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

[falzy211]

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

[deletedprofile.u]

Settling speedrunning competition things publicly is beneficial to the community at large. Not only do we make examples of people who don't follow basic rules, but things aren't kept secret, making upper management/administration that much more transparent.

6 months is arbitrary. We have a proof policy that says 1 month. All other times have been grandfathered in from previous time periods. We do things on a case-by-case basis here and Andrew Kent is a special exception to many rules we've had in place. This is why a public thread has been made to evacuate this issue.

[flukey lukey]

bin it

[Huzi]

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

????
Proof mods remove significant times (60+ points) without a video within 1 month. Also, Andrew Kents times are old, and the rules were different back then. You can't just use the current proof-policy or make up new rules and use it as a reason to delete peoples past submitted times.

[falzy211]

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

[Shadow]

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.

[deletedprofile.u]

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.

It's worth the effort if it dwindles down the inaccuracies in the rankings, would you not agree? These "hunts" are fortuitous. The community finding these instances are a good thing, so we can either make them own up to their indiscretions or take them out completely. Win-Win.

[SimThreat]

*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.

[AEB]

There should be zero controversy removing him since there are a bunch of good reasons listed to do so, clearly not just a "witch hunt".

[deletedprofile.u]

*cough*
I think it worth pointing out that there's more than one proven "compulsive liar" still in The Elite, who were warned and allowed to stay. I'll be the first to say that this doesn't help Mr Kent, but it's not quite proof he cheated everywhere, especially 10+ years after this event. There's at least one member on this site that I know cheated on other games' leaderboards, yet I'm not trying to get him banned everywhere because I simply can't know whether he cheated everywhere or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truly excellent post from Ace. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[mw]

*Karl

[Lima]

If you are going to deal with things publicly, there's a way to do it

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

I just thought it seemed unfair is all

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

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

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

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

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

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

[poonjahbee]

I think an even bigger dilemma than his ge times are his pd times. Way too cooked to never have proved any of those times when he claimed them, let alone how they are holding up today. Imo he's obviously lieing and should be removed from both ge and pd. I find it fairly unbelievable he was allowed to claim these times without ever being forced to submit a video of said times. I needed proof for less quality times than these back in the day and so should he. So I say no proof then you gotta go. Plain and simple

[falzy211]

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 man

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

[Slugg Christ]

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 man

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

While I'd like to agree, the person & his character are very important for coming a reasonable conclusion.
It certainly changes things when it is uncovered that this player has been caught cheating twice in another game during the same period of time.

[SimThreat]

A person's behaviour and character are extremely important when you are allowing times without proof. If his times were proven, then yes, you'd need solid evidence to suggest why his times were false. However, given that he never produced any evidence for his times all we have to go on is his elite history, gaming history in general, and behaviour.

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.

[Shadow]

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.

Karl, please don't make equivalencies where I didn't. The point in that particular statement was in response to the inference "he lied on other games, therefore it's likely he lied here". True, but not proof. That's what I said.

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.

"Cheat: verb. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination."
So...lots of people are saying that here. This type of equivocation is beneath you.

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.

I don't have a problem with that, but there is often a very clear display of ignorance too from those asked to support the decision. People like Goose and yourself have been around long enough to know the historical factors, but many of the people you're persuading do not. Lay the pros and cons out clearly is all I ask.

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.

Um...where did I say this exactly? Got any other criticisms of things I didn't say? :/
Nevertheless, that has been repeatedly implied in this thread.

Please don't leave out the portion where I state that I really don't care one way or the other. I just think this entire conversation has been very one-sided and until you list the DOWNSIDES of this decision, then I don't believe you've fully thought out the problem. Very few things in life are "win-win", as Alec seems to think this is.

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.

Is anyone saying it's not important? Not to my knowledge. All I'm asking is that both sides are considered. That the ramifications are considered. That the precedence is considered. Only a fully informed opinion is healthy here. And once again: I don't care what the result is and I don't think it's even worth the effort. If I've made that clear and you stop mischaracterizing my statements, then I'm done.

[SimThreat]

I can go and quote where you said ‘i know a guy who cheated in another community but im not trying to ban him.’ I told you that this is not a ban, just a removal until evidence is provided. Specifically for the reason that there is no proof vids to analyse, no crazy impossible claimed times to find. No evidence of cheating so it is not a ban. But there is suspicious behavior. He was contacted for a proof call which he ignored. His page was frozen which he did not respond to. He has cheated multiple times in another game.

