DSB To Go Offline

[O_M]

As a DSB player since 1998, I know this isn't what the zone players want. Even now there are 50+ players in the main pub, and the only reason we're given, is that the sysop wants to end the zone 'on a high note'.

 

There is no real justification for this decicion. If Hoch wants to move on from leading the zone, then give up the sysop position. Ending funding for the server is fine too, DSB will survive without him.

 

Addition: The official DSB forums are undergoing heavy censorship at the moment. Threads with negative comments are being deleted left and right.

Edited June 14, 2010 by O.M

[Moon (dsb)]

I would be sacrificing a live goat tonight at midnight for the subspace high council to reconsider the actions of the tyrant Hoch.

 

Thank you, Moon

[Hakaku]

lol, i actually think this is all a publicity stunt

This was my first thought.

[SeVeR]

What I gather from TLordTango's conversation is that Hoch thinks his opinion matters more than anyone elses. That's just giving the finger to the community, nothing more.

 

Why doesn't TW go out on a high? It's still got hundreds of people in there, but it's declined a bit in recent years, so by Hoch's logic it's best to kill it now. Nevermind what hundreds of other people think, his opinion is obviously all that matters...

 

Unfortunately, power makes people think their opinions matter more. DSB gets over a hundred in population during league games still.

[JoWie]

My e-penis is this big:

=================================================================================================>

[Cheese]

for tl;dr ppl:

 

 

 

How can anyone think it's a good idea to tell other people when to stop having fun playing the game?

 

This is an amazing idea! I should have taken this same approach with my grandfather and killed him at 60 years old rather than letting him live out his life, get old and die naturally 24 years later.

 

You, sir, are a visionary.

 

the logic behind the death of dsb.

 

 

 

It's funny because he didn't even make DSB, he's just the guy that's been running it for a while.

 

he has no right.

 

 

 

Hoch, if you don't want it hosted, let me (SSCV/BlueT) me host it.

 

for when hoch quits.

 

 

 

 

It's not a huge deal; this is a player-run game. If somebody else wants to step up and make a rip-off zone then there's literally nothing stopping them other than a few insignificant points.

Good luck.

 

backup plan

 

 

 

 

 

my opinion:

i barely know this hoch guy, but from what i see and his own words, not only would i find this guy unfit to run ANY zone, i would say he needs an ego check as well.

as dsb is not his intellectual property, he has no right to close it down.

what would happen to a company's janitor if he went around pressing the power buttons on servers?

 

to hoch:

if you dont feel like paying for the server, pass it to someone else and step down, as there is quite a lot of people willing to accept the responsibilities you can not handle.

 

to everyone else:

i dont play dsb, i dont know anyone in dsb, but i know evert facet of how this game operates, and the difference between right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Cheese

[Samapico]

If we wanted the game to go out on a high note, we would have made sure Continuum died long ago.

[»Lynx]

Ah well, either way Hoch can close the zone and somebody else will just re-open it... or he won't close the zone and this will all be forgotten about. Non issue then, I guess.

[Sketter]

What a shame.

 

Like the next guy i don't want to see any zones shut down, but on the other hand, i see where hoch is coming from. He has claimed to have been brewing over this for two months, and being met with such great resistance, i feel is only right to call on hoch to perhaps extends his explanation. Since the players seem to be folding on you I feel you have a moral obligation at the least.

 

Most of these calls in the real world come down to profits, productivity, usefulness and so on. There could be a truth to the fact he can no longer justify pay for the server, and that could be a factor, i'm sure he had a lot to think about. Hoch isn't one to be hasty, and i consider him to be level headed.

 

But this game is quite a different then a capitalize society. This game is overall run by the players, for the players. Everyone knows that. So though while one has the authority to do what they want, I hope hoch has looked at this at the player level as well. And not neglect that what you might being doing is putting you wants, over the needs of the players. Even if that is done in the utmost good intentions. If the players are not ready, maybe it isn't time.

