| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1834 |
Release id #88319 : Robin of the Wood
REQUEST DELETION.
1 Block Basic Loaders represent no release. Original ABC release untouched - no re-crack - double upload - local lamer print line additions to show they owned a c64. What else you need?
l8r
Count Zero/CyberpunX/SCS*TRC |
|
... 34 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
tnu
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2010
Posts: 42 |
Quote:noone except you even bothered to keep such crap,
...oh really?...then my mistake......sorry..
Quote:let alone upload it =)
...will do from now on....as you are a moderator you should know best...
Quote:because you damn well know the answer already.
...i do now.....
Quote:also self regulation worked quite well this time (for a change)
....ok..
Quote:but indeed, it looks (again) as if common sense doesnt work for everyone and we need yet another rule. we'll see.
.....there are many rules on this database..that i have noticed yes.... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
Quote:.....there are many rules on this database..that i have noticed yes....
one for every dot in your posts :o) |
| |
tnu
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2010
Posts: 42 |
Quote:one for every dot in your posts :o)
....thats a hell of a lot of rules......and dots... |
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2906 |
There are quite a lot of "local lamer" releases from the US in this database. Anything that uses an intromaker is pure crap, we all know that. But it's part of the culture, regardless.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
yes ofcourse, but something made with an intromaker atleast has an intro, and mostly also involves linking it infront of some release. this shit is high quality stuff compared to a basic line that loads someone elses crack =P |
| |
Jon
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 247 |
Unfortunately, there is no specific rule that bars that sort of entry, Groepaz. If someone released something like that TODAY, I would agree (crack rules and all that). However, uploading that release here lends documentation and history to a group that was:
A: Clearly active on the scene.
B: Clearly spread their releases.
Just saying.
J |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
in our small hometown (~10000 people) alone there were about 20 such "groups". but i doubt anyone would have ever considered them part of the scene, except themselves ofcourse =P
but indeed, it looks like (again) we need some specific rule. (although imho the existing "By our definition a "crack" in the Database is a Program which has been somehow modified (which preferably adds some value over the Original) and then released to the Scene." makes it clear already. the abc crack in question was not modified in any way, its not even a recrack, as c0 pointed out in the original post) |
| |
Jon
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 247 |
I understand. The rules should be adjusted as such in order to clarify any gray areas as the situations arise.
I just hope that any clarification doesn't lead to a massive purge of the Db in order comply with new guidelines. Frankly, I really like the "local lamer" stuff as it really adds context to a "scene" that wasn't always visible from the top down as it were.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
Quote:I just hope that any clarification doesn't lead to a massive purge of the Db in order comply with new guidelines.
as there, as said before, really isnt much of that kind of junk in the database, that wont happen. |
| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1834 |
Quote: I suppose it's all moot now. Someone took it upon themselves to delete the entry. :p
Guess who - the interesting part: already about 3 days ago.
l8r
Count Zero/CyberpunX/SCS*TRC |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
