SSC Policies & Integrity

[L.C.]

Purpose of this thread:

To evaluate the integrity of the SSC policies and find out what SSC stands for

 

Here is the most important part of the SSC policies for zones to qualify for SSC:

# The zone may only use original content and content with permission from its creator(s).

 

--------------------------------------

 

SSCV Realism Zone:

Settings made by The Ghost Ship - Original content? Yes

Unique map that is a variation of Warzone CTF maps Original content? Yes

Problem: Permission had to be attained from hallucation of Chaos Zone/League SVS for this zone to attain an SSC slot

 

Questions:

1) Who owns the SVS content?

2) Who has the authority to deny or permit the usage of SVS content and material?

 

Notes:

It is true that I do not "own" Jackpot SVS, likewise passplay or hallucination "owning" Chaos Zone/League SVS, or Bargeld "owning" Alpha West. As best put by Bargeld in relationship to SVS and VIE content, "own is just a generally accepted term for the sysop that makes the end decisions." (45332)

 

--------------------------------------

 

SSCV Battle Zone SVS:

Settings use Alpha West settings.

Unique map is designed by PsyOps from scratch that has an Alpha-like structure; ?go battle in Chaos Zone/League SVS

 

Situation: Zone attained clearance for an SSC slot. According to hallucination (44742), he would like to keep Alpha West as a subarena in Chaos Zone/League SVS to help the zone's population. The reason Alpha West was shutdown, according to Bargeld, was because "alpha was dead, had been for a while, and yeah sure people dropped in from time to time, but thats why i figured a nostalgic subarena in chaos was a good solution," (44958) later, in support of hallucination, saying "its all to help CZ population out." (45503) PsyOps states that his Battle Zone SVS has the "same chance to split up chaos pop" (291) as Alpha West does, and "maybe even more, battle had a pretty large following at one time." (292) He claims, based on logical speculation, that his zone could have just as easily been denied an SSC slot as Alpha West (read the next section for information about this). In response, I say "If you made it, it's your property. This is how [sSC/ouncil] see it," (302) to which he replies "yes but if it threatens population then they should consider it the same." (303)

 

SSCX Alpha West:

Bargeld is current the recognized owner, who "makes the end decisions" (45332) for the zone.

 

However, according to The Ghost Ship, "At this point if its SVS noone "owns" its. Sure someone might run it... but noone "owns" it. That's where the whole [politics] of the SSC gets really messy. You simply cannot have a system that allows you to claim ownership of things that were in the game before play-run zones even existed. Tbh the only person that would really have any right to claim ownership of any of this ... that is still semi-active is sadly Alex (Ghost Ship)."

 

PsyOps had attained permission from Ghost Ship (confirmed by Bargeld [44960]) to run and get SSCX Alpha West hosted before a situation between operators of Chaos Zone/League SVS, Bargeld, and the council erupted. After attaining permission from Ghost Ship to rerun the zone under his operation on SSC, Bargeld, becoming aware of what had happened, notified PoLiX (investigates non-SSC zones that want to get an SSC slot to see if they pass the policies to qualify for SSC) "specifically not to do alpha," (44980) and relayed to Ghost Ship via e-mail what he had told to PoLiX.

 

 

 

Right now, the situation has been concluded as no-go for SSC, but see "Purpose of this thread" at the top of this post. PsyOps raises a good point, to me anyway, in regards to the two questions I asked for SSCV Realism Zone in the previous section, and the above paragraphs. Problem: I detect that there is inconsistency in the upholding of "Here is the most important part of the SSC policies for zones to qualify for SSC" at the top of this post. Does it stand up to its words or not? Why? Who? What? When? Where? Etcetera. In other words, I would like to know, publically stated, whether or not the Council really stands up to that. If not, that's all I would like to know and hear ("the rest" will happen by itself).

 

--------------------------------------

 

Notes about myself and in regards to myself:

I am a business man. Even though I charge nothing for my hosting services as far as Subspace go, I treat everyone under me as a client and customer. Why? Because it's good practice. It's clean, professional, simple, and generally a good way to operate a system.