 

I beleive strongly that all owners, all sysops, all staff in a zone has a moral obligation to it's players, and you should move with the movement of the players, no matter where that takes you.

 

 

The problem is can the community be strong enough to change hoch's mind. While you petition is a great step, i think your attention is directed to the wrong person. You DSB players (and company) really going to need to band together, and actually do some lobbing on a few people to get this done right.

 

Here are a few notes for some of you.

 

SSC will not remove hoch. At their best, they can suggest to any extent to reconsider. It is not in their policy to remove owners. (perhaps you might want to have that reflected in your petition statement)

Yes, even if hoch did not create the zone he is considered an owner. He is entitled to, and can do what he pleases, even if that means shutting down the zone. (this is why large companies invest in board of directors. It gives it more of a democratic approach and disallows such things being done by one person)

Due to the fact that hoch is a Billing Op, he will have a presents in the council even after if the zone discontinues. Therefor, any attempts to revive DSB will be met with resistance, and surely be denied billing options. (this is a guarantee)

 

 

Good luck, I'm actually rooting for you.

 

Sketter

Edited June 15, 2010 by Sketter

[LiDDiS]

""Due to the fact that hoch is a Billing Op, he will have a presents in the council even after if the zone discontinues. Therefor, any attempts to revive DSB will be met with resistance, and surely be denied billing options. (this is a guarantee)""

 

Yep. That's why someone can't just make a clone-zone DSB. They probably wont remove hoch, but they sure SHOULD. Better than letting him take down the 3rd-4th most popular zone for some weird power-trip :/

[Stabwound]

At this moment there are 600+ (let's say 100 of those are bots) players online in all SSC zones. That may not even be close to what populations once were, but the game is nowhere near dead. With that many people still playing we still have the opportunity to gain new players and rebuild populations. I'm not sure how, but with an established and solid player base it can still be done.

 

Obviously, killing off an established zone that still draws 100+ players is counter-productive to helping the game grow. I don't know who pays for DSB's server, and if it's Hoch then he has every right to discontinue paying for it, but to go a step further and pull a stunt like disallowing anyone else to run the zone is nothing less than ridiculous. I'll bet PriitK would be fine with hosting DSB on the server that runs Trench Wars and 17th Parallel, and the server itself could certainly handle it. Why not swallow your pride and do what the players would want? Let it be hosted elsewhere and let a trusted DSB staff member take over as sysop. If DSB just disappears I'll bet that most of the long-time players will just completely quit; they won't migrate to other zones. Just outright killing DSB is like sticking a shank in Subspace's ribs.

[PoLiX]

Since I am tired of the spam in my inbox... (attempting to read wedding congrats e-mails)

 

Hoch is the European BanG Admin. BanG Admins have always typically been active zone owners/head sysops on the SSC Network. So dunno if this will continue afterwards.

 

Exceptions can be made in extreme situations such as this to any guidelines... SSC, Billing, BanG, etc.

 

So far the council is reacting the same way and asking the same questions everyone else is.

 

We will not remove a zone sysop. Though if Argyle removed Hoch for any reason... not sure how that reaction would go down. Though if Loops or Chy stepped in, they quite possibly would be supported. Again, all a case by case, who really knows basis.

 

Right now I haven't had enough time to read into this, but figured I'd just cover the questions that were asked here rather than constantly e-mailing em back.

 

Now back to relaxing.

[XO-MANOWAR]

We will not remove a zone sysop. Though if Argyle removed Hoch for any reason... not sure how that reaction would go down. Though if Loops or Chy stepped in, they quite possibly would be supported. Again, all a case by case, who really knows basis.

 

 

huh?

[Ara]

SSC is too filled with sysops from minor zones for it to be able to think straight. It's these smaller zones, scattered resources, and lack of initiative and ability to face the fact that this game is dying that hinders the effectiveness of our SSCouncil. We should merge all zones to 4-5 major ones. Hoch's decision is more of a publicity stunt than anything, but should DSB go under we'd lose a major part of our european players and that would probably mean the final blow for this game. There's no point in doing your own thing when we are competing on the same small amount of players, only reason why some do is to gain more power in SSC. Some people really think after all these years that new innovative zones would bring in more players, this is an illusion.

