| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
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... |
|
| |
E$G
Registered: Dec 2007
Posts: 786 |
<Post edited by E$G on 10/5-2018 22:05>
I'll bring my not so humble opinion on bbs nowadays.
BBS are born to distribuite commercial c64 software and if credited to assign points on the game in the game of the release for points rush.
Obviously not all but just 3 selected to be the best, running on real hardware so for the few real cracking group around is not enough hard to get originals and provide it with a decent crack and test but must be u/l to this 3 bbs as fast as possible to avoid the other groups do it before than you. 3 in a row it's the magic number to get the points. 2 or less it's not enough.
http://csdb.dk/crackstandards.php
It happened many times that not all 3 bbs were online so messages, calls and ring to the doorbell occurred to let the game (and the group) to reach the final target.
But if something goes wrong what it happens? It happens what Didi exactly write about it.
So the problems are 2. There is no a sync with the rulez of the 1st release points. There are no rulez about when the bbs is not reachable!
In soccer game to avoid the referee judge in Italy was introduced the var (Video Assistant Referee), the referee anyway is the one who judge.
What we can do in the scene?
1) sync the rulez, there must be only one.
The one proposed used by Didi seems to be the best to avoid most of the probs.
2) To have 5 bbs on a count of 3 active will limit the problems.
I'm against this system and my propose is totally different, do the release here on csdb and since is commercial delete the link.
csdb is always on, and take care of the exact hour of release.
The game must be immediately u/l and no modification must be done, the link must be deleted, and the moderators will be the judges of the release.
Then if you wish you can deliver it to the bbs, that will do the work like in the past as couriers.
But if you prefere to lose time, that you can dedicate to a better release and lose the rush for futiles happening it's up to you.
Until a suspect will give food for your mind.
What you will think about when during a u/l the line will fall down. Bad luck or something weird happened? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
I once made the mistake that Jazzcat with "majority of boards" meant that one had to be first on 2 out of 3 boards, which made sense to me. It was, however, not the case - which I learned the hard way. Jazzcat told me that you had to be first having your release on all boards. To align our Propa rules with that, we tried to be more precise in our rules.
So our intent with the Propa rules was indeed to align them and make them compatible with Jazzcat's The List (and Game Corner! I was not aware that the rules were that much different.)
This is, however, a bad place to discuss the rules, as we will have a lot of annoying comments from people that do not like the cracking scene these days and that will only whine and troll, and it will give air to even more debates with Bacchus, I am sure. His view is, as you know, to cut the connection between the boards and the first release race, and have some modern alternative - no active group support that except FLT.
And I am fine with the three boards that are first release boards now. 3 is good. 5 is just too much, and I would promote Frozen Floppy if we had that discussion, as it has a good uptime, and new stable hw. I also like RapidFire, but I like even more the fact that not every board is a Laxity/Excess or whatever group's bbs. Right now we have one Triad/Ons board, one ATL/GP board and one Excess/Laxity/Ons board. All major groups seems evened out. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Conclusion: I want to keep it to the 3 boards that we have today, and I want the Propa rules to be aligned with Game Corner and Jazzcat's List when it comes to how to upload stuff. Thus: I am positive in changing the Propa rules to what Game Corner has, if Jazzcat agrees with that. Otherwise we will keep on aligning our rules to the upload rules from JC:s List. Seems you have to have a discussion with JC, and I am sure he want that to be discussed in a mail communication between all active groups, and not here. |
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 201 |
I have no horse in this race, but since we're spitballing here...
I propose we delete all the crack nonsense from CSDb and you guys build your own warez site where you can implement whatever funny rules you can come up with. That way you can replace binaries, include a versioning system, delete fucked up releases, implement an automatic scoring system, or whatever functions you've been asking for from Perff for a decade but have never received because CSDb is not the scene.
