altdeath

hate

Member

Registered: 2011-06-29

Posts: 2

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

First things first, don't make up any shit here. We have always allowed topics relating to ZDDL and have had no issue with them in the past (in fact I'm an admin for ZDDL and ZDaemon). You are correct in the fact that there is no acknowledgement on the homepage of ZDDL, but until a few months ago the website has been completely broken. I have talked to Kilgore in the past about having a section on the new website for ZDDL and other related tournaments and he had no issue with it as long as they agreed to play on PUBLIC servers. Unfortunately, this will have to wait until after 1.09 is released, there is only so much the programmers can do and they have to prioritize things. Once this is done I'm sure the ZDaemon admins would have no problem with having an official section or link to ZDDL or any other tournament organization that chooses to use public servers.

While it's true that the ZDaemon Staff has never shunned away from the ZDDL like it does the IDL, some of the staff members (Raider comes to mind here) are not in favor of it. Actually, I suspect my most recent ban from ZDIRC is due to me advertising ZDDL matches. In the past year, very seldom have I connected to ZDIRC (only time I really connect is to find sedlo). In fact, I think I've probably only connected 4 or 5 times in the past 6 months and only on a few occasions did I say anything while I was there. Anywho, long story short, I hadn't connected to ZDIRC in months up until about 2 months ago when I was about to play Chew for our ZDDL regular season match. I advertised the match a few times about 30 minutes before and at one point, Raider himself said "who cares, just a bunch of guys with huge egos playing." At the time, I didn't think much of it but then I tried connecting again when I wanted to advertise a match I was casting with Blair only to receive this message:

01:39:44  Connecting to irc.zdaemon.org:6668 ...
01:39:45  *** ZDaemon IRC Server. Wed Jun 29 05:39:46.849 UTC 2011
01:39:46  Connected
01:39:46  *** Looking up your hostname...
01:39:46  *** Found your hostname
01:39:46  hate: learn some manners
01:39:46  Closing Link: hate (~hate@zdaemon.user) has quit IRC [hate: learn some manners]
01:39:46  * Disconnected

What's the significance of this? Well, up until the last point I connected to advertise that match between myself and Chew, I hadn't connected to ZDIRC in months. So I doubt I was banned for anything prior to that which leads me to believe that I was banned for advertising ZDDL matches. I especially consider that when Raider said what he said. So while I think they don't put ZDDL and IDL in the same class of their black-list, I wouldn't say they exactly support it. To make matters worse, when Ralph joined (which I'm not saying it was worse because I like Ralph and his time spent was worth-while and made ZDDL even more attractable than it's ever been because of all the talent we had in div1 this season), that probably turned them off to it even more. Also, you guys keep using the term "play on public servers." Here's a few reason why most of us prefer to play on private, unadvertised servers:

-We can control the amount of trolls who attempt to ruin an organized regular/post-season game
-Some of the "black-listed" players can actually spectate and help cast, these players are actually pretty significant as well
-Overall, it's just a more controlled environment for everyone involved making the game itself more spectacular and worth watching.

And to add onto that, there were a ton of regular season games (even a few post-season games) played on the public servers. And by public, yes we mean servers hosted by Ladna. I suspect that the staff probably wouldn't want to be invested much in a league where Ladna has control over the servers. Eventually it'd do like the IDL and go completely unadvertised. It's probably best, too.

That being said, I do see where the staff comes from when they want "more control," if you will. But the reality is, a community where IDL/ZDDL are publicly supported and suggested by ZD Staff is most likely impossible to obtain. It all comes down to control. ZDDL/IDL want full control over their leagues and ZD wants more control than the IDL/ZDDL are willing to offer. For the leagues, this works best. The players they allow to play can play on their own terms and the guys running the leagues and servers don't have to answer to anyone since they aren't advertised. However, I'm not sure it's a good move for the ZDaemon itself to shun away from these leagues. Competition helps communities thrive, it's why the IDL/ZDDL communities are currently thriving and the ZDaemon public community really isn't, at least not to the extent of the IDL/ZDDL communities. ZDaemon has never really done much of anything to support competitive play other than host random tournaments once a month (a good portion of them don't get finished) and that's about as far as it goes. They don't really let one of the biggest by-products of competition to be present in their community: hostility. There's nothing wrong with that but competitive players want to go and play where they don't have to worry about their threads/posts disappearing. So what ends up happening is that they leave. They go where the competition is. So the ZD Staff can't accuse IDL/ZDDL of stealing their players, the hardcore ZDaemon players went where the competition was. The rest who aren't interested in it stick around some but mostly fade out. This is what they created, so it's my belief that ZDaemon wants to run a kindergarten and spank children with wooden paddles when they say bad words. The one's who don't want to be a part of this leave to other fractions of the community or just quit. If ZDaemon is okay with this, there really isn't much to discuss. But if they aren't, well then I don't really understand why they're complaining about. Either way, I don't see them co-existing.

