Talk:ZDaemon

Untitled

It wouldn't be accurate in the UD section to say that there are more than 50 players. Sure, there are 56 listed on the wiki, but only 30 of them are active/inactive. The rest of the people are not part of UD as they are retired, which goes past the definition of simply being inactive. Count for yourself, and you'll see that there's just slightly more than 30 active/inactive players who are not retired. Excelblue 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really wondering if the Old Staffers fits into the article. On one end, it's historical information, but on the other, they are quite insignificant right now. I was thinking if it might be better if those were incorporated into a new history section in the article. Quite a few people on the old staffers are actually banned from ZDaemon. I'm wondering what everyone's opnion on that section is. Excelblue 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst one could clearly see that some areas of the partial submissions required some thoughtful addressing, this article has completely suffered from a rigorous Disneyland patching. The critical yet obviously neutral commentary has seemingly been replaced with this Mickey Mouse piffle, and it borders on outright game box advertising! Excelblue, your praxis of rewriting this article to suit your tendentious ideas, which no-doubt arise out of your relationship with the ZDaemon crew, is becoming increasingly bothersome. Address the submissions properly, as you're now beginning to look a bit of an ass. --82.37.28.177

From my side, many of the ideas that I have edited out seem biased towards the other end. I try my best to remain as neutral as possible - eg. not editing out the complete criticism section. Just as you can say that my ideas are unneutral, I have the same feelings about many of the things that go on. As far as I see, the main dispute here tends to be about facts (eg. whether there is proof that closing the source lowered cheating incidents). Another example would be the GetWAD stuff - it just searches for the wad in a Google-like fashion, and last I checked, people would end up with a version that does NOT work with ZDaemon. BTW, would you please use some less heated langauge next time? Excelblue 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The trojan that happened a bit ago is not excatly related to ZDaemon. It's the action of one staff member and it did not significantly impact ZDaemon. As such, I decided to remove that section from this article. Also, it should be noted that getwad does not download IWADs, and if it does, it's probably a server that has not been properly set up. Thus, there is no need for the GetWAD controversy section. -Excelblue 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they are both relevant controversies surrounding the port. GetWAD is shipped as part of ZDaemon and I have seen multiple posts on unidoom.org criticising ZDaemon for the way getwad behaves:

"And don't go throwing around assumptions that I didn't have a problem with getwad downloading IWads when I was considered a moderator there. I did. It went ignored and it probably couldn't even be remembered by anybody because of it. I can assure you it was mentioned MULTIPLE times. Their thirst for new players is not a reason why it should even go unignored now. It was illegal, is illegal, and always WILL be illegal."

How is that not criticism of ZDaemon?

The Doom2pro controversy is still relevant to the discussion. Even though it was conducted by a member of the ZDaemon staff and not officially sanctioned, ZDaemon has been criticised for having a person that would conduct such actions on the team.

I'm not trying to bring my own personal opinions into this, as you can see from the links above ZDaemon has been criticised for these reasons. Fragglet 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Just because Doom2pro acted seporately from the administration as a whole does not mean that the controversy can simply be whitewashed away. --AlexMax 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Doom2pro stuff is a one-time event which never really affected ZDaemon in any significant way. If it really rocked up everything, I can see the reason for it, but this seemed like just dramatic event. Many people might have different opnions on the morality of the thing, but again, nothing in ZDaemon has really been affected. --Excelblue 06:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it's an event which ZDaemon has been criticised for by multiple people, as the sources I've cited show. And you haven't responded to my comments about the GetWAD criticism. Fragglet 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as YOU can see it? That is a weak argument for removal of negative text. You don't know what will happen in the future, and given that it has happened it needs to be documented. You can't just sweep stuff under the rug that you don't find appropriate Excelblue, you do not own this article and neither do any of us.--67.100.236.58 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Premise 1: doom2pro is a member of the ZDaemon team.

Premise 2: doom2pro uploads a "ZDaemon cheat" that is really a trojan.

Premise 3: Trojans affects ZDaemon users.

Conclusion: This event is related to ZDaemon.

Premise 1: "getwad does not download IWADs, and if it does"... so your first statement is irrelevant. You can't claim "it doesn't" when it DOES. GetWad downloads IWADs.

Premise 2: There is no code that always prevents id's IWADs from being uploaded.

