Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24 Online Creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Atari2600tim 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Online creation
Who's involved?
Atari2600tim, Eggster, thoric
What's going on?
Online creation or "OLC" is used in the context of MUDs to refer to in-game editing of the game world. It's a general term that refers to many different softwares in the MUD context, like "File Manager" or "Text editor". It also refers to other stuff in non-MUD context, so it should probably be renamed and given a disambiguation page, but that's for another time :P The problem I have is that the author of one particular editor add-on, Eggster (previously some other user names) is removing all information about other software that has the same functionality, and implying that just about all others are based on his own. Also, most of the information that he puts there is false and in favor of making his software look more noteworthy than it is (for example, the initial distribution date has been claimed to be 1994, 1993, and most recently 1992... it is worth noting that it's an add-on for a program that was released in 1993). His own MUD already has an article that he created for him to advertise his work at, but he feels that the general "online creation" article should be all about his own program as well.
What would you like to change about that?
I'd like for the article to have information about all in-game MUD world editors, with a brief history of the various ones dating back to the 80's like TinyMUD. I do feel that real-time content editing is at least a tiny bit noteworthy because so many had used static content prior to TinyMUD in 1989, but an article with such a general name should be about more than an ad for 1 recent program that already has an article.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
I just now added contact information to the top of my user page. You can use my talk page mostly though, I don't really have any discreet needs that I can think of, so I don't mind.