But, in closing, I do want to point something out. Dannyboy has been busting his ass to run the new TDM league, which seems to be doing okay. You know what I say to that? Good for you, ZDaemon. I genuinely hope it works out for the best. While I wouldn't say I'm on the Staff's black-list, I will go out on a limb and say I'm not their favorite. I especially want nothing to do with them since my forums account was deactivated for literally nothing and I was banned from ZDIRC for something I don't really understand either. Either way, I find it best to stay away from to avoid the headache. I'm perfectly happy with my situation now in the Doom community and that's about that. I didn't really mean to ramble on much, Madgunner, but it was kind of an explanation as to why we get the impression ZDaemon isn't an advocate for the ZDDL. Much less, they're probably not even going to allow it being mentioned anymore. I should also point out I mean no hostility towards you or anyone from the ZD Staff for that matter, just merely pointing a few things out. We'll see what happens from here but that's my story. And the rest, as they say, is history.

cybershark

Member

Registered: 2010-11-16

Posts: 33

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Oh, hey Hatred

how are those videos "dumbass"?????? by what guidelines are YOU going by

This one?

they might have been rage-induced

The points may have been valid, but you totally nerfed the presentation.

I highly doubt it [Zdaemon] has any or near the same prospects as Skulltag has :3

Not the same as it having zero prospects - which was why I said that talking in absolutes was ridiculous here :4
The fact is that it's never looked for the same 'prospects' as Skulltag - ie the possibility of eventually having nobody left playing anything that remotely resembles Doom as we know it.

Last edited by cybershark (2011-06-29 04:59:03)

legion

sexual guru

From: Texas

Registered: 2011-01-05

Posts: 57

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

so I'm guessing there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to state that bugs exist. cool

Ladna

Member

Registered: 2010-12-02

Posts: 57

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Hey Lyfe.  Thanks a lot for coming by.  Like Ralphis said, everything could get a lot better if we were all as reasonable and magnanimous as you were in your posts here, and I personally really appreciate it.

Apropos, I think there's a lot of bad blood on all sides, mostly for pretty good reasons.  It's perhaps easy to forget that some pretty ridiculous things have happened in the multiplayer Doom community, the "Black csDoom Launcher" to CodeImp's various escapades, or Skulltag stealing Skulltag from itself (and then half giving it back again...).  And sure, some people care only about themselves or their reputation or whatever.  But I think it's clear that the majority of us - on all sides - really love Doom and want to see the community grow.

=== Control

I think it's absolutely right that the ZDaemon administration is in control of its services, like ZDIRC, the forums or the master, and its products like ZLauncher, GetWAD, ZSL, and ZDaemon itself.  I think the administration is absolutely right to exercise that control in whatever way it likes.  For example, you believe that allowing cheaters to play is ultimately not beneficial (I'm not saying I disagree), and you use the master banlist accordingly.  However, I disagree with some of the decisions you've made.

==== Permission to interact

I agree it would have been nicer if Blzut3 (Doomseeker's developer) asked for permission and information about the query protocol, but I think you do yourselves a disservice alienating a smart, active developer like him, because unless explaining the ZD query protocol exposes security holes there's no benefit to you; in fact he might be interested in fixing them if they exist.  Furthermore he's the developer of an extremely popular launcher in the multiplayer Doom community, and now everyone who knows about Doomseeker also knows that the ZD administration was upset that it could... list ZDaemon servers....  This is terribly, awfully, extremely bad PR for, again, no gain whatsoever for you.

I think the larger point is one of perspective though.  When IDE and Doomseeker added support for Odamex we helped the devs and appreciated their efforts - even though we have our own launcher.  When Blzut3 added support for ZDaemon he got... well whatever it is he got.