Conclusion: This event is related to ZDaemon.

You can't erase history, baby. Afterglew 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the future has not happened. Until it has happened, this is an event that's not worth documenting. There may be controversies, but by the looks of it, it doesn't seem to pretain to the game itself. Though it's an untrustworthy staff member, this by itself does not affect the way the game works. As for the GetWAD stuff - I've thought about it for a while, and think that it should be added back, though along with another point of view Excelblue 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of Wikipedia is that articles are written with a neutral point of a view. It's not intended for presenting opposing views of vocal minorities. These are all events related the use of ZDaemon that led to a reaction from its users. These are facts. It's not saying every member of its administration are people of poor moral fiber and we are not writing any slander here either. You should also try a Google search on the controversy regarding the editing of Wikipedia's Wal-Mart article which is having the same issue were having here. Afterglew 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the future hasn't happened yet, this is about the past! It's about a staff member of the project and no one is saying that it hampered the game itself. However, what kind of argument is "until it has happened it's an event not worth documenting"? It already has happened and therefore needs to be documented. All you want to do is keep negative publicity out of public view, which is something the zdaemon staff seems to enjoy doing. As far as the getwad stuff, the only other point of view is that kilgore thinks there's no reason to block it because it's not he who is actively providing the iwads, it's the fault of those sites that getwad picks up. Well, if he had any care for id's property he'd simply not allow iwads to be searched. By providing an easy way to obtain the iwads he is not helping. --67.100.236.58 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't get what has already happened. As far as I see, the community remains unchanged today compared to yesterday even with the Doom2pro stuff. Nobody really left because of it, but even with the thoughts of the issue in place, nobody seems to take regard to it much at all as far as I see. As for the GetWAD - the point I get here from talking to Kilgore is that GetWAD just searches for the wads. It has no way to discriminate which wads are legal or not without some arbitrary means. If that block gets implemented, what about stuff like FreeDoom, which comes legal under the name doom2.wad also. GetWAD simply turns to search engines when it has to find a wad and exhausts its list of sites. Google does not block you from searching for warez, why should this have to discriminate instead of being like a search engine? As for the automated download - people agreed already to not use ZDaemon with illegal IWADs in the TOS. Plus, when I last tested this out, GetWAD does not download a working copy of doom2.wad. Excelblue 06:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The clan page is constantly vandalized. We should stop posting junk and only leave the most famous clans up there, without any comments abuot them. Saying stuff like "rebels" and using clan pride should stop. BTW, I feel that the article is neutral for every part but the clan information in its current state. -Excelblue 07:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The clan section is far from Junk. It is critical to the zdaemon.org community or they would not have devoted their FRONT PAGE [1] toward Active and non-Active clans. Clan membership is a huge part of the Zdaemon community. The vandalism needs to stop. The Zdaemon website speaks for itself. Stop vandalizing the wiki.

This article also has a lot of weasel word usage. Changing "While many say" to "Many say" is not a fix for it at all. If it can't be cited as fact in some fashion it should be carefully rephrased or removed. --67.100.236.58 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The KNorton section of Old Staffers is incorrect, "A conflict of ideology lead to KNorton's departure when the channel was officially adopted." The channel was not "officially adopted", the channel was stolen by Raider while KNorton was on his honeymoon. -67.188.5.202 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The channel was not stolen in any way. Raider went to Freenode and requested that the channel be his because he was project leader. Due to Freenode's policies, he was granted ownership of that channel, as project leaders are always allowed to be in control of the channels pretaining to their project. This could have been done even if knorton was not on his honeymoon. However, Raider did not know he was going to be back and decided to ask for control. Thus, it was officially adopted. With services in place and his nick remaining registered, there is no way that it could have been stolen. Raider was already listed as project leader by that time. Excelblue 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Clan activity

I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ^Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clan activity not only relevant, but critical to Zdaemon.org by their own admission. They have dedicated nearly 50% of their front page toward their Clans. Stating both ACTIVE as well as NON-ACTIVE clans. Many or most of their servers for game play are hosted by these very clans. Including tcdoom.com, who is not on a clan member, but a strong advocate and supporter of the community.

Bjweeks has already been banned. He is using his high school internet access to cause problems on this wiki and if this continues, I will contact his high school directly and notify them of this abuse. --Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never been banned from Wikipeida, really you can stop the personal attacks already. BJ^Talk 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

It was my understanding that the IP Address that you visited the wikipedia from was banned and that you had asked to have it unbanned. (As per your Talk).