 

While I'm at it I'll list some of the weaknesses of SSCouncil and SSC network, this is all just my opinions as I've never been in SubSpace Council, but I've followed the game politics since '98 when a zone called SpaceDuckBattle was ruined by a SysOp.

 

- Inconsistent policies between different zones

- Offering too many options for too few players

- Letting in newbie / idiot / ignorant / selfish sysops with zones in SSC network with bang

- Banfreeing network banned ppl

- Isolation, zones thinking that they are a game themselves

- Useless empty zones that get abused by spammers and cheaters

- Scattered resources and innovation

- Campaigning for only one zone

- Holding on to power with no legit reasons

- Keeping the most popular zone out of the center of power

- Bad relations between some members of SSC

 

I am not only whining, I am also giving constructive feedback. What could help:

 

+ More active members in SSC, forget the sysops if they are too tired, hire smods that talk to sysops

+ Create a consistent cross-zone ban protocol, with only few zone specific exceptions

+ Decrease the amount of zones, concentrate resources, merge zones and their staff, empty unmonitored zones should not be allowed

+ Stop banfreeing e-buddies

+ Share innovations and source codes even more, work together

+ Be more open to differing opinions

+ Stop campaigning for only one zone, create campaigns together for the whole game

+ Replace people that only want to hang on to their powers but do not contribute

+ More cross-zone integration, forget about past disagreements, make the major zones more involved in SSC

 

I know some members of SSCouncil are really trying to better things, but you need everyone involved, more integration, new members and more activity.

[»Lynx]

SSC is too filled with sysops from minor zones for it to be able to think straight. It's these smaller zones, scattered resources, and lack of initiative and ability to face the fact that this game is dying that hinders the effectiveness of our SSCouncil. We should merge all zones to 4-5 major ones. Hoch's decision is more of a publicity stunt than anything, but should DSB go under we'd lose a major part of our european players and that would probably mean the final blow for this game. There's no point in doing your own thing when we are competing on the same small amount of players, only reason why some do is to gain more power in SSC. Some people really think after all these years that new innovative zones would bring in more players, this is an illusion.

 

Have you even read this thread, or are you just carrying on with your babble ranting?

[»Purge]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Jvchequer/facepalmimplied.jpg

[SeVeR]

I thought Ara's post was directly related to the discussion about what the SSC can/will do.

[»Lynx]

Hoch's decision is more of a publicity stunt than anything, but should DSB go under we'd lose a major part of our european players and that would probably mean the final blow for this game. There's no point in doing your own thing when we are competing on the same small amount of players, only reason why some do is to gain more power in SSC.

 

This was the only related part I could find. The other 95% of the post was Aras usual ranting bullshit. SSC can't really do anything, seeing as Hoch pays the server bills. This can go any of these three ways:

 

Hoch decides not to close DSB, leaving nothing else to really happen.

Hoch closes DSB, one way or another, leaving DSB to move to another server.

Hoch steps down, and let's somebody else pay the bills/own the zone (best case scenario).

 

This game is player run, and if the players want a zone to play in - that zone will come back one way or another. The council have no right to deny the players this request, or it's completely against everything the council stands for, and was created for.

[PoLiX]

Actually, Argyle takes care of the server still. Or so I am told by other DSB sysops/staff.

 

And nowhere are my words what the council will/might do. Just things I've seen happen in the past that could happen again. Major zones have been taken from their owners more than once in the past (DSB being one of them) by server ops / other sysops. Though dunno Argyle's thoughts/feelings on what is going on, but he loved DSB enough to do everything he has for it.

 

A lot of it will happen outside the council between the host and zone owner and staff. The only thing I see the council deciding, is allowing a new DSB like zone onto SSC for the players.

