Talk:KZ Manager

Untitled
I think that the following section sounds a bit too unencyclopedic:


 * Like other resource management games, this means that ultimately the goal of the game is trying to find an optimal equilibrium between expenses, income and "production goals", although with a highly controversial twist, as only extremists would find this sort of gameplay (especially the atrocities involved) enjoyable for very long.

(emphesis added)

While I can relate to that conclusion, I don't think it belongs into Wikipedia. -- Ashmodai 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the matter is quite delicate, so I searched for a way to distantiate wikipedia from endorsing the portrayed facts (in the gameplay) in any way. Feel free to correct my sentence if you think it goes too much to the other extreme. EpiVictor 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A humble review.
Being a Turk myself,I played it a lot.It is appalling.Not only is it funny when you go harvesting Turks by force when you are out of cash,which transforms into a subgame of clicking race,it is also damn laughable to make a question at the beginning:

What does make a Turk obvious:

-Stupidity -Helpfulness -Something i forgot -Spending time in Sozialamt (Social services)

After that,you gas them,you force them to work,until you manage a resource cycle which is a bang up job of a simple math equation,uncomplex and...stupid.

I chose four,since it is the mewling of Skinheads and Woodpeckers at a single problem,even when getting not laid:"They take away our job.Our social services!"HEck,you guys called us in,you corporations hire us.FÜhrerBum kissers.

Sieg Heil Idioten!--85.97.78.147 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LINK?
Is it Wikipedia's policy to link to a collection of racist games at an Aryan Supremacy website? I don't see the purpose this serves for this article. --67.169.111.72 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It links to a downloadable and playable version of KZ Manager, that's why, and acts as a "beyond doubts" source for KZ manager's existence and factual accuracy of the article. Unless a less controversial (and as complete) source can be found, the link can happily stay there. As for wikipedia's policy, in general it's against censorship. Besides, the link contains warnings about its contents, like it's done in other controversial articles like Nazism, shock sites, etc. (e.g. "Disturbing content", "Biased point of view", "Pro faction or opinion X", etc.) EpiVictor 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About the "discussion about this article" external link
The link in question is "Nazipedia" on struktur.de. From the few things I could grasp from google-translating the page, the problem was the linking to a that white-supremacist page, and so far it's understandable. But wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, first and foremost, and has a policy of a neutral point of view, which by extension implies no censorship or avoiding treating certain arguments, and which is exactly the opposite of the corollary of that discussion: "But sometimes silence is not a censorship, but simply only being obvious." (from the google translation).

If wikipedia was to keep "silent when it's obvious", then we should delete or seriously downsize all nazism-related articles, many other controversial articles, and never even raise the question about a lot of other matters. But then, wikipedia would have pretty much miss its purpose, which is providing free, unrestricted, uncensored information. There are on-line and on-paper encyclopaedias which pretty much restrict themselves and wouldn't even bother having an article about any specific videogame, let alone a nazi-themed one, but wikipedia has always been different in that respect.

Anyway, as I stated before, the controversial link included warnings about its content, as per wiki policy, and I had written that it can be changed if another one acting as a complete and undisputable reference about the game's existence and contents could be found (preferably in English). EpiVictor 12:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some things don't need to be spread. If somebody wants to get the game, he should try to find it himself. Presenting a source has no benefit. I think it's really enough to mention the existence. Not linking the executable doesn't mean censorship. If you tell me any good reason for spreading the game I'll shut up.


 * Verena 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not about finding a "good reason for spreading the game" it is simply about proving the fact that it exists. What better proof could there be besides a link to the actual game itself? 217.87.218.215 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link should be put back with the proper warnings that it might offend the user like any other information found in wikipedia. After all, you just don't tell the person to "go find the information yourself" in an article when looking at wikipedia, right? 192.68.221.135 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About "speedy deletion"
If the page appears to disparage its subject, then I guess it's enough to remove the phrase "controversial twist" and limit the article to a technical description of the game, that should be pretty much non-disparaging (and IMO it's not disparaging at all as it is) Apart from that, User:84.179.70.244 who placed the speedy deletion tag, hasn't provided an explanation or pointed out any corrections to be made.

What likely caused all this sudden "controversy" is that post on the external website ("Nazipedia" on struktur.de), which placed the article under attack (with the external link in particular being deleted).

