Talk:Realms of Kaos/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your idea that Lance owns a "product" is misguided and completely based in nothing but your own conjecture. Lance owned what he wrote, nothing more and nothing less. Anything else, any notion of "product" ownership (where the sum is more than the total of your own contribution) would require something much more formal, akin to an employer. If you want to continue to believe that Lance owns a product, thats fine, but its based on nothing but your own ideas of ownership; not the law, not reality.

"Use of that content does not equate that other product with that to which the content was originally submitted" is not only factually inaccurate (see above on your idea of "product") but also your conclusion about it (that they are not equal) is based purely on your opinion and not based on reality, or the law.

This is a wikipedia article, and rok:rev's inclusion is more than justified as a continuation of the old rok. It is informative, accurate, and explains to the reader everything that is currently required. Your own opinion about "product" ownership and that rok:rev somehow isn't "equal" enough to exist as a continuation is your opinion and should not force this article to your bend.

Allow me to reiterate. Lance's ownership of what he wrote is not an opinion, nor in contest. Lance's ownership of some ephemeral "product" is not only opinion, but one not even remotely supported by reality.

With that, I bow out of this discussion. I see no point in further discussion because I'm not changing my opinion, and despite how patently incorrect you are about an idea of a "product" my guess is you'll not change your opinion either. Therefore the only options are: 1. Allow rok:rev its portion at the bottom there, or 2. Continuously revert one another.

71.237.198.182 03:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lance's ownership is not just an opinion. Realms of Kaos is a product, whether there was a charge for it or not. That product has always been owned, distributed, hosted, and coded completely by one man, working under the name UAN Entertainment. Every person who installed his client and logged onto his server has agreed to the license agreement displayed during the install, stating that Realms of Kaos is UAN Entertainment software.

I'll reiterate again that while volunteers have contributed content that makes up the player's experience and that content's copyright was not explicitly transferred to the game's owner, that does not change the basic ownership of the product. Other products are free to use whatever content they have the creator's permission to use, but again, use of that content does not equate that other product with that to which the content was originally submitted.

We all contribute content here to Wikipedia, but if I then copy content from this site and use it with the writer's permission in another site that I want to call Wikipedia: Revolution that would not equate my new product with this site. It would be a new, distinctly different, but similar product. That is why Revolution belongs in the section designated for information about all the games that have been inspired by Realms of Kaos.

Shanti, RoK Game Administrator 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please sign your entries on this page using four "~" symbols, per the talk page guidelines.

If you want to consider Lance the owner of the game, thats your opinion. The "game" isn't 10 year old code. Its all that went into the content that people played throughout that period. The game is owned entirely by those who actually created it and the VAST majority of which have either joined or explicitly approved of rok:rev's use. No analogy is perfect, but this is wikipedia entry and the analogy is more than adequate to justify its inclusion here. Your right, we may differ on the conclusion that rok:rev is Rok. But we also differ on the conclusion that Rok:C is rok yet you don't see us editing you out of the article.

Live with the twenty lines at the bottom, there's more than an adequate reason to include rok:rev here as a continuation of the original rok. Or we can continue to revert one another, your call.

There is no difference between "RoK:C" as you call it and the game as it has existed from it's inception ten years ago. Just because the game went offline for several months does not mean it ceased to exist. The owner of the game appointed new management, but that doesn't mean this is not the same game that's been operated under several different administrative teams over the years. It has always been owned, operated and distributed by the same man, as it still is, under the same name with the same website address, etc.

Your Windows analogy is flawed. Windows has been consistently owned, distributed and developed by one organization, Microsoft. This situation is more like Windows and Winux if you want to keep with the OS analogy. It looks similar and acts the same in a lot of ways, but the two are developed and distributed by completely separate groups. Much of Winux's interface and functionality was inspired by Windows. You might reference or link Winux from a Windows article, but it would not be fitting to dedicate an entire section to it. The Windows version analogy would be better suited to RoK and Kaos3D, if it had ever been released, as two versions of similar software released by the same organization.

