Rayman Pirate-Community

@MandM: All you do is accuse, accuse, accuse and accuse. The core argument of your last two posts is that, in your opinion, we are all incapable of devising any combos, so we have to resort to glitches to improve our scores. This is the kind of disrespect that has been coming from you from the beginning of this discussion.

The following line is a perfect example for that:

MandM wrote:As for using skill to find glitches, well, if you mean it requires skill to lift glitches from a speedrunner video on YouTube, then I guess yes.

You are completely ignoring the facts (Cut finding a way to trigger the IPG on PC, which was deemed impossible by the speedrunning community and us finding a second IPG in TLOTLD and I don't even want to start about all the combos connected with the IPG in TOTL), in order to paint us as unskilled, uncreative glitch-abusers.

MandM wrote:Many players in RPC have asked about the glitches and they are eager to see if they can trigger these glitches. You blatantly ignore their requests.

We are not ignoring anyone's requests. We have stated very clearly that we will not discuss CF (and anything else unrelated like TOTL1, for that matter), before the issue of the IPG in the HoF is resolved because CF has nothing to do with the IPG and all discussing CF does is distract from the issue at hand, namely deciding whether the IPG should be in the HoF or not. However, we are indeed not following your demands, as you're completely ignoring our reasoning and explanations for why we are unwilling to discuss CF at this point.

Your constant demand that we reveal everything to you is beyond hypocritical, considering you have been keeping combos secret since 2008! That includes a glitch which you have kept secret, in the farce and mockery that Cut has alluded to in his last post (you have conveniently ignored this part of his post).

MandM81 wrote:1. Many players in RPC have asked about the glitches and they are eager to see if they can trigger these glitches. You blatantly ignore their requests.

Who are these many players? You, Xenon and Adsolution and I gave an explicit answer to it: I/we will talk about them after we found a consensus about the IPG. As for the triggering-queston, we have 3 platforms in our conference, the only one missing is Xbox and you're the only active Xbox-player. So when you talk about yourself, then please declare it so and do not hide behind "the community" as you say. The "glitches" we used work with 99,99% on Xbox too, this grain of uncertainity you will sustain.

MandM81 wrote:2. You want this forum to be open towards accepting glitches (the IPG and subsequently others) into the HoF, and yet you seem reluctant to show exactly what you want the members to accept.

"the members". The IPG is the only glitch ever we had a serious discussion about it's accpetance, rolesfamily's agreement was related to the publication of glitches used, nothing more. And before this becomes reality, there are many differences we have to leave behind us, don't you think so?

MandM81 wrote:3. I wanted to know if it is TSF policy that glitches in the R3 game are meant to be kept secret from other members.

"other members". The IPG was meant to be kept secret from you, I won't repeat why we came to this decision. Everything we found after the IPG was dicussed in our skype-conference, and the only difference between the conference and TSF is that the TSF is accessible by a public URL. We migrated our communication into a coterie, get along with it.

MandM81 wrote:1. What I can read from your post is, you still plan to ignore requests from members, while letting on that perhaps sometime in the future you will reveal some glitches. And I'm sure that depends on the outcome of the current discussions.

The outcome, well... The outcome should be completely clear as we are 6 (me, MountainGoat, sfn42, DTUCC, Sajiki and RibShark) against you, Xenon (who is even arguing for an own position) and Adsolution (whose reasons for just HAVING an opinion in this debate is still mysterious to me). The situation is clear, the community you love to mention every third sentence in your post AGREES to the IPG, but most likely you wouldn't even be satisfied if Vladimir Putin came to this forum and declared the IPG to be gay. We want the COMMUNITY to make a final decision about this debate, the only thing you are looking for is your own will. We have 5 votes for DTUCC's suggestions, if the communtiy feels so bad about the IPG then they have to vote but even YOU refused your chance. You are like a baby screaming for something it wants, unpleasable with nothing and then finally stops screaming for apparently no reason. Ah well no, you pretty sure never will stop screaming, bad comparison.

Mand81 wrote:2. I still find it amazing you ask members to accept glitches you won't even show.