On a side note: Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that this is over a release that would've barely passed as a game preview 20 years ago? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
So it begins. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2062 |
Though MYD cracking department seems pretty dead, we do have some cracks in the pipe for 2018, mostly jewel oldies, but also some with firstie potential.
But the BBS stuff frustrated us too much some years ago (pretty much same story: counting board unavailable until other group who runs the BSS had their release ready -> zero points for us), we've just given up the whole statwanking for good.
Call me lame, but I daresay the whole firstie-determination-by-x-of-y-BBSes (some of which count no matter how unreliable they are, some of which don't count) stuff is a pain in the ass and not really encouraging to get into firstie race again.
Don't get me wrong, my opinion is only about BBSes for first release "points", so I don't say BBSes are obsolete, e.g. they're cool as source for warez and it always feels nostalgic in a cool way to enter them. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
@Seven: You may go a few more years back to have these just accepted as preview. 1998 was not that golden anymore. ;)
@hedning: Will check that up with Jazzcat. I agree that the current 3 boards are well divided among the groups and Antidote is OK as well since it changed port.
If I remember correctly some old mags also had a fallback for the case there are problems with the boards. Propaganda and Vandalism accepts CSDb as fallback. I'd opt for other boards as such. |
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 327 |
The most important property for a 1st release implementation is: Availability
If this is not possible for some reasons, it's not the best way! |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
My personal 5 cents..
Good point, glad it is raised.
First of all 3 makes no sense to me, it never has.. in theory it puts the important vote swing to the board that was down, which seems a reward rather then a reprimand (no upload) for being down, as well as placing the decision in the hands of the team running that board.
With the lack of any truly independent boards, that's a big no-no for me, because we all like to compete and we all like to find the edges at times.
Do we need more boards? Yes.. 2017 was terrible, more then a handful of moments where only 2 or 1 was available and that's being polite.
Also, I would like to see all serious contenders in the game have a seat on the table, which means we still have some teams without a HQ on the points list. If we don't expand the amount of boards, perhaps evening up the playing field should mean each bbs should at least carry X amount of teams.
Another reason why I'd prefer 5, because who wants to be forced to run a team to have at least X amount if there's no natural love..
So for several reasons I would prefer 5 too, but agree naming a fifth at current is still an issue.. set a fixed minimum monthly call rate, monitor for 6 months and if qualified use 5.
Till then, we can very easily go on now with 4, there is no question if Rapid Fire qualifies, it's proven itself not only in availability, but also in identical or higher active user count compared to the boards we already use, even actively working with hardware vendors of wifi modems to bring in new users.. that alone should have earned it the spotlight by now imho!
Which brings to mind to use a server disk set-ups as a visual example;
A raid-5 is a very nice simple server disk set-up consisting of 3 disks, and it is VERY common these days to have a hot-spare.
Considering the fall-out we've had of disks in 2017, it could have been used as an official hot-spare backup counting as the third board, a role CSDB clearly does not want to have and in my opinion shouldn't have either.
Using Rapid Fire as a hot spare/backup until the time a 5th fitting board proves itself would work just fine, solving this release problem, several other lingering issues, as well as have a clear path for a 5th board to get it's ass into shape and make the effort/investment to hit the bar or higher. |
| |
lA-sTYLe
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 63 |
Allright Boys, since this attacks me as Sysop of the Hidden and People kept asking if i would take down the BBS to gain advantages for any GP prefered Group i wanna clear u some things.
1) I never even thought a single second of taking the BBS down to make the BBS not reachable. And i also wont do that in the Future.
2) Holy Moses and me did a lot of improvements to the Cyborg BBS which runs on the Hidden. One thing we wanted is that the Date and Time will be adjusted EACH call to have it as most time accurate than possible to see who uploaded something with correct timestamp. Not ANY other BBS running nowadays serves that.