You and other people suggest that proof of cheating is required to proof call times and have them removed due to lack of proof. This is not how the proof system works. It had explained many times but you keep ignoring that fact and saying things that dont make logical sense.

I can go theough your post outlining why some of it doesnt make sense. But as you stated you dont care. It comes across loud and clear. You even said in another post something to the extent of ‘the rankings can never be perfect’. I read that as saying ‘you can make it perfect so dont bother trying’.

I could go to effort of pointing out someone did say to ignore his character and only look at the times. But again because you cant go 2 paragraphs without mentioning you dont care i wont bother.

If you dont care thats cool, but your opinion means nothing. You dont think this is worth the effort? So why did you post.

If you do respond, i would love for you to reconfirm to me how much you dont care. Because that is really useful here.

And as a final note. I DO care. I care about the integrity of the rankings. The effort of cleaning them up is worth it for me. And i couldnt give 2 shits about the opinion of someone who doesnt care and feels the need to mention that to me or anyone else in this community. I was only pointing out your incorrect assessments of what was happening. To help others that actually do care form a more accurate idea about what is happening.

[Shadow]

Karl, nearly everything you wrote is a complete mischaracterization of what I've written. Yet again. Why? And why resort to sarcasm and ridicule instead of logic and courtesy?

I did say in my very first post that I thought it was indeed a good idea to freeze his times page. Done. But if it starts getting to the point where any old time can be proof-called (say a player from 15 years ago) and that player either can't be contacted or can't be bothered to replay to prove those times, to just remove them? Isn't it worth worrying that this precedent could be set? It's awfully close to what many new players clamor for every few years.

Until people can start listing both the pros and cons, they haven't shown that they've fully considered this. So far I haven't seen you even willing to consider any downsides, and that concerns me. What do you think the downsides are, Karl?

And to be clear, I don't care about the outcome. I DO care about the method, motive, ramifications, precedence, etc. As I have every time this sort of thing has come up for the last 10+ years.

[Grav]

note this is actually just for removal not actually banning, but yea

[poonjahbee]

Well first of all he isn't cheating he's just flat out lieing. There is a difference. And second of all Karls point is right on the mark. This man needs to prove his validity or be removed until he does. He's obviously lieing in this case, no doubt about it and he is taking away from hard working players and the integrity of this community.He needs to be removed until he can prove a handful of his times just like I've had to and many other players have had to. The end

[Shadow]

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...

First, no, it hasn't been proven that he lied. Otherwise this would be a vastly different case.

Second, would you care to enlighten me on the apparently important distinction between "cheating" and "lying to get ahead in the rankings"? I'm pretty sure it's been used interchangeably throughout this thread by many people and I'm hard pressed to see why that's a problem.

Third, one of the primary pitfalls here is applying a proof standard retroactively to the past. If we did that unilaterally, then most of the people on the rankings would probably disappear. Expectations and availability of proof were far different back then. If there is reasonable suspicion to single an individual out on a case-by-case basis and freeze his times page, that's one thing. And perhaps it's even reasonable to remove a person entirely if it seems likely he cheated (excuse me, "lied"). But without proof, we better think long and hard about it first.

Note, I'm not opposed to removing/banning him (apparently I'm not the only one who has been thinking of those interchangeably in this case!). Yet I am opposed to doing it without thoughtful and careful deliberation, lest this become an oft-repeated situation.

[RWG]

"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?

[Reverv]

"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/

[ERayzz]

I never really posted here, even though I read the forum a lot, but I wanted to give some other perspective, since what I do is similar to Andrew Kent, except that I don't have a wiki page.

I haven't read the whole thread, only the first few posts. So there might be a lot I'm missing lol.

I've been on the Perfect Dark rankings since June 2006 or so. Nearly reached top 30 (peaked 34th) in points ranking at one point, without a single video (that was back when the proof policy was much too laxist).
 
Since that time, I kept checking the rankings and played whenever a new strat was discovered (e.g. P2 warp, MBR Cass warp), or when I felt I was losing too many ranks and wanted to stay in top 50. Or I would sometimes gain motivation to try and get better, but I never was really talented, nor patient enough to get top tier times.