I still find it amazing that we have to ask the members about the acceptance of a skill-based glitch. I can't remember that you asked any PC-player about the launching-glitch in DOTK part 8, whether it's acceptable to enlarge the gap between PC and console to ~600 points.

MandM81 wrote:As for using skill to find glitches, well, if you mean it requires skill to lift glitches from a speedrunner video on YouTube, then I guess yes. And I can understand why you kept it a secret with password protection, hoping no-one outside TSF watches speedrunner videos.

Yeah, the IPG for console was a gift from the speedrunners. The IPG on PC and every fucking else we did in TOTL part 1, CF part 1, CF part 2 and CF part 3 was found by us, found by the connection of 4 brains, and wouldn't have become reality with anyone of us missing. I wonder what could be possible today if we had someone like you in our conference too. But that ship sailed long time ago, the harbour was pulled down and the river dried out. But nothing stands for eternity, we probably never will become friends but maybe there is a little chance for a future, where we all work together on improvements. However, it's not my problem that your knowledge in CF is 6 (and if you exclude your combos in CF part 2 even 9) years old.

MandM81 wrote:And as for CF, you know why I ask about it, don't you?

No, I don't. But let me guess, I have to repeat for the 318th time that we did not find an IPG in CF but are still looking for it.

Sfn: I react to you hiding for so long the fact that you used a very controversial glitch to boost your score. As you can see from the discussions it has certainly divided the group of R3 players in this forum. Giving the impression of having boosted a score without this wild glitch is dishonest.

What do you mean hypocritical? Are you referring to the way I increased the maximum score in DOTK? Well, I did release the video, didn't I? As I said at the time of the release it was an old video and in fact the best I had. It contained the best combo with the most Lums. Do you really in your wildest dreams imagine I would release the video if I tried to hide the glitch!? I simply didn't have the jump itself on video at the time as I used the videos, for my own purpose, to count seconds in order to maximize the number of Lums converted. It wasn't originally intended for release. Geez!

But if you think that's hypocritical, then ask Cut to make a video of his "trick" in CF immediately after it being triggered, showing the entire combo that follows. Then we are even. Until then, shut up, will ya!

I think we all need to move on, but unlike you I would like the whole family of glitches that have emerged recently, some from the speedrunners, some maybe not, to be dealt with collectively. I would like for all interested players to try them out on their own platform. If anyone has any problems triggering the glitches, well, now's the time to talk about it.

MandM81 wrote:Sfn: I react to you hiding for so long the fact that you used a very controversial glitch to boost your score. As you can see from the discussions it has certainly divided the group of R3 players in this forum. Giving the impression of having boosted a score without this wild glitch is dishonest.

You are constantly insinuating that you have some strong following with regards to your opinion about the IPG. As Cut pointed out, the large majority of R3 players have been accepting of the IPG. The voting, so far, is reflecting that. Please do not project your own opinion onto other people.
We have explained multiple times that we have not released the IPG because we did not consider it to be controversial or problematic and that we wanted to revitalize the competition by giving players the motivation to search for it themselves (either via Youtube or personal investigation), yet you keep accusing us of not publishing a controversial glitch. This is nothing but a massive contradiction in your whole argumentation.

MandM wrote:What do you mean hypocritical? Are you referring to the way I increased the maximum score in DOTK? Well, I did release the video, didn't I? As I said at the time of the release it was an old video and in fact the best I had. It contained the best combo with the most Lums. Do you really in your wildest dreams imagine I would release the video if I tried to hide the glitch!? I simply didn't have the jump itself on video at the time as I used the videos, for my own purpose, to count seconds in order to maximize the number of Lums converted. It wasn't originally intended for release. Geez!

I think it is a mockery to release a video of this combo, without even giving any information on how you got up there. Either release the whole thing or nothing (I wouldn't have had any problem with either), but what you did just left a bad taste in the mouth of several players. To be honest, I don't even care that you keep some of your stuff secret, but to constantly criticize us for keeping things secret and to push us to release all our stuff is nothing but hypocritical.

Cut has addressed the other points you are making in much detail but I see you've conveniently ignored his post once again.

VOTING: How to deal with the Infinite Powerup Glitch?