3) After changing my provider to ftth i have to deal with ipv6 Ip changes out of the sudden. Once this ip changes i have to adjust the port forwarder in my router manually. If the IP changes in a bad timeframe i even cant react, nor i notice myself , UNTIL Yesterday ! David Jacoby and me worked out a BBS uptime script which Pings the BBS every 6 Hours now, and if BBS isnt reachable, i will recieve an Email that notices me to check the BBS.
4) In the Past i got mails or FB messages from Groups to upload Release x after i rebooted the BBS. And also this time the involved groups know how to reach me elsewhere, so i dont know why it didnt happen this time, but there was enough time to moan instead just dropping a mail within 5 secs.
5) I got messaged by Hedning that the BBS wasnt reachable on tuesday 22.46 CET but i was in bed as i had to get up at 3.00 am and didnt want to get up to fix this. At that time i even didnt know that there was a race for something was going on.
I also could prove that with chat screenshot if you ping me via whatsapp or fb or mail. Just in case
...
We are doing as much as we can to reduce downtime and also add modern things to have a fair competition with 100% accurate time documentation. What do you think why we are doing this ?
As final Result, All those who complain that the hidden wasnt reachable should punch theirselve right into the Face. You send my your release Back in the past, why didnt you do this time ?
just fuck off, really |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 228 |
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: 11108 |
bwahaha. epic thread. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2062 |
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: 154 |
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: 4595 |
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: 154 |
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: 11108 |
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: 154 |
Groepaz applying his normal discussion logic - pick one little point and answer that. Leave the rest. :-P |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
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. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
you guys are just wasting time doing nothing, go produce some releases instead, fucking lamers!11 ;) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
indeed. and the OP should take this discussion to some BBS, where it belongs. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: you guys are just wasting time doing nothing, go produce some releases instead, fucking lamers!11 ;)
Make a demo about it! :D |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
Stop feeding the troll! :p |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Stop feeding the troll! :p
I forsaw this happening. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Regarding the 24 Hour Rule, some scenarios that come to mind that may help illustrate it:
 |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
David - and expaning that to five BBSes. Like the solution is more BBSes ... |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: David - and expaning that to five BBSes. Like the solution is more BBSes ...
I love David. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Do you think the table is enough for most situations? Generally speaking: most groups are uploading to all 3 counted boards anyway. We should also call out it has to be a group member uploading the group release (in case that wasn't clear too). |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
My suggestion is more in line with this logic:
I have rather strong views on which is easier of the options ... |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Pontus, you can do this of course. However, speaking on behalf of Vandalism News, Game Corner, Attitude/Propaganda magazines: we are staying on the boards. That forum has worked well for many years for us. If other individuals or groups want to do their own thing, then there is nothing holding them back. :D |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2062 |
Bacchus: Full ack, IF(!) any firstie list makes sense, it's a list where being fastest just means being fastest here or on whatever site - not having the suffering capacity to bring it on so-and-so-many BBSes first. I just don't care enough to create such a list myself, but I fully support your view :) So a mag or just some guy willing to create the list would be all you need - as Jazzcat made his point clear enough, we cannot expect mags controlled by him/ONS or the other traditonalists to create such a "real firstie" list. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Ryk: we are building. Ready any year now :p
Jazzcat: new rule of restricted to own member uploading. It's your rules so it's your call, but when was that ever mentioned? Just to ensure that noone outsife the modem trading biz can get firstie?
What is the point with the obligation that the uploader is member of the same group? I never did that shit. Most had american import groups doing that. Honestly, how much favor should rules give to the people caring about BBSes? That you can't even outsource it. That is beyond silly...
Also; introducing rules that applies retroactively. Really? In any structures, rules can only have forward acting effect. The history must always be judged by the rules in place when an event happened. |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
I personally do not have an issue with non-members uploading.
Exclude those, and you'll need to exclude (co)sysop's uploading too, as they are not always a member of the groups they are supporting.
