Talk:Simutronics

Elonka Dunin (Was: Needs Neutrality and Citations)
Large portions of this article lack solid references, and some read as very POV (probably not Elonka's fault, it's difficult to be objective about one's own employer). It'd be excellent if people could help clean this situation up. - anonymous, 9 Feb 2006 (posted by User:67.163.220.65)
 * I've actually added very little here -- mostly I've just updated the product list and list of references, and I help out by keeping an eye on articles and removing unverifiable information. Trust me, there's a lot of information which I have personal knowledge of, that I'd love to put into this article, but I'm doing my best to stick within Wikipedia guidelines and only include neutral information that's from reliable sources.  :)   Elonka 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can Elonka contribute significantly to this page? Sure, she is an Expert on the matter. Who better to explaim Simu than someone on the inside? On the other side, Elonka's contributions need to be raked with the NPOV comb, since she is a longtime employee of the company. From the other end, and of Elonka's likely concern, can a CUSTOMER provide an NPOV view? Welcome to "Good faith" world, everyone who edits has an agenda...now is the real question is it all in "good faith?" The Wikipedia::Simplified_Ruleset provides the answers. Bold, Civility and Ignoring the rules come before NPOV and verifyable. I'll make a few contributions/rewrites that won't look so rosy. Electrawn 09:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
Good reference here, if anyone would like to use it for expansion: --Elonka 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Corporate culture
Not supported by any references: looks like WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR to me. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on at the very bottom.-- Legeres (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's synthesis from the website of the company itself advertising to attract employees. Not a WP:RS in my opinion.  A.K.Nole (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so much no, I'm referring to this part of it. "(All GMs, Hosts, Mentors and Monitors are volunteers or offsite contractors.)" And that would fall under Primary source as far as references go-- Legeres (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly: primary. Policy WP:V says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and guideline WP:RS amplifies this to "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."  Since we are agreed that this last clause is a precise description of the paragraph in question, I see no reason to retain it.  A.K.Nole (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it has to do with hiring practices of the company and gm policies, Primary Sources are a better choice in this case. I noticed you chopped out a couple other primary references to this section as well, those being  and .  I'm not seeing synth, they've just rephrased and shortened what's on the pages.-- Legeres (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since WP:V is a key policy you need more justification for directly contravening it than a bald assertion. The primary sources cannot be good enough for the comparison between this and other companies: no company's website can be expected to be reliably objective on that issue, particularly in a part of the site specifically intended to market the company to prospective workers.    There's not a lot of point in adding paragraphs each of which has a "citation required" note either.  There is no mysterious "they", an editor inserting or restoring the material is taking responsibility for it.  A.K.Nole (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This section is currently completely unsourced. If there are any sources at all for this material, they should be added so that we can all assess them.  Material which cannot be sourced at all must be deleted.  A.K.Nole (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that it's not sourced, but it is by a primary source. Those three links up there show all the info, maybe it needs editing down since it is imperfect, but I wouldn't go so far as deleting them. There are places I've found in the guidelines/rules that say primary sources can be used if careful. I'll just copy here what was written on my talk page(minus the top section since it doesn't really apply), since we've been jumping back and forth.-- Legeres (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say based on most of the rules I've read the goal of wikipedia overall is to improve the knowledge, adding references were needed or need reference tags, rather then playing hack and slash and removing everything. -- Legeres (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be "common knowledge" among a small group but that doesn't, on its own, make it suitable for Wikipedia. At the risk of boring by repeating chunks of policy &mdash; WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.  The debate on forums that you refer explains that they are not in general reliable sources.  If the material is both verifiable and notable it will be referred to in a suitably reliable secondary source sooner or later.  As for the "slash and burn", let me quote Jimbo Wales:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
 * I think that says it all. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quote applies since it has a source, even if only primary. It isn't heard it on the grapevine info, it is info that is in plain view.  I'll look for a third-party source regardless though in an attempt to preserve  valuable information, even if it is imperfect.-- Legeres (talk)(March 21, 2009)

