Private parties still can’t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false. At this it’s an uphill battle to prove that the allegations were false much less what Twin Galaxies knew.
Twin Galaxies for sure worked in incompetent and lazy way. They even removed records that were achieved before MAME existed. This alone shows that their entire "investigation" was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction that was mainly done by them as publicity stunt where they valiantly bag a "baddie" with extreme prejudice. There were later some evidence that it was all setup by parties unaffiliated with Twin Galaxies but they will never backtrack on it because it would discredit them. But it matters littl
They even removed records that were achieved before MAME existed.
Which they explained that this was punishment.
This alone shows that their entire "investigation" was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction that was mainly done by them as publicity stunt where they valiantly bag a "baddie" with extreme prejudice.
Billy Mitchell’s own investigator concluded that his video was done recorded on original hardware after many months if this is what you mean by “knee jerk reaction“
There were later some evidence that it was all setup by parties unaffiliated with Twin Galaxies but they will never backtrack on it because it would discredit them.
Citation Needed
But it matters little since they're already discredited enough. At least in the eyes of actual people who participated in those events.
Billy Mitchell’s own investigator concluded that his video was done recorded on original hardware after many months if this is what you mean by “knee jerk reaction“
Billy Mitchell's own investigator originally published findings to TG that stated that the recordings could not have been made on arcade hardware. He then signed a document retracting those findings and stating that Billy Mitchell 'did not cheat'. That is not the same as saying that the video was recorded on original hardware (ie an arcade machine not MAME). But the case gets even more interesting. This same investigator has since published a video [youtube.com] where he effectively cancels his retraction, including the statement that Billy Mitchell 'did not cheat', and stands by his original findings. He states he only signed it as he was hoping to be kept out of the lawsuit, and that he signed it with the understanding the document would be revised before being made public.
It's normal for sporting bodies to remove all of a cheater's records because of they were willing to cheat once they may well have cheated every other time.
It's impossible to verify those records now and at the time it was basically done on trust. They should probably never have been records in the first place.
That's pretty dumb. The truth should not be rewritten for the sake of punishing one person. They might as well purge all of their trust-based records now.
That's pretty dumb. The truth should not be rewritten for the sake of punishing one person. They might as well purge all of their trust-based records now.
They also purged Steve Rogers' records as well when they found he had cheated. So not one person.
I kind of agree. Most of the no-evidence ones are historical now, and some where verified at the time via VHS tapes that are lost. But certainly any that are current and which do not have strong evidence should be at least marked as such.
Bullshit, removing all the scores of a person banned from a sport for cheating is a standard practice.
It demonstrates some minimum level of competence.
Try looking out at the world and asking, "What is it like?" Don't just open your window and shout at the world how you expect it to be.
If you get caught doping in sports, you might even have your past Olympic medals rescinded, and the record books changed to show somebody else in your former place.
Mitchell has evidence that a troll worked to discredit his high scores and was successful through a very public and active campaign. The troll explained online the exact steps he was going to take for both organizations to revoke his records. This will all be part of the argument I'm sure.
But nobody has been able to prove, despite an absurd amount of trying, that an original unmodified machine will ever create the 3 girder frames, while it has been verified that an emulator available at the time of THAT recording would in fact do so. That's all it takes to invalidate the score as fake. Due to the nature of sports scores, and more specifically the known policies of Twin Galaxies, cheating even once wipes out everything you did and will ever do, as you receive an all inclusive lifetime ban on all your scores and participation.
If you still want to complain, ask why Pete Rose isn't in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This kind of policy isn't anything new by any means.
Actually in sports they don't go back further back then they have evidence for. Lance Armstrong still has his World Championship victory from 1993 before his cancer. Barry Bonds still has his records. Abraham Kiptum got to keep his half marathon world record that he set last fall after being busted this spring with irregularities in his biological passport.
You can argue whether the above should be the case, but if this were track, cycling or baseball he'd get to keep his early records.
Um track, cycling, and baseball are notorious for being sports where many, or most, top-tier athletes use forbidden substances or techniques like blood doping to boost performance over natural potential. Why didn't you throw in professional American football while you were at it?
If those organizational standards are ones you hold up as effective for dealing with cheating, then you probably also think that Trump is draining the swamp.
Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped without any proven evidence though, the people responsible for the investigation determined he was guilty, and determined how far back to go. All they had was a whistleblower who was actually the one who had failed drug tests. He admitted it later, but there wasn't really a lot of evidence at the time.
Keeping that one win is probably the only reason he admitted starting in 95. That confession is the only thing putting a date on it, without that he'd have lost the rest
Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped without any proven evidence though, the people responsible for the investigation determined he was guilty, and determined how far back to go. All they had was a whistleblower who was actually the one who had failed drug tests. He admitted it later, but there wasn't really a lot of evidence at the time.