 

Here is what I care about: the satisfaction of the service I provide to my customers. If they're not satisfied, I am not satisfied.

 

Here is what I don't care about: the agenda of the council, as long as my customers are happy within reason, as SSCV is partly dictated by the policies established for SSC network hosts at http://www.sscouncil.com/guidelines.php. I do not find any part of this thread in violation, speaking on behalf of SSCV, of the guidelines and policies set forth by the council for network hosts.

 

Here is what I am seeking: I want to know the accuracy of the policies in regards to its integrity. I want to know if the policies' integrity really stands up to its words or is leaving out important information. Why? So that I may know how to operate my business on SSCV and inform my clients with accurate and precise information as to what they can and cannot do, and why.

 

Last notes:

I don't care if the council has an unfair agenda as long as the truth comes out. Please refer to "Why?" in the previous paragraph.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Special notes to individuals involved (particularly Bargeld, hallucination, passplay, PoLiX, and others directly involved):

By no means do I post this thread under the motive of "exposing" someone, or of a personal kind. If any part of this thread, you feel, infringes on such, please notify me -- and I apologize. The last thing I would want to do is make enemies; I am not an unfriendly person, and I try not to be one. I try to be fair, and I go about my researchs and investigations as sincerely, fairly, honestly, and truthfully I can. I am a truth-seeker and critical thinker.

 

I apologize for the length of this thread, but I could not cut it shorter and simpler. For those that read through, or at least understand the point I am concerned with, I very much appreciate your time and your opinions. Ultimately, if you wish to look into situations yourself, my advice would be to keep the concepts and philosophies of 'critical thinking' very close (critical thinking is an honest and sincere truth-seeking process that looks from and in every direction and attempts to eliminate as much bias throughout the process).

 

Additionally, I will not tolerate replies to this thread that are not serious and not willing to consider every angle, regardless of the 'who'. This thread is public for a reason. (If you want to ARGUE, go make your own thread. This thread is for DEBATE and thoughtful opinion.)

[Dr Brain]

I'll write a brief reply here. Though I am a member of the council, I do not speak for the council.

 

In my mind, any new SVS zone is fine and no one should have the right to deny it, so long as it's sufficiently different from the existing zones and has its own maps. Player count is not the point, and denying it for reasons of "splitting" the population is dangerously short sighted (and that reasoning could fallaciously be applied to authorizing any new zone). The SVS settings have been around so long they're practically public domain. They're also a great basis for SS zones as they reflect the origin of the game.

 

*Alpha* trying to make a comeback under new ownership without the permission of the old owner is an entirely different matter. I'm a bit confused by your post. The point wasn't clear.

[PoLiX]

The issue is, the guidelines were made without SVS zones in mind. I don't think any of us even considered anyone would want to try and start anymore SVS zones as they have all been dying, and merging into Chaos.

 

The creator(s) of SVS zones no longer exist. So we end up going with the SSC versions most recent head sysops as the people in this seat. The zone names themselves are property that are outside of VIE's SubSpace CD release of the maps and setings. And Bargeld said the map and settings didn't bother him, but he didn't want him to use the name. That is a request I can respect, and honestly, the zone isn't out West anymore, so Alpha West really doesn't make any sense.

 

As for the maps, as I told TGS, it is just out of respect of other SSC zones. I'd have had to see a really good reason for it to be denied, but it just gives them a heads up when all the players come to that zones sysop whining about it. Players are what are zones are about, and they're the best at harassing people. Like Hyperspace was given permission to use Premiere League's map (I asked Ghost Ship for them, and permission was given) but due to constant harassment from Premiere League players, I think they finally took it down. Or I had heard they did, but never checked tbh.

 

Respecting each other is what SSC is all about, and it is all that keeps us alive. Once we start pissing each other off, and disconnecting ourselves from each other again, we'll begin the huge fall again. We've finally leveled off, and the network sysops are getting along decently again. We can't do this alone, and need to work together if we plan to have a future.