Revolution is not Realms of Kaos. I know we differ on that conclusion, but I don't see any way around it. The creators of Revolution may have the intent to continue in the spirit of the game as it was when they volunteered on it's staff, but they are not the original owners, creators and distributors of Realms of Kaos. Like it or not, all of the volunteer efforts of every person who has ever submitted content, time and energy to Realms of Kaos has been giving it to Lance Hoskins. He is the creator, developer and owner of that game, which is a distinct and very much existing and active entity.

There certainly was no binding agreement of copyright transfer between contributors and the game's owner in the past and that may allow those contributors to submit their work for use in other projects, that does not then automatically make those projects new versions of the original game.

Shanti, RoK Game Administrator 16:24, 01 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I submitted this)

It is not a game inspired by rok, it IS rok. It is the squares, monsters, items and staff who created it over the years of its evolution. Simply because rok:rev will evolve is no different than windows 95 evolving into windows 98.

If you want compromise than rok:c is just as "inspired by" the old rok as rok:rev is, so if you're willing to have Rok:C in the "inspired by" section, then it would be fair to classify rok:rev in the same light. There was a prior edit to that effect a while back, but was reverted. The idea in that proposed compromise was that rok had died and both rok:c and rok:rev are "inspired by" it and starting over.

What you fail to understand is that those of us who continuously revert your edits consider that rok IS rok:rev. Think Windows NT and Windows 98, or Windows ME and Windows 2000. Both ARE windows. Which is exactly why Rok is rok:rev and Rok is Rok:c, but for different reasons.

We can go back and forth for ages if you like, but the point is a simple one, rok:rev has just as many reasons why it has a legitimate place in this article as rok:c. The problem is that the people reverting for Rok:rev understand that equality while the people reverting for rok:c do not. In fact, the only people who created or edited the so-called "rok:rev" wiki are the same people reverting for rok:c.

We obviously both think our points of view on how Rev should be referenced in this article are correct. The only way we are going to resolve this conflict is to come to a real compromise. The current version of the article does NOT reflect compromise. I am willing to stop this editing war if the Rev section is placed within the section referencing other games inspired by RoK.

Rev is it's own project with it's own software and it's own new world development. RoK is moving forward with new server and client features and an entirely new continent of world content. It's stated clearly in the text that's been consistently brought back that the two games "will evolve into two distinctly separate versions." That's already happened. I will conceed to the demands that Rev should be referenced in the RoK article as long as it is referenced properly. I do not understand why it's insisted that Rev is not a separate game inspired by the original, and why it should not be referenced as such. If that can be adequately explained we can start working towards a solution acceptable to all.

Please work with me on this. We can both bend a little and stop this silly tug of war that's been going on for months.

Shanti, RoK Game Administrator 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertisment tool nor is it a place where both games should compete in, its meant to be objective & informative. in other words Rok:Rev in every right should be mentioned here, especially since it reflects directly on the changes that this game has gone through. so stop fighting like little children and get on with it

Agreed. Your actions are inappropriate, 70.125.129.203, as your singling out of Rev while ignoring the far less related games such as Aleveria, Nightmist, and Alura indicates a possible bias against RoK Rev, and bias is against wiki policy. The section as it stands should be neutral, and if it is not, it can be revised into something that is. But you have no right to completely delete it unless it has nothing to do with Realms of Kaos. It has the rooms, items, monsters, systems, and people of the original Realms of Kaos, with very minor variations. It belongs here. Now if I were to post a WoW article here, yes, that would merit repeated deletion. - Sarysa

'Realms of Kaos Revolution' is not 'Realms of Kaos', it is a separate game with different coding from another game. It deserves its own Wikipedia article. There is no bias except on the part of anyone wanting to dilute the original article with information for a spinoff game. Having old staff members creating a new project game does not equate to having the same game, the bias is on anyone's part intending to include such voluminous iinformation regarding another separate game on the grounds that it is a spinoff. All the other spinoff games have their related links but no one is attempting to include such voluminous information regarding them which should be the standard for any other game no which is not Realms of Kaos. Please create a new article for Realms of Kaos Revolution which it highly deserves and cross link them but please stop diluting this article to keep it unbiased and not to confuse anyone having them believe 'Realms of Kaos' and 'Realms of Kaos Revolution' are the same entity.