Cut wrote:As this discussion appears like a Möbius strip, we all should finally make a decision to find the solution - that means: we vote about what to do now with the IPG. For this voting, we have 3 positions equal to 3 approaches related to the IPG.

We have DTUCC:

DTUCC wrote: so what's in the spirit of the game? in my opinion, that is every glitch that still requires skill, effort and routing to make improvements.
these criteria are the essential ones, think about it - those are the rules by which we worked for 10 years, even though nobody ever expressed them. these are the rules by which we judged cheat engines and MG's discovery (since you keep bringing them up) - those require neither skill, nor routing. for cheat engine, my point should be clear.
[...]
it's not that gamebreaking of a glitch for the reasons i stated above. of course, infinite supercoper is an amazing asset, but it just allows for more diverse routing, and possibilities we didn't even think of so far. most levels in which we have acces to a powersuit, we take about 90% of the gems with the x2 multiplier anyway, don't we?

Accept the IPG how it is. See it as a glitch like any other glitch too.

Then MandM81:

MandM81 wrote: There is no reason why the old R3 and the IPG R3 can’t share the same HoF. I will suggest we add an extra column to the HoF where moderators can indicate the method used.
There has been a concern that two different HoFs would “demonize” players using IPG. This by no means the intention. We use one HoF and the indication whether IPG has been used should everybody be able to live with. It’s a compromise but also an acknowledgment that the old R3 and the IPG R3 are in fact two games with very different rules.

See the IPG as a special glitch which has to be treated specially. Add a column to the HoF which tells whether the player used the IPG or not.

And finally Xenon:

Xenon wrote: So I'd like to submit a third suggestion, one that I've been considering lately that is a little more middle-ground: to accept the use of the IPG into the game, with the limitations that we know of at the moment, but to reject any FURTHER level score improvements, should they materialise as a result of the use of this glitch. This would remove the incentive to go witch hunting for other IPG-friendly locations.
[...]
It would also mean we'd require impartial validation (not directly linked to the HOF, obviously), but that wouldn't be too problematic to arrange.
[...]
Think of it less as an official ruling and more as a vote kick style policy within this forum.
Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to realise that we're going to be dealing with more glitches of this nature in the future, and that we will have to make subjective group decisions to banish or restrict certain glitches in the game. As soon as you guys realise this, you'll see how irrelevant the 'all glitches or no glitches' argument really is.
R3 has changed. It's no longer a simple score system and we must therefore take greater control of the HOF.

Prohibit the IPG as a tool to extend the maximum scores of a level. Let the community decide in individual cases.

Quotations are cut and summarized from multiple posts!

So these are the three positions and three options we have. Everybody should make a decision on his own how to deal with the situation and then deliver his vote in this thread.

The position which achieves the majority of the community has to be accepted unconditionally. The positions comprise only the handling of the IPG, any further suggestions like the publication of all glitches or a RayWiki-Article are NOT PART OF THIS VOTING. I suggest that only accounts older than January 20th, 2014 with an entry in the HoF as a validation of having completed the game are entitled to vote due to the required expertise to make a decision about this issue. If someone is convicted of using double-accounts to vote, he is suspended from the voting that means both his votes are invalid and such behavior will be treated from the community as cheating in the game. Also I would suggest a deadline of 7 days after the voting is opened. Someone can vote by posting the sentence "I vote for DTUCC/MandM/Xenon's suggestion" in a single post or obviosly marked in a discussion-post. After the deadline the votes are counted by summarizing all vote-quotes in an overview-post.

If everyone is fine with this voting and the frame conditions, we voting could start right now. If not, then please tell me


Maybe when this burlesque finally came to an end, we also can take care about rolesfamily's and sfn's suggestions which could be further steps to a fair competition and a united community.

sfn42 wrote: I'd also like to make a little addition to it: Write a Raywiki article about glitches in Rayman 3, including explanations and videos. This article and the existing article about the scoring system (workings of the combo-mode etc.) can then be linked on top of the HoF, so that beginners can find this information more easily.

rolesfamily wrote:How about this: When someone uses a score glitch they have to announce it when they submit their score.
So it'd be like
hey guys I just beat your top score in TLOTLD (for example), BUT I used glitch XYZ
Then that's fair. It's when people don't declare it.
And surely glitches only matter when someone beats a known limit for a level. If someone glitches their way to 500k it doesn't matter.