At this point Armstrong has all but admitted that he did it. If fact so many cyclists were using back then the there are no winners of the Tour de France from 1999 to 2006 as they can't be sure who wasn't using.
Marion Jones had her records stripped even though the only evidence was a confession made as part of a plea-bargain from a criminal case that involved actions taken years after the results that were stripped.
You have a very particular definition of "only". Her ex-husband testified against her. Her ex-partner testified against. The head of BALCO which supplied them with the drugs testified against her.
Twin Galaxies for sure worked in incompetent and lazy way.
Agreed. I would also argue that Twin Galaxies needs Billy more than Billy needs them. Billy is the Michael Jordan of video games, twin galaxies is just the referee. Billy could start his own game record company and gamers would flock to him if done right. He’s got an attitude problem and other issues but no one can deny his awesome gaming abilities.
once you provably cheat your whole record is under question, and afaik in sport can be retroactively removed. in fact once you provably cheat you should be disqualified forever. as such it does not matter if lawyer protest, disqualification and removal of record happens on regular basis for cheater.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false.
They also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
"Reckless disregard" is a higher bar than you think. Once they had the video analysis showing that putative records were generated using MAME -- or even that they were likely generated using MAME -- they passed that bar.
False, they also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not [wikipedia.org]". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
This is the entire part of the citation.
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"
You must prove all of that. ALL of it. Not allege it. In the case of Mitchell, Twin Cities did an investigation in which Mitchell's own investigator agreed with them that the screens did not appear from original hardware. That isn't "reckless disregard". It is the exact opposite of it.
If he was originally included, and then excluded, with the reason given that heâ(TM)d cheated (or whatever)... then he has a very good case. Private parties still canâ(TM)t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
How does any of that that even make sense?
Slander is defined as making a knowingly false claims that harm a persons reputation. Why do you think a private party can't make a false claim? It happens all the time. It's more generally known as "lying" when you remove the "harming reputation" requirement
They claimed they suspected him of cheating because the videos were not a recording of a game console. It is next to impossible to prove or disprove what they were thinking.
If he was originally included, and then excluded, with the reason given that heâ(TM)d cheated (or whatever)... then he has a very good case. Private parties still canâ(TM)t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
Only a layperson would think that.
You can only "slander" (when written, its libel) someone by making an objectively false statement of fact. An incorrect opinion is not libel. An conclusion based upon disclosed fac
The more data I punch in this card, the lighter it becomes, and the
lower the mailing cost.
-- S. Kelly-Bootle, "The Devil's DP Dictionary"
Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a malignant narcissist thinks he has a "right" to be respected/acknowledged by independent parties.
Re:Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:2)
Private parties still can’t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
That said, I know fuck all about the actual case.
Re: (Score:3)
Private parties still can’t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false. At this it’s an uphill battle to prove that the allegations were false much less what Twin Galaxies knew.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:5, Insightful)
They even removed records that were achieved before MAME existed.
Which they explained that this was punishment.
This alone shows that their entire "investigation" was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction that was mainly done by them as publicity stunt where they valiantly bag a "baddie" with extreme prejudice.
Billy Mitchell’s own investigator concluded that his video was done recorded on original hardware after many months if this is what you mean by “knee jerk reaction“
There were later some evidence that it was all setup by parties unaffiliated with Twin Galaxies but they will never backtrack on it because it would discredit them.
Citation Needed
But it matters little since they're already discredited enough. At least in the eyes of actual people who participated in those events.
Citation Needed
Re:Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:4, Informative)
Billy Mitchell’s own investigator concluded that his video was done recorded on original hardware after many months if this is what you mean by “knee jerk reaction“
Billy Mitchell's own investigator originally published findings to TG that stated that the recordings could not have been made on arcade hardware. He then signed a document retracting those findings and stating that Billy Mitchell 'did not cheat'. That is not the same as saying that the video was recorded on original hardware (ie an arcade machine not MAME). But the case gets even more interesting. This same investigator has since published a video [youtube.com] where he effectively cancels his retraction, including the statement that Billy Mitchell 'did not cheat', and stands by his original findings. He states he only signed it as he was hoping to be kept out of the lawsuit, and that he signed it with the understanding the document would be revised before being made public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's normal for sporting bodies to remove all of a cheater's records because of they were willing to cheat once they may well have cheated every other time.
It's impossible to verify those records now and at the time it was basically done on trust. They should probably never have been records in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty dumb. The truth should not be rewritten for the sake of punishing one person. They might as well purge all of their trust-based records now.