[edit] Comments by others

I'd like to note my role in this, and will try to be as brief as possible. I first got involved with this issue when I noticed that one of the authors of NiMUD (a Merc MUD derivative) was claming that SMAUG's (also a Merc MUD derivative) Online Building code was based on NiMUD's OLC code. After a lot of back and forth exchanges, Locke agreed that SMAUG's online building wasn't based upon NiMUD's code, and made this statement on at least two separate occasions -- but then seemingly forgot about or retracted these statements. Throughout the past several months of discussion and arguing, Locke has attempted to re-write the history of NiMUD (and OLC) development while simultaneously claiming the same of me, accusing me of censoring and modifying files (as I maintain an FTP site containing a large archive of MUD source code).
I would like to cite as a source of information, the gzipped tar archive TheIsles1.1.tar.gz from an independent third party site which contains a document isles/docs/isles10.txt which clearly displays that release 1.0 of TheIsles (which is NiMUD) was based on version 2.2 of Merc (which was released in late November of 1993), and was the first version to contain OLC, and is dated August 10th, 1994. This document was signed by Locke, and seems quite authentic. The user Eggster claims that version 1.5 was the first public release, and than earlier releases were "hoaxes" or stolen, yet if you look at the TheIsles15.code.tar.gz file, it contains no documentation or anything besides source code, but it is dated August, 1994 (although it didn't appear to be available on any FTP sites until 1995. While it is possible that TheIsles/NiMUD was never publically released until 1995, I am willing to accept the date of August, 1994 within the archives that were circulated in 1995. Unfortunately it seems that it took several months for Locke to find a site to host his code due to his blatant disregard for the DikuMUD/Merc license agreements.)
The claims of Locke / Eggster is that NiMUD's OLC was somehow around in 1992, when in Locke's own words he states that NiMUD's OLC was based upon that of another MUD (Zebesta) which the NiMUD OLC coder (Surreality) had access to in 1993. Locke has not provided any evidence to a public release of TheIsles/NiMUD prior to 1994.
Part of the reason the date is such an issue, is because Locke is attempting to use a release date of 1992 to claim that any online creation/coding/building system in development since 1992 was somehow based upon NiMUD's OLC code, even though he has no evidence to support this. The online building code for SMAUG that I wrote was indirectly based upon the online building system that Mozart MUD uses, and so I coded SMAUG's system based from the memory of my use of Mozart's system in 1993. Locke is attempting to claim that Mozart's online building system was somehow based on NiMUD's OLC even though it predates it, and is not even similar. --Thoric 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thoric has had a disagreement with the Locke for the date-related reasons that he stated, and the implied thing saying that part of SMAUG is based on Locke's work. My own disagreement is because it says the same about everything else... that it is the first editor to use modes... that it inspired all games which feature the ability to edit the content without an external program, from Saurbraten to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and things of that nature, while really, even if you're only looking at MUDs, it came a long time after TinyMUD and others which have had similar features in the late '80s. In some edits, it specifically mentions a derivative of Cube (game) called Saurbraten which seems to have nothing to do with this, but is implied that it's based on their editor or that Saurbraten wouldn't be possible without it, or is inspired by it, or something like that... I'm not really sure what the point of mentioning it is, it's just randomly put there. Thoric does have a valid argument regarding the dates as well, and that should probably be addressed by a third party too, even though I posted this as a result of my own thing :) I do think that most of this article's content could better be split up and placed in other articles (such as NiMUD, SMAUG, TinyMUD, etc), but if other people feel that it should have its own article, it should at least be very inclusive. Unlike Thoric, I am not an author of any of the software mentioned in this article, and I stumbled upon the inaccuracies while reading about Diku derivatives a while back. My own interest is just that I'd like to have accuracy and consistency on Wikipedia. What stuck out to me like a sore thumb was that at one point when I looked at this article, stuff written for one of the latest versions of Merc was claimed to have been released months before when the first version of Merc was originally released. Thanks for your help, hate to bother people, but lots of content was being deleted in the reverts, with no discussion for the conflicting info that was introduced. Atari2600tim 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That's because Thoric likes to stick his nose into everyone's business and despute the validity of everything, even when the truth has already been written. He may not recall certain things, but the truth of the matter is he's been acting like a self-interested egotist who shows no real ethical foundation to his claims. He's willing to insult and degrade the acheivements of the dead to gain some sort of meaningless acceptance in a niche open source community. When the correct dates were displayed, Thoric challenged them. When they were corrected, he embellished about his own contributions to something which, obviously, he copied from others. OLC is not a copy in the respect that it is a unique alternative solution to the problem, whereas Thoric just recreated his favorite MUD's features, without really adding much to the design or providing it to the general public until much later. Also, he's claiming he doesn't work on SMAUG, however, he definitely puts out SMAUG on a regular basis. If you read the last line out loud to yourself, you'll realize what his tactic really is: to blow smoke in the face of achievement, success, honor, and anything morally or ethically significant. I suppose my personal opinion is irrelevant here, but, like most German Americans, he's a censor and a fascist. I believe it was Locke who recounted the story of his German stepmother's suggestion to burn his copy of Dungeons and Dragons, which drove Locke into mudding in the first place. While I don't like generalizations, I must say it seems Thoric is doing the same thing virtually that Locke's stepmother was doing physically: damaging other's reputations and destroying valuable artwork. Eggster 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Watch your tongue... it does not do you justice. I only stuck my "nose" into this because of claims by Locke that SMAUG's online building was based on NiMUD OLC. I have never insulted or degraded the NiMUD code, and I challenge you to find evidence of such. The dates were not corrected, as the first public release of NiMUD OLC was in 1994 (being generous as these archives didn't surface until 1995). OLC patches versions of Merc derivatives didn't start appearing until 1995. If it was released in 1992 as claimed, then we would have seen earlier propagation. If you want to honor your dead friend, I would advise against spreading misinformation about NiMUD, as this will make it difficult for anyone to take you seriously. I would also advise against slagging others as it is in poor taste, and only makes you look bad. SMAUG's online building did break new ground in the respect that it supports online editing of almost every aspect of the MUD well beyond area creation, closing slightly the large static gap between MUD and MUSH. I have no insults against