Especially rolesfamily's suggestion would be great if it becomes reality. Maybe this is something we can aim for when we finally found the solution how to deal with the IPG.

Your opinion is relevant, so please vote
3 days left until deadline!

@ TSF: Do you really think it's so unreasonable to request information about CF improvements? For you to barge in with new and impressive CF scores immediately after releasing the fact that you used a highly controversial glitch (and you only did that because someone found the glitch here), and to not expect anyone to challenge you about them is at best naive and at worst arrogant.

From where I'm standing, the predatory behaviour around here all seems to be coming from the members of TSF (with the exception of Adsolution in a moment of madness/stupidity), who have accused various members of RPC of being narrow-minded, ego-tistical and infantile respectively.

Whether you like it or not the IPG has caused a stir in this forum, and several members have therefore become curious(?) about the mysteries of TSF and any other controversial secrets it could be hiding within. The way I see it (and you are all welcome to converse here), TSF is password-protected for a number of reasons: partly because of legitimate competition issues, partly because I suspect a lot of abuse has been written about various RPC members, and partly because of controversial dealings like the IPG. The very fact that you guys choose to be a secret forum has aroused suspicion on this forum and no doubt altered the intensity of this debate, for which you also appear to be blaming the members on this side of the debate.

Indeed, and I don't deny the fact that I've crossed the line here on occasion. In comparison, it's a one-off, and I've acknowledged it.

sfn42 wrote:As Cut pointed out, the large majority of R3 players have been accepting of the IPG. The voting, so far, is reflecting that. Please do not project your own opinion onto other people.

The entire Rayman 3 community does not consist of five people, really!

While our sample of votes is extraordinarily small, using the top few of the most elite players of the game as a representation of the entire community is, unfortunately, funko inaccurate. I believe that the majority of players more casual than you guys will not be as supportive of it as you think.

sfn42 wrote:You are constantly insinuating that you have some strong following with regards to your opinion about the IPG. As Cut pointed out, the large majority of R3 players have been accepting of the IPG. The voting, so far, is reflecting that. Please do not project your own opinion onto other people.

So far I have only seen TSF members and two followers voting. You seem to be holding your own vote here, and you're free to do so because this is a free forum without fences to keep unwanted people out. But if you are drawing conclusions on the basis of the votes given, I think you have something to learn about representative samples, as pointed out by Adsolution.

sfn42 wrote: I think it is a mockery to release a video of this combo, without even giving any information on how you got up there. Either release the whole thing or nothing (I wouldn't have had any problem with either), but what you did just left a bad taste in the mouth of several players. To be honest, I don't even care that you keep some of your stuff secret, but to constantly criticize us for keeping things secret and to push us to release all our stuff is nothing but hypocritical.

Ok, now I know you're desperate. Using this old video to make a case that relates to the ongoing cover up in the TSF is downright desperate. Your favorite tactic seems to be offence is the best defence. But this is taking it waaay too far, even for a member of the TSF.

sfn42 wrote: Cut has addressed the other points you are making in much detail but I see you've conveniently ignored his post once again.

This is equally desperate. Using Cut as quote-worthy is certainly for the lack of better options. Cut swings wildly between being sensible, infantile, angry, frustrated and insulting. I have tried to appeal to his better side and answer some of his sensible posts. I mostly ignore the rest.

I wonder if can we become members of the TSF and hold a vote to remove the password protection? Or better yet, since we are here already we can hold the vote here. Will you (TSF) accept the outcome and implement the result of such a vote?

Feel free to delete the combos, but I'd like to check out the other two aspects mentioned by Xenon.