The reason I never posted any video is simply because I never bothered to buy the hardware solely for this. I loved speedrunning the two games, but never took it seriously enough to buy external hardware and spend time setting it up just to prove I achieved some sub-par times. I never expected any of my times to require proof.

Now that all 60+ pointers require proof, I stopped played since I'd need to record most of my gameplay, which I'm too lazy to bother with.

So that's what I did for most of my not so "career" in GE/PD, was just to try my best and beat my PRs, and if by any chance, my times would require a video proof, then I'd just ignore the monthly proof call and let my times get backrolled then never play the level again lol. (Such as 1:20 Crash A, 0:50 P2 A, and some others in MBR I don't remember on top of my head right now)

Why I post this is because maybe Andrew Kent just never cared enough about the game to record his PRs. Doesn't mean he cheated or faked his times in any means, that would be drawing hasty conclusions. By this logic, you guys should also remove me from the PD rankings. And even remove anyone who has 0 video proof.

EDIT:
I stopped being lazy and read the thread, removed stuff from my reply which doesn't matter.

[DYM]

"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/

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.

In the same way, the burden of proof is upon Kent for making a claim that he achieved those records. Not us for proving he did NOT get them.

For further information please enroll in the SAHPC.

[deletedprofile.u]

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.

These times over 60 points have degraded since he got them, too.

These aren't "witch hunts", which both Ace and Karl have explained VERY reasonably, and to which you may not have read (as you said, you didn't read all the posts, I suggest you do).

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.

[Alka Maass]

it's pretty shocking that Andrew Kent, who had been playing since at least 2001 has not posted a single video at all, not even a crappy webcam video, NOTHING

"Now that all 60+ pointers require proof, I stopped played since I'd need to record most of my gameplay, which I'm too lazy to bother with."

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

[ERayzz]

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.

Well, for the record, I posted a video for my Depot A 0:26 back when I achieved it. It was recorded on a handheld camera, since at that time I knew that if I managed to achieve that time, it would require proof. I removed that video from my Youtube account a few weeks ago though.

Actually, one of the reasons I never acquired any sort of recording hardware is because I never thought I'd ever achieve a proof-worthy PR. But the proof policy got stricter, and obviously for the better, especially since speedrunning gained a lot of popularity.

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.

Please do, consistency would be best for the rankings, even if that means removing most of the older irrelevant players like me that mostly have no vids lol. Look at my timespage, plenty of unproven 60+ pointers :/

As it is, is there any other speedrunning website that allows posting without video proof? Or is it unique to the-elite because it is one of the oldest speedrunning communities online and still handles some of its stuff in an archaic way?

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

Yeah well, I wouldn't say "pathetic", but I see what you mean. It's kinda inconsistent on my part to just post a time, knowing it would require proof without having said proof and then say I didn't care enough to record it. Also, as an excuse, 2015 was back when I was still a poor student. I don't think I could have afford it at that time anyway (yeah I was that poor then lol). Don't know if that makes sense...

I was just crossing my fingers that it wouldn't require proof, since that time meant a lot less since there was a new strat, 39 is very very slow considering I used the glass warp lol. That said, I'm totally fine with having this time backrolled (as well as the others I mentionned earlier).

[DYM]

I'll make a script that goes through everyone's times-page and exposes all the corrupt, Andrew-Kenters.

[RWG]

"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?

[Reverv]

"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?

I was going to reply to Ace's reply but since you made the same exact argument using the same exact hyperbole, this response works for both:

An ironically famous man considering the context once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Yes, the claims you and Ace made of Aliens looping his runs are extraordinary claims and the burden of proof would have to be equally as extraordinary. But isn't that kind of comparing apples to... lizardmen conspiracies? Or do you think this dude's time claims are equally as extraordinary as your scenarios (serious question)?

I really don't have an opinion on this thing, I'm just here for the dumpster fire, but if we're throwing out ridiculous scenarios, I'll play along. Imagine if 15-20 years from now the capability to be in another person's living room via some advanced VR i. e. some Black Mirror tech exists and that becomes the new norm for proving times. After all, uploading a digital only version of a clip that could so easily be doctored would be so ungodly archaic at that point, in fact even looked at as being entirely unreliable. Would you care if every single one of your times and the times of top people now were wiped out because they couldn't be proven? Does it matter that you followed the proof policies of the time and should thus be grandfathered in, or should you have to re-prove your times?