 

Sorry, bot a bit off subject, but yeah. That is my whole feeling behind all of this. I have pretty much been left in charge of inspecting new zones that want to join the SSC Network, and I am very lenient on it. But when it comes to SVS, it is honestly very messy, and very hard to lay down ANY sort of rules without just getting the entire game to say "VIE no longer owns SVS, and the current svs head sysops now own the rights to the content". Which of course could never happen, and legally is wrong, so we're stuck here.

[MikeTheNose]

Purpose of this thread:

To evaluate the integrity of the SSC policies and find out what SSC stands for

 

Here is the most important part of the SSC policies for zones to qualify for SSC:

# The zone may only use original content and content with permission from its creator(s).

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

SSCV Realism Zone:

Settings made by The Ghost Ship - Original content? Yes

Unique map that is a variation of Warzone CTF maps Original content? Yes

Problem: Permission had to be attained from hallucation of Chaos Zone/League SVS for this zone to attain an SSC slot

 

Questions:

1) Who owns the SVS content?

2) Who has the authority to deny or permit the usage of SVS content and material?

 

Notes:

It is true that I do not "own" Jackpot SVS, likewise passplay or hallucination "owning" Chaos Zone/League SVS, or Bargeld "owning" Alpha West. As best put by Bargeld in relationship to SVS and VIE content, "own is just a generally accepted term for the sysop that makes the end decisions." (45332)

 

--------------------------------------

 

1. Modifying the map from an original peice of SVS content does not make it original.

 

2. The council permits who gets access.

 

 

SSC = Two separate entities. One entity is SubSpace Central. It refers to the billing network. The other is the SubSpace Council, however I do not use this term to refer to the council. Most if not all council members will not either.

 

The owners of SVS zones took over the jobs from previous owners who created the zone on a private server after VIE closed their servers. It is their right to transfer it. Though the council can decide that the person is not trustworthy enough to own a zone on the SSC network.

[TGS]

I think the issue isn't so much policy or decision making its ownership. Therefore the "claim" to ownership that people within SSC have made on what we know as SVS. Either settings or map or both.

 

If I take an SVS map... and distinctly different settings (IE in the case of Realism Zone as its meant to be overlayed with SVS) noone within the SSC should apply "clone" guidelines as a deciding factor as to whether or not a zone gets in.

 

Which is pretty much what would have stopped my zone getting in. I needed to obtain permission from not even a zone... but a "subarena" zone construct simply because my map shared a likeness which if you actually loaded up my zone you'd realize that it's an SVS map. Now that's where the ownership concept gets blurred. No one owns SVS settings or maps. I would consider them a "base" for any zone to start with. So I guess it would just be nice if in terms of SSC the policy was modified so that when SVS settings or maps are involved the "clone" policy isn't brought up. If it becomes an issue of potentially splitting a population I could understand that. But there is nothing wrong with competition anyway as long as it doesn't "break" zones imo.

 

Currently the SSC (Biller reference) is where the community is networked. So having a zone on the SSC network gives a lot of connectivity to the rest of the community. It would just be very sad to deny any sort of SVS zone when SVS is subspace. Prior to player-run zones... SVS was all there was. And all the SVS settings were really minor variations of the base settings anyway.

 

By the way I actually have a legal copy of SubSpace I bought when it went on sale. I still have the cd in relatively good condition. The SVS settings and maps are on the CD. So it would kinda bug me if someone else had the ability to blanket "claim" those settings and/or maps. I think what L.C. is trying to do is open a discussion so that the prospect of SVS zones isn't placed on the same restrictions that other zones are in the whole "copyright"/"clone" policy. Which I respect deeply as I wouldn't want someone cloning my zone and trying to steal players from my zone.

