Is it finally time to REMOVE Andrew Kent from the Elite Rankings?

[falzy211]

There is something called the "burden of proof". It says in an argument the person making the claim has the burden to prove it. Once they give evidence, the burden of proof passes onto the other side who have the burden to disprove the evidence.
The burden of proof is clearly on Andrew Kent as he's never proven his times. IF HE HAD VIDEO the burden would be on the elite to find something wrong with it.
Clearly they should delete the times Despite being made under old rules it's not like when an account has grainy video. There the burden of proof is on you. But here it's still on him


My gripe is sort how this has become him as a person an "old boy" etc.

[Icy]

Only remove Kent, don't nuke the whole rankings from the early days, please and thank you.

[vitorr]

I don't know if it was directed to me, but I'm exposing Denis' case here because it looks very similar to Andrew Kent's one, if not worse. In fact he was banned from a known GE/PD community, admitted lying, never provided any video proof and disappeared after we proof called him. He's not the regular "old player with unproven times" (like Keefer may be like, I think). And he's currently top 100 in GE time rankings. Of course it's up to you (aka the council) to decide on this. But IMO, it's wrong and dumb to ignore this (and other cases too) just because we're discussing the situation of one specific player. And at the same time is obviously wrong to just proof call everyone from early 2000s as the rankings, access to capture technology and even the community itself were different back then.

Then again, as someone with a similarly "disgraceful" proof record to Glen Stevens I should probably steer clear of this convo 

well I better stay out too

[Icy]

The issue with that is it's easy to target and remove someone who isn't able to defend themselves anymore. I'm not saying you're lying, but someone else could just as easily say "I remember player X saying he totally cheated, let's remove him too". Andrew Kent has been well-known for never proving anything, PRing on complex levels 1s at a time repeatedly, staying just within top 50 for years, and ignored everyone telling him to provide proper proof while he was active.

Proof standards change over time, and only in exceptional cases should grandfathered times be removed (such as Expert's War 0:54). I'd personally like to keep all my PRs going into the 2020s when the proof policy then requires controller inputs, streamed PRs, webcam, TV cam, 4K quality, 120FPS, etc.

[AZ]

Yeah Shane, Aztec 00A 1:52 was a 97-pointer when set, but was never proven. It appears some individuals are above the law here in the-elite...despite them trolling the ranks with Aztec 00A 1:45, climbing like 25 ranks in less than a week, behaving like a compulsive liar and creating a fake account with Archives 16 etc. Sketchy for sure.

I am not doubting his skill either, but video proof of the majority of his claimed PRs were never submitted. Simple as that. Looking back at old proof calls, you'll notice that Statue 00A 219 and Aztec 00A 1:52 (both 97-pointers) were never even proof called in the first place (a huge oversight), and this is partly because you could update your own times page on geocities back in the day and hope that the guy who ran the updates (octo/YE) and/or the community at large didn't notice you posting times on the rankings without sharing a video.

Funky Buddha, you were never a highly ranked Top 10 GE player like Stevens (you always had your share of 0 pointers - like Control for instance - but provided proof for more or less all your strong PRs), and especially not in the 2006-09 era where everyone but the players that were "above the law" i.e. Glen Stevens were proof called, so I wouldn't call your proof record disgraceful but pretty average.

[dugg]

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

[deletedprofile.u]

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!!!

[dugg]

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!!!

*EDIT*
Mark Briggs' LTK page is mostly fake news.  For the sake of being brief and avoiding lengthy edits I am summing it up by saying his times and videos don't match.
If a proof moderator requires me to elaborate then I can.

[AZ]

Mark submitted a lot of LTK times on the ranks but with video links to his former PRs rather than to the actual (claimed) PRs. The reason? He probably never recorded the claimed current PRs and thought it a good idea to have some sort of proof by linking to former PR videos. On his Timespage, Player's comments would probably be better suited than video icons.

[mw]

Thank you so much for finding this sort of stuff dugg. I'll be messaging Flicker about it but I don't feel comfortable changing/removing the times at my own discretion, especially given how old these times apparently are. Plenty of super old players don't have any videos at all, particularly in PD, and we aren't going to remove those guys any time soon. I don't know much about Mark though.

[dugg]

I don't feel comfortable changing/removing the times at my own discretion, especially given how old these times apparently are.

