As new situations arise then we need to use the criteria but the situation may actually require further development. The point is that we evaluate scores for acceptance and the criteria helps us assess these situations. I had mentioned this in a facebook discussion: "The criteria was created to help keep the list honest and to keep us accountable. I think you've been doing a pretty good job so far in trying to accomadate the various situations that come up - just remember that people just want to know what scores happened - if it happened, it should go on the list.
Donkeykong high score full#
You could consider tagging each score with different categories of verification such as Full Verification, Limited Verification, Claim, Rumor, etc to differentiate between the questionable and the ironclad scores, but going too far in the other direction will turn out to be a mistake IMO.
To me, a good rule of thumb is if a score happened and the person wants their score on the High Score list, then it should go on the High Score List. "Oh really? Jeez, that makes a half dozen or so really high scores that aren't on the High Score List because they were "rejected" - it's almost like we need to make another list to keep track of the actual high scores. You'll start getting Twitch chat conversations and DKF threads pop up all over the place where people are saying stuff like "yeah he's really good, remember his PR is REALLY this - it just doesn't show up like that in the High Score List because the day he made that score this happened or that happened - but we were all watching and he obviously did that score". If you start going down the road of "rejecting" scores that obviously happened, then the list starts becoming a list of people who were able to follow the rules as opposed to a list of high scores (which is pretty much one of the major problems with those other guys' lists). From what I can tell, that's what the community wants. Just my two cents - try to avoid having this whole thing stray too far in the direction of "verification requirements" and make sure that you are maintaining a list of high scores. Quote from: up2ng on July 05, 2013, 02:05:07 am Great job with this project Corey. And in all fairness, I have to avoid favoritism or double standards. But protecting the list against falsification also keeps it relevant.
I don't want to reject anything if I don't have to, that is why I work very hard to keep the list relevant by including real scores. The clarifications and the distinctions between different streaming formats was good development even if it has upset a few who may not understand or appreciate the subtleties involved. I think that the way the list presently functions has worked very well, and I intend to maintain the integrity of the list. I am not certain that everyone has read everything that I have written through out the development of the criteria and most of my defense of it is contained in those posts. If a new format can be found I would like to find a way to pull those posts out so that they can be found or pinned jut underneath the HSL post that I edit. I have spoken concerning levels of certainty, accountability, etc. This is an evidenced-based list so claimed scores or rumors will be excluded. But as for the purpose of this list, and the kind of list I understood people wanted to have, I have written many lengthy posts explaining and defending where it stands on the spectrum. I have thought about making a section under the HSL for limited verification.
0 kommentar(er)
