Difference between revisions of "Talk:ZDaemon"

Revision as of 22:24, 1 September 2012

Wikipedia:Zdaemon has a much more thorough writeup. I think we should import the Wikipedia writeup and overwrite this one. Anyone else have any reason not to? Fraggle 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Replace - I've given this article a tag highlighting the consideration for replacement. And I agree the wikipedia article is much better than our one -- TheDarkArchon 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the ZDaemon article from Wikipedia here, since it's been a week, and the only reaction I've had has been positive.

By the way, just so I'm totally honest: this is actually a slightly old version of the ZDaemon article on Wikipedia. I wrote up some of the controversy surrounding ZDaemon on the Wikipedia article, but one of the ZDaemon administrators has removed some of the criticisms. This is the last version before the text was removed. I'm currently in the midsts of a debate about this on wikipedia:Talk:ZDaemon, and I'd appreciate if other people would make their thoughts known on the subject. Fraggle 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A grammar question

Is it actually correct to say "IRC channel whose users supported a Denial-of-service attack"? I'm not quite sure whether the word "whose" can be used in this context or not. -- Janizdreg 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In excessively formal writing, one probably avoids it because it reminds people of the corresponding relative pronouns (whereas it is definitely not correct to use 'who' for 'which').  E.g. "IRC channel the users of which supported a DoS attack".  Such a level of detail is IMHO not required on this site as long as we adhere to the more 'arithmetic' grammar principles originally listed by Fraggle in the style guide article.  I can run up to the library and get a citation if you're really worried.    Ryan W 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I just wanted to see some input on this from a native or otherwise fluent English speaker, and you most certainly qualify. I'm Finnish myself and I'm still a bit clumsy with my English skills from time to time, especially with certain uncommon expressions and words. But anyways, thanks for helping out! -- Janizdreg 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem — I get so few opportunities to talk sense in my real job, you see...    Ryan W 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I started playing ZDaemon in the summer of 2007. Its great but I said some things on the IRC and got temporarily suspended on the IRC for 180 days. Its been well over 180 days and it still says I'm suspended!--Xgmx 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but this is an encyclopedia, and not really related to ZDaemon or the IRC channel as such.  Comments left here will not be read by the ZDaemon developers or moderators.  You should probably contact them directly.  Thanks.    Ryan W 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

good or bad

I've played ZDaemon since last summer (summer 2007). It started out as a ton of fun. That was until I met the CEO of The ZDaemon Team who banned me for no apparent reason. What a dick.--Xgmx 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have anything relevant to say please don't post here. Zack 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd paragraph under ZDaemon

In my edit I removed the 3rd (and largest) paragraph under the application's main description, as it meandered into value judgments over community questions that are more or less impossible to refer to concretely, and seemed completely out of place there. If anything similar needs to be added, then it should be in the controversy/criticism section. Who is like God? 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I Think It's About Time...

I have for the longest time wanted to do something about this, but have only now really gathered the courage to express myself about this subject. This article is extremely POV in my opinion, and I believe a rewrite is long overdue.

I might not be some prominent member of the Doom community, nor do I frequently contribute to the wiki (I try when I can though), but I don't feel this article correctly represents its subject in a non-biased way. First of all, the weight of the "Criticism" section far exceeds the rest of the article. There is little content actually describing the port, its features, and what it is capable of. Given the popularity of the port and the number of people who simply don't care about the drama that unfolded years ago, this amount of material has quite a meaningless negative impact on the outward appearance of the port.

There are also other issues, where there exist entire sections for listing the development team and "former staff", which also take up a huge chunk of space in the article. I think this is unnecessary and tends to make it seem like everyone ever involved in the project wants a piece of the pie, so to speak. Not to mention that this is basically just an extension of the "Criticism" section with even more gritty personal details.

Additionally, due to the nature of the wiki and contributors' apprehension of removing information, there are a few places where you have things along the lines of "there is X problem, but as of Y, the problem was fixed". If something is no longer a problem and has no historical value, it should be removed.

Now, I've been playing ZDaemon for many years, so it's obvious that I have a strong affiliation with the port. I have no problem with maintaining an accurate account of the history behind the port, be it "good" or "bad", but as it is, I cannot help but think of Encyclopedia Dramatica when I read this article.

I would like to formally request that someone please rewrite the article in a non-POV manner. I can provide/acquire accurate information about the port, and would be willing to work alongside anyone who would be willing to take up this request. Thank you.

EarthQuake 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)