Adsolution wrote:Indeed, and I don't deny the fact that I've crossed the line here on occasion. In comparison, it's a one-off, and I've acknowledged it.

everyone wrote:accusations etc

i think you all should realise youve crossed a line. this community is divided maybe forever by now.
you, mandm, should accept, that your behaviour over the last years has obviously created a lot of feelings towards you. i didnt play in that time but after reading the related comments and the things that you have written now that you have lost the oh-so-important first place in the hall of fame, i get the impression youre just very very butthurt about that and you feel tricked and cheated. i can understand that (i really do!) but this is not an argument for this debate and im unwilling to accept that as such. the need for you to brand the players that beat you as "using a glitch" with an icon is a clear measure to retain that first place. i, as a relatively new player accepting glitches as parts of the game, wont be happy with that as i see you have used a number of various other glitches and therefore you should be branded absolutely the same. that is my totally honest opinion. you persisting on the same stubborn things and calling glitches dubious cheats is annoying the hell out of me but i think if you would start to accept there has been a change and this change isnt bad at all you would easily be able to compete for the first place again because you simply are a great player.

however, you, members of tsf, should also accept that with your actions (though i can understand the reasons behind them very well) you are also taking every step to widen this gap even more. you may think that offering to reveal glitches and other stuff you admit are steps towards a consensus but for the opposing side these are obviously not. mandm seems to think that old things should be buried and left out of this discussion but this is clearly not the case and to be honest i dont think it can ever be.

so what are we left with now. the vote is the only thing which is remotely fair for anyone. it is not representative by any means, you are right. but i think the opinions are so very stuck there is no other way to deal with this. there is a lot of anger about things that happened over the course of years and these are erupting now.
i feel like regardless of the outcome of the vote, this argument has destroyed something which will never come back. the scoring community is tiny. we should unite because of the game we love and we should all ask ourselves why we are even participating in this discussion. even though i dont really feel like being part of a community that has mods like this one (best thing is you cant even ignore mods yo) i think there are great advantages it brings for all of us. im enjoying the inspiration that your game guide on page one brings me everytime im playing a level, mandm!
perhaps being second or third can be acceptable to some of you.
perhaps the past can be buried and left out of this topic by others.

if we close this topic and we get a consensus, will the losing side of the discussion simply leave the community and never come back because youre bitter or will you start to share your knowledge, compete in a reasonable way and actually have fun again? that is the question that >I< ask you, top players. what are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of being in the right?

Xenon wrote:@ TSF: Do you really think it's so unreasonable to request information about CF improvements? For you to barge in with new and impressive CF scores immediately after releasing the fact that you used a highly controversial glitch (and you only did that because someone found the glitch here), and to not expect anyone to challenge you about them is at best naive and at worst arrogant.

i want to address this seperately.
no, i dont think they didnt expect anyone to challenge them about their CLF scores, but those arent part of this discussion and i would react the exact same way after being treated with disbelief and reluctance for my recent ingame achievements. even after ensuring at least 5 times no "dubious glitches" have been found in CLF mandm doesnt believe them. do you really call their reaction naive and arrogant?

Xenon wrote:From where I'm standing, the predatory behaviour around here all seems to be coming from the members of TSF (with the exception of Adsolution in a moment of madness/stupidity), who have accused various members of RPC of being narrow-minded, ego-tistical and infantile respectively.

if you would consider their position for just a moment you would perhaps see that i, being part of the "other side" of the discussing parties and probably they too, feel the EXACT same way about mandm. as i dont accept his arguments by my values i find some of his phrases just highly highly offensive and just plain disrepectful. there was a post by sfn several pages ago where he showed that everything mandm wrote had a negative connotation. additionally him ignoring like 80% of my posts where i explained every piece of reasoning i have and just replying on the things that fit him in his argumentation mean to me he.. yeah .. IS narrow-minded and infantile. but that doesnt mean anything right? we dont accept your arguments and you dont accept ours, i think we all got the gist. so where does this lead us?

Xenon wrote:The very fact that you guys choose to be a secret forum has aroused suspicion on this forum and no doubt altered the intensity of this debate, for which you also appear to be blaming the members on this side of the debate.

i agree with you on that one. that was probably not the best decision for the course of this discussion. i dont see the" blaming members of the other side" thing though, sorry.