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty dumb. The truth should not be rewritten for the sake of punishing one person. They might as well purge all of their trust-based records now.
They also purged Steve Rogers' records as well when they found he had cheated. So not one person.
Re: (Score:2)
They should probably never have been records in the first place.
Then they should remove ALL records for which they have no evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of agree. Most of the no-evidence ones are historical now, and some where verified at the time via VHS tapes that are lost. But certainly any that are current and which do not have strong evidence should be at least marked as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit, removing all the scores of a person banned from a sport for cheating is a standard practice.
It demonstrates some minimum level of competence.
Try looking out at the world and asking, "What is it like?" Don't just open your window and shout at the world how you expect it to be.
If you get caught doping in sports, you might even have your past Olympic medals rescinded, and the record books changed to show somebody else in your former place.
Re: Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:1)
Re: Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:5, Interesting)
That's all it takes to invalidate the score as fake.
Due to the nature of sports scores, and more specifically the known policies of Twin Galaxies, cheating even once wipes out everything you did and will ever do, as you receive an all inclusive lifetime ban on all your scores and participation.
If you still want to complain, ask why Pete Rose isn't in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This kind of policy isn't anything new by any means.
Re: Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um track, cycling, and baseball are notorious for being sports where many, or most, top-tier athletes use forbidden substances or techniques like blood doping to boost performance over natural potential. Why didn't you throw in professional American football while you were at it?
https://www.macleans.ca/societ... [macleans.ca]
If those organizational standards are ones you hold up as effective for dealing with cheating, then you probably also think that Trump is draining the swamp.
Re: (Score:2)
Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped without any proven evidence though, the people responsible for the investigation determined he was guilty, and determined how far back to go. All they had was a whistleblower who was actually the one who had failed drug tests. He admitted it later, but there wasn't really a lot of evidence at the time.
Keeping that one win is probably the only reason he admitted starting in 95. That confession is the only thing putting a date on it, without that he'd have lost the rest
Re: (Score:2)
Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped without any proven evidence though, the people responsible for the investigation determined he was guilty, and determined how far back to go. All they had was a whistleblower who was actually the one who had failed drug tests. He admitted it later, but there wasn't really a lot of evidence at the time.
At this point Armstrong has all but admitted that he did it. If fact so many cyclists were using back then the there are no winners of the Tour de France from 1999 to 2006 as they can't be sure who wasn't using.
Marion Jones had her records stripped even though the only evidence was a confession made as part of a plea-bargain from a criminal case that involved actions taken years after the results that were stripped.
You have a very particular definition of "only". Her ex-husband testified against her. Her ex-partner testified against. The head of BALCO which supplied them with the drugs testified against her.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Twin Galaxies for sure worked in incompetent and lazy way.
Agreed. I would also argue that Twin Galaxies needs Billy more than Billy needs them. Billy is the Michael Jordan of video games, twin galaxies is just the referee. Billy could start his own game record company and gamers would flock to him if done right. He’s got an attitude problem and other issues but no one can deny his awesome gaming abilities.
Re: (Score:0, Informative)
but no one can deny his awesome gaming abilities.
except for the current generation of gamers who don't know and don't care about the classic arcade games.
he provably cheated (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else.
Sure they can, by definition.
To show it, you must prove that the defendant either knew it was untrue or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false.
False, they also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not [wikipedia.org]". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
"Reckless disregard" is a higher bar than you think. Once they had the video analysis showing that putative records were generated using MAME -- or even that they were likely generated using MAME -- they passed that bar.
Also, because they disclosed the underlying facts [rcfp.org], their conclusions cannot be deemed reckless no matter how shoddy you think that they may be.
Re: (Score:2)
False, they also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not [wikipedia.org]". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
This is the entire part of the citation. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"
You must prove all of that. ALL of it. Not allege it. In the case of Mitchell, Twin Cities did an investigation in which Mitchell's own investigator agreed with them that the screens did not appear from original hardware. That isn't "reckless disregard". It is the exact opposite of it.
Re: (Score:0)
If he was originally included, and then excluded, with the reason given that heâ(TM)d cheated (or whatever) ... then he has a very good case.
Private parties still canâ(TM)t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
How does any of that that even make sense?
Slander is defined as making a knowingly false claims that harm a persons reputation. Why do you think a private party can't make a false claim?
It happens all the time. It's more generally known as "lying" when you remove the "harming reputation" requirement
They claimed they suspected him of cheating because the videos were not a recording of a game console.
It is next to impossible to prove or disprove what they were thinking.
Next they claimed he was recording mam
Re: (Score:2)
Only a layperson would think that.
You can only "slander" (when written, its libel) someone by making an objectively false statement of fact. An incorrect opinion is not libel. An conclusion based upon disclosed fac