Dispute Thread Posting

[Sergen]

I'm making this topic because I feel like posting in dispute threads should be limited to people who have played the game(s) in question, or at least there should be an indicator as to whether that person posting has played the game(s) or not. I am saying this because throughout the time that disputes have been available publicly I have seen a lot of members chip in their opinion, while they specify that they have not played the game in question. It has gone as far as people saying they believe someone got 600 precursor orbs on Jak 3 legitimately before getting the trophy for 300 orbs simply because these people say "the game glitched".

 

I won't say who it was, but when I saw a dispute thread recently, someone PM'd me telling me that the person hacked BioShock because they got the trophy for Harvesting OR Rescuing each Little Sister then at the end of the game they got the one for completing the game while not Harvesting a Little Sister, this was someone who didn't play the game and thought the first trophy was for harvesting every Little Sister. Another case I had to see was people who argued in Monox18's dispute where most people posting had not played the game but the reason for flagging was the fact that I found that they were sharing save data with a person who earned the platinum long before them. The people in that thread argued that this website is a "trophy site, not an NGS2 leaderboard site", but all I did was use the in-game leaderboard as evidence to support my argument. 

 

In that thread I also received comments such as this, but my intention was simply to keep the game clean.

 

I'm sure it might be difficult to track a person's PSNProfiles trophy list with the forums, so I think a solution to this could be a confirmation box before posting to indicate whether the person has actually played the game or not, this will make it easier for someone on the cheater team to decide which opinions are more valid. The confirmation box could have options that indicate what percentage they have on the game's trophy list so for example the options could be: 

 

• 100% Complete
• 80% - 99%
• 50% - 79%
• 30% - 49%
• 10% - 29%
• Hasn't played the game

 

When multiple games are being disputed and someone would like to leave a comment regarding only one of those games, the person often indicates which game they are talking about anyway so they could just say which game they indicated when they specify that they have 100% on the game(s) in question. 

 

When that person indicates the amount of progress they have made in the game(s) being disputed, their first post could say it in bold, below I will try to demonstrate this. 

 

Sample Post

 

100% Trophy List

 

I've played Batman: Arkham Asylum and it's not possible to get all the medals in Combat Challenges within seconds of each other like the person disputing has done.

 

The above post incorporates a situation where the person disputing has been flagged for multiple games at once. If the person is only disputing one flagged game then any posts by a person below them could simply be a normal post but the trophy list indicator is above. 

 

I think the percentage indicator should only be included in their first post on that thread, then any further posts can simply look like a regular forum post, but the initial post is often that person's main opinion regarding the game(s) being disputed. 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Ms Serzilla

[B1rvine]

Sounds good to me.

Edited June 3, 2017 by B1rvine

[damon8r351]

Allowing input only from Staff and the people who actually have the trophy currently under the dispute is one of the key parts in my idea for the dispute system:

 

 

[- Deleted -]

I like the idea. Will get a lot more professional replies too.

[LucileRose]

What if you've played the game on a different account and not on your new one? They will still have knowledge about the game.

[Sergen]

Just now, LucileRose said:

What if you've played the game on a different account and not on your new one? They will still have knowledge about the game.

 

They can prove that by showing their other profile if that's the case, then the sample post could be. 

 

100% Trophy List

 

I played this game on my old account (Insert link here) and the way this person has unlocked the trophies is not possible to do since they killed 3000 enemies before killing 1000 enemies. 

[Jak]

It still won't be perfect, but yes, it will be better this way. 

[nenugalimas]

6 minutes ago, Ms Serzilla said:

 

They can prove that by showing their other profile if that's the case, then the sample post could be. 

 

100% Trophy List

 

I played this game on my old account (Insert link here) and the way this person has unlocked the trophies is not possible to do since they killed 3000 enemies before killing 1000 enemies. 

How would you verify that that is indeed their account? They could link any random profile.

[Sergen]

1 minute ago, nenugalimas said:

How would you verify that that is indeed their account? They could link any random profile.

 

If anything, they could just use a forum profile of that account to make their post in the dispute, I don't see any rule against signing up for PSNP with more than one account. There's no reason to not use the account that got the plat/100% unless they're ban evading on the forums hahaha. 

[cardionic]

I agree with the idea, I do feel that sometimes certain people make a habbit out of pinching in their 2 cents without really offering any quality arguements. A lot of times, on the other hand, it is pretty easy to tell a trophy list is hacked without even having played the game (hacked CoD lobbies, Fuel etc). However I think it takes too much work to code such a feature, at the end of the day this is a free website and probably wont make a huge different in the outcome of the disputes.

[IntenseFATE98]

I like the idea, but in some cases people might have played the game on a different account or on Xbox, they can still contribute some info imo. Posts which contribute nothing to the process ("I think he's innocent" , "I believe him, he's my friend" etc..) should just be deleted and warning points should be issued (if its done multiple times). Just my two cents anyways  

[TazDevilz1986]

It's a good idea, however i saw cases that got fixed from people that didn't played the game. Some people are very good to see if a person is legit or not. And they might have new accounts, and they played the game on old accounts etc.

[nenugalimas]

2 minutes ago, Ms Serzilla said:

 

If anything, they could just use a forum profile of that account to make their post in the dispute, I don't see any rule against signing up for PSNP with more than one account. There's no reason to not use the account that got the plat/100% unless they're ban evading on the forums hahaha. 

Yeah, that would be the easiest way of doing things.

[ars]

I'm looking at eg. LanceTheSpartan's dispute, and while this would prevent some opinionated posts, it's pretty clear to me it doesn't prevent being opinionated in general the OP included. With my background as a tech I don't need to have played a game to be able to correct others (even the people who played a specific game) on how programs, GameOS and Orbis XML databases, or servers function.