I think you're within your rights to do whatever you like to your query protocol, but I think it's harmful for ZDaemon and the greater multiplayer Doom community.

==== Closing the source

I think you've articulated the argument for closing the source pretty well, and there are a lot of things I agree with; for one, it's certainly easier to write exploits and cheats with access to the source code.  However, I believe that the tradeoffs - turning off otherwise interested developers and bad PR are not worth it, because closing the source has ultimately been ineffective in stopping the use of cheats.

Indeed cheats exist for ZDaemon and because cheat detection doesn't extend to non-advertised servers, the IDL requires all players to submit demos for every game they play.  Of course, this method works because there are a finite amount of IDL games, and it's nowhere close to 100% accurate.  However, ZDaemon's tactic of closing the source is far from foolproof as well.  ZDHook is the most famous cheat package released since the source was closed, but I personally know of another that's undetected and in use since late 2008, and other utilities using the same basic principle are in circulation.

I think if the goal of closing the source was to prevent cheating, and the community has to live with cheats anyway, then the tactic was a failure and the tradeoff is no longer worth it.

==== Advertising

I, along with others, believe IDL is a hugely great thing for the multiplayer Doom community - specifically for ZDaemon - and we would very much like to work together with the ZDaemon administration to make it even better.  Our feature requests as well as our discussions with administrators and moderators (yes, often times about Ralphis) are all in this spirit.  A good example is the advertising issue.  We want to advertise our servers on the ZDaemon master so more people will know about us, but our main disagreement is this:

  - IDL requires that it controls who can and can't play in the league.
  - ZDaemon requires that it controls who can and can't play in the league.

Both sides feel as though they're right because both sides feel they're the best judge of this issue, but ZDaemon wins because you control the master server; the decision is absolutely up to you guys.  As far as I know, Kilgore was open to the idea of advertising most of IDL's servers but still allowing us some private servers so our banned players could still play, but then he changed his mind, is that not the case?

I should also make it clear I'm no longer a member of the IDL Board or administration, so if this issue is going to move forward, you'll want to speak with HumanBones, Goatface, Mikehail, Mantis-X, dewww, or MassVC.

==== Overall

I think it's fair to say that the ZDaemon administration wants as much control over ZDaemon as it can possibly get, like who queries the master, what you can or can't talk about on the forums/IRC, or who plays on advertised servers.  This, of course, is your prerogative, its your services and programs, and I think you have every right to exercise that control.  My issue is that I think many of the ways in which you do so are harmful to the ZDaemon and multiplayer Doom community, and I wish you'd stop.

=== Feature Request

Now for something a little less serious

I'll be blunt, the idea with serverside sayto was so I wouldn't have to wait 40 years for 1.09 to actually use new ZDaemon features, and this was nearly 2 years ago.  In fact, that was really the whole motivation behind writing ZDStack; I could've asked the ZDaemon development team for better stats, or better config/process management, or a web management interface, or event plugins (all of which ZDStack has) but it was actually just faster to write it myself.  You can do a lot more with serverside sayto than just implementing finer-grained passwords; ultimately it's a way to interact with ZDStack directly from the client.

And again, I really don't understand the cheating issue.  The only things the server knows that the client doesn't are IP addresses and team/sayto chat, and if I'm interested in spying on that stuff I don't want it fed directly to my client while I'm in a game, I'll have it on tail on a laptop or something.  Serverside sayto allows non-server admins to interact with the server; server admins don't need the server to send anything back to the client, they can just keep an SSH window open or whatever.

But I thought, "OK, so the argument is that servers sending information privately to one client could be used for some kind of cheating, even though I can't figure out what exactly, so why not make it really annoying?  If you want to spy on someone's team chat, every time the server sends a 'sayto', make a huge noise and block the screen out with a HUD message."

Specifically with passwords, serverside sayto would be used to inform the user whether or not they authenticated correctly.  Otherwise it has to be broadcast to all players, which is a big pain in the ass.  Who cares if [UD]RottKing can't remember his password is "asukamyl0ve"?

All of which I would've explained (maybe with less hyperbole about 1.09's prolonged development period) had Kilgore not locked the thread.  It's worth saying that it's pretty lame to argue with someone in an "I'm locking this thread" post.  Then the other party has to start a whole other thread to respond, they look like a crybaby, and the administration feels like they're being harassed.  Or, like me, they just give up.