NiMUD OLC, as you should not against SMAUG. (BTW, I'm not American, I'm Canadian.) --Thoric 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an old issue (Locke claiming SMAUG is based on OLC) and irrelevant. You're not my daddy, dude, why don't you watch your own tongue, or slither back into the crevice you live in. Eggster 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is getting far too ugly. i'm seeing some good arguments by Eggster, well, they would be good arguments if some reliable external sources to prove them would be given. Currently, i'm inclined to side with Thoric's refutations. Please, let cooler heads prevail. Firestorm 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since you're a Sock Puppet of Thoric, that's no surprise to me. Eggster 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? how precisely am I a sock puppet of anybody? I dont think you know the meaning of sock puppet. A quick look at my Contributions will disprove any notion of me being a sock puppet. I'm just here to cool people down, and I have no official authority beyond that of any other wikipedia editor. I'm an ordinary Wikipedian, and as such I only seek to mediate, not to arbitrate.Firestorm 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're not a Sock Puppet of Thoric, then you might want to read up on disinformation strategy and ulterior motives. You're a poor mediator if you side with the other guy after 1 day of mediation. Why would your Contributions page prove anything? Thoric could be your Sock Puppet. Either way I think you're both related. Furthermore, I am convinced that you are either victim of or perpetuating thought control Eggster 01:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"they would be good arguments if some reliable external sources to prove them would be given" If you had spent your time looking for some reliable sources to back up your claims, instead of making an ad hominem attack involving sock puppetry, then you would have supported your own argument. Even if he was a sock puppet (which he obviously isn't), such sock puppetry wouldn't negate the other side of the argument; what is significant is the fact that you haven't offered any reliable external sources for your information. If you had offered reliable external sources, then Thoric would have no argument whatsoever, and Firestorm (or any other random person) would be able to very easily see what happened. --Atari2600tim 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
According to Locke, development on their MUD began at some point after October 13, 1993. I think a USENET post by Locke archived with Google Groups is a reliable source. "NiMUD's lineage begins with Merc 2.2 -- it has been developed since the release of that source code." [1]. Merc 2.2 was relased October 13, 1993. This narrows down the development time. --Atari2600tim 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Locke claimed that after Cthulhu was hacked, he started releasing source code to people. Thoric was not involved at that point. Thoric is motivated to claim that he started "it all" -- I have noticed this about him. This is so his mud becomes more popular, or to get free advertising by attaching himself to other peoples claims. This has been his way for many years. If you look at what Thoric has done with the "mud tree" -- another example of how he claims to have some hand in the creation of such things. I believe he fails to cite his sources whenever possible. I think his relationship with Locke will improve once he realizes the importance of factual evidence versus anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources. It is difficult to tell. I think that I believe Locke when he says "I am often inebriated near my computer, and sometimes out of emotion I may make statements that are unclear. Also, to protect myself and whatever level of anonymity I can retain."
Started what all? I never claimed to "start it all", whatever that means. I have provided many sources of information, and recently added links to every relevant announcement made by Locke to the DikuMUD newsgroup regarding the status of his development and releases of his code. Locke and/or Eggster is the only one not providing any sources of information. I resent claims that I have been underhanded in any way. The MUD trees article is a whole different story. I only copyrighted the layout/design I came up with to represent the DikuMUD family tree (with hyperlinks to the source code or homepage of the code base). I wasn't copyrighting the information, only the design, which I am fully within my rights to do. This didn't stop anyone else from using the information contained within the tree, and I freely gave permission to anyone who asked if they could copy it or modify it. I personally researched the history of various DikuMUD-derived code bases, and organized my ftp site (ftp.game.org) so that child derivatives were placed in subdirectories under the parent code. Many ftp/http sites copied my design and mirrored my content without permission. Thankfully a few either asked permission or at least credited ftp.game.org as their source. --Thoric 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thoric I think misread the part with "I think his relationship with Locke will improve once he realizes the importance of factual evidence versus anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources.". The ambiguous "he" in there makes it sound like Eggster was referring to Thoric as being the one using anecdotal evidence and anonymous sources. But actually Eggster was talking about Locke perhaps sobering up and trying to stop posting incorrect 'unclear' things based on anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources. I myself had misread that line until I thought for a moment and realized that his sources are Locke's usenet posts back in the mid-90's. (Google is far from being anonymous... in fact here is their address, and here is a picture of their headquarters... and Google is historically known as avoiding trickery, so they are trustable; they acquired their USENET archives from Deja News which is also trustable, and therefore Google Groups is a trustable source to find out what Locke posted to USENET. Many of Google's employees could write something equivalent or superior to the NiMUD online creation system in an afternoon, so it's silly to think that someone there would care enough to tamper with the records just to support some argument between you two.) Regarding the mud tree thing, I -think- that Locke was saying that Thoric is claiming to have contributed to whatever on the tree came from his MUD. (It says that AFKMud is based on SMAUG). If AFKMud is indeed based on SMAUG and not NiMUD (a quick glance at the AFKMud web site tells me that this is correct), then there seems to be nothing wrong with it. --Atari2600tim 19:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any resolution on this page. I have found evidence that the first publicly available on-line creation add-on for Dikumud was written by Dan Brumleve (aka Acidion/Jhalavar) for Armageddon MUD in April 92[2] and released in June 92[3]. Shop creation code was released in Oct 92 [4]. It was used on Armageddon's sister mud Artic[5] and found its way into Shine[6]. This predates any release by the user Locke/Eggster. Also I have cited that the term "online creation" was NOT coined by either Locke or Surreality. The term was in use well before their time IRT muds. See here and here. The user Eggster/Lock has continuously been reverting any mention of online creation in the article to something else for the past week, and also backdating the dates associatied with his NiMUD entry without providing any citations whatsoever everytime prior work is found. Jlambert 06:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the dating disputes. I extracted the following from ftp://ftp.ccs.neu.edu/pub/mud/docs/mudlists/

