Quote from: CK_Zephyrus on March 23, 2018, 07:47:54 PM

There are few things which appear not quite right here with CrazyLoaf's recent posts:

- "Treating Project as fork"

The name is reused. The website is reused. The database is reused. The accounts are reused. This is clearly not a fork, and the "fork" moniker is only used to try to change the rules to effect a "Game Takeover of Risto-Related Assets". If you want to fork it, fork it. But claiming it's a fork is not enough if you're just taking the existing game over.

I agree the name should be changed asap, but afaik the database is only being used now to establish a measure of 'proof of burn' for each CK player, and that will only be used to re-issue new game currency, land, and items for the fork DB's genesis state. I think Loaf said the game design for his version will be starting from scratch, with a hexagonal based land system, and new items etc, so I think if that does indeed happen this will be a legitimate fork.

Quote from: CK_Zephyrus on March 23, 2018, 07:47:54 PM

- Dishonest representations about the debts

The fact that the game would be better off by doing something does not mean you suddenly get a moral authority to do that thing if it contravenes earlier rules or obligations.

Claiming HannaMaaria should not be owned what's owed to her because she "only sang at Risto's embassy for a few hours" is utterly irrelevant. I believe she sent a lot of her money in the game, but even if it was not true, you don't get to cancel people's claims with an opinion on whether a claim ought to be honoured.

Similarly, you don't get to claim a debt is somehow less valid if the player was not active on BCT or IRC. If activity was even a factor, you should at least consider activity in the game, and not an external place.

I don't know enough about this player's situation to comment, but I agree activity is not relevant to judge the legitimacy of someone's loss. There are many people who lost a lot of money in CK, and even if this Fork version doesn't benefit everyone we should not be insensitive to the reality of other peoples lost money.

Quote from: CK_Zephyrus on March 23, 2018, 07:47:54 PM

Therefore, there are two possible ways to go ahead: fork, or resolve the in game debts:

Forking is what Loaf claims to be doing, despite the facts pointing to not being a fork.

Resolving the debts would be better. You'd do something similar to bankruptcy proceedings, and liquidate Risto's in game holdings *after due process*. That due process would involve notification of debtor and creditors, then (assuming no objection, and I have no reason to believe there would be any) distribution of those holdings to creditors. Any debt is then cancelled. A possibility is to include some percentage of that liquidation to be paid to a game fund.

While Risto owes those people who withdrew, the game also owes risto control of those in game holdings, and blithely taking them is wrong. Such a liquidation procedure would get rid of the debt issue in a formal and morally right way, without having to resort to subterfuge.

About the "risto's debt in a fork": if liquidation is accepted by creditors, that "real life" debt disappears. If it does not happen and a fork happens instead, then the real life debt obviously does not get duplicated.

About the attempt to redirect IRC to another channel where Loaf presumably has op privileges, I have to view this in light of the above attempts and deduce this is an attempt to further portraying the fake-fork idea. ##crypto-kingdom is still around with people in it.

I agree, there are only two options - fork or resolve debts - but I don't think resolving debts is possible now, mainly because there isn't even a dialogue open between the parties, and Risto is not available for discussion now, so any debt resolution will be unilaterally imposed on him.

When Karl Hungus approached me to help with Gringotts I was relatively new to CK but started following closely, and Risto was still posting and Karl was offering suggestions and trying to get the two sides of the b1 debts to negotiate and was offering himself as a mediator of sorts, but nothing came of that. Now Risto is gone, and so is Karl, and there's no conversation even.

I'd say the choice now is really between doing nothing and letting CK end, restarting completely from scratch (i.e no proof of burn airdrop for past players at all), or start from scratch with a new game design but attempt some form of proof of burn airdrop on CK that's both possible to do, and gets some support.

Putting the debts in the too hard basket and using Risto's accounts for dev & community funds is both possible to do, and will get some support, but obviously not from everyone, some won't like it, BUT, as long as Loaf's version ends up a genuine Fork, I can't see a problem myself. Those who don't like it can stay with CK legacy.

Trying to resolve the b1 debts doesn't look possible now, the only option to do that would be confiscating Risto's CK assets and distributing them to b1 creditors, but without Risto involved this won't be cool with many people, and IMO it's worse than putting the b1 debts in the too hard basket. Who has authority to do this? Some people have already made a good profit from CK, if they also hold b1 debts and would get more, some people will obviously complain that isn't fair because they haven't experienced any CK losses, and didn't feel the CK 'burn'.

Anyway, I agree that Loaf needs to take onboard how critical it is to make this a genuine Fork, and I think he does, and that will let others who don't agree with this plan retain the original CK name, website, DB, and what remain's of PJ's dev work. Then people can agree to disagree, and choose if they want to participate in Loaf's new game, or continue waiting and hoping for a resolution of the CK b1 debt situation.