There are other places in the rules that say primary sources are allowed on certain cases, provided common sense is used. "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." from WP:NOR and "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." from WP:RS. I'm having no luck with third-party sources, I didn't really expect to, doesn't seem like something that would be covered since it deals with policies and practices. If you still don't agree go ahead and put it on a countdown to delete(give it about month or two to find a reliable third party source on the talk:simutronics page, instead of just deleting it right off, to give others a chance of finding something) -- Legeres (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That being said mayhaps i'll do it myself instead. Although i won't be the one to delete it since I think the primary sources are a better choice for the section in question-- Legeres (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Corporate culture section deletion
If no third-party sources are found for said section within two months from this date: May, 23 2009. It will more then likely be deleted
 * Certainly not. Neither of us have the power to rewrite policy all by ourselves.  Unsourced material should be removed ("aggressively" according to Jimbo Wales).  A.K.Nole (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And right above the quote on WP:V "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." In other words setting a time limit before deleting something falls within policy, I wouldn't say it is any less aggressive, if sources aren't found within the limit it can still be deleted.


 * There's also a note on primary sources on the same page, see: WP:SELFPUB. While the sources in question are a bit self serving, in that they are trying to get gms there, but there is some valuable info in it that can be used, sometimes you have to be flexible with the rules for the good of the wiki.  For instance it mentions what GSL is in the "Implementers" section.  If necessary we can get a third opinion on the matter.


 * And as far a rules/guidelines/policy go yes we can't change them by ourselves, but if we suggest something and get consensus on that something then we can get it changed.-- Legeres (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would we want to change a policy to make it easier to insert material which is "self-serving"? By all means  get a Third opinion if you wish.  A.K.Nole (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we put self serving material in the wiki, nor am I suggesting to change the policy in that regard. What i am suggesting is that we ignore the self serving bits in the source and focus on the valuable info that is there.-- Legeres (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

possible references
Oddly enough i think i found some for the corporate section stating that some GMs are volunteers.-- Legeres (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "...Still, the majority of the company's programmers, designers, "GameMasters" (off-site part-timers, often volunteers, who help run games) and other personnel remain predominantly domestic..."
 * "...Simutronics also aims to build up their powerful volunteer staff, the Gamemasters (or, more commonly, GMs), which are a longstanding trademark of Simutronics games dating back to the Gemstone series in the late eighties. The staff currently ranges between 50-60,..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legeres (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done! Now all that remains is to rewrite the section in conformity with the sources ...  A.K.Nole (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)h

Corporate culture - unsourced text
The majority of Simutronics employees are not full time staff housed in the corporate offices. The relatively small onsite staff includes mainly corporate officers, billing and legal staff, product managers, and engine programmers. The day-to-day development and customer service staff of the games comprises part time offsite contractors, called GameMasters, most of whom have full time jobs elsewhere. Whether this staff is paid varies. As a result of their less central status, GameMasters do not have access to billing or personal information for customers or the engine code. All development work by GameMasters is done in GSL (for the IFE games) or HSL (for Hero's Journey).

GameMasters are hired, trained, and perform their duties without ever setting foot in a corporate office. This employment practice provides wider options for hiring and a lower payroll to Simutronics, and a flexible work environment for the GameMasters.

The main avenue for customer-company communication is through the official Simutronics forums. Compared to the employees of other online game companies, GameMasters are relatively unrestricted in their discussions with customers. Most unusual is the ability of developers to discuss issues directly with customers, rather than through a community manager or other customer service employee.

A.K.Nole (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical accuracy, corrections, and collaboration on sources
Hello Simutronics,

Since Simutronics started in the US and Avalon started in the UK, both in operation today, I would like to point out for both parties' sake that academic sloppiness is beginning to whitewash both games out of history. Objective sources of evidence for both sides are dwindling every year, as academics quote inaccurately from previously incorrect statements by academics before them. This is a serious problem.

I am executive director of Avalon Real-Time Publications Limited, UK, the current operator of the online RPG, Avalon: the Legend Lives. I wish to disclose at the start that my conflict of interest is to be affiliated with Avalon voluntarily since 1994 and professionally since 1998. Aside from that, I had extensive involvement in a number of text-based games in the early 90s.

I made a section edit earlier because this page has been left untouched for so long with a glaring inaccuracy: Gemstone IV or indeed Gemstone III cannot be the longest running commercial game. GS IV may however be the third in the world and first in the USA. SHADES began in the mid 80s as a pay to play MUD1 derivative service, but it shut down in the early 90s. Avalon debuted beside SHADES in its first public appearance: UK's AdventureCon '89.

