+- World Beyblade Organization (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: Beyblade Discussion (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Beyblade-Discussion)
+--- Forum: Beyblade Customizations (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Beyblade-Customizations)
+--- Thread: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? (/Thread-Proof-of-Parts-Do-we-need-it-or-not)
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Jinbee - Jan. 14, 2015
What phone do you use? An iPhone is pretty simple unless quality is a factor.
Let's just see how this goes.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Dual - Jan. 14, 2015
I don't use a phone, I use an iPod. But I'm talking about everyone with mobile devices, not just me.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Jinbee - Jan. 14, 2015
I know, but I didn't realise everyone didn't have access, so I guess testers would be minimalised.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - DRAGON KING - Jan. 15, 2015
(Jan. 14, 2015 10:10 PM)Dual Wrote: I know for one thing, I don't have access to a computer, and mobile uploads are difficult and don't always work, so it would pose problems for me, and I'm sure others.
Mobile uploads work fine for me, tinypic is great.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Vamp!re - Jan. 20, 2015
I probably agree with DRAGON KING/Packers, when posting test results we should need a photograph of all the parts, stadiums and equipment etc. with a of paper next to them where our username is written.
If the WBO Committee will take this step, it will really lower the amount of liers! I hope this step will be taken soon
I said that we need to show proof of stadiums and equipment because there is a considerable amount of people who says that they own BB-10, Zero-G Attack stadium, Super control beystadium etc. but they don't!
Anyways, I think this is really a noticeable step and would really help the WBO Committee.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Hato - Jan. 20, 2015
@[Vamp!re] I agree with that statement, very well written
I am pretty sure this is what TSO is going to do when she does testing of BeyBall. Hope that can help boost this.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Kai-V - Jan. 20, 2015
Wait, who is this "considerable amount of people who says that they own BB-10, Zero-G Attack stadium, Super control beystadium etc. but they don't" ?
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - loyd87 - Jan. 20, 2015
personaly I think we can make a group of all knowned valuable testers to confirm testing thread.
this group would be closed and can have some peoples added if needed by proven themselve.
members of this group are knowned to be a real testers in all condition so their results would be recognize as real tests.
they have that mission: verified new testing thread by new testers(non-member of the group) to legitimate the testing thread.
I think we have enough experimented and trusted testers that we know at this time to do it.
what do you think about that?
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - DRAGON KING - Jan. 20, 2015
(Jan. 20, 2015 5:56 PM)loyd87 Wrote: personaly I think we can make a group of all knowned valuable testers to confirm testing thread.A lot of good testers are to busy right now, it would be a hassle to make this group, assign people combos to test, etc.
this group would be closed and can have some peoples added if needed by proven themselve.
members of this group are knowned to be a real testers in all condition so their results would be recognize as real tests.
they have that mission: verified new testing thread by new testers(non-member of the group) to legitimate the testing thread.
I think we have enough experimented and trusted testers that we know at this time to do it.
what do you think about that?
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Leone19 - Jan. 20, 2015
If we had a "testing group" to confirm things, it probably wouldn't work out to well and just hold things up. I mean, most of us are in high school or college, so it'd be pretty tough to try to confirm tests for someone's topic in a good amount of time.
Plus, then people not in the group would probably feel untrustworthy and either: complain to get in the group or perhaps even feel discouraged to test, or some other scenario. I mean, what would the group's qualifications be?
To me, it's certainly an interesting idea to be thought about, but I don't feel it'd be for the better.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Thunder Dome - Jan. 20, 2015
(Jan. 20, 2015 5:56 PM)loyd87 Wrote: personaly I think we can make a group of all knowned valuable testers to confirm testing thread.Also to add on what others said about this I feel like some members might be a little biast when testing others. Not directing that statement to anyone in particular, but I honestly feel like it would happen.
this group would be closed and can have some peoples added if needed by proven themselve.
members of this group are knowned to be a real testers in all condition so their results would be recognize as real tests.
they have that mission: verified new testing thread by new testers(non-member of the group) to legitimate the testing thread.
I think we have enough experimented and trusted testers that we know at this time to do it.
what do you think about that?
