is no perfect way to deal with these situations, but dealing with them on a case by case basis is the most fair answer to past, present, and future competitors.
C) Remove all times without videos across the board, and being logical.Removing the history which is part of what makes the elite such a unique community is not the logical step. There's a clear difference between an unproven Sterling time from 2000 & Kent's behavior, and the idea that both should be removed entirely is nonsensical. Obviously there is no perfect way to deal with these situations, but dealing with them on a case by case basis is the most fair answer to past, present, and future competitors.
[...]or players who passed the proof calling back in the day, such as Glen Stevens.
I'll make a script that goes through everyone's times-page and exposes all the corrupt, Andrew-Kenters.
... Remember Goose, double jeopardy exists in Canada as well! ...
... B) Single them out because of circumstances he isn't available to defend and, you know, double jeopardy, setting a bad precedent for anyone who wants to participate going forward ...
Thing is that we can't just disregard the early players because they may not play anymore. People like Sterling created a lot of the strats that we use today, and devaluing their times simply because capturing amd sharing gameplay was much more difficult 20 years ago would be blatantly disrespectful to the very people who built this community & the people who value the historical integrity of the rankings.
As for the rankings, what would they look like if all the times worth points without vids were removed? I'm talking even 1 point times also.
If the dinos and special cases (those who had proof, was checked yet no vid exists now) were to have some asterix next to their name on the ranks it would ease the tempers some what I feel.
If it were possible to have a fully proofed ranks link that people could click just to get that pure proof pizaz, every name and time in it's proper place based on vid proof. Yet the problem maybe deciding whether an ancient vid with grainy quality or webcam should be given a pass simply because its proof, even though its not viewer friendly?
You could have the ranks as follows;
Ranks as they are now...with some symbol next to Dinos and special cases.
Ranks with proof only...Rutzou vision enabled
Ranks with proof only...proof policy vid quality enabled.
As for Andrew Kent, the outcome doesn't really matter, but can someone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't remove Keefer from the PD ranks as well? He's ranked higher and hasn't any videos either.I'll make a script that goes through everyone's times-page and exposes all the corrupt, Andrew-Kenters.
You might as well start here (https://rankings.the-elite.net/~SupaOdin/goldeneye) - The Andrew Kent of (former) Top Players and an absolute disgrace to all the other, hard working players ranked inside the Goldeneye Top 50.
Then again, as someone with a similarly "disgraceful" proof record to Glen Stevens I should probably steer clear of this convo :kappa:well I better stay out too :kappa:
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've brought this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've brought this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
I might be confused on how frozen pages work here but his LTK times are still on the leaderboards. 99 points iirc
While we're on the subject of dubious players https://rankings.the-elite.net/~HowlingLoneWolf/goldeneye
I've brought this up loads of times and people just say "oh yeah that's the guy who posted tons of fake times"
And yet, the account remains ranked. Why?
I might be confused on how frozen pages work here but his LTK times are still on the leaderboards. 99 points iirc
Fixed. Thank you!!!
I don't feel comfortable changing/removing the times at my own discretion, especially given how old these times apparently are.
Bert, that may not be true.
If you look at records by FHR, MrYu, and Ron Klijn, all top, proven players (took Ron 15 years but he did prove it!), the increments for 1080 are a bit more advanced. Ron Klijn already explained this, but I want this clarified here too.
You had me convinced at first though! Nice attention to detail.