Be that as it may, I am seeking mediation at this point as I do not wish to make this anymore personal than it has become.

As a show of good faith, I have not opted to re-add the tcdoom.com link to the "External Links" as I can understand how this may be perceived as "spam". I will yield in this regards to avoid controversy. I will explore policy in regards to this further and seek help and advisement regarding said from the mediator.--Tcdoom 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I go to a 2,500 person school, the school IP had been blocked because of vandalism with a hard block so I could not login to edit. I requested a soft block so I could edit during my free time and the ip of the school remains soft blocked to this day. BJ^Talk 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At least you admitted to the vandalism. Your personal matters as they relate to your high school's student population is of no relevancy in regards to the content you continue to revert/delete. Please avoid making this matter personal. --Tcdoom 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not admit to ANY vandalism and I am not making this personal just merely defending myself. BJ^Talk 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

"I don't think this should be in the article, I feel it fails WP:V and if clan members keep reading it WP:NPOV. BJ^Talk 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"

It does not fail WP:V. Valid source is the very website that this topic is about, namely Zdaemon.org. Regarding WP:NPOV, I was not the sole contributor to this subject and sought permission from Raider who it he currently Zdaemon Project Leader. He is available via the Zdaemon Website if you wish to discuss. --Tcdoom 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a plea posted in Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here is my opinion:

• Tcdoom should not twist the words of Bjweeks and the history of a shared IP address to accuse him of vandalism. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. However, Tcdoom's stance on the article has merit in the sense that a section on clans should exist.
• Based on looking at the edit history of the article, Bjweeks was far too ambitious in deleting an entire section of the article. This was not appropriate behavior either. However, Bjweeks is also correct in the sense that that this section, as it stands, is not appropriate.
• A section on clans is worth having if clans are indeed a notable feature of the game, but not with all the detail currently in the article. There's a difference between being "encyclopedic" and "comprehensive." In this case, unnecessary detail on the subject of clans violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Why? Because a casual reader coming across this article, wanting to learn about ZDaemon, won't care one bit about any of those details.
• In my opinion, the article should contain a section on clans that simply explains (a) what clans are in the context of ZDaemon (the article contains nothing on that); and (b) what function or role the clans serve. Who the clans are is totally irrelevant to this article. -Amatulic 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.

In response to your statement about me "twisting" words, may I ask that you reference your own advice Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have never had an issue with anyone on Wikipedia and his aggressive deletion of content that was well received and static for some time, was irresponsible. It lead credence to my assumption that he was indeed not acting in good faith. He never reached out to me to discuss the matter, and simple posted one sentence and deleted the content.

In response to your closing statement as it pertains to the weight of clans, and following your logic, should another page be started? E.g. Zdaemon or Doom Clans? and then have a list of clans there? Likewise, should we take away the developers from this page as well? Should we start a page called Zdaemon Developers? With all due respect, I consider myself an expert on this wiki subject. I would add a greater weight to my opinion due to the number of years in the community (zdaemon) as well as the overall doom community, and online gaming in general. I would also like to site the project leaders opinion regarding clans and their relevancy in relation to zdaemon.

In regards to your comment regarding unnecessary detail, may I ask what authority you have on the subject of Doom, Zdaemon and their history? I ask because I would like to understand how you formed your opinion in regards to said. I currently run A Zdaemon Clan Website. We also host servers for the community and prior to that ran a 50 line BBS The Gaming Center BBS. The BBS supported nearly 5,000 registered members via the Internet and dialup. Many of the original members of the BBS migrated to the Internet and their Clans were made up of their former local environments where they were fist exposed to the online multiplayer experience.