Sajiki wrote:

Would you rather me not be aware of whatever I'm doing wrong? Because that seems to be the general consensus around you guys!

not in the mood to heat up the discussion again, i'll cut it short:

Adsolution wrote:Indeed, and I don't deny the fact that I've crossed the line here on occasion. In comparison, it's a one-off, and I've acknowledged it.

it's nice to see people starting to admit they've made a mistake. i did realise what i said during the discussion was off, as well. i do however believe, that for the most part it's pretty understandable for each individual person why they reacted in the way they did. you can't really blame anyone for their behaviour, and realising that - in my opinion - would go a long way helping to understand each other and not be mad about them.

Adsolution wrote:While our sample of votes is extraordinarily small, using the top few of the most elite players of the game as a representation of the entire community is, unfortunately, funko inaccurate. I believe that the majority of players more casual than you guys will not be as supportive of it as you think.

while i understand the argument, i think your overestimating the capacity of this community. even if the public vote had been set up a little more professional than it was by cut, what would you expect to happen? do you expect half the members of RPC to just flood this thread, eager to cast their vote when they didn't bother to reply over the course of the last 12 pages? i do realise i might be wrong, but i don't think a public vote would attract many more people (if any), which is why sfn and the others are pretty certain about the outcome of such a vote.

MandM81 wrote:1. What I can read from your post is, you still plan to ignore requests from members, while letting on that perhaps sometime in the future you will reveal some glitches. And I'm sure that depends on the outcome of the current discussions.

you can think what you want, i'll remain in support of the rule to release all the glitches immediately after this ipg-discussion is closed. i made a statement earlier about what distrust within a community leads to, and if you can't take our word on that for granted (which i would perfectly understand) we might as well just delete the HoF, as such distrust will never vanish.

i just don't think it's a good idea to judge all of them in one sitting. the superjump, for example, is pretty much exactly the same as the launching glitches we've been utilizing for years, while the glidewalk is completely different. ipg, superjump, glidewalk. those are all the speedrunner glitches, by the way, and they have been done by an XBoX speedrunner.

...wow, this turned out to be a longer post than originally intended. one last thing: i think sajiki has a lot of valid points. if we want to act as a community, we should finally all lower our weapons. and i really mean everyone here, not only the people i disagree with. from there we have two options:
1. try to find a general consensus everyone can live with, step by step, without having to resort to pointless accusations or insults.
2. if we can't find a consensus, have a vote, as Xenon suggested.

it's everyone's choice. i just hope we can finally agree not to insult each other anymore.

MandM81 wrote:I wonder if can we become members of the TSF and hold a vote to remove the password protection? Or better yet, since we are here already we can hold the vote here. Will you (TSF) accept the outcome and implement the result of such a vote?

For sure you can. Bring enough people to outvote us 5 and we pretty much must open the forum then.

@Mandm&Adsolution:
When you say, this vote can't ever be representative, then I think you want to adress the whole Rayman-3-scoring community which means at least everyone who is listed in the HoF. It's not that I didn't that these people to participate in the desicion making, but I have no idea how I could adress all of them. We are 10 people in this thread discussing, we are the main characters of this discussion and I thought we are enough to make a decision on this argument since we were the only ones involved. But I am the last to exclude anyone who ever has played Rayman 3 from this decision making/voting, so if you want all these people to help us making a decision, then please come up with an idea how to adress all of them because I don't really now how we could do that.

Ok, if all this voting is shit then we have a problem again. We have the IPG and people who just want to treat it as a usual glitch and another people who think about it being a special glitch which has to be treated specially (tell me if I'm wrong or forgot about something). Let's just forget about that we are 6 and you are 1 because all of this is not representative as you say. Then we need a compromise, as Henry Kissinger said once "A good compromise is when both parties are equally displeased". What could we do? This queston goes to you MandM first because you're the one declaring the vote as an inadequate method to find a solution so please make the first step and then we can react on your ideas and take the next step in your direction.

Adsolution wrote:Indeed, and I don't deny the fact that I've crossed the line here on occasion. In comparison, it's a one-off, and I've acknowledged it.

I'm sorry to say that but you haven't. You just deleted the passage and never spoke of it again, with your next two posts being troll-posts. That is not acknowledging it, that is not accountable behavior and it is just not professional conduct for a moderator. You should keep a higher standard, instead you went lower than anybody else in this discussion and failed to show any responsibility for it

Adsolution wrote:The entire Rayman 3 community does not consist of five people, really!