This article doesn't need to be speedy deleted, it needs to be PROTECTED. EpiVictor 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Until the dispute is solved, I have formally requested Semiprotection for this page. EpiVictor 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On semiprotection
I have semiprotected the article page. To all editors involved. let me remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Given that the game is freeware (and you need to reference that too) a link to the binary can be reasonably provided. Personally I'd prefer if the external link didn't lead to a white supremacist website, but if no other source can be found then I see no objection to it. It is not Wikipedia's mission to police the net. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I dug up some non-controversial links for the game, though none of them leads to a binary. If there's really no problem, maybe that download could be restored too, but that would probably just attract more vandalism/controversy...besides, it's very easy to find that particular page by googling, so it could be left out, I guess. EpiVictor 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually racist?
Yes, you control a concentration camp, but is it racist? Is there any proof that the original designer was a racist? Honestly, I haven't played it. But does it belong in Category:Racist computer and video games? Dopp E lgang E r 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike a war game where mutual hostility between two nations, factions or even races is "simulated" and taken for granted as a basic gameplay element, KZ manager is very different: it's not about two or more equivalent battling factions with reasons to hate each other, but just making a concentration camp function and specifically using and disposing of either Gypsies, Jews or Turks. The descriptive texts in the game also leave little to imagination as to WHY those people are treated the way they are, so this is definitively racist (in the case of Turks) or "just" following the "standard" nazi beliefs. E.g. Turks are descrived as "parasites", each time you kill prisoners you're praised for "Freeing Germany from parasites" etc. It should be added that the use of nazi symbolism, mottos and ideology would be considered sufficient proof in many jurisdictions to label the game at least as "nazi", and since racism vs Jews was a basic component of historical nazi ideology, there would be little need for further proof. Unless it's based on a "reformed" nazi ideology which doesn't readily endorse racism, but that would be way harder to prove. EpiVictor 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In my belief. The game itself is not really a racist game, just set in a racist time period.WWII games always show the war through the eyes of an Allied soldier, this is just a game shown in the perspective of Axis. And since it's shown in that sense, of course you would be praised by the Fatherland for killing anyone in the camp. To me, it sounds like a basic simjail or simmall game with the form of "Hey you're in charge of a Concentration Camp" instead of a happy go lucky mall. I, myself am partially racist (Niggers [last 20 yrs african of rap, hate America, egotistically uneducated], Jews [annoying ones], and all French douches [everyone]) but I don't let that get in my way of my opinions about games. Now please excuse me while I go back to burning crosses and wanking over a copy of Mein Kampf.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I love it when people fuck up my edits or talk pages. "Now please excuse me while I go back to burning crosses and wanking over a copy of Mein Kampf" was not something I added and would please ask for an admin or person that can ban, to delete this IP from editing. 83.119.101.171 I'm gonna burn some crosses and wank over a copy of Mein Kampf now anyway.

That is a good question. "Is the game racist?" is most certainly a good question. Depends on how you perceive the game. You can think of it like this. You can either say that the game is calling Jews and others garbage, or sarcastically them garbage. Meaning you either think the programmer is racist, or he is implying they are inferior because you are a Nazi in a context that isn't racist. Basically it's like if I was making a nazi related video game, putting a swastika in the game doesn't mean I stand by it, but imply that the video game characters are racist. It's debatable if it is racist or not. My theory would imply it isn't. MountainJew6150 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

External link status
For those unfamiliar with the story of the article, it DID include the controversial link in its first versions, but was at some point linked by an external website and vandalism/trolling was overwhelming, which lead to article protection and "settled" down with not including a direct link to KZ Manager. OK, so Wikipedia is not censored (that was the premise for putting the link in the first place) but none wishes to trigger trolls and vandals once again, that's why the link should not be included. Other than that, it's pretty easy to find the game by other means so Wikipedia doesn't need to bear with the vandalism once again. So, probably the link doesn't have copyright problems, but there are organisations/people "watching over" this article, that's why it's too bold to add a direct link or even directions on how to find it. EpiVictor 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My revert re copyright concerns was largely ill-formed. However I still don't think we should link to the software. We should never link directly to executables and archives. Furthermore we are not a web-directory - this article exists as an encyclopedia article, not a guide to downloading the game. /wangi 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the greatest problem with this particular game. However, since I'm sick of reverting and stuff, I'll personally won't move a finger to remove the link again. If anyone else wants to enter into edit/revert wars, be my guest. Let's see how much time it passes before we get spammed/trolled/vandalised etc. by people who think they're doing something "righteous" by destroying the article and calling wikipedia "a nazipedia". EpiVictor 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Award
As far as I can see there is no "Most Unnecessary Game of the Year" award that is issued by IGN. The IGN homepage finds no results if you search for "KZManager" or "KZ Manager" or "concentration camp Manager" or "Unnecessary Game of the Year". Other references to this award seem to stem solely from wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is enough for the award claim to be removed. Or if someone happens to have a valid reference. Hence I put this remark here on the talk page. Regulair (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong informations
I think I should correct some informations of this article. In many aspects it's as wrong as the German Wikipedia article. First of all: The screenshot of this article shows the title screen of an old, stupid C64 parody. That thing was just a cheap hack of another C64 game. I wouldn't even call it a game.

The real KZ Manager game is a completely different story. It was "released" in the early 90' for Amiga and DOS, only. It looked very professional because of its good graphics and complex gameplay. That was the game that caused all fuss in Germany. --Tjarkus (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on KZ Manager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160114130334/http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NEW/is_1991_May_3/ai_10692247 to http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NEW/is_1991_May_3/ai_10692247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)