Skyhigh 11 ch20 Did Fairlight Cheat
From C64 Diskmag Wiki
"did fairlight cheat ?" "DID FAIRLIGHT CHEAT ?" (pri). this is the question i'd like to ask all you readers - or,to be more pre- cise, "did fairlight cheat the herning competitions ?" - now to be able to ans- wer you of course need some background information which i will provide in the following. if you read the last issue of skyhigh i guess you remember my report from "the party 93" in which i took up the rumour of fairlight having delivered 40 disks containing votes for themselves. now i recently received an interesting letter on this subject by BACCHUS of FAIRLIGHT, containing some important feedback which i feel deserves an extra chapter. now this is what he wrote: howdy pri! this is bacchus of fairlight writing to comment your text concerning the herning party you covered in skyhigh #10, which i got today. ok; about the "cheating" i was the person who collected disks. the guys in virtual dream (fairlight amiga) and a few pc owners we know wanted to vote for us but weren't in- terested enough to find out which num- bers we had. for this reason they left us their disks to fill in the votes in these categories. this was the reason we had a lot of disks. with some other pc users we "swapped votes". if they voted for us on the c64, we vote for them in say pc music. another fact is the number of voters in each category. c64 music and the categories graphics and music are ra- ther small and our votes made quite some impact. we evoked some voters who wouldn't have voted if it hadn't been for us. in all we only got around 40 disks to vote on (to be seen on the background that there were 2500 voters at the party). calling this cheating is your ex- pression. if i fill in the votes for a few people when they ask me to fill in us for them is not cheating to me. not even if i deliver the disks in a bunch to the organizers. swapping votes is not cheating to me either, even if i find this to be closer to the edge of cheating than the previous matter; still way clear. cheating would be producing your own votedisks, stealing disks or manipula- ting the voteprogram. we did nothing like this! for this reason i think your accusa- tions are false. we stretched the li- mits and used available tactics, but we did not cheat! as you might all know it went well (our point of view) on c64 graphics and music (also the guy we voted for on pc won!), but we voted for the wrong number on c64 demo. a good part of the votes focus got were "ours", intended for legoland 3 (you might say we had it coming). the focus demo was a good one, but legoland 3 was way better. the confusion was complete in many c64 voting classes, so finding out which numbers to vote for was hard. also the fact that pc and amiga users voted made things weird, as no pc mu- sician has any idea of how hard diffe- rent things are on the c64. f.ex. the oxyron demo was stupid if you want to win their votes. calced stuff doesn't impress them, and their votes count e- qually. for this reason it's so obvi- ous why you get good results in c64 mags, but not on parties. i guess you, pri, were also a victim of this. peo- ple voted for the wrong number when they intended to vote for you! you did not deserve 0 points, but this is not to blame fairlight for, but the lousy organisation on all other competitions exept for the amiga related ones! there was no cheating, only bad orga- nization! bacchus of fairlight ps. you may quote this letter in a "follower up" in skyhigh, but then do a full quote, and not unfair parts. well, first of all i'd like to thank you, dear bacchus, for your illuminating letter, which i for my part will comment on in the following. i of course agree that the organization of most competitions was rather inconve- nient for the voters. your example of voting for focus by mistake also proves that this had an effect on the results. furthermore i share your opinion about the problem of "system-foreign" votes, which i will discuss in another article. however, apart from these points there regrettably is not too much of your let- ter which finds my agreement. first off, i'd like to make clear that i did not accuse you of anything. in one passage of my report i took up the ru- mour of you having delivered disks con- taining votes for yourselves, and in an- other i assumed things somehow must have been manipulated, but in no way did i claim that it were you who cheated. however, now that i have got your let- ter, in which you delivered the proof yourself, i do claim it. you define cheating as producing own votedisks, stealing disks or manipula- ting the voteprogram. but i think you have left out something there, which is MANIPULATING PEOPLE. i guess the majority of the readers will agree that votes should reflect one's honest and very own opinion, mo- tivated just by the quality of the work a competitor delivers. this objectivity should not be affected by things such as the competitor's personality, reputa- tion, group, or even actions he takes to influence people. a hundred percent objectivity can of course never be guaranteed as there al- ways are people who don't think before voting - but you spoiled it INTENTIONAL- LY. you say your amiga division and some pc users wanted to vote for you "but we- ren't interested enough" to find out your numbers by themselves. you also "swapped" votes with other pc users. now if these people really would have thought you deserved to be voted for, they would have done so themselves. their lack of interest only shows they did not think you deserved it, and you only managed to get their votes by in- fluencing them (this is of course also to blame on those people, because they gave you their votes although they did not really stand to it). furthermore, your letter shows some inconsequence, which becomes obvious in the last paragraph. there you write, "also the fact that pc and amiga users voted made things weird, as no pc musi- cian has any idea of how hard different things are on the c64", but on the other hand you voted for pc competitors your- selves and also received "swapped" votes from users of other systems. that does not go together very well, does it? anyway, i am not saying you were the on- ly ones who cheated. e.g. regarding the c64 music results it is rather improba- ble that i really received 0 points. i know several people voted for me, and i do not believe all of them voted for the wrong number, so there certainly was so- mebody else who manipulated things. anyway, isn't it always a pity when peo- ple cheat at competitions? it destroys the good atmosphere because quite a bit of people feel frustrated, as they have worked hard but find themselves rather underrated. the herning results partly were so fucked up that you couldn't take them seriously anymore! if it goes on like this, competitions may become mea- ningless as everybody cheats anyway... doesn't it feel much better to get your votes in a fair and honest way and have objective results, instead of cheating and making everybody else angry ecxept you? at last, dear bacchus, you see that i quoted your letter fully, as you reques- ted. but it was not a very nice move of you to assume i would be unfair and quo- te only extracts of it inconvenient for you (after all, i think the whole letter will not cast a too positive light on you). i am one of the last persons to be unfair; i absolutely hate unfairness, may it happen to me or to anybody. and that's probably why i am making such a big "fuss" about all this. anyway, the final question of who is un- fair and who is not i leave open to all the readers, whom i would appreciate to get some feedback from. yours, pri.