[Anitra]

Soleil @ May 03 2006,165

Originally Posted by Vryce and the rest of our god staff do not care about this issue. Thousands of Medievia players do not care about this issue. The DIKU authors do not care about this issue. The only people who care about this issue are the ones posting to this thread and probably a few others who frequent TMC. Why in the world should we turn our code over for inspection to please a handful of other MUD admins that have been on this tired crusade for over 10 years? We don't care about pleasing you.

If you don't care about the community, why are you still posting on this board? Why don't you just go away? That too would put an end to the flames.

[Soleil]

Originally Posted by Drawing up contracts is generally a good sign someone means business about something.

Don't mistake me, we CARE about Medievia's code. We don't care about the crap that 10 people on these forums harp over year after year.

[Soleil]

Originally Posted by If you don't care about the community, why are you still posting on this board? Why don't you just go away? That too would put an end to the flames.

I know I've said this before but I like posting on these boards. I like reading them and responding and so forth. Plus I'm the only one from Medievia who comes to this site and I figure someone should read the MUD site forums regularly. Call it part of my Mediedvia job so to speak. In the end though it's intellectually engaging and good fun.

And btw, I'm not the one who starts these threads.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Don't mistake me, we CARE about Medievia's code. We don't care about the crap that 10 people on these forums harp over year after year.

I always enjoy, ironically, this argument. There are only so many active forum posters. Those that do post frequently can be compared via percentages on their opinions on Medievia's ethics/running of its MUD. Even if it is only 20-30ish posters who typically have commented on Medievia, a lot more forum users read these forums. Moreover, many of the most active forum users here are admins of their own MUDs(many of them large MUDs), and assuredly their opinion of Medievia is fed back inevitably into their own games via forums and chat channels and general consensus.

I have to wonder howmuch larger Medievia would be if it just played nice with the rest of its community a little. I guess we'll never know, though - I've read Vryce's conversations with other staff members and such, via AOL Instant Messenger, and it seems very unlikely that he'd be willing to make even the smallest of concessions to try to make peace with the rest of the community.

Don't downplay the opinions of a couple dozen people, when those people effect a much larger community's point-of-view.

[Soleil]

Originally Posted by I've read Vryce's conversations with other staff members and such, via AOL Instant Messenger,

Vryce doesn't use AOL Instant Messenger. This I know for sure.

Originally Posted by Don't downplay the opinions of a couple dozen people, when those people effect a much larger community's point-of-view.

And don't make the 'community' out to be quite larger than it really is. Medievia itself has a few thousand players. I would be pretty secure in my assumption of less than 5% of our players, if that, visit this forum and read it. It's of course quite possible that other games get more of their players here than others, but quite frankly, I don't believe the majority of the 'community' give two craps about this issue I bet you would be hard pressed to come up with even 100 people. We have 2- 3 times that many logged into Medievia most of the time.

[John]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 04 2006,00:03) Well, making a profit has not been interpreted as giving out virtual benefits in exchange of money. Generating revenue is not profit.

Again I repeat, no-one but you thinks this a valid point. You can argue it until you're blue, you'll just be ignored for the most part. If you think this is a valid argument towards those who defend the DIKU license, you're completely missing their point.

[DonathinFrye]

Sol - if it wasn't AIM, it was some sort of similar messenger; it was posted in the forums, so it wasn't some secret that I read it.

---

The community is very large, Sol - if I thought it would make a difference, I could easily enough send a petition out to various MUDs and forums and get a large amount of people to sign a form saying that they do care about the DIKU Licensing issue and do not agree with Medievia's breaking of it.

If I did that, though, would it change anything? If I got enough people to sign, would you credit the originators of your MUD's code-base? Would you co-operate with the rest of the community? I have the feeling the answer is no, but correct me if I am wrong.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ May 04 2006,00:54) Sol - if it wasn't AIM, it was some sort of similar messenger; it was posted in the forums, so it wasn't some secret that I read it.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was an in-game channel of some sort (hero talk, or immortal chat, or something similar).

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 03 2006,04:22) It seems pretty apparent that many people don't like the way you present your posts either. Do you think we should have the right to force you to show humility and professionalism in your posts?

And by "many" you mean 3 people. Looks like you're using the same math as you use to add up your "mud community" support.

And please go back and read my posts. I never said you had to be a professional to DISCUSS an issue. I said when it comes to an issue like the law, a non-professional shouldn't speak with absolute certainty just because they ran a few google searches. That's irresponsible and totally destroys their credibility.

[Murpe]

From a hosting perspective, if someone wrote to the co-location site that said game was doing something illegal (i.e. license violations, etc), I pretty much would think that co-lo site would put a block on the game server access (both physical and net-connection wise) until the problem is resolved rather than face legal or public/community confontation against the co-lo site for supporting such a so-called business entity.