=== "It makes me heated"

I use this famous Tai quote to kick off my own apology.  I have a tendency to only post when something makes me angry, and thus I also have a tendency to go too far.  I apologize if I've offended you Lyfe, or really anyone I didn't specifically mean to offend (that is you Mobius, I mean to offend you always).  I do my best not to take anything on the internet personally (even though my love for multiplayer Doom sometimes makes it hard), and I hope you all do the same.

Ladna

Member

Registered: 2010-12-02

Posts: 57

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

OK Madgunner.

We have always allowed topics relating to ZDDL and have had no issue with them in the past (in fact I'm an admin for ZDDL and ZDaemon).

Not deleting everything mentioning ZDDL from the ZD forums isn't exactly the same thing as supporting ZDDL.

Unfortunately, this will have to wait until after 1.09 is released, there is only so much the programmers can do and they have to prioritize things.

This is a great argument for open source!  Open it up, I'll do it tonight.

Furthermore, we have done stuff for ZDDL in the past. Jehar (one of the announcers) requested one or two features to help him with recording, and Kilgore implemented them for him.

Uh, that spectator stuff I'm assuming?  That's a 1.09 feature and AFAIK Jehar had a beta client, so while I admit that is support, it's pretty weak because Jehar's the only person who can do it and we can't use TastySpleen anymore because ZDaemon is non-commercial use only and TSTV is ad-supported.  Fair point though.

...and said that we'd be more than happy to support them if they'd just agree to play on advertised servers. Well they decided against it...

At the time I was head of the IDL Board, and I said this:

I'm personally fine with a "fallback" unadvertised server.  I don't get the feeling that the ZD administration is though.

That's still my understanding, but feel free to correct me.

even though there was only like 2 people in the entire league who were permabanned from ZDaemon (1 of those was Ralphis of course)

I can recall at least 5 people who've been banned while actively playing in IDL:

  - Ralphis
  - Kandy_Kid
  - Envy/Versatile
  - Doomguy666
  - Nostar (via my cheating ban)

Ralphis has won 2 masterbowls and was league commissioner for over 4 years.  Envy's had 2 masterbowl appearances, Doomguy666 was a steadfast captain for at least 3 seasons, and Nostar has 1,000,000 masterbowls.  Any one of those bans drastically changes IDL's history and, were IDL public, might even have destroyed a season.

If you extend this idea and presuppose that IDL were dependent on ZDaemon for forums and IRC, then something as innocent as a forum ban or IRC ban can impede your ability to communicate with your team and the league, which is pretty critical.

Banning even 1 player in this fashion is unacceptable, and your attitude of, "oh what the hell ever, it's only a couple people" is insensitive, ignorant, offensive, and exactly the reason we don't want to be subject to the whims of people like you.

Although personally, I think it was pretty obvious from the start that the IDL had no intention of getting our support and was just trying to find a way to force us to say no, so that they could say, "Hey look everyone! The ZDaemon admins are a bunch of tyrants and nazis! They won't publicly support us!"

I will answer you with your own words:

First things first, don't make up any shit here.

You conviently left out the fact that you literally made around 10 feature requests at ONE time when you posted that thread, without even bothering to do a simple search.

Such a "simple search" would reveal that I made 5 feature requests, none of which had ever been made before.  I know this, because I performed said search, both now and when I posted them.  If there's a more acceptable rate of feature request submission, keep it to yourself, because I find such a concept ridiculous.  "Oh the feature requests... 5... it's so many!!!"

And yes he didn't accept that request you made, move on man.

I work for Odamex now, you might have heard of it.

they aren't your personal servant

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "request".

Besides, there's nothing preventing you from implementing it yourself

Unless they don't want it implemented, as Kilgore says about serverside sayto.

the staff has stated on multiple occasions that if you can get a patch working with 1.06

ZDaemon 1.06 is illegal.  It contains GPL code from Quake 2 (vectors.cpp) and incompatibly-licensed code from BUILD (slopes).  I don't feel legally safe developing with it.  It's also old as fuck.

and even release that portion of the code if you want it to be open source

That's news to me, where are the other open sourced patches?  What license are they under?

See wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about using demos to monitor cheats?

We would still do it, because AFAIK ZDaemon's cheat detection system only detects ZDHook.