 

That being said... the way my zone is setup now. If someone brought up another zone with the same map... I wouldn't have a problem. The map doesn't belong to me nor anyone else. I agree with PoLiX on the respecting each other aspect of the SSC/Game. I guess I'm ranting again as I'm so prone to do.

 

I think it's interesting to get other people's perspectives on the matter. At the end of the day I'm actually kinda sad that because of some of the faster paced zones and the newer players... people don't particularly like SVS or SVS-type zones anymore. I guess the pace is too slow for the youngin's. Anyway I hope I haven't offended anyone... if I have. Let's take it outside and settle it like men. With a good game of rock, paper and scissors.

[Cheese]

We shall hereafter refer to the network as 'SSC' and the council as 'SSCouncil'.

Now there can be no more confusion.

[Dr Brain]

It was never stated (as far as I could see) what the problem actually was.

[Chambahs]

Hmm, so if I take SS's default map and settings in a zone, can I connect it to SSC? I enjoy SVS with no initial bounty and I know alot of other people that do too. Does someone "own" the default map and settings that come right out of the box? Please state if/what the problem is if I do this.

 

Last time I checked, nobody can own default settings.

[TGS]

Well I suppose that's the problem. As it stands... if said SVS map and/or settings is already hosted or hosted within another zone. You have to seek "permission" from that zone sysop to use that material. Which is where the whole issue of ownership really comes into question. As you said. Nobody can own the default settings. Primarily because they're bordering on public domain. They came with SS. They essentially are the default "SS". The only real issue I'd see is potentially name ownership. IE two zones of the exact same name potentially competing. But even then I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing unless its entirely redundant. Really unless the SSC network is under some strain that we're unaware of. I don't see why it would be an issue to have multiple zones of the same configuration up. Though obviously it would be silly to have two identical zones both with 20 players when you could combine them to have 40. But if that's what people wanted to do... why not let them?

[PoLiX]

I guess the simplest way to state it...

If you don't like the way SSC Billing operates, then don't connect to it.

 

And as for 2 zones, the 2nd zone wouldn't have original content, so it doesn't meet the guidelines. Now if a zone sysop had a really good reasoning, he could submit it to the council, and let them decide. Anything that is questionable by / doesn't meet the basic guidelines, goes to the council. If they ok it, then it goes on. If they don't, then it doesn't. Or you could just submit it to the council from the get go, and save the time.

 

Really it was never said that zones didn't have to go to the council, but it was also not said they had to. Part of the point of the guidelines was leaving it up to the hosts to be the first POC for a zone wanting to get on SSC. And as long as it followed the guidelines, it could be done. Ghost Ship in turn gave Mom and myself the go ahead to be the POC for hosts to get slots and have us do the final check/approval. Any that were questionable would be told to submit a request to the council for approval.

 

We're not trying to be assholes and turn zones away. To be honest, there is currently 2 hosts and 10 zones that would of never been on SSC had the council/guidelines overhaul not happened.

[Bargeld]

I found this post in an attempt to figure out why Alpha was showing up in the directory servers with 10 population, but with the inability to connect to it. The zone *should* not be available or listed at all.

 

I will throw a curveball into all of this ownership stuff and mention the idea of commonlaw. After 7 years in many US states, a couple living together is regognized by that state as a married couple. Apply a similar concept to Alpha Zone (east west Zone, whatever you wanna call it.) I was one of the original 3 sysops to the zone, appointed by Minbari Warship back in 1997/98. I was the last standing of those 3 sysops for roughly 7-8 years, running the zone solo, with a staff. The map is from the CD. The original tileset is from the CD. The orange/blue (newer) tileset is MINE, I created it (not psyops). The zone settings are 98% SVS from the CD, with the exception of new lag settings, which were introduced sometime in the middle when new software was developed, as well as some changes to the amount of greens and freq size (due to lower population).