[RWG]

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.

[Reverv]

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.

Did the governing body on MK64 times have a website in which you actively updated your times as it happened and a policy that didn't require physical evidence at the time of your records, as well as an archive that exists to this day to prove you claimed these times at the time you claimed them? If there was somehow that ridiculously absurd set of circumstances that could magically exist, you might not even need proof if the times you were claiming weren't extraordinary!

But you're right, I can't. Too bad the official website - http://www.mariokart64.com/ - only started cataloguing in 2009, and has required some form of proof - http://beckabney.com/mk64/rules.html - for its entire existence. If only every leaderboard was as well thought out.

Keep throwing out scenarios that slightly but not entirely relate to this one, you're getting closer to a decent argument.

[RWG]

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!!!!

[DYM]

How come people are voicing their concerns over the removal of Andrew Kent.. yet when the same thing happened to Austin Perroux just a couple of weeks ago no-one cared.

[OHMSS]

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?

[Shadow]

"it hasn't been proven that he lied."

Dude that's not how it works.

Goose, that quote you pulled was in direct reply (I even quoted it) to someone who stated "he's obviously lieing I this case, no doubt about it." Then you spun it like I'm saying that it has to be proven that he's lying first. I didn't and am not.

Why didn't you call out Punjabie on his blatant error? Or any of the other obvious errors put forth in this thread? Are misunderstandings and incorrect facts acceptable as long as they support the view you want? I want people to make an informed, rational decision, but sometimes the misconceptions that are met with silence make it seem like mob rule...

As to Alka calling people pathetic? Can you honestly think of no good reason someone would decide spending money on a capture card for a 20 year old game isn't worth it? I too pretty much stopped improving my times because I couldn't justify spending more time and money when the proof policy changed. That doesn't mean the policy is bad, but less activity from certain people is a side effect that was deemed acceptable when it was instated.

[Shadow]

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?

Just trying to remind folks of the null hypothesis, Gregor. 

[Reverv]

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!!!!

Sounds to me like the person in this scenario did literally everything by the books and within the confines of the rules. If you ask me, there should have been a comity in charge of proof at the time of the times submissions, and maybe some policy of proof to dictate what needs to be proven and how. Remember Goose, double jeopardy exists in Canada as well! So your choices are to:

A) Leave up this person's times because everything he did was allowed and "verified" at the time, setting a bad precedent for stopping cheaters
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
C) Remove all times without videos across the board, and being logical.

Also good job ignoring literally every one of my questions, opinions, and hypotheticals to keep trying to be louder. Great discussions.

[Slugg Christ]

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.

[Reverv]

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.

You're right, I worded that weirdly. I should have stuck with the theme and said

C) Remove all times without videos across the board, and set a bad precedent.

[Icy]

Grandfathering rule, etc. Times back in the stone age with no videos, and webcam/poor quality videos in the "middle era" are fine and understandable. Likewise with cases like Taka and Chuya nuking their Youtubes who once had proven all of their times, or players who passed the proof calling back in the day, such as Glen Stevens.

However, Andrew Kent is an exceptional to the rule because of having never proven anything ever, far enough into time where videos were required, and I think with the evidence presented, his times should be removed. His past cheating and lying doesn't help his case.

[Shadow]

Very rational and well said, Icy.

[AZ]

[...]or players who passed the proof calling back in the day, such as Glen Stevens.

His highly scored unproven times were never proof called. It's hard to look at the Statue rankings today without feeling disgust. Actually, it's hard to look at many level leaderboards (Aztec SA/00A, Dam SA/00A, Control SA/00A, Egypt A/SA/00A, Surface 1 00A, Silo 00A, Bunker 2 SA/00A, Jungle 00A) since the first player without a video often turns out to be Glen "No video available" Stevens.

Considering the extremely poor proof status for a former "Top 7 player" (he did only provide proof for 2/20 00A PRs etc), it's deeply appaling how for instance Statue 00A 2:19 (a 90-pointer in 2018) is still up after all these years without a video.

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 - The Andrew Kent of (former) Top Players and an absolute disgrace to all the other, hard working players ranked inside the Goldeneye Top 50.