Looking at 2017 releases, there were multiple sysop uploads from several teams. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
I agree with Tim and Bacchus here. I have helped fellow sceners spread their firsties and that should not be a problem. What is important is to be first on the counted boards, not who uploaded the files in question. Having rules about who should and shouldnt upload is just silly.
Who talked about retroactive rules? Of course rules cant be effective retroactively. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
It is helpful to post and upload to the right sub and drive. Some people ignore that and are usually ignored. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
doesnt everyone have a small script that uploads a file to all BBSs at the same time? no? >_< |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Quote: doesnt everyone have a small script that uploads a file to all BBSs at the same time? no? >_<
That's obviously would be against any rules ;) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
how and why? it'd be the first thing i'd do when i'd still be into that stuff. |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Don't forget to also update CSDb with the 'intro used' stuff. |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
scripts killed couriering on 0day scene 1.5 decades ago |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
and for good reasons :) |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
oh yes, I agree. human couriering was funny at the beginning, but scripts was the natural evolution. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
hmm cannot remember when and who the group member upload rule was invoked/adopted. happy to change it.
I am curious why a group member cannot upload though. maybe i email hedning my releases for upload if i am not at home :) |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Scripts being the natural evolution? Like having carts with two horses instead of one. When you can leapfrog to web-based solutions. Or is that natural revolutions?
Starting to dig around in the set of rules there are other stranded aspects;
providing a trainer or supply an original to another group, and both groups get full points. That means that for a game worth x, then 2x is distributed. If put into system, two groups could agree that one crack and one train (sometimes one, and sometimes the other) and they would both get full points for all the participation. The only thing that makes sense here is breaking down points for crack and distribute it according to the participation of the respective group.
Rules claiming 30 years legacy and still this flawed... |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 512 |
Quote:Scripts being the natural evolution? Like having carts with two horses instead of one. When you can leapfrog to web-based solutions. Or is that natural revolutions?
(I'm still talking about peecee offtopic here) yes, natural evolution coz when scripts were introduced you could not compete anymore with your human couriering job as you did before. you could adopt the new method or just become extinct. BBS is a diff story here. and they evolved too, nobody dials up to connect, or? :) |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: hmm cannot remember when and who the group member upload rule was invoked/adopted. happy to change it.
I am curious why a group member cannot upload though. maybe i email hedning my releases for upload if i am not at home :)
When I was on a vacation, I got help from Taper once, and I have helped Dr. Strange more than once, when needed, and he asked me to help. I believe he helped me with one board or so when I had to take care of sick kids.
Most groups have one guy doing all the uploading, and in 95% of the cases the stuff are uploaded by that one guy (me in GP for example). I don't see the problem having friends help out when needed, and they ask for it. It's just silly to think that a first release would be disqualified just because of that.
First must mean first. Disqualifying a real first release just because the uploader on one board is not in the releaser group is just strange.
Maybe I am missing something here? Is there some sort of idea that this would lead to abusing the rules in some way? I don't get it. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Or, you could ask a friend to make a website where you can upload the file too, and then the webserver runs a script to upload it to BBSs! |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
reminds me of the courier concept back in the day. |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 42 |
I think that the "own members upload only" was to prevent the upload of rereleases back then: if someone else is able to upload legit releases of other groups then his upload of rereleases would have to be counted, too.
BTW: I'd also prefer a ftp site upload with correct time stamp... like TDD once was. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: I think that the "own members upload only" was to prevent the upload of rereleases back then: if someone else is able to upload legit releases of other groups then his upload of rereleases would have to be counted, too.
BTW: I'd also prefer a ftp site upload with correct time stamp... like TDD once was.
That's a good point. However: I can't recall one single incident since 2010 when this has happened. We all know what's goin' down on the boards, and we know when some random Joe is going bananas, and can ignore that. :) |
| |
Danzig
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 428 |
Quote: Or, you could ask a friend to make a website where you can upload the file too, and then the webserver runs a script to upload it to BBSs!