Is Ralphis and a few other banned people truly worth that much to you and the rest of the board?

100% yes.  But even if they weren't, it's still the principle.  IDL controls who plays in the league, not ZDaemon, not LeBron James, not Lexi Belle, only IDL.

===

Oh and I should say that GetWAD directing to this page is crazy great news.  That page is goddamn awesome as fuck, go page rank go!

EDIT: Forgot I have a master ban in addition to my forum ban.  Takes a little getting used to .

Last edited by Ladna (2011-06-29 07:49:24)

Lyfe

Member

Registered: 2011-06-28

Posts: 7

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

i see a process in the task manager's process list and if I try to start more than one client I get a message telling me that it's already running.  past that, nada.

I can bring it up to the other devs (windows is not my specialty), but this is the first I've heard of it, and it sounds like replicating it might be tricky.  Is this the launcher, or the client?  (I didn't think the actual client had multiple-instance checking, but I've also never tried.)

Hey Lyfe.  Thanks a lot for coming by.  Like Ralphis said, everything could get a lot better if we were all as reasonable and magnanimous as you were in your posts here, and I personally really appreciate it.

Praise appreciated, but lets face it, I've got years of experience that I've not put to use.  Not to mention a healthy disrespect for the entire community at large.

I think it's fair to say that the ZDaemon administration wants as much control over ZDaemon as it can possibly get, like who queries the master, what you can or can't talk about on the forums/IRC, or who plays on advertised servers.  This, of course, is your prerogative, its your services and programs, and I think you have every right to exercise that control.

I think this is a double-edged sword.  By maintaining control over the software involved, I believe we do make things easier for new users.  When someone asks a question on why a particular thing isn't working, we can (usually) support them easily by asking them the appropriate questions, because we are familiar enough with the software to help them out.  We have had a lot of discussions on whether or not to do something (or include a feature) based on how easy it would be to support.
On the flip side, we get the scenarios you talk about.  I still stand by my statement that the guy who DoS attacks the master server deserves whatever ban system we have in place.  Obviously there will not be a mutual respect there.

=== Feature Request

I'm not gonna quote the entire request.  The short is that there wasn't a good explanation (even in my opinion) of what abilities nor limitations it would have... Or I just didn't misread it, and will find that what footing I have on the topic is about to be yanked out from under me.  It seemed like a generic request, that (for what little research I put into it) was to be too over-encompassing.
I can't say what potential there was for cheating, but this also comes back to a lot of server admins seeming to believe that we're the baby-sitters, and they can just put the servers up and not listen to the bullshit their players generate.  I'm no longer a server admin because of that exact detail (I didn't have the patience nor time to maintain the servers).
Granted, there was no discussion on why it was a bad explanation or whatnot either, but that comes back to a big ugly communication conversation.

Thadeuss

Member

Registered: 2010-12-09

Posts: 17

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

I find it amusing that some people here have either completely back tracked, or changed their entire tone just because Lyfe posted here. I don't agree with most of what's been said here (even some of the things Lyfe has said), but I have more respect for someone's point of view when they are consistent with it and don't change what they are saying based on who they are talking to. C'mon guys, if you are going to have a point at least stick to it! That is, if you really believe in it...

Mobius

Member

Registered: 2010-10-08

Posts: 226

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

I find it amusing that some people here have either completely back tracked, or changed their entire tone just because Lyfe posted here. I don't agree with most of what's been said here (even some of the things Lyfe has said), but I have more respect for someone's point of view when they are consistent with it and don't change what they are saying based on who they are talking to. C'mon guys, if you are going to have a point at least stick to it! That is, if you really believe in it...

Or perhaps it's open dialogue between people having a modicum of mutual respect is off putting to you. This is beneficial for both sides rather than you idiots bickering about old grudges that have long lasted after their expiration date.

---

<@Jenova> im pretty sure jenova loves mlp

Ralphis

Member

Registered: 2010-11-26

Posts: 37

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

I find it amusing that some people here have either completely back tracked, or changed their entire tone just because Lyfe posted here. I don't agree with most of what's been said here (even some of the things Lyfe has said), but I have more respect for someone's point of view when they are consistent with it and don't change what they are saying based on who they are talking to. C'mon guys, if you are going to have a point at least stick to it! That is, if you really believe in it...