[vitorr]

On the subject: https://rankings.the-elite.net/~Denis+Akel/goldeneye

Brazilian dude from dinosaurs era. I don't know how many of you about our history, but we used to have our own Brazilian rankings (which was pretty much like old rankings site), and many of us were in the main rankings too of course. But at some point we found out that Denis was lying about many of his times, e.g he'd fail a Chicago 16 and claim he completed it, AND he admitted it himself too. I don't remember correctly but I'm 99% sure we banned him. Some other dudes met him once in 2007 or so (not me) but there was no PD/GE in that meeting so we have never seen ANY kinda of proof or even casual gameplay from him. Talked to Nari and Napa about it and they confirmed the fake claims and that he admitted that he lied about many of his pd times (my memory isn't that good so double checked :P)

Sorry to bring this up here but didn't want to create another topic or whatever. I just remembered that we had this issue with Denis (and it was kinda shocking to see that he's top 100 in time ranks, didn't know about that).

EDIT: talked to Victor Lima (n64hs administrator after Nick harvey, former brazilian eliter too) and he also confirmed. Said something like: "He never really sent any proof even though we constantly asked him. One day he got full of us and admitted he lied about his times. He disappeared after that."

And on the Andrew Kent subject, but I'm 100% with removing him for all the reasons you guys already have said.

[Lima]

... 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 ...

You really should look up the definition of what "double jeopardy" is before using it twice to support your arguments... because it really makes your statements nonsensical...

[Saint Shang]

Ill add my 2 cents...when I got Aztec 00 1:53 back in June 2006 it was worth 97 points. Brandon said he'd like to see a video of it, either cos it was a good time or I was a low ranked player claiming big points on a hard level.
I saw this as a kind of proof call, so I promptly provided it. Glen Stevens was also playing Aztec around the same time, he tried to stream some runs to me on Aim or whatever it was back then. I saw it was Aztec he was playing... but the connection was dog turd. I recall him saying he had some failed agent runs that were like 1:33 and the like. So I'm seeing frozen images pop up and Glen periodically saying he got a failed time etc. I was suspicious because I was thinking he was getting so many glass openings in such a small time frame.

Not too long after my 1:53 he posted aztec 00 1:52. No proof was given, and it stayed up. Claiming me as a witness is not proof I will add. When he went on his rise up the ranks and got 00 1:44 or 1:45 i think, again no proof, so got his times backrolled....to 1:52.

They aren't worth 97 points now, so why the drama? Well as has been mentioned before, people put hours into the game and with proof can take pride in their times being ranked and viewed by others. When a time is accepted on the ranks that wasn't proved, it just opens a can of worms. Is it a genuine time? Did they put the hours in or simply claim it and hope it passes security? Would they argue their case if it was removed, or are others willing to step in and vouch for them?

So 24/60 have vids and some would argue that this covers the other 36 that dont have proof because he clearly was skilled and it wasnt a stretch of the imagination that he was capable of getting those times.

By that reasoning, it's like saying Ace can retire already because it's obvious that if he wanted to, he could get every WR. He doesn't need to prove it, he's already shown his skill, talent and proof before.

If some guy just popped up on the ranks, had the same exact times as Glen, with the same 24/60 proof, would his unproven times be removed and back rolled? What if he put his pr's in such a way that he still was able to claim points? Or would they be n/a until some proof on those levels was given? What reason is given when new player asks why Glens times aren't backrolled? (I'm simply using Glen as he's been mentioned )

If vids of someone's times no longer exist but did at one time, then it's gotta be reflected on the ranks I feel. When I look and see a high point time with no vid, I'm wondering why no vid? Is this a Dino or special case?

The one thing that gets under most people's skin imo is, times worth points that dont have vids. Of course the top tier ones stand out like a sore thumb. I bet up and down the rankings there are those who just to beat a rival, will post a time that nudges them above them without calling too much, if any attention to themselves. Yet no vid, maybe a comment like...going for better.

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.

[Slugg Christ]

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.

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.

[Funky_Buddha]

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 - The Andrew Kent of (former) Top Players and an absolute disgrace to all the other, hard working players ranked inside the Goldeneye Top 50.

Definitely not a good reason, because there are no good reasons without actual proof, but I'd vote no to a Keefer removal. I was in a rivalry with him, we chatted a lot, nice guy, he seemed legit. Then again, as someone with a similarly "disgraceful" proof record to Glen Stevens I should probably steer clear of this convo