 

Hoch is hard headed, so noone will change his mind. So honestly, if I was a group of pissed off DSB players, I'd plan more for the after than the now.

[»Lynx]

Ah, I was told a while ago that Hoch was footing the bill for both DSB and SSCI, which to me left only a few options.

[L.C.]

This game is player run, and if the players want a zone to play in - that zone will come back one way or another. The council have no right to deny the players this request, or it's completely against everything the council stands for, and was created for.

Only true to the extent that you probably won't be cleared for an SSC slot.

 

A "DSB-like" clone probably won't be enough. DSB just isn't DSB if it isn't DSB.

 

According to Hoch's FAQ at http://forums.deathstarbattle.com/showthread.php?p=31520#post31520, none of this has anything to do with bills or financial matters.

Edited June 15, 2010 by L.C.

[Dr Brain]

The way I see it, after DSB shuts down, there's no reason the council wouldn't authorize a DSB clone for a slot. After all, the zone wouldn't be cloning any existent zone. It's all about the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

 

EDIT: as usual, I don't speak on behalf of the council. I only speak on behalf of myself.

[O_M]

SSC can't really do anything, seeing as Hoch pays the server bills.

 

SSC can't do anything ? I'll tell you what they can do:

 

1. Under the threat of a network ban, and/or loss of network priviledges, demand that all necessary files to clone DSB be given to whoever is up for the task.

2. Give that server the same network access to billing as DSB currently has.

 

This isn't about some hardware and bandwidth bills. The players will be denied access to the settings and the very community that created this zone in the first place. Hoch has alienated all of the devs, there are none left. If he doesn't want to keep going, step down. Of course he wont, just another power tripping sysop looking to take revenge because of his bruised ego.

 

SSC can't take a neutral stance on this.

[»Lynx]

Only true to the extent that you probably won't be cleared for an SSC slot.

 

But isn't this completely contradictory to what I initially said? Either way, I'm not sure even how valid that point is.

 

SSC Zone Acceptance Policy:

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

 

I don't know, perhaps Hoch has persuaded the creators of the map, settings, graphics etc files within DSB that this is the best route to take for the zone, if that's the case then I feel you could be correct, otherwise it's not Hochs decision whether the zone is closed or not. Seeing as new zones jumping on the network are no longer a unanimous agreement between all council members (thank god), Hoch really only has limited power in not letting rip-off zones crop up.

 

Personally, I honestly do see where Hoch is coming from, but I am not sure he's thought about what he is achieving. While this may be a good idea in other games that aren't player run, it's really not a good idea for this game. He would have to be extremely naive to think that somebody else isn't going to step in and use the settings and map files. While this can be a good thing (sprouting innovation and development within Subspace) it is probably going to be the check-mate for DSBs steady population. The amount of rip-off DSB zones that will crop up are sure to fragment the population enough to aggravate the player-base, leaving only sour faces and players pissed at the game that somebody didn't step in to stop Hoch.

 

Either way, I honestly see either Hoch changing his mind, or this whole thing being over turned, one way or another. I wouldn't worry about it too much, worst case scenario it will end up in a server move (which isn't that big of a deal, really, seeing as DSB should be using DNS on the zone listing).

 

The way I see it, after DSB shuts down, there's no reason the council wouldn't authorize a DSB clone for a slot. After all, the zone wouldn't be cloning any existent zone. It's all about the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

 

This is also a good point.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Lynx

[L.C.]

But isn't this completely contradictory to what I initially said? Either way, I'm not sure even how valid that point is.

I meant as long as it does not use the same zone title as Death Star Battle. Additionally, Hoch is not permitting the future use of DSB's material after the zone shuts down.

 

But I believe it is correct to believe that DSB will still remain alive. I would fail to believe that for a zone having a community as large as DSBs that they would all simply just stop and go away after DSB is shutdown. The zone is too popular and alive to be shutdown. =X