 

I'm not saying posts on the dispute threads should be limited, perhaps they should. Many people including me use them for popcorn time - with the exception my popcorn time isn't about going toxic against a person who has a problem, unlike some of the posts I've read. Grimy has been making his calls regardless, though, and I've never seen him tell people to stop posting.

[Sergen]

I think the main thing will also be the fact that it's going to make some people think twice about posting in the dispute threads if they've never played the game and have to indicate that. This will remove many of the invalid opinions from the thread, while allowing valid game owners to post. Some games like FUEL and SOCOM are obvious when someone used the popular save hack, but I have seen plenty of people believe others just because they say it's a glitch when there's no evidence to prove that such a glitch exists on the game.  

[--------]

---------------

Edited April 14, 2022 by --------

[ars]

2 minutes ago, xDLloyd091x said:

Sergen's idea is really good and i can only shake my head when people are thinking using an ingame Leaderboard to proof, that someone is cheated is like an "invalid argument". They still dont get the point behind that. I would also say that only people who did most of the game, should be able to answer, to their disputes. 

 

That's because trophy hunters only research how the trophies work, not how eg. leaderboards work. In Lance's case the leaderboards were used as "proof" he obtained the trophies illegimately, while none of the people went and actually proved a zero action idler is included on the leaderboards to begin with. Hence they had no proof at all but very loudly claimed to have some.

 

Which means the "expertise" that came from "playing the game" meant jack diddly. If you want to reduce the amount of posters who do not get to post on a dispute thread you should reduce the amount of people who are unable to research their material and make a valid case, which would mean with a quick guesstimate 90% of both the people who create disputes and the people who reply on them.

[TazDevilz1986]

I was just browsing and discovered this. I'm not sure if Sly wants to change it though. But any ideas are always good.

Edited June 3, 2017 by TazDevilz1986

[Sergen]

Just now, TazDevilz1986 said:

 

 

The suggestion I've made isn't going to stop people from being able to post, it simply indicates whether they are a competent enough player of that game to actually provide a valid opinion. 

[--------]

-------------------------------

Edited April 14, 2022 by --------

[DaivRules]

Why the hell not? Just like all the rest of the dispute rules that get ignored, this can get ignored as well.

[DaivRules]

Whatever in-game experience is required should be easily explainable to others. There is nothing that is only understandable by playing the game. 

[Sergen]

14 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Whatever in-game experience is required should be easily explainable to others. There is nothing that is only understandable by playing the game. 

 

There are plenty of in-game things that are missed out from trophy guides and so on regarding a lot of disputed games. People have tried to dispute Jak 3 recently by saying they only did the orb glitch, but there's no way to get so many orbs in the short amount of time that they did it, guides won't tell you "it takes 5 seconds to load an orb hunt mission and the fastest orb hunt missions can be done in 15 seconds", the guide just tells you to use the glitch. Guides sometimes miss out on glitches that occur in the game that make trophies not unlock and trophies unlock simultaneously because a lot of guide cases are trying to be the first to make that guide so it gets published on the website first.

 

Guides will tell you how to grind the multiplayer, but they won't tell you how the leaderboards work or how to look at other people's stats and people disputing often say "I did it 100% legit, check my time stamps" but the reason for being flagged is the fact that the leaderboards show them with 100 kills when trophies require 10,000 that's not something you're going to look at without playing the game and you're not going to learn how an obscure game leaderboard works without playing that game. Also, if you haven't played the game then you're going by other people's opinions rather than your own so what's the point of providing your side of the argument if you haven't actually played the game and are only going by what other people say on forums? You're not going to know what driving a car is like if you're only in the passenger seat. There's a reason people would rather play a game than watch videos of the game, because playing a game and seeing the game are very different things. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Ms Serzilla

[Beyondthegrave07]

Maybe the issue is that the dispute posts aren't policed hard enough.

 

Therefore, people post whatever is on their mind because they never receive any consequences for it? I can't say that with any certainty, hence the question mark, as I am not a mod nor can I see when someone receives warning points. Just a thought to maybe have people be more careful when posting.

 

Regardless, we will never have a perfect system for this. I think disputes should be separated from the forums altogether and have it's own page like games, guides, home, sessions, etc.

They seem toxic for the forums. I'm not going to go into detail, but I've seen a lot of bickering amongst members trying to decide whether the person is innocent or not. It's just not a good image for us IMO.

[DaivRules]

23 minutes ago, Ms Serzilla said:

 

There are plenty of in-game things that are missed out from trophy guides and so on regarding a lot of disputed games. People have tried to dispute Jak 3 recently by saying they only did the orb glitch, but there's no way to get so many orbs in the short amount of time that they did it, guides won't tell you "it takes 5 seconds to load an orb hunt mission and the fastest orb hunt missions can be done in 15 seconds", the guide just tells you to use the glitch. Guides sometimes miss out on glitches that occur in the game that make trophies not unlock and trophies unlock simultaneously because a lot of guide cases are trying to be the first to make that guide so it gets published on the website first.

 

Guides will tell you how to grind the multiplayer, but they won't tell you how the leaderboards work or how to look at other people's stats and people disputing often say "I did it 100% legit, check my time stamps" but the reason for being flagged is the fact that the leaderboards show them with 100 kills when trophies require 10,000 that's not something you're going to look at without playing the game and you're not going to learn how an obscure game leaderboard works without playing that game. Also, if you haven't played the game then you're going by other people's opinions rather than your own so what's the point of providing your side of the argument if you haven't actually played the game and are only going by what other people say on forums? You're not going to know what driving a car is like if you're only in the passenger seat. There's a reason people would rather play a game than watch videos of the game, because playing a game and seeing the game are very different things. 

 

Then how do you go about explaining a profile should even be flagged and expect the flagging team to approve things if they can't be explained?