Who in particular are you referring to? I haven't noticed a tone change from anyone in the entire thread, but one can only assume that you have to either be speaking about Alexmax, Ladna, or myself. I don't think that Lyfe has ever caused a problem for mostly anybody in this thread that have legitimate gripes with the top brass of the ZD team (Kilgore in particular). If there were more open, even half-intelligent conversation like what you're seeing here, then maybe things would be less contentious between everybody. It looks as though you're just trying to fan the flames as usual though Thad

Thadeuss

Member

Registered: 2010-12-09

Posts: 17

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Haha when have I ever 'fanned the flames'? It just seemed to me that there was a shift in the way people were talking when Lyfe appeared. No biggie though, I suppose it derails the thread, and perhaps I'm just being a little picky, so apologies.

As I said before, I'd rather see the slate wiped clean and everyone start from scratch with one another, but it doesn't look like that will happen, but who knows, time heals all wounds as they say. The online DOOM community is too small to sustain these types of division.

Mobius

Member

Registered: 2010-10-08

Posts: 226

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Haha when have I ever 'fanned the flames'? It just seemed to me that there was a shift in the way people were talking when Lyfe appeared. No biggie though, I suppose it derails the thread, and perhaps I'm just being a little picky, so apologies.

As I said before, I'd rather see the slate wiped clean and everyone start from scratch with one another, but it doesn't look like that will happen, but who knows, time heals all wounds as they say. The online DOOM community is too small to sustain these types of division.

A clean slate, no; however, an understanding is more of what everyone should be pursuing. Time doesn't heal all wounds though in cases like these with certain people, and sometimes things never change.

---

<@Jenova> im pretty sure jenova loves mlp

Thadeuss

Member

Registered: 2010-12-09

Posts: 17

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Everything changes mate.

Mobius

Member

Registered: 2010-10-08

Posts: 226

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Everything changes mate.

There's always a constant and change isn't permenant.

---

<@Jenova> im pretty sure jenova loves mlp

Tai

Member

Registered: 2011-06-29

Posts: 3

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

I find it amusing that some people here have either completely back tracked, or changed their entire tone just because Lyfe posted here. I don't agree with most of what's been said here (even some of the things Lyfe has said), but I have more respect for someone's point of view when they are consistent with it and don't change what they are saying based on who they are talking to. C'mon guys, if you are going to have a point at least stick to it! That is, if you really believe in it...

As someone who's read pretty much read every single word typed in this topic, I'm not sure what you mean, apart from people going out of their way to show their appreciation for Lyfe's posts. Maybe that's what you were referring to?

Anyways, time to steal Ladna's outlining:

====ZDaemon wants to support IDL, just not Ralphis/whoever else we banned

I'd also like to know what's with the ZD Admin staff's (or some on it) *apparent* disdain for IDL in general. It's one thing to tell us that you were willing to support it as long as some guys you consider "bad apples" (Ralphis and others, pretty much) couldn't come along for the ride, but I once remember Kilgore saying that IDL "stole" players from ZD's public community, basically implying in a nutshell that IDL was somehow detrimental to Zdaemon, kinda like how Raider more or less showed to Hate how less than enamored he was with ZDDL. I'm not sure who's ass that was pulled out from, even if it was Kilgore's, but that had me flabbergasted that IDL was really considered such by anyone in the ZD administration. Or, you can't speak the words "IDL" on the ZD Forums. I'm honestly not sure if that's true, either, but if it is, that tells me this is about a lot more than two or so guys involved IDL who the ZD administration doesn't want around. I'd have a hard time believing that over the apparent drama of defending Ralphis and what not, I couldn't go into the Tournaments forum and say the IDL season's starting without being warned, which I believe I've done before. Cause, Ralphis would be considered the problem, not IDL....right?

DXChain

Member

Registered: 2010-10-18

Posts: 8

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

I remember around a year or so ago right before the "Yo Yo" threads on ZD's forums that Kilgore was open to some sort of discussion with me about limited IDL presence on the ZD public master. He initially said "Can we wait to talk about this please?" and I agreed. Several weeks went by and the Yo Yo threads were in full gear, with less-than-stellar appearances by Quiksilver and Hatred (mostly pushing the Ralphis issue). As Kilgore got involved and some morons subsequently tried to flood/query the forums, our talks pretty much broke down about the subject before they even began. The final word from him about this was "No, and that's final."

