| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 486 |
24h rules for First Releases & board list extension
Moved this topic to the forum because it does not only belong to a special release.
In this topic the 3 lists are different:
The rules for Jazzcats list (Vandalism News) is not very precise on that topic.
"The group uploading to the majority of official sites within 24 hours of the initial first release or NTSC/PAL import will receive the points."
The rule in Game Corner (even not released for a while) is very precise here:
"If more than one group uploads a first release or PAL/NTSC import of the same game within 24 hours, the group which has its release available for download as first on the majority of official sites will get the points."
That's why we have an uneven amount of release boards.
The Propaganda List (lately published in Attitude #18) is precise as well, but different:
"You need to be first on all three boards to win the race. In other words: Make sure you spread your warez."
As an example the current release of "Hyperzap". The Facts:
* Uploaded first on Reflections by Laxity. Half hour later for Fairlight (by hedning/GP on behalf).
* Uploaded first ot Antidote by Laxity. Half hour later for Fairlight (by hedning/GP on behalf).
* The Hidden was unreachable. 15 hours later The Hidden was back. Uploaded first for Fairlight (by hedning/GP on behalf). 2 hours later by Laxity. Both within 24 hours to first upload by Laxity on Reflections.
Winner by list (by my understanding):
Vandalism News: Laxity. After Fairlight upload on The Hidden: Fairlight.
Game Corner: Laxity. First on 2 of 3 boards = majority. Point.
Proapaganda List: Laxity. After Fairlight upload on The Hidden: Fairlight.
This is a special situation. It is not uncommon that one or more boards is unreachable. But it is uncommon that it is back within the 24 timeframe and someone takes the chance to win the race ca. 20 hours after the first upload.
Best interpretation in terms of "winning a race" is in my opinion the rule of Game Corner (not just because it is mine).
And I would like to extend the list of counted boards by RapidFire which proved to be very reliable. To get an un uneven amount we would need a 5th one. My eye is on Raveolution or Frozen Floppy but none of them has proved the needed stability and availability yet. Until they do, I would opt for RapidFire as a fallback to count if situation is not clear due to unreachability of others.
This is my point to be discussed. Let's start... |
|
... 62 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 251 |
Maybe it is time to adapt the rules to current reality?
Like:
a) a crack (as in cracked = protection removed) is only a crack if a copy protection of a commercially available (and therefore copyprotected) game was successfully cracked
b) a release is only a release if it was publicly announced at whatever source that is accessible to certain parties and then being spread
c) a release, may it be "cracked" is only released if it has been made available on a source that can be accessed by third parties (namely a spreader) and has been accessed by third parties (namely a spreader) at least once
d) anything in this constellation that hints on the parties involved trying to bend or bias the outcome of the rules or the system that might lead to giving points, should be considered questionable - like attempts to have releasers of software giving releases directly to parties who are intersted of controlling the system.
Therefore:
releases that have not been given to a broad public should be excluded from the points system if they are just being passed along for releases sake.
real cracks that fit the name crack (as in copy protection removed) should get extra points.
a release that was never announced and is unknown to the public and was only released by a third party before the original release was even announced should get no points - since: originally all releases were originally announced through advertisement and therefore had a broad attention and made the transition into the market, therefore being anticipated.
release mechanims should be independent theaters, not controlled by the releasing groups, since the original reality of releasing releases has become obsolete, therefore, a neutral place that indicates and records the publication of a release should be mandatory.
if jones did not get the disk,
the disk is not out there.
if the wares are not unique or new,
jones will not spread the disk to the lamers.
ws |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11351 |
bwahaha. epic thread. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2218 |
gpz: foreseeable posting :P
that said, yup, even to some of the "active" (no matter how half-assed and/or lame or both as in my case) guys, stats in its current form are pretty ridiculous. Indeed I know a bunch of guys from other groups who share my - somewhat between disillusioned and indifferent - opinion, some just don't feel like fighting the same fight or even feel a good old CSDb flamewar and keep away from this thread.
I am not surprised at all that to out-of-business guys like gpz this thread's hilarious - and ppl not involved into current cracking biz give a big shrug or a good laugh :)
However, as in other questions which have been debated for a zillion times, I do not shun giving my opinion, no matter how unlikely it is that it makes any change.
I accept if the majority of active groups (most of which are manifold more productive and important than we are <- not that we really try very hard anymore) orgas decide they wanna stick to X of Y BBSes rule.
