Hoch

I saw beejay the other week. I think he is smurfing these days -Hoch

Test Season of DSB Sector League has started! You can create your own squad and start playing immediately. There is currently one bot at ?go SectorL For more information see http://forums.deathstarbattle.com/viewtopic.php?t=28252 and http://sector.dsbleagues.com/ So visit DSB to begin trying out this new event, or stop by to see how life is in the Star. Cheers, -Hoch

You grossly misunderstood what MTN wrote. Level 1 BanG Operators are created and defined by the zone in which they operate. Thus, they should only exercise their level of BanG authority in that zone. It is not, therefore, prohibitory per se to execute a ban outside of that defined area. Rather, it should only be done when cir!@#$%^&*stances allow for it. Of course netbans are made by a NetOp not of that zone. You would be hard pressed to find an experienced NetOp that has not. That said, these are decisions which should ordinarily be made by the BanG Administrators (though right there is only one but that soon will change). But again, it is not prohibitory per se and more of the exception than the rule. -Hoch

LOL! Don't flatter yourself mate. You wanted to rant and so you did. I merely pointed out the fallacies in both your argumentation and methodology. But, as I do this for a living I decided to do it for free! -Hoch

I tend to get most of the European/Asian issues. But more often than not unless there is an NA awake throughout the night Euro and Asian times tend to be not as covered. But it is covered. Anyway, all I am saying is that if people think that there is a problem with availability they should ask or investigate the matter a bit more before rushing to conclusions. For the most part, SS is well looked after when it comes to this -Hoch

The logic of this discussion is flawed because it !@#$%^&*umes far too much. For instance, many of the NetOp's on that list do not use the nick that has their lvl 1 BanG acccess. Either that, some NetOp's have lvl 1 access on a nick not represented on that list. Also, it does not take into account that those with lvl 1 access also tend to be the Sysop or owner of the zone. On that basis, as is the case for me, they can be contacted by members of their Staff. In my case, if anyone in my Staff needs to contact me they know to either e-mail me, or in emergencies all the Smods have my mobile phone number. Just because ?find XYZ says note online in the past 24 hours does not make it so. Nor does it mean that SS does not have NetOp's that are capable of fulfilling their duties. Therefore, this discussion has no redeeming qualities because it !@#$%^&*umes too much. Unless there is something I missed other than 'The NetOp's aren't online, cry me a river'. -Hoch

Smarties There seems to be some confusion about what is to be decided, so in the absence of MTN clearing it up I will. There are two issues that the Council is currently deciding. The first (and most obvious) is who will take over SVS's vacated position on the Council. This will most obviously be someone connected with MG (applications are still being accepted the last time I checked; i.e. we have not yet decided). The second (related) issue is who will ascend to the position as a NetOp. This may or may not be someone who is presently on the Council. More than likely it will be some- one who already has lvl 1 BanG or has had it in the past. -Hoch

Oh stop being such a meany Mav I remember you Cybrax. You were an Op in DSB for a little while. Something about injuring both of your hands whilst playing football comes to mind -Hoch

My only purpose in making my post was to try and show that those that claim either Y person owns or has the rights or does not to Continuum simply cannot be said. The reason for this is that what little information there is available does not categorical or with any great precision point to yes or no. It is, as I have said previously, a question of fact and there are far to few of them. Determine this and you can (easily) plug in the legal framework above. However, one can draw conclusions from what is available, but the argument could just as easily swing the other way. The best thing to do is to say, "I don't really know," because that is the truth of the matter. No one here knows and it would be false and/or misleading to suggest otherwise. Meet my hourly rate and I'll tell ya though <_< -Hoch

I have already established that Continuum is a computer program. It is a question of fact and there can be little doubt that it is. SVS, you yourself have indicated that Continuum is a program. That very fact alone, in law, makes it a literary work and you can read the rest of what I wrote. You cannot, in law, argue that Continuum merely acts as a go between by allowing various external connections to operate off that protocol whilst being filtered through another program. It forms part of the consitutent whole. This is what the legislation says and this is how the (UK) courts have inter- preted it. The fact that those external connections can only operate because of the Continuum program refutes any notion that you can separate the two. Therefore, once the work has been identified it is enough for quantification to be made out. Now as far as the rest of what you wrote SVS, that is, the subgame, the only argument that I can think of off the top of my head is one of unauthorised use of a copyrighted work. One might try to make out a claim for infringement, but only the author or original owner of the work can bring such a claim. You can try giving VIE a call I am merely stating what the law on copyright is in the UK and the European Community. Whether or not you choose to accept it is not my concern. I am not even concerned by it :-) But that is the law, albeit a brief explanation. You can try to argue over the question of fact, but be warned the case law is against you -Hoch