18 October 1993  Volume 6  Issue 6
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  up          18
...
17 December 1993  Volume 6  Issue 10
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  R*          23
*  = last successful connection was more than 7 days ago
...
22 January 1994  Volume 6  Issue 11
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  R**         21
** = last successful connection was more than 30 days ago

This correlates with the Usenet messages cited [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

I suggest this is pretty damn good evidence that Locke started work CthulhuMud in August 93, it was up by October, and it went down in December 93. So the earliest dating of OLC code cannot have been prior to August 93.

Also...

27 August 1993  Volume 5  Issue 10
Hidden Worlds    cns.cscns.com           192.156.196.1    4000  up

On or about Aug 2nd, 1993 (broken thread) is first message mentioning hidden worlds [14] in which Russ Taylor replies:

>Hidden Worlds, at 192.156.196.1 4000, is using essentially unmodified vego
>code at the moment.   All characters were nuked, unfortunately.

Hidden Worlds appears on no earlier mud listing. If Surreality was a builder on Hidden Worlds and as the Isles documentation (see [Talk:Online_creation#On_the_Dates_Issue_with_Thoric talk above]) insists that is where they took their ideas from, then that's also supporting evidence of August 93 as the earliest possible dating for their OLC.

It seems like a prima facie issue here IRT verifiability when three different sources all confirm it. What's the Wikipedia policy for handling a user who stubbornly refuses to follow verifiability and insists on repeatedly inserting wrong information and reverting in pages? I'd like to think he'd stop but he does not yet appear to be responding to any of the discussion points directly.

As a matter of record since I've found and included references to other OLCs, the user's page on their NiMUD software has had its dates back-dated to 1991. It's also fair to point out the user has been continually messing with new entries by including references to his NIMUD or changing the term online creation to something else because he's apparently claimed coinage of the term, but see these searches from 1992 and earlier... [15] and [16]). Both actions, it seems to me to be compelling evidence of pushing an agenda.

Now I'm a newbie to Wikipedia BTW. But I have read and understood the following... "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."

Jlambert 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I've decided to take on this case, however, Eggster should be allowed to explain his actions here before any decision is reached. Firestorm 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Eggster

One problem with Atari2600tim's argument is that "online creation" was the term that was used by Chris Woodward to describe the software that he and his co-author developed, modified from what may be the initial term "building" which was a part of TinyMUD (though the authoors learned the term on Hidden Worlds Diku) and does not refer to other building software. "OC" or "OLC" was not used to describe live "world editing features" of other MUD-related features such as TinyMUD, TinyMUCK. To anyone writing articles related to "Tiny" please keep in mind that there were lots of different softwares and features which referred to "TinyMUD", "TinyWorld" and "TinyMUX" - as well as software like Circle referring to its database as TinyWorld.

TinyMUD predates Diku and therefore Hidden Worlds by quite some time. It is inaccurate to imply that the authors learned the term on Hidden Worlds. --Atari2600tim 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not inaccurate because it's true! Locke was 14 when he "discovered" mudding...he's 28 now, so that's approximately 1991. Your comment here makes no sense. Locke's second mud after Nameless MUD was Hidden Worlds Diku. You can find information about Hidden Worlds Diku on Usenet still I believe. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I was thinking back to when Locke was saying that he and his friend had coined the term "building" too. The misunderstanding came from "building" which was a part of TinyMUD (though the authors learned the term on Hidden Worlds sounding like you were saying that the authors of TinyMUD took something from NiMUD Hidden Worlds. --Atari2600tim 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The 'author' of TinyMUD, also a Pittsburgher, and also, like one of the co-authors of NiMUD/OLC, an alumni of Carnegie Mellon, did not steal any code from HW, or NiMUD. TinyMUD, I believe, was in circulation in the late 80s and, I think, may have been the basis for Diku, according to some anecdotal evidence about the origins of Diku (or perhaps they both started with Talker, a common starting place for MUDs). TinyMUD and NiMUD code are not similar, and are not really in any common ground other than geographically and perhaps due to that, philosophically. By the way Diku was based on AberMUD, not TinyMUD. However, I've heard Aber was based on Tiny, so its Aber->Tiny->Diku.