Just my $0.02 worth.

-- M

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Murpe @ May 03 2006,20:40) From a hosting perspective, if someone wrote to the co-location site that said game was doing something illegal (i.e. license violations, etc), I pretty much would think that co-lo site would put a block on the game server access (both physical and net-connection wise) until the problem is resolved rather than face legal or public/community confontation against the co-lo site for supporting such a so-called business entity.

Yeah maybe... if you're talking about amateurish colocation companies looking to go out of business.

Any colo facility that cut off a paying customer for such a flimsy reason would lose their customers fast.

The only way a responsible, professionally run colo facility would do such a thing would be if they received a court order.

Murpe, don't you run a colocation service? Are you telling me you'd shut off a customer simply because you got an email telling you that one of your customers was doing something illegal (like violating a license)? Is that really what you want to be on record saying about your business practices?

I'd RUN, not walk, from a colo service like that. Any disgruntled gamer could take someone's game offline with a single email. That's nuts.

Originally Posted by public/community confontation

Any colo service that cared more about "public/community confontation" than their paying customers doesn't deserve to be in business.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 03 2006,19:39) I said when it comes to an issue like the law, a non-professional shouldn't speak with absolute certainty just because they ran a few google searches. That's irresponsible and totally destroys their credibility.

KaVir's involvement with this issue is considerably more involved than "a few Google searches". For one thing, he's reviewed their code personally. For another, he's provided numerous legal citations which support his thesis.

You would make a stronger argument by addressing his points rather than consistently attacking the speaker.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (cron0s @ May 03 2006,11:33) My point is that individual examples don't really do much to sway the argument either way. The 'Software Design vs. The Law' complexity argument is completely pointless. Who can say? Who really cares? It's just another distraction for KaVir and Threshold to flame each other over...

Yep. All my point ever was is that comparing the two in some ways isn't the obviously idiotic idea that Threshold suggested.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (John @ May 03 2006,18:44) Again I repeat, no-one but you thinks this a valid point. You can argue it until you're blue, you'll just be ignored for the most part. If you think this is a valid argument towards those who defend the DIKU license, you're completely missing their point.

Well...ok. Any accountant would certainly "buy it" though, so I guess I'll have to be ok with that. Seriously, what do you think the word profit means?

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Murpe @ May 03 2006,20:40) From a hosting perspective, if someone wrote to the co-location site that said game was doing something illegal (i.e. license violations, etc), I pretty much would think that co-lo site would put a block on the game server access (both physical and net-connection wise) until the problem is resolved rather than face legal or public/community confontation against the co-lo site for supporting such a so-called business entity. Just my $0.02 worth. -- M

Couple things:
1. A third party has no standing to complain and it would be incredibly irresponsible of any service provider to yank service over an uninvolved party's complaint.

2. The DMCA is available and easily used for an aggrieved party. I've shut down a MUD myself, in a foreign country, by using it. The ISP simply required a letter from a lawyer laying out the DMCA violations that the MUD in question was committing (operating without a valid license, since we'd already yanked the license for non-compliance). As far as I know, the DIKU guys haven't even bothered using this cheap, easy method, really making one wonder if they care even a smidgen.

--matt

[Murpe]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 03 2006,20:40) Are you telling me you'd shut off a customer simply because you got an email telling you that one of your customers was doing something illegal (like violating a license)?

Heavens no, but I would make a note of the claim and determine the best route upon which to proceed, including contacting a lawyer. Personally my choice, for a lawyer, in a case like this: Tom Buscaglia (http://gameattorney.com/) -- someone that is knowledgeable in game development,  Intellectual Property (IP) and licensing claims.

In the small town I live in, I have seen it happen to have negative impacts to new and current customer's perspectives (i.e. not supporting them when a claim is sent, requests for turning over possible evidence to higher authorities, etc).

Even though I have a basic indemnification clause as the hosting provider (i.e.Customer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless MURPE against liabilities arising out of...), I sometimes wonder if its good enough against a said case/claim like this.

In a way, its a Catch-22 -- damned if you do, damned if you don't.

-- M

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Any accountant would certainly "buy it" though, so I guess I'll have to be ok with that.

I suppose you speak for all accountants now?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ May 03 2006,21:22) KaVir's involvement with this issue is considerably more involved than "a few Google searches".

Not really. All he does is cobble together a bunch of links, cut out snippets that he thinks sound like they apply to the situation (and say what he wants), and then foam at the mouth and shout down anyone who disagrees with him.

Because he lacks even the slightest degree of humility regarding his "legal analysis", and because he refuses to even accept the possibility that he is misinterpreting the law, every single thing he posts on this issue is suspect.

This is not a complicated point. I really shouldn't have to keep repeating and explaining it. People who are completely unqualified and untrained in a very complic