Avalon was officially reachable (at first by modem, then by Internet) and receiving payment as of October 1989 (from Zaphod, the first mortal) as the first commercial multiplayer game to depart from the adventure dungeon format of MUD1.

Since Gemstone III went public in December 1990 and had not abandoned its player data in Gemstone IV, it could very well be the second longest running game and the first in the USA, assuming the game was accessibly that entire time.

With that correction I included two references and a debatable link to Avalon's wikipedia page.

You are welcome to remove the link to Avalon's wikipedia article, as you may construe that as bias. I welcome a better wiki link for the early history of multiplayer gaming. Since both ventures lay claim to similar records, linking to each other isn't such a stretch and may be of interest to those researching the history of some of the oldest multiplayer games in existence.

I respectfully ask that you not remove the avalon-rpg.com/guide/facts page link, though, and give it a thorough read. It is a growing and up-to-date resource containing a number of sources that will be of interest to Simutronics too. I am in contact with a few people from the Adventure Con '89 and early Avalon era of hosted gameplay, modems, and JANET access in the UK. The facts page is to receive some fresh sources later this year.

Therefore, I encourage anyone editing the Simutronics page to also check the sources collected on Avalon's site. It is our work-in-progress dossier to Guinness, Wikipedia inclusions, and corrections for articles published in peer reviewed journals.

Before doing anything else, I would like us to collaborate on forming a solid defence together against inaccurate claims about or neglecting either Gemstone or Avalon.

As far as we know, Raph Koster and Richard Bartel are the only third-party authorities who were close enough to the nascent multiplayer scene and had little or no conflict of interests. Both published Internet and/or academic papers and books. Avalon has cited these sources heavily. These papers also have broad interest and value to Simutronics, Gemstone IV's wikipedia page (which I see mentioned Bartel but not Koster), and any other article regarding gaming history.

Let's work together to clear up the history of the late 80s and early 90s, in which Simutronics and Avalon featured so highly.

Abonyi (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

unverified claims
In accordance with the verifiability policy, I removed all claims that lacked citations to reliable sources. expressed concern that if that prose is verifiable, other contributors will not have the opportunity to retrieve it from the page history and cite it. As such, I have copied and pasted it below for easier finding and perusal. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Under the heading of "Multiplayer online games":


 * DragonRealms, set in the same fantasy world as GemStone, only at a later place in time. Additional versions include DragonRealms Platinum, and DragonRealms: Fallen.


 * Modus Operandi, a MUD set on a fictional Caribbean island, originally designed to encourage mystery-based roleplay, which closed on November 2, 2015.


 * Alliance of Heroes, formerly Hercules & Xena: Alliance of Heroes, this adventure-based MUD was set in the universe of the TV shows Hercules: The Legendary Journeys & Xena: Warrior Princess. In later years the game changed its license, and removed specific Hercules & Xena trademarks, and ran as a retooled "tongue in cheek" mythology MUD until its closure on November 2, 2015.


 * Orb Wars, (no longer available) an early graphical game involving team combat between wizards


 * GemStone ][ (no longer available), an early commercial text-based multiplayer fantasy game


 * GemStone III (morphed into GemStone IV), a text-based multiplayer game which was originally based on the Rolemaster rules from Iron Crown Enterprises


 * CyberStrike 2, a sequel to CyberStrike, released in 1998

After the bullet item and accompanying citation of "Dragons of Elanthia", the page read: " The game uses the Unity game engine. After a failed kickstarter development was halted. "

Under the heading of "Mobile games":
 * Lara Croft: Relic Run, developed by Simutronics and published by Square Enix on Android, Windows Phone, and iOS in 2015.

And the following entire section was removed: ==Interactive fiction engine==

Simutronics' products GemStone IV, DragonRealms, Modus Operandi, and Alliance of Heroes are text-based multiplayer games built on a proprietary Interactive Fiction Engine (IFE) written in the C programming language. The IFE is responsible for managing the server's memory, interacting with the game's database, and communicating with the clients. It also includes an interpreter for the proprietary GemStone Scripting Language (GSL), a relatively simple language which abstracts away most of the complex details that the IFE handles. Originally, many core game commands (such as those relating to movement and inventory management) were implemented directly by the IFE. Over time, most of those have been migrated to GSL to allow for easier modification.