Who the clans are is completely relevent. I say this because many of the project leaders came from and are still part of the said clans. This is further supported due to the fact that the Zdaemon community worked to introduce CTF (Capture the flag) into the port of Zdoom, which is a well establish game format played by Clans. Clans also host servers for users to play on. Clan Members contribute content and are the very foundation of Zdaemon's existance. I say this with confidence as staff members are in clans, host servers, and also contribute code. To cast these facts aside and casually dilute their relevancy, in my opinion, would be irresponsible to both the Zdaemon Community and any visitors of this Wiki Subject zdaemon

Also, I would ask that you re-read the wiki as there are two links posted which reference the importance of Clans and their role in Zdaemon and Doom. Perhaps you could expound or offer some feedback as to how you would present such references. I simply posted the references to subject matter, which I felt encompassed a bit of the history of FPS (First Person Shooters) and Clans.) --Tcdoom 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A third opinion was requested. I gave it. I came in as an impartial observer, read the article with a neutral point of view, formed an impression, and rendered an opinion. Bottom line, I suspect the expertise of the editors is clouding their judgment; a Wikipedia article shouldn't be written for any specific audience (the way it reads, it assumes I already have background knowledge of the subject, which I dont); rather, it should be written for a general audience looking for information. My authority (or lack of it) regarding this subject is completely irrelevant; what matters is what you convey to a general audience, and I can speak with the authority of that general audience. I say again, the way clans are presented, they seem like unnecessary detail. The article doesn't explain to a casual reader what clans are, what function they serve, why they matter, and why their identities are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can address those deficiencies, then I have no problem — and those deficiencies should be addressed by prose in the article, not by posting links. -Amatulic 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to point out that clans are relevant to the "Zdaemon Community" and I am sure they are (never doubted this) but the list of clans is what I find unnecessary, non-notable and unencyclopedic. Almost every multiplayer game that is still played today has clans, most host server, some help develop mods/maps and in most cases clans play a large part in their community but no other game article has a list of clans (or would you care to show me one?). I also still feel that "Clan activity" fails WP:V because no reliable source (besides the website of the article we are editing and the clan's own website) exists and this applies to almost all gaming clans (when is the last time CNN wrote an article on a clan?). I have no problem with the clan section that Amatulic has described but I am still opposed to a list of clans whether it be in this article or on its own. BJ^Talk 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the page per the third opinion because of my stated reasons and also because a edit war has started between two clans. Feel free to update the section with more info but please do not restore a clan list till a concenus has been estalbished on this talk page. BJ^Talk 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bjweeks. I have thoroughly read this talk and I re-posted the content due to the strong points made on the part of tcdoom. You basis for deletion is not any better than his assertion for the contribution, if anything, it lakes reference. Your posts appear subjective in nature as you do not site references to your claims. Tcdoom on the other hand continues to site references with sound logic and links. Lastly, if it is your belief that nothing should be changed until a concensus can be reached, then it is you who may want to consider not altering the existing content until a concensus is reached. As it stands, the content existed well before you decided to contribute to this link. Thus it would be appropriate for you to refrain from making changes until an a concensus is reached.

One common thread that I have read throughtout this issue is that you continue to state the way you "FEEL" and that contradicts the WP:NPOV (bias).

WP:NPOV applies to articles not talk pages (talk pages is for how people 'feel')... I have also stated that having this list is against WP:V and nobody has yet to show reputable sources (besides zaemon and the clan's own website). All I have seen that Tcdoom has showed is that clans are notable and relevant to him not how it is relevant to a encyclopedia article. I requested a third opinion and I am trying to comply with it the best I can, unless you have a better way of implementing it. BJ^Talk 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, and sorry for the slow response. I received an informal request for mediation recently, but I see you have already received a third opinion. Do you still feel the need for mediation? If so, are both of you interested in mediation? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As the person who offered the third opinion, it doesn't seem like the opinion was accepted (the article was changed according to my suggestion, but then reverted again). I've said what I came to say and can do nothing more because I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so I'm bowing out. I will trust the editors here to decide if mediation is still needed, and hope the third opinion I offered is taken into account in that event. -Amatulic 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Amatulic's opinion and edited the page accordingly but as he said it has since been reverted. If the other editors (seems one more has joined in) are not willing to except the third opinion I'm fine with mediation. BJ^Talk 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that TCDoom's purpose here is not to expand the knowledge base on the ZDaemon topic but rather just to advance his own agenda (namely his relation to the TC group). He has attempted to insert the links both on this wiki and elsewhere, which essentially amounts to spam because the relevance is feeble at best. As far as inserting his own clan into the list of notable clans, I suppose that's like someone editing a wiki on themselves and calling their own accomplishments notable. Biased? I think so.