The idea of building on a mud was not unique to Online Creation. The idea of building in a world was not unique to Online Creation. What made Online Creation unique, aside from its name, was the way the editor was constructed.

As for the dates, perhaps they can still be desputed. The problem is that the time period in question is the dim memory of the early 90s, one of the authors is deceased, all of the information is not static and is digital, and the other author may have been emotionally damaged by the situations and released versions that didn't make sense, but that were dated by an archive that, unfortunately, lost its ability to retain dates in 1997. Some of the surviving author's requests (in fact almost all emails pre-dating 2001) were ignored. Thoric's policy seemed to be: I'll answer the first one, but ignore any immediate responses that I don't like and I'll change whatever I want about your mud and give you some reason, whether it makes sense, is provable, or just my opinion or desire. "Isles 1.0" is an example of that. Furthermore, all submissions to that archive were subject to the scrutiny and censorship of the site owner, at his discretion, which, while lawful, did obstruct the truth.

I do not censor nor scrutinize submissions. TheIsles1.1.tar.gz did not originate from ftp.game.org, and is the only complete version of TheIsles to be found from that time period, unless you can prove otherwise. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
How do you know its the only complete version? I don't think you've done your research.. and I would like to mention that if you do not censor, why is it that new submissions that Locke makes are ignored by you? Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not up to me to provide your proof for you. I have searched for other versions, and even Locke has stated on more than one occasion that version 15 (or 1.5) was the first version he publically released, meaning that older versions remained unreleased. It's likely that version 1.1 was released at a later date for archive purposes... but it is hard to tell with all the misinformation being provided by Locke. BTW, failure to add speedily add new submissions is hardly censorship. I am a busy person, and add new submissions when I get around to it. For the record, there are no NiMUD files waiting for addition in the /incoming directory, and the /pub/mud/diku/merc/nimud directory contains quite a few releases. What specifically is missing? I cannot be expected to spend all my time locating files to add. Submit it properly, and I will add it. --Thoric 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Statements made that Locke could not find another archive are false. Many of the other archives on which that software was shared are either not taken into account and are not part of the discussion, or are, instead, left to the digital abyss. Those that do remain are, unfortunately, not cataloged but may include ftp.tcp.com, and other ftp archives, including the WUArchive, if that's still in existance.

Please provide links to said archives. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
They don't have web pages, why don't you use FTP to check them out, or use Archie to search FTP. And, according to its surviving author, it was you who requested that! Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not for me to provide your proof. It is for you to provide proof to back up your claims. I already provided evidence documenting TheIsles/NiMUD information. For those who don't want to bother downloading and untarring the file, simply click on this link -- isles10.txt (and also see isles11.txt) --Thoric 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I did provide proof. Why is it up to me to be your secretary? If you're the one in despute of it, just refuting it isn't enough, your proof is invalid because it comes from your own servers, which you manipulate for your own means. Eggster 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You did not. I provided proof from another server, and I do not manipulate sources. BTW, I found a copy of a NiMUD release history from one of Locke's releases: (/docs/release.doc from NiMUD2000)
NiMUD v1.9999a   "NiMUD 2000"                   March 30, 1999
NiMUD v1.6       ("Code Package")               January 1995
Nimud v1.5       ("The Isles Pack, v1.5")       December 1995
Nimud v1.1       ("The Isles Pack, v1.1")       September 1994
Nimud v1.0       ("The Isles Pack, v1.0")       August 1994


As for the time period of its creation, its surviving author continued to work on it after August 1994, when Chris Woodward left for college. He died the following year, December 13, 1995, and did not work on the project for more than 5 or 10 minutes sporadic intervals after 1994.

The original software was written in and around the Merc 1.0 releases, the research was conducted on DuneMUSH, and evidence may be present in the original authors of DuneMUSH, anecdotally, about Chris Woodward's "x-ray glasses incident" on DuneMUSH, which changed one of the functions in DuneMUSH. Paul Atreides from DuneMUSH 1 _may_ remember this incident and be able to determine the exact date, which was after the initial Cthulhu leak and near the end of the project.