Knowing him, I think any more discussion about that is useless.

However, I did explain to Kilgore personally about the points he was wrong about in that infamous thread that I'm too lazy to link to. I relayed to him that from firsthand experience as an early IDL founder/supporter, IDL's goal was never to take players and make ZD look like it's dying. Moreover, Odamex came after the IDL was born, contrary to his earlier assertion that since Odamex "failed," then IDL was to be Ralphis' final solution. This unfortunately didn't lead to a reversal of the "IDL is bad for ZDaemon" policy.

There are plenty of anecdotes about getting banned or yelled at that I can share (with logs even, I'm an asshole for keeping records for so long, I know!) but that really won't accomplish anything. The best thing for IDL and perhaps even ZDDL is to move on and do what they do best. It is really too bad that control and grudges over other people is really at the heart of the "bad blood" here, but it is what it is. To IDL and ZDDL: Why break something when it works well already?

On another side note, I have also told Kilgore that community babysitting and management is not his strength and that he shouldn't do it. Unfortunately, some of the new moderator choices haven't been the greatest (looking at you Thad!). At least Dannyboy and Sexn0r are trying to do something with the TDM league, and that's something to give props for. That's the key to any success story when it comes to revitalizing a community: Get off your ass and do something!

PS. With people talking about 1.09, I can't help but feel some of the impatience that others have felt for several years now. Even though I have 1.09 betas and it's an amazing improvement on all fronts, I can't exactly DO anything with it. The tests with other official testers are uncommon and not as thorough (to the tune of more talking and less playing) as say, a packed-house IDL private session that usually lasts 2-3 hours. I am left with the feeling that Kilgore and ZDaemon could GREATLY benefit from having us IDL workhorses test like motherfuckers in real environments, but it will be death to the universe before that happens -- You can only be a perfectionist for so long...see what happened to Duke Nukem Forever.

Last edited by DXChain (2011-06-29 16:19:06)

Ralphis

Member

Registered: 2010-11-26

Posts: 37

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

anywasy have some oda/ud leaks to make up your mind about the actual attitude and agenda of certain people:

http://pastebin.com/30ND35jZ
http://pastebin.com/tiWGLUME
http://pastebin.com/f808fade
http://pastebin.com/ugpeqYms

there is more on pastebin, but i'm too lazy to post it.
sadly my post will be drown out by muiltiple walls of text (containing just a lot of hot air)

What conclusion did you come to on the attitudes and agendas found in these logs? I think all four of them are from public channels so I don't know that I'd call them leaks, not to mention they're all pushing 5+ years old. They're mostly pretty boring logs but interesting to watch the beginning of Odamex development (and even read the log where it gets named). It's a good thing too because Zwango was a really bad name.

Thadeuss

Member

Registered: 2010-12-09

Posts: 17

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

On another side note, I have also told Kilgore that community babysitting and management is not his strength and that he shouldn't do it. Unfortunately, some of the new moderator choices haven't been the greatest (looking at you Thad!). At least Dannyboy and Sexn0r are trying to do something with the TDM league, and that's something to give props for. That's the key to any success story when it comes to revitalizing a community: Get off your ass and do something!
.

I know this is a possible derail, but I have to ask, beyond the personal resentment, can you tell me exactly what I've done wrong as a mod? The only reason I was asked was because a few people put myself forward as one when those threads about forum moderation were going around, ironically some of those banned and involved heavily with the IDL. I was asked to look over the forums in a different way as Kilgore wanted to focus on programming. Because of this he'd lock threads that got out of hand because he didn't have the time to deal with them; who could blame him? I haven't locked a thread since I've been there. Any time I've deleted or edited a thread I've either left a reason why or pm'd the poster to talk about it. I do all of this to try and make the forums more communicative. I was given instructions as to what is allowed and not allowed on the forums. Some of these are the topics we are discussing here. I've deleted posts and PM'd people to help them out, asking them not to post about such things because it might result in a ban if others see it. In the end, myself and other users have to respect the wishes of the people who pay the bills.

I came here to talk it out with you guys because I feel like there are, at least as I can see them, ideas and myths being spread about ZD and its admins without answer. I don't think it's fair that people such as Kilgore get their names dragged through the mud so publicly without anyone here being able to see both sides. Maybe that was niave, but it certainly got things going; look at all the points that have been posted since. I also think it might diffuse the situation slightly if there is some kind of positive, constructive dialogue, even if all that results in is a better understanding of where we all stand. I do agree with you Chain that some things just have to be accepted, at least for the moment.