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Poseidon - Jan. 20, 2015
I know myself that testing proves one the most vigorous boring task possible. I think if I personally had to prove that all my tests were legitimate, I would probably do way fewer tests than I had from my time here. So I'd say that we need to trust the community to give legitimate results, but also realistically having multiple members testing for comparisons sake is the best way to go around this. Most of the time when people test combos, the results aren't outstandingly peculiar, they fit with other members results. I think it's only when a result is particularly outlandish it should be questioned particularly.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Jinbee - Jan. 20, 2015
(Jan. 20, 2015 10:32 PM)Poseidon Wrote: I know myself that testing proves one the most vigorous boring task possible. I think if I personally had to prove that all my tests were legitimate, I would probably do way fewer tests than I had from my time here. So I'd say that we need to trust the community to give legitimate results, but also realistically having multiple members testing for comparisons sake is the best way to go around this. Most of the time when people test combos, the results aren't outstandingly peculiar, they fit with other members results. I think it's only when a result is particularly outlandish it should be questioned particularly.
Well, at least we know another drawback for this plan, the other being that not everyone can post images.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - 6 God - Jan. 21, 2015
In the case of Kaneki he said he went off Th!nk's or other people's tests and fabricated his own so they were getting the same results, so your idea, Poseidon, wouldn't have helped if we had this implimentation before Kaneki's tests.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Poseidon - Jan. 21, 2015
(Jan. 21, 2015 12:01 AM)Eminem* Wrote: In the case of Kaneki he said he went off Th!nk's or other people's tests and fabricated his own so they were getting the same results, so your idea, Poseidon, wouldn't have helped if we had this implimentation before Kaneki's tests.
So, just how damaging were these results on the community, really?
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Cannon - Jan. 21, 2015
I don't think images of parts should be taken, considering how quiet this community since the ending or hiatus (for those with hope) of Beyblade.. this would make the customisations section worse than it already is. Some people choose to take photos for the sake of trust; it's completely their choice whereas some don't and is definitely plausible since it's already a lot of effort getting the correct equipment, doing a lot of tests, typing it in the correct OP format, etc.
This issue barely occurs and you're all making this a bigger deal than it is. The community trusted him too much instead of being cautious of people with a lot of testing threads and so many 'useful' combinations.. In turn we received the backlash of it.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - trisd - Jan. 22, 2015
Still very new here, so take my comment with a pinch of salt!
For any experiment to be valid, the results have to be reproducible, (within standard deviation.) If you want to get your research published in scientific journal, after submission, your experimental results are validated by the repetition of your experimental methodology before publication.
If you post a testing thread, you are publishing a document without it being subjected to an editorial procedure.
Photographs of parts and stadiums are all well and good but in no way a substitute for repeating a particular test using the standard procedures; that is the only real way assess the accuracy of a published testing thread. Sadly this means more work for someone.
Obviously, there are people in the WBO with proven track records, who can be relied upon to only post valid data and asking them to jump through hoops could be insulting.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Dual - Jan. 22, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 6:49 AM)trisd Wrote: Still very new here, so take my comment with a pinch of salt!I don't really know you, you're pretty new, and that makes your post all the more impressive. I agree, and I say if it's possible, as many tests results as possible should be verified, but only at testers' convenience.
For any experiment to be valid, the results have to be reproducible, (within standard deviation.) If you want to get your research published in scientific journal, after submission, your experimental results are validated by the repetition of your experimental methodology before publication.
If you post a testing thread, you are publishing a document without it being subjected to an editorial procedure.
Photographs of parts and stadiums are all well and good but in no way a substitute for repeating a particular test using the standard procedures; that is the only real way assess the accuracy of a published testing thread. Sadly this means more work for someone.
Obviously, there are people in the WBO with proven track records, who can be relied upon to only post valid data and asking them to jump through hoops could be insulting.
"Back up tests" or tests done by other people shouldn't be mandatory, but they should be encouraged, and that's the best way to combat any fraud.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - trisd - Jan. 22, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 7:30 AM)Dual Wrote: I don't really know you, you're pretty new, and that makes your post all the more impressive. I agree, and I say if it's possible, as many tests results as possible should be verified, but only at testers' convenience.
"Back up tests" or tests done by other people shouldn't be mandatory, but they should be encouraged, and that's the best way to combat any fraud.