 

The zone was up and running until one day psyops shot me an e-mail that went something along the lines of 'btw I made some changes to pub, come look'. I looked, and sure enuf, he had added this dynamic 'wall' that expanded and shrunk as population changed. After some bickering (as was common between us, as Psy was for change, and I was for preservation) Psy refused to accept my wishes. Because the zone had an average population of 4 (2 bots and 2 afk in private subarenas) for more than a year or two, I decided that it would be better to shelve the zone and house it's arena in Chaos and secure an SSC slot for Psyops so that he could continue his development in his own zone BattleSVS. At the time (and also recently) Psy refused to accept the slot and so BattleSVS never came to fruition.

 

Most recently, I heard that Psy had purchase a website for alpha and was petitioning to have Alpha reinstated as a zone under his management. This is when I stepped in again, had it out (again) with psy, and came to the same result (again). He took his new alpha site down for a week or so, but brought it back up again. I have learned that Alpha West has been listed in the directory servers in the aforementioned state for about as long.

 

Back to square one... I still exist. I still have continuum installed. I'm still on the council forums and my account still functions on this forum. I still pop into Chaos from time to time. I have also dedicated about 12 years to Alpha zone. Circling back to the concept of commonlaw marriage, shouldn't this continue to allow me to call the shots for Alpha (Zone)?

 

If you want to really get into ownership... BDE owns SVS and could very well shut down continuum in a legal battle if they decided to take the proper actions. Priitk made a copyright infringing client for a dying game that got shelved, yet maintains a feeble population of 1000 players or more. It is unmarketable from a financial gains standpoint, which is why we are allowed to persist.

 

Everything else here is based on respect and long term relationships forged over more than a decade. SSCouncil are not Vangels. We do not own the game any more than anyone else. As any long term member of the SSC should attest to, we have been at the whim of Ghost Ship for a decade. Once Priitk abandoned this project, GS was left in the wake and still remains to this day. Ultimately, any requests and any ability that any player make or has, can be removed by GS alone. This is not a slight to you at all, Ghost. The game has run quite smoothly given the aforementioned reality that we have dealt with. The SSCouncil has the needed organization to maintain order as needed amoungst those connected to central billing. The billing ops and other high-end admins have also played their roles throughout the years. But I will mention that there is almost NO member within these circles that hasn't been accused of some form or corruption at one time or another. People have come and gone and the only thing that has persisted through all of this are the memories of friends and acquantances, and the knowledge and respect that these Sysops, Admins, 'owners', and the like have kept.

 

If there are still requests with regards to Alpha Zone, I can bring up the sentiments of many from our community... some are for it and some are against it... for many differing reasons. But ultimately I would request that the zone continue to stay down, as Psyop's 'version' of Alpha Zone is not Alpha Zone. Psy deserves BattleSVS with his battleBot from UDP and his own decision making. But that zone should stick to the guidelines that have existed for years with regards to infrigement on other zones.

 

BTW, hi everybody

[Dr Brain]

I think (again, I'm not representing the council) no matter how you look at it, Bargeld owns the zone name Alpha. If someone wanted to start a new SVS zone with a *different* name then that's a different matter entirely. Using the map enters into a grey area, but the name "Alpha" is a clear cut violation.

[PsyOps]

He took his new alpha site down for a week or so, but brought it back up again. I have learned that Alpha West has been listed in the directory servers in the aforementioned state for about as long.

 

You always seem to get the wrong idea about me barg, or maybe I'm just a victim of circumstance.

 

As far as website, I changed the gfx that very day to show battle and not alpha.(still mulling over the idea of putting up battle). The problem right now has to do with updating drupal to point to the right address. I transfered and copied everything over to Battlesvs.com. But it doesn't want to work properly, i tried htaccess and the install files. Regardless AlphaWest will be taken down as soon as i can point everything to the right directory( directory -> /battle). I just don't want to delete a working copy. (i could redirect but the directory will still be /alpha and i dont want that)

 

Alpha has always been on the server list with 10 ppl ever since you took it down. I have no idea why that is, but you can be sure it has nothing to do with me. You can ask any of the old alpha players and most can confirm.