That is not an entirely accurate statement. If you want to know why read on. ... The following is an !@#$%^&*essment of UK and European Community copyright law and should not be relied on for other legal systems, save for like common law systems. Also, I really do not have time to thoroughly explain this area of the law, but if someone wants to pony up the dough to meet my hourly rate I will happily do it for you! :-P There are many problems that exist in establishing who 'owns' the program Continuum. Saying who 'owns the rights' is not technically the best way to go about the situation but I will start there. First and foremost, Continuum is a computer program. Computer programs are considered to be literary works. This view has been adopted under the Computer Programs Directive (1991) following an analysis of the Berne Convention (1886). The basic framework in the UK is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, (Part 1) as amended by various European Community directives. Specifically, computer programs are protected section 3(1)( of the CDPA 1988. Copyright is essentially a negative right which prevents others from making copies of the work of an author. Copyright does not subsist, and consequently protection afforded, unless it has been (1) created by a qualifying person; (2) first published in a qualifying country; and (3) transmitted from a qualifying country. For the sake of agrument assume that (2) and (3) are resolved, but that (1) is not (see below). In order to be protected, a work must filfil a requirement of originality (section 1 of the CDPA). This simply means that the work must originate from an author as it source and creator. In other words, that it is not copied. Copyright protects the original skill, labour and effort of an author (Ladbroke (Football) v. William Hill [1964]. It is not the information itself but the use that the author has made of it in the creation of an original work. And now onto the bit which everyone seems particularly concerned with, that is, who owns it. Section 9(1) of the CDPA 1988 states that the author of a work is the one who created it. Section 11 provides that copyright normally belongs to the person who created the work, i.e. the author. Crucially, as compared to other forms of intellectual property, copyright protection arises automatically, without the need for foramility or registration. Pay careful attention to the last word in that sentence. I say this because people incorrectly assume that they have to put the internationally recognised copyright symbol "©" on their works, or even worse that the work is thus automatically protected. The adoption of the "©" symbol is required for copyright protection in a country that only follows the Universial Copyright Convention 1952 (UCC). So, have we gotten any further to answering the question as to where the rights of Continuum are vested? Not really. But, there is important bit of information that helps those that say Priitk. Go to the main screen of Continuum, click on Help, and then go to About. At the bottom you will see the following: "Copyright © 2001-2003 PriitK and Mr. Ekted" What does this prove or show? Well, that some person (persons really, in which case we would be talking about co-ownership) named PriitK has indicated that he (they) copyright the program and have added the © symbol. That line says and indicates nothing more. However, the implications are that said person(s) have announced that they are the 'authors' of the work. Whether or not protection subsists would require a great deal more analysis. The moral of the story is there is no person here that can say whether or not PriitK or anyone else 'owns' Continuum. It is both a question of fact and law, and on the former there is simply not enough to say either way. -Hoch

I'd start by contacting zone Sysop's (contact not nag or pester). Some might not like it, but they'll get over it. Whilst not all Sysop's are server administrators they will inevitably know their admin Good luck -Hoch

I think this issue has already been resolved. But if not it should be shortly. Someone made a mistake *cough* Swift *cough* -Hoch

Ah lame bomber you do make me laugh. And by the way, stop trying to PM all of my Staff. They cannot help you, and you're just !@#$%^&* out of luck. You are just making it worse for yourself. Bye-bye! -Hoch

As I said on our (DSB) forums I think it is encouraging that players take the initiative to report bugs to the appropriate people. My only hope is that those players with less than diserable motives for any particular zone do not take the opportunity to report flaws in the programme itself, thereby rendering zone playing disadvantageous to other players because of their exploitation of the problem. I dare say that such situations could be worrisome for SySop's. But, with every zone having in place their own protocols and procedures to deal with bug exploiters; in DSB it carries a minimum of 7 days, with 30 days not being unusual; the burden then falls upon any particular zone's Staff to ward-off against these problems until, if it is such a great problem, it is fixed by those who are capable of doing so. -Hoch

It's too slow. I tried tunneling through my universities firewall, couldn't even get a ping for SS. Downloading...lol got about 12.2k. But good luck if you reckon you can do it... -Hoch

I'm just bewildered on how this is cheating To each their own... -Hoch

I may not know much about bots, but like SOS said just have the bot spawn another pub when it reaches the limit you set. At least in DSB, our master bot automatically spawns a new arena, with a bot, when the pub size has been met. Would be a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot easier doing that then to have a mod there doing it everytime it was needed. Though, your bot access is probably easier, priit controls ours -Hoch

If anyone embodies the American dream, the promise of a better life, upward mobility, and the freedoms that come with it, Arnold Schwarzenegger is that man. Does that qualify him to be governor? Maybe not, but it doesn't disqualify him either. -*BAD WORD*- he got Warren Buffett on his economic team :shock: -Hoch

You cannot stop what has already started... -Hoch