As for getting off your ass and doing something. There are many people outside of the developers that contribute to ZD. Look at the likes of Dewww, he's done more for the competitive scene in Europe than anyone, Cupboard has helped run and maintain ZDS along with Cybershark and others, I've ran tournaments (some successful some not) and there are many more that I could mention who have all given something to the port and its community. I think one of the things that irks people is that many perceive the IDL as the only thing that has contributed to ZD and really, that's way, way wide of the mark.

I think everyone should try and develop mutual respect for one another and what they have contributed, even if they don't get on personally. The IDL has been a great success, no doubt, but it isn't the be all and end all.

Mobius

Member

Registered: 2010-10-08

Posts: 226

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

IDL just happens to be the only tournament I've seen other than ZDDL to be long lasting (to my limited knowledge). I think there's a huge market in Zdaemon investing a lot of endorsement rights to these two events since they have proven to be successful. I don't know the huge dick waving contest between Ralphis and Kilgore, but a compromise would benefit the community a smidgen with allowing both advertised and unadvertised servers. It will also benefit to let the IDL handle itself as it has been doing. I know it sounds like Kilgore will lose some tug-of-war publicly, but at least Ralphis and others remain masterbanned outside of unadvertised servers.

Isn't the clan scene suppose to come back in Zdaemon as well? I see no mention of this in this thread.

P. S.: Now on some off-chance Kilgore decides to give it a shot, then I can see teams deliberately trying to schedule a game on advertise severs if they face SuC. That would be hilarious.

Last edited by Mobius (2011-06-29 19:53:05)

---

<@Jenova> im pretty sure jenova loves mlp

GhostlyDeath

ReMooD Project Leader

From: ReMooD

Registered: 2010-11-09

Posts: 123

Website

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Can't we all just get along and not spend 13 days arguing over petty differences and politics?

---

ReMooD Project Leader -- http://remood.org/

Mr-Cheater

Interent's troll product

From: NJ

Registered: 2011-04-06

Posts: 107

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Wow. A three(or four) page argument about ZDaemon. How uninteresting.

dew

check out my bfg

Registered: 2010-10-21

Posts: 139

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

How uninteresting.

yeah, because arguing whether your bad grammar means you're retarded or trolling is where it's at. also we are all awed by your contemptuous indifference.

EarthQuake

Member

Registered: 2010-11-08

Posts: 1

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

Just posting to say that I'm pleased to see some civil discussion going on for once.

Keep up the good work dudes.

Mr-Cheater

Interent's troll product

From: NJ

Registered: 2011-04-06

Posts: 107

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

How uninteresting.

yeah, because arguing whether your bad grammar means you're retarded or trolling is where it's at. also we are all awed by your contemptuous indifference.

I'm not implying that. But it does feel even more sadder and pathetic that you'll do that.

Madgunner

Member

Registered: 2010-12-04

Posts: 28

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

IDL just happens to be the only tournament I've seen other than ZDDL to be long lasting (to my limited knowledge). I think there's a huge market in Zdaemon investing a lot of endorsement rights to these two events since they have proven to be successful. I don't know the huge dick waving contest between Ralphis and Kilgore, but a compromise would benefit the community a smidgen with allowing both advertised and unadvertised servers. It will also benefit to let the IDL handle itself as it has been doing. I know it sounds like Kilgore will lose some tug-of-war publicly, but at least Ralphis and others remain masterbanned outside of unadvertised servers.

I definitely agree with you, a compromise would be a good solution in my opinion at least. It's a shame that discussions fell apart last year due to a couple of immature people's dumb antics, but perhaps an agreement can still be reached. I'll have to talk to Kilgore or Raider sometime and see what they have to say. All Kilgore has ever really wanted is for people to leave him alone so he can focus on doing what he enjoys, programming and playing.

tm512

._.

Registered: 2010-10-18

Posts: 102

Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon

All Kilgore has ever really wanted is for people to leave him alone so he can focus on doing what he enjoys, programming and playing.

That's a very good reason to step down from administration. Being the lead programmer doesn't mean you have to police and babysit the community. Look at Torr for example.