Always trying to spoil the fun, he? :-D |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
okay, so we have consensus to remove this group member required thing for the upload? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: okay, so we have consensus to remove this group member required thing for the upload?
Was there ever such a rule? I can't recall that. I double checked the rules from 2016, and can't find it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160407081910/http://www.atlantis-.. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
hmm i did not create it, but followed it (without effort), maybe game corner? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Quote:Always trying to spoil the fun, he? :-D
so, what about - everyone is obliged to send their release to Danzig. Then Danzig decides what release he will upload, after he spent half an hour playing it. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
So there was a rule, that wasn't documented but sort of in force anyways. The rule document is a beast and one would have to assume it's conclusive, but that is seemingly not the case.
I would agree that rules that aren't in the docs and that few ever heard of are should not be assumed to be in force... |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
will update it to cover can be uploaded on behalf of with discretionary review for rerelease scenario. |
| |
Tao
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 115 |
Personally I've always felt that Gamers Guide's focus on quality (though obviously smaller doesn't always mean higher quality, there was some room for improvement) releases made far more sense than the first release rankings.
Still, for first release charts I think sticking to BBSes, purely for the tradition, is the way to go. We release the charts in disk mags, not on web pages. Surely the games deserve to be released the proper way too?
I bet even Bacchus can find someone who can spend half an hour once a month uploading their cracks. If you want to cut down on the time spent connected to BBSes, do a bit of testing before uploading; that way you can avoid having to do multiple releases of the same crack ;) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2062 |
Quote:sticking to BBSes, purely for the tradition, is the way to go
Why??? I'm not convinced.
@rules: Sorry, but I more and more tend to join the silent f#%k rules people, especially if existing rules are getting even more bureaucratic as they already are, e.g. I've never heard of "must be uploaded by member". In the few cases (after Spider-J stopped cracking for good due to over-regulatory trend in current scene) in which we tried to receive stats points, people from other groups helped us, IIRC guys from Hokuto Force and Genesis Project. There are things I'm willing to accept, anyway, as I'd agree mere intro-linking sucks (no matter for what reason, firstie grabbing or mere laziness/attention whoring) some effort should be made in terms of quality - from a gamer's perspective (which is the only perspective that matters). But I don't need a rule for understanding that and you can't stop people from releasing lame shit, anyway. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Quote:you can't stop people from releasing lame shit
if only ;_; |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Okay rules are updated on Recollection.
Also, added the fallback board as RapidFire.
 |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Will align Propa rules to the boards counted etc. |
| |
Mr.Ammo
Account closed
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 228 |
Still using the TELetype Over NETwork Protocol from 1973? ;-) |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
great, thanks for the amendment Jazzcat / Hedning.
@Didi,
will Gamecorner follow the same amended rules?
@Bacchus / TheRyk
You are more than welcome to whatsapp/messenger me if uploads are needed. |
| |
Larry
Registered: Feb 2007
Posts: 26 |
Just my 5 Cents to that topic:
Userlog of Antidote is full ! So no new Users can't get access there. Sticking to the discussed rules here, it appears to be unfair to people not already having an account on this BBS. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Just my 5 Cents to that topic:
Userlog of Antidote is full ! So no new Users can't get access there. Sticking to the discussed rules here, it appears to be unfair to people not already having an account on this BBS.
That is a valid point and a problem that only Taper/Triad can solve. PM him. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
accounts dont get purged for inactivity anymore, i guess :) |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
fair point, but yep.. just drop Taper a PM on csdb,
he always responds fairly quickly on anything Antidote related. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
Game Corner rules were already that way and Rapidfire will be added as fallback BBS there as well. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
User log full, disk full, board down. I am humbly smiling
@tim - I think you know what's in the pipe why I won't need to take you on that offer, but I still appreciate it. Thanks buddy! |
| |
taper
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 119 |
I always make room for active sceners if userlog is full. As said, just drop me a PM. It's that easy, really. Problem solved. |