This is not a new project. This is a continuatiuon of the same project from where the original version left off over a year ago when it went offline. A very large portion of the world, storyline, events that happened in the game over the last 8 years was created by the staff members who are currently involved with Revolution. Revolution staff has been given permission to use almost all the work that wasnt created by them in order to continue the project and they seek out those contributers who they havent been able to contact at every oprotunity. The ONLY thing that has changed is the code that the server and client contained. Everything else, Including the community that plays, is the same. It should be on the same page.

Realms of Kaos Revolution is a different game, ex-staff and even the same player base does not make it the same game as Realms of Kaos. Realms of Kaos Revolution was started when the current staff of Realms of Kaos dismissed or did not retain the services of some staff which those dismissed staff in return began working on a new project of their own. Realms of Kaos Revolution has a different name and also a different website that is not the Official Realms of Kaos website. Please quit vandalizing this article with your bias that Realms of Kaos Revolution is Realms of Kaos, please give this other game its own article.

This is retardedly retarded. you people are having trouble understanding the purpose of wikkipedia.. far out, seriously.. stop being brain damaged.. let me repeat what i said up there, "Wikipedia is not an advertisement tool nor is it a place where both games should compete in" do you understand this? this is really simple, im talking about black and white simple! rok revolution should have its own section along with a section inside this page...the purpose of wikipedia is to inform and act as an encyclopaedia. now, finally, it can also be argued that it is the exact same game with only a different code.

'Realms of Kaos Revolution' is hardly a spinoff, and even then, spinoffs do get their own section. Take Perfect_Strangers_(TV_series) for instance. There's an even larger section dedicated to Family Matters than the one here for Revolution. The only thing they have in common is one character. Revolution has so much from the original Kaos. I really don't see what the problem is with it having a section here. Face it. Revolution exists, and it is a part of the history of this game. As far as history is concerned, it belongs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all history, no matter how insignificant it may seem.

This is 70.125.129.203. I will discontinue reverting article to not violate 3RR further. Those who run Realms of Kaos Revolution and the players of that game should seriously consider a separate article since it is a separate entity from Realms of Kaos. If Realms of Kaos Revolution information should stay it should be reconsidered to not be biased against Realms of Kaos nor should Realms of Kaos Revolution mention features for a game that is still in development and not actually playable by the public or note such intricacies.

I have moved the RoK:Revolution section into it's own article, where it belongs. I have left a small reference to RoK:R in the original article, as well as a link to the new article. Those of you editing the article should have no problem with this; unless you think that RoK:R does not warrant its own article and should simply remain a subsection of Realms of Kaos. I imagine the developers and players of RoK:R don't envision their game to simply be the redheaded stepchild of RoK, either. I believe the article itself says the games will go "separate ways." Consider this to be a demonstration of that.

I would argue that if you include Rokworld (a fansite) in the external links, then Rev should also be linked along with every spinoff game from Rok's History. Asside from that, the Rev section on this site should remain to contain the contents of the creator's of Rev and not whatever you feel like it should say about rev. It is currently the same game. And in fact, as of this posting it is the ONLY game available for download. It belongs here.

Applying game data files to a different code base does not make it the "same game." If anything, it makes it a mod.

The original RoK:R is intact, but I added a link to the RoK:R article which should be used to add further information about RoK:R.

To be fair, I've also added a small section briefly detailing the other RoK inspired GMUDs from the past. Please keep in mind that like RoK:R, several of these games were developed and managed by former RoK staff and players alike, though the circumstances of their departure be different. The primary difference is that these games did not use the RoK data files for their content, but that does not mean they are not worth mentioning.

If someone could please update the Aleveria and Alura subsections with recent information, that would be very much appreciated.