While our sample of votes is extraordinarily small, using the top few of the most elite players of the game as a representation of the entire community is, unfortunately, funko inaccurate. I believe that the majority of players more casual than you guys will not be as supportive of it as you think.

Nobody ever said that the public vote was perfect. Remember, we were against it inititally. But is the best we have. Also, so far all casual or non-top-players except for you have been accepting of the IPG (Sajiki, Ribshark, rolesfamily, raymancool_bis, now technology4617). I do not know, why you would assume that they wouldn't, as there is no evidence for such an assumption, whatsoever.

Xenon wrote: From where I'm standing, the predatory behaviour around here all seems to be coming from the members of TSF (with the exception of Adsolution in a moment of madness/stupidity), who have accused various members of RPC of being narrow-minded, ego-tistical and infantile respectively.

Sajiki has discussed in much detail why this just isn't true. But I'd like to add something. To expect us to release everything after constantly discrediting us and diminishing our accomplishments is at best naive and at worst arrogant. Cooperation is a two way street. Maybe you should take a minute to think about what your side has actually done to get such cooperation. I don't think any person in the world would be willing to cooperate with people who constantly demand something, who constantly discredit this person's accomplishments, who insinuate that this person is a cheater, who call this person an asshole, who don't take any responsibility for what they are actually writing, and who constantly ignore the points the person is making.
I'll be the first one to admit that quite a few of my comments were over the top and insulting and really not conducive to cooperation (in fact, I have apologized for some of them and I'll apologize again if anyone considered anything a personal insult, because that really was never my intention), but to absolve you side of all responsibility when you're just as guilty of this discussion escalating, is just not okay.

Let's face reality here for a moment: The division of the community goes back ~5 years, all this stuff goes back 5 years. Recall the arguments from back then, they were never as bad as this one, but they were also never resolved. A lot of the resentment and rhetoric from back then has come up in this discussion (blaming each other for secrecy in particular, or Xenon's passage about badmouthing players on TSF), which shows that it really hasn't been resolved. The big question to me is, can we even resolve an argument that has been brewing for five years? Isn't the community already divided, long before this IPG-conflict even started? I mean, look at how active this thread has been over the last couple of years, there wasn't much of a R3 scoring-community. I would welcome a consensus (my hope for the IPG, when we discovered it back in fall, was that it might lead the R3-community into a new area of cooperation and no secrecy; ironic, isn't it), but I'm just not very optimistic about it, right now.

EDIT: How about this suggestion: We make a column in the HoF for every glitch or glitch category. A column for launching glitches, a column for the Razoff glitch, a column for the IPG, a column for black lums glitches, a column for superjumps etc. That would increase transparency of the HoF without ostracizing or branding any players.

DTUCC wrote:while i understand the argument, i think your overestimating the capacity of this community. even if the public vote had been set up a little more professional than it was by cut, what would you expect to happen? do you expect half the members of RPC to just flood this thread, eager to cast their vote when they didn't bother to reply over the course of the last 12 pages? i do realise i might be wrong, but i don't think a public vote would attract many more people (if any), which is why sfn and the others are pretty certain about the outcome of such a vote.

While I'll admit to not having any better ideas of my own, I still see the possibility for a better solution, seeing as how relatively unbalanced the sides are, not necessarily in opinion, but in method of debate and simply getting points across clearly. While I'm not sure about what a better solution might be, I don't think that this vote is nearly sufficient.

sfn42 wrote:I'm sorry to say that but you haven't. You just deleted the passage and never spoke of it again, with your next two posts being troll-posts. That is not acknowledging it, that is not accountable behavior and it is just not professional conduct for a moderator. You should keep a higher standard, instead you went lower than anybody else in this discussion and failed to show any responsibility for it

I've clearly made a mistake or two, one of which I may or may not regret that has been removed due to you issuing a formal complaint to Hunch, which I hardly have control over. Wait, why do I have to explain myself to you when all you've done is actually try and justify your own berstions toward others?

