There is another BZ1 forum, of which I'd been banned from for a long time (reason unknown). From time to time (about once every three months, if it occured to me) I'd stop by to see if I'd been UN-banned. A few months ago, I found the BAN was lifted, but when I tried to browse "1.5" topics, I got notice that I did not have permission.
More and more months went by, and I stopped by here (last month or so) and saw the March patch referring to the Scavenger/Scrap patch and commented on it.
NOW, I am "Permanently Banned" again from that other forum. I can only guess it was because Ibroke an unspoken rule that the other forum moderator must be trying to get complete control over "1.5", and make it a closed development. EHH?
Quite the imagination I have ehh? "IMAGINE" if such a thing was "true"... If a guy like Ken were doin g all this work, and one FACTION <sp> were able to get control of the SERVER. It would make all Ken's work "hostage".
In trying to maintain complete CONTROL, access to "1.5" is restricted on that forum. I've been tagged as someone the other forum wants to restrict from access to the development of 1.5, and thus could not view/post to that forum. THUS, I post(ed) here, and since that is an implied violation of "rules" on that forum (that I post anywhere else, other than where they can completely control the message), I am banned from the forum.
GENIUS!
The level of perversion on this actually goes a step further than THAT obvious CF. In that, if the FACTION(able) Server control issue is not resolved, all of the effort going into 1.5 will be subject to that same level of "control".
I personally have a hard time imagining that anything that I would spend time developing, is subject to complete control of someone else. UNLESS this is being developed for the OFFLINE (Single Player) community, it seems the SERVER (faction control) issue needs to be a/THEE priority, or it seems to me that all this work is being done for a private community (faction).
"SOMEONE" needs to put their foot down, and make it Policy that access to "1.5" DEVELOPMENT is to be open in any venue where it is posted.... If any venue restricts access to it, it will not be included in the development (posting of any further updates).
As of posting that (look up) POST, I am now also BANNED from the GAME SERVER too.
If that does not serve sufficient notice about the development of 1.5... I don't know what will.
Again, UNLESS this is being developed for OFFLINE (Single Player), without resolution of the SERVER (ONLINE - Multiplayer) issues. Any MULTI-PLAYER intent in 1.5 is a (pondering choice of words)... waste of time.
1) for many many years, I only knew of one BZ forum (here). Activity here got very low.
2) the online population of BZ declined (obviously), but still flickered with others like me revisiting from time to time.
3) on all the servers that were viewable by me, BZ1 died... no more "flickers". (literally ZERO players for months).
4) I see reference of BZE (here), which from what I saw, looked like an attempt at anything more BZ(1) than the NOTHING that was apparent on the servers I saw.
5) Some new BZ'r asked about BZ/BZE on this forum. I posted what was obvious from what I saw... NO ONE was playing BZ1, and I saw talk of trying to develope BZE.
6) unbeknownst to me, this whole BZ FACTION BS was going on, and when I saw all activity stop BZ1 servers (visilble to me), another (invisible to me) BZ1 server and forum was up(???).
7) "They" saw my BZ1/BZE post about BZ1 being dead (for all I could see), and the splinter of activity on BZE as some alleginace to BZE, and some sort of personal insult to what they see as THEIR "BZ1".
BOTTOM LINE is, yes, BZ1 was waning for a lot of reasons (old, flaws, hacks, FPS, etc. etc.), but it is in it's currrent state for the SERVER issues.
If an UNBIASED server/host solution cannot be part of the fix, then any fixes made to the GAME is pointless (in MULTIPLAYER), because that is not the dominant factor in the state of ONLINE/MULTI-PLAYER.
I know there are those who think because I am/was "911", that means I am promoting some "911" server/aggenda. NOT CLOSE!
STOP this "911" / "BZE" / "BZ1" "crap". I personally don't give a large mouse's tail who or what "server" it is... Get the friggin politics out of BZ (ONLINE/Multi-Player) or BZ (ONLINE/Multi-Player) is doomed. "PERIOD".
Him banning you over something that obscure and small tells me this:
There are no actual players left anymore for him to stir up drama with, so he's bored out of his mind and will do anything to get attention from people in the BZC that he sees is "active."
Of course though, this is the way it has always been.
Mr. Spock wrote:Do not kid yourself, you were not banned
You were banned because
Let's see if I have this straight... "you were not banned" reconciles perfectly with "you were banned because".
you were not shot... you were shot because...
GOT IT! .... (in Leonard Nimoy voice) "... it is only logical"
and now we have it spelled out in the perfect clarity, of which that same source consistently speaks... as succinct as it can possibly be. And, with that same impeccable logic, may I add.... "you're the greatest!"
SnakeEye wrote:I think it would be better if the patch were only discussed on Nathans forum. That would grant everyone access to the discussions.
That has been discussed before. Ken's explanation was that there seemed to be more chatter in Spockistan, so he would do the majority of his discussion/posting there. He was given a thread here to keep things on an even keel... and yes, there was the BZU page....
The locked thread only means anyone not seen fit, or anyone in disagreement with some viewpoint or another of the Regent of Battlezone over there, is excluded from any meaningful input, and therefore a part of the community, and arguably the oldest part of the community, is left without a voice.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein
There isn't much chatter going on over there, there are only about 4 people constantly rambling on and the smart ppl only chirp about once a month -- which gives the illusion there is more chatter (but nothing of quality).
I only know what Ken said.
I have no account there anymore, although a google search shows that i've been attributed author credits to some posts that definitely weren't mine...
...anyway....
Yeah. Locked thread, and besides that, I really have no interest in reading anything else there.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein
Well, it is Ken's efforts, Ken's development (and other contributors)...
THEREFORE: "Ken" should be in control of any dialog in regards to his work.
Either "Ken" needs a forum where he is in control of the dialog, and directs all interested parties to that forum.... OR Ken needs CONTROL over the various venues in which the patch is discussed.
Ken entertaining, or participating in, exclusive FACTION-esque dialog(s) where "said" faction(s) control the message/dialog with Ken does not seem appropriate.
It should be a very simple requirement... Any forum/thread that "I" (Ken) participate in, in either reading or posting to, MUST be "open". Ken should have ADMIN rights on any forum, and if any forum admin wants to restrict access to other areas of that forum then they can do so. I think Ken had ADMIN rights on BZU. I doubt he ever had ADMIN on BZ1, 'cause I doubt he restricted my access to it, since he didnt on BZU.
Instead of trying to police each venue/forum to insure compliance, since it is now proven that there is at least one venue/forum already engaging in that behavior, Ken should have his own. I have webspace that a SIMPLE MACHINE forum can be run from, if no one else does.
Nathan and Ken worked better together, because Ken was the guy that liked unrestrained tweaking, as opposed to Nathan's strict "fix the code." The blend made for some good things.
I see 1.5 gameplay changing ever so subtly every build.