This article only concerns the OLC code, not any other MUD-related software. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes but that incident is recorded in history and can help you determine the timeframe of their online relationship. It can be used to determine dates and timeframe its not part of the article it's part of the despute. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I started programming an adventure game in BASIC on my computer back in 1984, does this mean that the origins of my MUD code began in 1984? I think not. While I developed a functional online building system for Realms of Despair in 1994, I still say the release date was 1996 when SMAUG was released. I don't try to push it two years earlier. Documentation within NiMUD, on the other hand, clearly states that v1.1 was the first release to contain OLC (code dated August, 1994, release date of September, 1994). --Thoric 17:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article should focus primarily on the software known as "online creation" or "OLC" for DikuMUD, since Online Creation is the most prevailent form of online building software in the DikuMUD-derived history. Only because of Thoric, and Atari2600tim's desire to add additional information about online building.

The article should focus on any online building/creation/coding system for MUDs. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this, and it seems to be the focal point of my own differences with the changes that get made to this article. "Online creation" is too general of a term, and also has been used before NiMUD or TheIsles. If "online" and "creation" did NOT have an implied meaning by putting them together, then it would be like "Xerox", which is owned by the Xerox company (and it is correct for Xerox to claim ownership of the word, and not want people to use xeroxing as a verb, because it devalues the word), and I would agree with Locke; however, what he's wanting to do is more like have the Xerox company claim ownership of the term "photocopy". "Online creation" is not a unique term like xerox is, but a general one like "photocopy". If you feel that there is not enough information on Wikipedia about NiMUD's OLC, then put it in the NiMUD article. It seems to be the central feature of NiMUD, so it would not be out of place in the article about NiMUD. The "online creation" article however should be about all the noteworthy online creation systems, written with a NPOV as other Wikipedia articles should be. --Atari2600tim 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with this because his parents are very proud of the fact that he and Locke coined the term "Online Creation" and because it wasn't in general use before that. Its the only thing they have left of him, and it was his only influence on the world. He should be duly credited with releasing the first OLC for Diku because that is what he and Locke did. Eggster 14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof other than anecdotal that MozartMUD completed their online building in 1993, and I think its an attempt by other parties to "plug" this mud - much of this software appears to be similar (perhaps reverse engineered) from other systems, and its significance, other than its involvement in "SMAUG", the software package released by Thoric (owner of FTp.GAME.oRG)

This would have to be up to the testimony of witnesses. I based SMAUG's online building on my memory of using MozartMUD's online building system back in 1993. I know that their online building system was in place for quite a bit longer than that, but we would need statements from them, and/or other people that have used their building system. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The "(perhaps reverse engineered)" suggestion has been put into the online creation article over and over in the past. This comes from Locke feeling that a game without an external editor (and instead an internal editor) is a revolutionary thing that first happened with his MUD. This is not the case, and it makes sense that other people can just as easily have created MUDs with similar features on their own without ever having heard of NiMUD/TheIsles or even MUDs in general. TinyMUD's in-game editing predated MozartMUD too, but this implied thing is -always- used in order to say that stuff was reverse engineered from NiMUD, and never from TinyMUD or even the editor of Hidden Worlds that NiMUD was inspired by (or reverse engineered from, or whatever Locke would call it). --Atari2600tim 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoric has been using a method for years of consolidating features from other muds for his own, by collecting the source codes and bringing features into SMAUG. This is fine from an open source perspective, however, at the same time, he has censored works or ignored requests that are in discordance with his archive's policy of exactness, perhaps in accordance with the law, perhaps not, but certainly as an effort of vigilantism, specifically against the authors of this software, perhaps in an attempt to hide the origins of this software and to damage the credibility of its authors, one of which cannot defend himself anymore.

This is a lie. SMAUG is not a collection of code snippets (unlike some other code bases), most every bit of SMAUG code has been hand crafted by the SMAUG development team aside from a very limited selection (i.e. three) of publicly released code pieces. SMAUG is not a patchwork quilt. This is very evident if one takes the time to examine the source code, rather than to make false accusations. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you live in a bubble, Thoric. That's what MUD software developers have been doing: its called usability research. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Realms of Despair (SMAUG) was created early in 1994 (May?), and opened to the public in July of 1994. The first year of development was the most intense, and by the time I created ftp.game.org (in 1995) the SMAUG code was quite evolved, and already contained 90% of the features that were included with the 1996 release. The SMAUG release marked a new era of feature-rich codebases (following in the footsteps of SillyMUD) versus stripped-down bare-bones servers like Merc for which emerged a large library of code snippets for implementors to piece together. --Thoric 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, any requests Locke might have made to have erroneous copies removed were ignored, as were his requests to have The Isles v1.x distributed with the original Merc areas intact, as it was released originally as a derived copy of Merc, the team that brought Diku back to America. (I remember reading something about DikuMUD being based on the ideas of TinyMUD, it certainly is similar more so than to a MUSH or other type of MU*). Also, it is in the author's recollection that other forms existed and were tampered with by Thoric, or perhaps by another archive owner, the one from which Thoric got all his files initially. Regardless, I believe it was Thoric who "created" the TheIsles15.tar.gz archive.