Adsolution wrote:

sfn42 wrote:I'm sorry to say that but you haven't. You just deleted the passage and never spoke of it again, with your next two posts being troll-posts. That is not acknowledging it, that is not accountable behavior and it is just not professional conduct for a moderator. You should keep a higher standard, instead you went lower than anybody else in this discussion and failed to show any responsibility for it

I've clearly made a mistake or two, one of which I may or may not regret that has been removed due to you issuing a formal complaint to Hunch, which I hardly have control over. Wait, why do I have to explain myself to you when all you've done is actually try and justify your own berstions toward others?

When have I justified anything? I said that my tone was wrong and that I apologize for anything perceived as a personal insult. How is that justification? On the other hand, do I misunderstood your post or are you actually insinuating that I am to blame for you calling me an asshole?

Adsolution wrote:While I'll admit to not having any better ideas of my own, I still see the possibility for a better solution, seeing as how relatively unbalanced the sides are, not necessarily in opinion, but in method of debate and simply getting points across clearly. While I'm not sure about what a better solution might be, I don't think that this vote is nearly sufficient.

I'm with you on this one. If we want to find a compromise though, we finally need to move on. Three have been mentioned so far, none of which everyone can agree on. This ultimately means we need a new one. Maybe some modifications to a current idea? I don't have any more ideas left though.
In my defence, I'd like to state once again that the public vote was not my idea, but it does serve as a last-resort method to find a solution to all this.

I'd also like to brings something up sfn mentioned in his previous post:

EDIT: How about this suggestion: We make a column in the HoF for every glitch or glitch category. A column for launching glitches, a column for the Razoff glitch, a column for the IPG, a column for black lums glitches, a column for superjumps etc. That would increase transparency of the HoF without ostracizing or branding any players.

(actually, as i was wrting this post, i came up with this idea, haha)
this is a pretty crazy idea, but if we can somehow implement this into the HoF, it seems like a pretty logical compromise to me. Now, don't be mad at me if this is somehow completely unrealistic (i have quite literally no understanding of programming), but is it possible to add a column named "glitches used?" that can either have a checkmark or not? and if you move your cursor over said checkmark, it'll show the glitches the specific player used to achieve his score in a tooltip.

that way, you wouldn't just brand 3 specific players for the use of a single glitch some people don't like, but rather, you mark all the players and show which specific glitches they used. you could add a line above the HoF saying "move your cursor over the checkmark to see the glitches used by a specific player" of something along those lines.

now, i know that might be pretty hard to implement, but if we find some people willing to moderate the HoF that way and take the actions necessary to realise that, it'll be a fair compromise, containing the use of IPG but without differentiating it from other glitches in the game. all we need for this is someone able to implement it into the HoF as well as an outline of all the glitches.

i'd like to hear peoples opinions about that, and furthermore Hunchman should probably leave a quick note if that is in some way feasible.

sfn42 wrote:When have I justified anything? I said that my tone was wrong and that I apologize for anything perceived as a personal insult. How is that justification? On the other hand, do I misunderstood your post or are you actually insinuating that I am to blame for you calling me an asshole?

That right there is a justification. Can I not then just as well say that me calling you an 'asshole' should be taken as non-offensive?

sfn42 wrote:How about this suggestion: We make a column in the HoF for every glitch or glitch category. A column for launching glitches, a column for the Razoff glitch, a column for the IPG, a column for black lums glitches, a column for superjumps etc. That would increase transparency of the HoF without ostracizing or branding any players.

I like the idea too potato but i prefer with this new glitch allowed

Adsolution wrote:I've clearly made a mistake or two, one of which I may or may not regret that has been removed due to you issuing a formal complaint to Hunch, which I hardly have control over. Wait, why do I have to explain myself to you when all you've done is actually try and justify your own berstions toward others?

Interesting potato he says nothing but he decides of everything

Adsolution wrote:

Sajiki wrote:

Would you rather me not be aware of whatever I'm doing wrong? Because that seems to be the general consensus around you guys!

there are actually lots of things that i care more about. like the second season of gilmore girls. and the love life of justin bieber. after how you behaved in this thread youre not even worth that i constantly answer to your posts to be honest. as ive said before, sadly, theres no measure to ignore mods because i would have done that weeks ago.