Most of all, I do appreciate that we keep talking about issues. In this respect, i.e. accepting being outvoted but having the right to complain if you're of a different view, Y2K+x so-called cr4xX0r2 scene's much more democratic than some EU member states. ;)
@la-style: no attack against ANY sys-op intended
@wertstahl: real current life, availability, you must be kiddng :D I've dropped these arguments long time ago as they did not impress those dinosaurs ^^ (no DNS pun intended here)
@gpz once more: As we see, some crackers (Master, Joker, few more guys) just do what they're there for by name: crack and give a shit about conventions. Maybe it's about time to drop statwanking totally, as many people waste precious hacking time by mere dickfencing or trying forever to connect to some BBS ^^ |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Agree that will articulate the wording more clearer for the new folk joining the first release race (and the old-new folk). With this in mind, will align to Game Corners definition (which has the same meaning, just worded more clearly:
"If more than one group uploads a first release or PAL/NTSC import of the same game within 24 hours, the group which has its release available for download as first on the majority of official sites will get the points."
Regarding major boards: 3 is good. 5 is too many. Moving from CSDb to RapidFire as fall back: I am okay with this (that way we keep it to the boards in all cases).
All other conversational points: blablabla. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Which is Didi's main concern - the rules or that Hedning uploaded the FLT version?
My opinion is already stated; I think the entire BBS thing is like disk swapping - obsoleted. Cute, but obsoleted. It doesn't work properly. I love the hardware, the scene, working in a constrained environment and the spirit, but the entire BBS structure in the release structure is to artificially wedge in the Sysop and modem trader role in the chain. We don't care. We never really cared. We cracked for position in Gamer's guide. If we accidentally got into other list, then nice but not our main target. And as we see from the thread, the BBS concept keeps competent people out of the game as they don't even have access. That sucks!
So I want a release site that has a scoring system that accommodates both first and quality. Where first is only one of the merits of a release.
The outline is this:
https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/Scene-points-9Pp7f3AiLvM54TwZbVeBB
I don't have any ambition to change any of the current lists and scoring principles. Anyone can have their own. There are several, so even if Jazzcat's is the leading one, it's not the only one. Like political parties - if you can't change an existing party, then form a new one. If maintainers of the current list are worried that their list is not in line with the current trends, then it's up to them to ask. Then the maintainer of each list needs to evaluate how to form their list to be relevant.
And the most amusing part of this is still the ambivalence of CSDB in this. Not part of scene politics, but still this obsession of exposing the sloppy (which of course doesn't apply to all releases from the Admins themselves - they are free to update). My ambition is not that far away from what CSDB is (not what it says it wants to be - that is seemingly different).
And why is this even discussed here? Because a webbased structure can have concurrent access to for all of us.
Why do people upload their stuff here? Because webbased solutions are so much better to prove a valid upload.
We are all here - only a subset is in each of the BBSes, and BBS are restricted both in access time, storage and functionality. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4720 |
Quote: Which is Didi's main concern - the rules or that Hedning uploaded the FLT version?
My opinion is already stated; I think the entire BBS thing is like disk swapping - obsoleted. Cute, but obsoleted. It doesn't work properly. I love the hardware, the scene, working in a constrained environment and the spirit, but the entire BBS structure in the release structure is to artificially wedge in the Sysop and modem trader role in the chain. We don't care. We never really cared. We cracked for position in Gamer's guide. If we accidentally got into other list, then nice but not our main target. And as we see from the thread, the BBS concept keeps competent people out of the game as they don't even have access. That sucks!
So I want a release site that has a scoring system that accommodates both first and quality. Where first is only one of the merits of a release.
The outline is this:
https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/Scene-points-9Pp7f3AiLvM54TwZbVeBB
I don't have any ambition to change any of the current lists and scoring principles. Anyone can have their own. There are several, so even if Jazzcat's is the leading one, it's not the only one. Like political parties - if you can't change an existing party, then form a new one. If maintainers of the current list are worried that their list is not in line with the current trends, then it's up to them to ask. Then the maintainer of each list needs to evaluate how to form their list to be relevant.
And the most amusing part of this is still the ambivalence of CSDB in this. Not part of scene politics, but still this obsession of exposing the sloppy (which of course doesn't apply to all releases from the Admins themselves - they are free to update). My ambition is not that far away from what CSDB is (not what it says it wants to be - that is seemingly different).
And why is this even discussed here? Because a webbased structure can have concurrent access to for all of us.
Why do people upload their stuff here? Because webbased solutions are so much better to prove a valid upload.
We are all here - only a subset is in each of the BBSes, and BBS are restricted both in access time, storage and functionality.
No active group want to skip the boards; we have had this discussion before. But you are of course completely free to make your own first release list/diskmag with your own rules any time. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
At least one active groups wants that!
And I already said that everyone is free to make his own list - that was sort of the point of my post. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11351 |
People are left out because they have no access? rotfl. every dumbnut and their mother is getting access today. eg the ppl ryk mentioned GIVE A SHIT. plain and simple.
keep it coming though :) |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Groepaz applying his normal discussion logic - pick one little point and answer that. Leave the rest. :-P |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11351 |
you cant expect me to answer to all that nonsense. others did already anyway, no need to repeat it. it doesnt make what i said less valid however. hilarious. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Next |