I agree with your opinion regarding a mandatory editorial process for testing threads.
I think has come down to common sense and some self regulation. (E.g. If a member has alexandrite, amethyst and lapis lazuli faces, they have them for a reason. )
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - DRAGON KING - Jan. 22, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 10:30 AM)trisd Wrote:Kaneki (the guy who faked all those tests) had an alexandrite face with absolutely no proof that his tests were legit....(Jan. 22, 2015 7:30 AM)Dual Wrote: I don't really know you, you're pretty new, and that makes your post all the more impressive. I agree, and I say if it's possible, as many tests results as possible should be verified, but only at testers' convenience.
"Back up tests" or tests done by other people shouldn't be mandatory, but they should be encouraged, and that's the best way to combat any fraud.
I agree with your opinion regarding a mandatory editorial process for testing threads.
I think has come down to common sense and some self regulation. (E.g. If a member has alexandrite, amethyst and lapis lazuli faces, they have them for a reason. )
Just saying.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Classik - Jan. 22, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 8:20 PM)Packers Wrote:You seem not to like Ken at all XD(Jan. 22, 2015 10:30 AM)trisd Wrote:Kaneki (the guy who faked all those tests) had an alexandrite face with absolutely no proof that his tests were legit....(Jan. 22, 2015 7:30 AM)Dual Wrote: I don't really know you, you're pretty new, and that makes your post all the more impressive. I agree, and I say if it's possible, as many tests results as possible should be verified, but only at testers' convenience.
"Back up tests" or tests done by other people shouldn't be mandatory, but they should be encouraged, and that's the best way to combat any fraud.
I agree with your opinion regarding a mandatory editorial process for testing threads.
I think has come down to common sense and some self regulation. (E.g. If a member has alexandrite, amethyst and lapis lazuli faces, they have them for a reason. )
Just saying.
Anywho,I voted yes
The images will help build trust and a better bond between member
The images will also help validate if the person is trust worthy
Like trisd said,If you have them (the faces) you have them for a reason
I hope the testing wont be a further problem
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - -Vulcan- - Jan. 22, 2015
It may not be necessary to ask people to post proof of parts for every test. If a tester has already posted a picture of their collection with their Beyblades assembled in the Beyblade collection thread, the tester can just link to that picture and people will see they own the necessary parts.
Of course, the tester may not have the parts anymore since that collection photo was taken, or if their collection is just so big that its a pain for people to check.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - MissingNo. - Jan. 22, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 8:34 PM)AquilaClassik Wrote: Like trisd said,If you have them (the faces) you have them for a reason.
Actually, Kaneki got the Alexandrite face by doing fake testings, I don't know for you, but in my opinion faces are not a legit proof at all.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - Dual - Jan. 23, 2015
(Jan. 22, 2015 8:34 PM)AquilaClassik Wrote:You're completely ignoring very important facts:(Jan. 22, 2015 8:20 PM)Packers Wrote:You seem not to like Ken at all XD(Jan. 22, 2015 10:30 AM)trisd Wrote: I agree with your opinion regarding a mandatory editorial process for testing threads.Kaneki (the guy who faked all those tests) had an alexandrite face with absolutely no proof that his tests were legit....
I think has come down to common sense and some self regulation. (E.g. If a member has alexandrite, amethyst and lapis lazuli faces, they have them for a reason. )
Just saying.
Anywho,I voted yes
The images will help build trust and a better bond between member
The images will also help validate if the person is trust worthy
Like trisd said,If you have them (the faces) you have them for a reason
I hope the testing wont be a further problem
1. Some people don't have the means to take pictures.
2. Some people don't have the means to upload pictures.
3. Some people might think it's too much of a hassle to post pictures.
I haven't seen any new testing threads recently, so the community is already in a quiet state. Requiring photographic proof will deter all of the above people, and then testing could come to a near halt.
RE: Proof of Parts: Do we need it or not? - 6 God - Jan. 23, 2015
Honestly, I like Poseidon's idea. To only make the implementation if the results are drastically different. It solves most problems like some people don't have a camera, but most people do have some sort of smart phone or tablet that they can use and it's not difficult to upload them at all.