See this thread TOSEC guys: Hyper Warp ;)
...added, Crashdisk

Another game that doesn't seem to be in TOSEC is: KIN

File renamed appropriately and now in The Zone! courtesy of Gamebase Amiga :agree

The game is already in TOSEC:
- TMF Compact 37 (19xx)(The Magnum Force)
- Mini Executeable Game Disk #2 (1989)(Bamiga Sector One - Cybertech)
and may be soon:
- Associate & Aztec Warrior & Kin & Miami Mice (19xx)(Quartex)
;)

Ok, but these are compilation disk.

The one in The Zone! is a single game disk.

...btw it wasn't created by me; as mentioned I found it in Gamebase Amiga.

This disk was created for the needs of Gamebase. That's not exactly what I'm looking for...

???

So what if the disk was made for the needs of Gamebase; what difference does that make?

All the compilation disks you've listed that supposedly have "KIN" on them (but no way to actually tell from the names) were made specifically and not original...

This .ADF is out in the wild, probably being used by a great number of people; therefore shouldn't it be catalogued in TOSEC?

Here's the problem. What does that mean; "not exactly what I'm looking for"? So, what is it exactly that you're looking for then?

It's a constant battle with you guys trying to work out what type of disks one should submit and which will possibly be allowed or rejected.

I haven't seen any set rules / regulations / guidelines...

One minute something is ok and then the next it changes without any explanation. We need consistency guys :agree

I agree. If the disk is easily found, it should be catalogued. And noted as a pirate copy or hack or just [gamebase].

And the compilations should note what's on them.

I will try to clarify my choices (this is my point of view, not necessarily that of the other members of the team) :
- I hate to use flag [a] (look "1st Division Manager (1992)(Codemasters)[cr NMS]" set by example)
- I hate deleting files from the database
- With equal content, I prefer to integrate a disk of the 80/90 years rather than a recently rebuilt
- We can have dozens of different disks with identical content, in any case functionally (bamcopy doscopy, highscore, .fastdir, creation date, rebuilt, etc). Should we all integrate them? I do not want to!

Therefore, when I have to integrate a program of 1990, I do not spontaneously add a disk made in 2008. I will look for alternatives that come close to the original date. If I did not have this requirement, we could create the disks ourselves!

In summary, I do not say it will not be integrated (Gamebase version) but I will look for alternatives before ...

This would not always be possible because of the limitations on the length of filenames

Again the word "consistency" comes to mind. Surely as part of "the TOSEC team" you need to follow the exact same rules / regulations / procedures / guidelines, blah, blah, blah agreed upon or what's the point?

You can't have one member doing things one way and then another doing something completely different.

That doesn't make sense, back then sometimes people just slapped things together to get them out the door and into the "scene" quickly with dire consequences.

If a better / cleaner disk is created, no matter which year / decade, then surely this is a good thing?

I'm sure the majority of TOSEC users agree with you on this point :agree

...but no one has asked you to do it this way previously, it's how you guys have always done it.

I'll retype part of what I mentioned above regarding this point; if a better / cleaner disk is created, no matter which year / decade then surely this is a good thing?

Well you sort of did in my opinion.

As far as I'm aware there are no other stand-alone .ADFs for this game. We aren't talking about better alternatives, there are none at present. We also aren't talking about a dozen different disks with identical content but bamcopy, doscopy, highscore, .fastdir, creation date, rebuilt, etc...

Yes. Doesn't mean you have to have them all on your hard drive. The checksums are enough.

Of course not. But if there is room left, why not use it? Besides, the TOSEC DAT format isn't limited to what can be fit into filenames, is it?

My thinking matches with Crashdisk, althought, as previously said, both DamienD and Idrougge are right, TOSEC rules are clear, TOSEC catalouges all, and yes, i am not happy with this situation.
Anyway, at the end its Crashdisk his decision to add or not!
Do not call into question Crashdisk his job, he has to handle millions disk images.

nice! I'm lazy as well in checking if there's a new DAT file, but what a nice suprise:) Lots of evenings are gonna be filled again with hunting and updating! The joy!

You can find them in eab's file server, but you probably got that already :-)


You're welcome :-)
I usually send Turran a pm when I've uploaded, I can add you as a recipient as well next time.

cheers mate :-)