Rightfully so too.  After reading what Ax had to say I now feel like a dumbass.  lol sorry fellas

[Bert86]

I have some evidence that Andrew Kent is a liar who faked times. On the old N64HS page there is a ranking for 1080 snowboarding, on Crystal lake he claimed a time of 1'02"64 which is an impossible time, you can only have a 1'02"60, a '66 or '63 because of the way the times are incremented in the game. I know this is not Goldeneye, but it is evidence against his credibility

Here is a list of the ranking page from 2007 http://n64hs.speedrunwiki.com/1080.html

[RWG]

Dude, the timing of this information is incredible.  Thank you!

So presumably Justin Nazaroff's claim of 1;02'64 is also a fake?

[Bert86]

Absolutely, it's a time not possible in any version of the game.

[Retrix]

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.

[poonjahbee]

I was actually thinking of making a topic in the PD thread about this but I guess I'll just post it here in the meantime; but isn't it time we removed Henning from the PD ranks as well. I'm kinda not liking how we treat PD as some kind of sub division to GE nor do I like how its seems to be a thing to relegate proven lairs or cheaters to the PD rankings and or PD ltk rankings. If they are to be banished from the Goldeneye rankings forever then the same thing should apply to the Perfect Dark rankings no exceptions. Goldeneye may be the much more popular game but doesn't mean the integrity of the Perfect Dark ranks needs to take a stiff second place to the integrity of the Goldeneye ranks. Just saying come on people....

[Wuldntuliktono]

Faking a time on PD with the timer on in the left corner while not impossible would be quite the undertaking. With GE you just need one splice, with PD you have to make a splice every frame and the end screen. Its been brought up before to ban henning from PD but it was decided against. Plus he actually submitted some new times after he was banned on GE.

[Bert86]

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.

I'm not sure who FHR is but Yu and Ron Klijn have both been able to provide videos of their runs and none of the times they have claimed have been impossible to achieve with the in game timer. I am very confident about what times are possible in the game and a 1'02"64 is not one of those times, unless there is something you know about the game that we do not?

It would be great if you could join the 1080 discord so we can discuss it more.  https://discord.gg/bRNCZMu

[mw]

@Punjab,

When I became proof moderator for Perfect Dark, one of the first things I decided to do was inform myself about Henning’s continued presence on the PD ranks, and if I felt he no longer deserved to Ben on there, I planned to make a thread asking for the community’s thoughts.

 To start, I asked a few of who I considered as the most level-headed prominent PD players that I had already regularly conversed with, namely Boss and Icy. To my surprise, neither seemed outright supportive of removing Henning. I then looked through a few of the threads from the time, which I’d be willing to dig up for you later, where people such as Ace, Karl, and Axel (who I believe was PD proof mod at the time) gave their support for Henning remaining on PD.

After reading the arguments from the time, I became inclined to agree that Henning should remain on the PD ranks as it stands. If anything, I sincerely believe that every time on his page (or at least every one with a video) is real, and I have viewed them all. I also believe in a way that because GE and PD are different games with different moderators, removal from one game should not necessarily constitute removal from the other.

[SimThreat]

Henning being on the PD ranks is an injustice. Whomever made the decision at the time made the incorrect choice and allowed him to remain.

Removing him now though would be an even bigger injustice because Henning has since put time into the game, and he shouldnt have to pay for someone elses mistake and have that time be for nothing.

[RWG]

The incompetence of Ngamer and Comeasur (who has deleted his entire being from the internet, he's gotten so BTFO finally), will forever be a stain on the-elite rankings.

[Watertemplefiend]

Gonna say the same thing that I send in the SZ thread: if there is proof then no worries. However, if people want to see proof then there is nothing wrong with that, especially with a player that has a long history with posting times. I can understand the argument that he may not want to be very visible in the public eye, however, if it is a requirement for alot of newer players to prove there times and there is a old boy with never proven time it Surely diminishes the achievement of newer players. The boards maintained here are the best in the speedrunning community and we all have a part to play in ensuring they are kept to the highest quality.

As the boards grow, more players run and the availability of capture devices become easily available requiring proof should be a no brainer. Personally I think times above 10 points should be captured, any above 60 need to be verified. Imo though!

Just because "knowledge" at one point in time was seen to be gospel, does not mean in the future it will still be true. If that was the case then the earth is flat and I got Dam 51 years ago... trust me.

Sorry for the ramble but there need to be consistency with our record keeping, and adjustments need to be made over time. Much love <3<3

[poonjahbee]

Ya upon further review of the facts I guess I have no problems with henning remaining on the pd ranks. If all his pd times are legit then so be it. Like karl said it would be an injustice to remove him now anyway.

[Retrix]

In light of recent data, Kent lied. Also what I posted above was based on incomplete data.
Holding out on SZ til I'm convinced.