I tend to disagree. If someone wanted to learn about Zdaemon and its origins, they would undoubtedly want to know about clans. There is clearly a correlation between the origins of Zdaemon and clans. I checked the Zdaemon Front Page and he is correct about the weight Zdaemon gives to clans. This last poster is cleary biased toward TCDoom and his post will be disregarded. Let's not make this personal.

Lets disregard your post too since looking at your edit history you have also been going around putting tcdoom.com links across several wikis.

Just wondering what is your opinion on having the list of clans in the article? BJ^Talk 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think mediation can occur while User:Tcdoom is away, but I will keep this page watchlisted. In the meantime, consider that the agenda of building an encyclopedia is not always inconsistent with other agendas. Many editors are more likely to edit topics they are interested in. (Note that I am not saying that Tcdoom necessarily does have another agenda, just that it isn't necessarily such a bad thing even if he or she does.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be improper to make a unilateral decision regarding this matter. Before any changes regarding the arbitrated content are made, it should be discussed in more detail. As per Armedblowsfish's post. --24.13.226.191 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Clan Activity Encyclopedic

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.

As per Subject Defined sub‧ject  /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. that which forms a basic matter of thought, discussion, investigation, etc.: a subject of conversation.

As per Domain Defined do‧main  /doʊˈmeɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doh-meyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a field of action, thought, influence, etc.: the domain of science. 2. the territory governed by a single ruler or government; realm. 3. a realm or range of personal knowledge, responsibility, etc.

Clan Activity is the subject domain, meeting the criteria as per the above definitions.

Clan in multiplayer games relevant Clans in first person shooters deemed important also referenced with initial post

Zdaemon have over 55,000 references on Yahoo. Clan Activity in the community is important as the Zdaemon.org Website devotes more than 30% of their front page to said.

Lastly, it is important that before deleting links and citing reasons, one should read prior discussions as they have already addressed these very questions. It helps everyone involved :-)

They're dominated by obvious fans, I'm not touching them. See Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Fancruft and other such things. Clans are not notable enough, or interesting enough to anyone but a small set of people, that they should be included in the article -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And hell, WP:NOT, which I already pointed to, is most important here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from using profanity. You never stated what was most important to you until now.

And what's more, Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of everything. Are ZDaemon clans important in that domain? That's why we talk about notability here. Don't bring dictionary defitinions and semantics into it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are a proper reference as per Wikipedia. Your discounting of my rebuttal by referring to it as "semantics" is condescending and personal in nature. A great deal of effort was put into fulfilling your request.

Not only is Zdaemon notable, but clans (particularly as they are being related to and referenced herein) are extremely notable. Clans are to Zdaemon as Racing teams are to Nascar. The Doom game has easily sold millions of copies, millions of users have installed it, a movie is based on it, and Zdaemon is the most popular port of the original Doom2 game. To simply say this topic/article is not worthy of a page/article is irresponsible based on the facts I have stated herein. If the very founder of Doom John Romero plays on Zdaemon himself and the term clan is referenced in more than 336 links on his personal webpage (t i n y u r l.com\vhmp9) (blacklisted apparently) Search Engine Results on John Romero's Personal Website for the Search Term "Clan", then we must acknowledge the important of Doom Clans. To discount Clan Activity is equal to discounting Nascar racing teams.

Executive Summary:

1. Clans are to Zdaemon what Racing Teams are to Nascar 2. Zdaemon is to Doom what the Talladega Raceway is to Nascar 3. Millions of copies of the Doom game series have been sold. Millions of people have and still play versions of it today.

To say Zdaemon is not notable, is simply irresponsible based on the facts and comparisions I have presented here. To say clan activity is not notable is irresponsible based on the facts and comparisons I have presented.

I have seen little evidence on the part of those supporting deletion of said content, other than their claim that it is not notable or encyclopedic. Thus if this logic were applied equally throughout Wikipedia, we would have a responsibility to delete Nascar, it's raceways referenced, and their racing teams. Any sponsors of the racing teams would also need to be deleted as spam.

To base one's subjective opinion on the number of people who may be interested in a given topic would also be responsible. If there are ten people in the world who wish to discuss a prehistoric parasite, does not discount the prehistoric parasite nor its relevancy.

A lot of time and effort has gone into presenting the necessary evidence to support the Zdaemon Article as well as Clan Activity in said article. It would be irresponsible to discount the efforts and the supporting evidence.