I did not create TheIsles15.tar.gz, it was submitted to ftp.game.org. I do not tend to remove items which have been submitted as they provide a historical record. I also do not modify nor censor any submissions. Any such claims are unfounded, and an outright lie. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to the OLC author, it was you. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Cube" or "Sauerbraten" -- the ideas of Sauerbraten are definitely similar to the ideas present in MUDs with OLC, and that is why it is mentioned. The author of Sauerbraten was obviously someone who was interested in bringing that concept out of the text world into 3d gaming engines. It's a great move and is definitely related.

In-game editing of game content was not limited to the text world up until Cube, other games have had in-game editing both before NiMUD, and between NiMUD and Cube. It would make as much sense to say that Cube took inspiration from one of the intermediate games, or one of the games that predated NiMUD. This link between the two seems to be just made at random, based on Locke seeing some impressive screenshots of Saurbraten and deciding he would like his name to be associated with that. --Atari2600tim 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Locke has spoken with its author, and its author would like everyone to be associated with that. Both authors share the "zero precompilation philosophy" idea of design. Also, I would like you to cite what "other games" provide this. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of this stems from claims such as MozartMUD's policy to claim it was started in 1990, even though DikuMUD wasn't release until 1991. Since Thoric is so close with these people, perhaps he has picked up this bad habit from them: moreso, I think that it may be an aspect of MUD admins to overembellish and exaggerate, as well as lie to make themselves look smarter, perhaps myself and all other mudders included.

DikuMUD gamma was released Jan 01, 1990. Please make sure your facts are correct before making accusations. I am not close to the MozartMUD people. Mozart was simple the first MUD that I became an imm on (long ago, and only for a brief time... long enough to do a little building). --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there proof of that? What a strange day to be released. According to different sources, DikuMUD was first released in 1991. Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
DikuMUD gamma v0.0 was released on October 1st, 1990 [17] --Thoric 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to mention is that this despute may stem from the fact that there is no "quit" command for this service: only "log out"

How is this relevant? --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be regarding a separate vote for deletion of the images that were added to this and the NiMUD article. Basically, if I'm reading this correctly, he's apologizing for not logging out before adding his votes in Jenchurch's name. Jenchurch's "votes" were added in this, and this edits by Eggster, who put someone else's name. If I'm understanding correctly, then if Wikipedia had a quit command, then he wouldn't have forgotten that he was still logged in as Eggster. That does seem to be beside the point, as Jenchurch seems to be a real user, and someone that Eggster wouldn't be able to log in as anyway. This seems confusing, and I may have misunderstood. --Atari2600tim 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What we do know: it was made in the mid-90s. It was first made publically available by Locke and Surreal while they were in high school, and that it made a significant impact to the way MUDs have been played since.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the unsupported claimed release date of 1992, and your periodic insistence that the unrelated online building code of other MUDs was based on, or stolen from NiMUD's OLC. --Thoric 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
NiMUD's OLC was the first publically available example of a Diku OLC. There is no disputing that because the one from Mozart and the others wasn't publically available. Including HW... Eggster 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. It still wasn't publically released until 1994, (or possibly even 1995). --Thoric 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the time when something was stolen and then "available" to the world is relevant in comparison to when something was given to the world legitly. It seems comparable to if the Windows 2000 article said that in 2004, MS released partial source code to the public via whoever it was that took it. However, because so many MUDs -do- use code that it is unlawful for them to have, it still might be noteworthy (to someone interested in the history of unlawfully-written MUDs). If it IS mentioned that it was available to the public at some point before 1994/5, then it should also be mentioned that it was not released by the authors until 1994. It should be very clear, and not sound like 1992 or 1993 was when it was released. --Atari2600tim 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if we used "stolen" as some sort of release date, the only documentation available describes the OLC code as something developed in 1994. No documents or even comments written by Locke or others claim that this hacked and stolen MUD code from 1992 contained any OLC code making that argument moot. (BTW, the SMAUG code was stolen in 1995, and nobody saw a public copy of NiMUD until 1995... does this mean they were released at the same time? Maybe NiMUD OLC was based on stolen SMAUG code.) --Thoric 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. NiMUD OLC was not based on stolen SMAUG code. And since the CthulhuMUD code, which contained the original OLC, was stolen within days of the cited posting, I don't think that suggestion has any merit. Also, it is doubtful that any of it can be proven "unlawful" unless money is made for it. Supposedly copies of Emlen were sold for $200 by Owen Emlen. There's really nothing a person can do about that and no judge would award damages because copyrights are, well, not enforced on this level because on this level there is very little money unless something like Medievia happens. Furthermore, I find it trite and a bit disheartening that you would attempt to deprive a dead man of his only significant software engineering achievement. It's dishonorable. Eggster 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I never said NiMUD OLC was based on stolen code, I was simply illustrating the flaws in your logic. Anyways, there is no evidence, or for the matter any official claim by Locke that CthulhuMUD contained any OLC code. --Thoric 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In order to get any official claims, we'd have to wait for him to admit being Eggster, which won't happen unless it seems to be beneficial in some way. I think he's aware of how silly most of the stuff he's been posting is, and is using the different personas in order to distance himself from his statements. I wouldn't want my name by what he says either. --Atari2600tim 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to be completely honest, the reason I am writing this is because Locke is too distracted with real life things to be bothered. He told me that Cthulhu did indeed contain the first copy of OLC and that it was the first MUD he ever ran. Also, he said that Thoric forced the copy of TheIsles15.code.tar.gz to be put up on his archive because "It contains areas that are copyrighted to other people" -- which is the most illogical thing I've ever heard and is obviously a tactic by Thoric to change the history of mudding to his favor. Since NiMUD was a derived work and contained Merc licenses, there was no reason for Thoric to request that. It's just like Bartle getting the award for writing the First Mud when he wrote the Second Mud. Locke has reiterated to me that he is happy about the fact that his and Chris' software has influenced people, but disheartened by the fact that so many abused his license and may have profited from it. He claims he was hurt by Thoric, yet forgave Thoric for his actions in the early nineties but has since been ignored and bothered by some of Thorics ignorance of his requests to have new versions hosted. Locke is not very happy with where mudding is going as far as "who controls the source" and "who censors the source". Eggster 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if Cthulhu contained OLC code as claimed, it was not publically released. Until you can provide some solid evidence of NiMUD OLC existing before 1994, the date should remain 1994, not 1992. I had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of TheIsles15.code.tar.gz other than renaming TheIsles15.tar.gz to TheIsles15.code.tar.gz due to the fact that it contained nothing other than source code. I have never refused any submissions to ftp.game.org, nor enforced any sort of modifications or censorship. I add new versions of code when I get around to it. I never refused to host anything. --Thoric 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Then why are the latest versions of NiM5 not up on your server even though Locke claims to have uploaded them into your incoming dir on ftp.game.org... I believe you are a liar.... Eggster 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Because they weren't named anything like "nimud". I've put them all into place now. --Thoric 17:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What about dMUD? (http://www.mudolc.org/dMUD] Eggster 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking why dMUD is not available on ftp.game.org in the NiMUD folder after you uploaded it to his server? I don't think this is related to the Online Creation article, and is not appropriate for this Online Creation article discussion page. It'd be nice to have some of the accuracy problems of this article to be fixed rather than having everything else in the world involving you and Thoric getting discussed and drowning out the problems, but oh well, not everything in Wikipedia needs to be correct or even logical I guess. --Atari2600tim 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

'SEE' Uncyclopedia

I do appreciate the scrutiny that this article has been given: I think it is a unique and interesting aspect of software to provide creative outlets for people, and this includes Wikipedia! Thanks to everyone who has contributed. As it stands a la the last version I have made tonight, I don't have any problems with it and I hope the images stay. Eggster 01:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This page shows Eggster's bad faith regarding this article, and he's made no efforts to support his edits at all, so I went to the Mediation Cabal page and crossed this out. Please keep this page here so that it can be used in the future as reference regarding Eggster's attitude toward mediations (so hopefully he won't waste other peoples' time like he wasted Firestorm's). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMediation_Cabal_Cases_2006-01-24_Online_Creation_0724.html"