Jurassic Park Legacy

Jurassic Park Legacy is a Jurassic Park fansite. It has news and information related to the series, as well as an active forum. It is the most successful and well-known JP fansite to date, and many will often refer to the site simply as "JPL". The main page of the website hosts information on the films including, but not limited to, a vast resource on the cutscenes, information on filming locations and other production information, and the "Fact or Flub" section which presents information on the franchises most well known "goofs" and their stance of such a title. The main site also has a brief overview of the toys, books, games, and a downloads section that holds full text of the 3 movie scripts available for viewing. The Main Site also reports on the latest Jurassic Park news.

Main Website: http://www.jplegacy.org/index.php

Forum: http://jplegacy.org/board/index.php

History
Originally founded in 2003, Jurassic Park Legacy started on a different board than what it is on today, however moved to vBulleton in order for more bandwith availability in 2005. From here, dark times entered the forum. Bernard Kyer (BrachioInGen) was approved to become a forum moderator in 2006, but swiftly used his postion to push out AlphaChaosRaptor, a founding member of JPL. BrachioInGen cared little of helping the community, only for himself. Major points of which he is at fault for included manipulating Terry "Tyrannosaur" Davis into believing he was Terry's friend so that he was able to gain power over the website and then using Terry like a puppet. Once he had it, he hired a few of his friends to be forum moderators that were not trained properly in how to moderate the forums. Because of this, the power went to these new Moderator's heads and turned the forums into a "dog-eat-dog" place, where either members agreed with the popular opinion or left the site. This caused a lot of the more "Veteran" members of the online Jurassic Park community to leave. The forums also became exactly what Jurassic Park Legacy was founded to ward against Instead of being a place where Jurassic Park fans could share ideas about the franchise regardless of opinion, under BrachioInGen's rule if the opinion of BrachioInGen's wasn't the one followed, bans were likely. Because BrachioInGen did not like the idea of anybody he didn't approve of suggesting ideas, he made sure that the person who said it was crushed.Countless others were defamed so that BrachioInGen could keep his hold over the fandom. He also created a protocol for the moderators to follow, which included severe punishments for minor offenses such as the use of profanity. The muddling of the Jurassic Park canon was one of the major things that BrachioInGen was faulted for. He created a fanfic that he toted around describing as "the only Jurassic Park 4 we'll ever get", and so used this in order to muddy the canon. He introduced bogus ideas that measured from plain unlikely to flat out lies. Such examples of these are that InGen produced the Jurassic Park /// Pteranodons by the DNA being mixed with that of Rhamphorhynchus which was the reason for the teeth. He also demanded that the JP/// Raptors were more intelliegent than the ones before instead of the fact that they merely display more social interaction. He also insisted that the novel raptors were real Velociraptors crossed with Deinonychus and that InGen must have introduced growth enhancments to the Spinosaurus and the Ceratosaurus from JP/// because he felt they were too "bulky".

BrachioInGen also delayed Jack De Le Mare's fanfilm, "Prime Survival" on several occasions. After failing to keep in contact for months and continueing to insist that he had a "script in the works", he was then removed from the writing process by Jack and instead placed on sound mixing. He then delayed there as well. After months of delayments, where Jack De La Mare also missed his oppurtunity to release his fanfic at a comic con, BrachioInGen finally produced the sound and music for the fanfic, albeit it was very rushed and not of the best quality.

In the end, after he was given multiple chances to improve himself and his work ethic, he was finally banned in April of 2011 by AlphaChaosRaptor. Since then, Jurassic Park Legacy has tried very hard to help reimprove it's name that was admittedly a black spot on the Jurassic Park Fandom name. Many of the good relationships that had been created before BrachioInGen's reign were destroyed, including it's relations with Park Pedia. Because of this, Jurassic Park Legacy has been trying to reestablish it's friendship with these other online Jurassic Park communities.

Live the Legend Role Play Game
Live the Legend, often abbreviated as "LtL" is one of the most popular online dinosaur RPG's to date. Featuring at least 100 different playable species over a span of 3+ islands, the game his Jurassic Park Legacy's trademark RPG. Originally having it's own forum on the main section of the forums, the RPG finally grew to the point of needing it's own forum in late 2012. LtL offers a unique RPGing experiance as it allows players to not only contribute to the Field Guide and put forth other ideas to help further the RPG, but the fact that because what the players are RPing could not speak in real life, so it is in the game. LtL playable species are not permitted to talk, which in turn forces players to think of creative formats that allow sociable characters such as the Raptors to interact with one another.

LtL Forum: http://www.jplegacy.org/ltl/

Live the Legend also has it's own Wiki, which is constantly being updated as new ideas are introduced and old characters have new life breathed into them. Link to the LtL Wiki: http://jpl-live-the-legend.wikia.com/wiki/JPL_Live_the_Legend_Wiki

Encyclopedia and Stance on Research
The Encyclopedia on Jurassic Park Legacy was originally part of it's main site, but after the reign of BrachioInGen had departed, the Encyclopedia moved to it's own section of the Website, which was what it had been intended for originally before BrachioInGen's takeover. The Encyclopedia is an ongoing project that is always open to contributors. Presently, the Films and Games articles are all finished, while the Novel canon and Comics canon are being furiously worked on. The Jurassic Park Legacy Research Process also has a fierce stance against the crossing of canons .

The Research Process is also heavily gaurded in order to avoid the repeatition of past mistakes. Here is a copy of the Jurassic Park Legacy Research Protocol: However, before we get to that, I need to give a little background and explain a few things about what has happened over the years briefly. It is relevant to the current situation. Back when we first started this, aside from one person on the team, everyone (Ty, Ganeosaur, myself are all I recall now) had a mutual understanding of what was expected of us. It didn't need to be explained, and thus it was never put into writing beyond IMs. That has led to conflict in the past. We had a person on the original team, Alex Darklighter, that wanted highly speculative information included. Eventually, it got to a point where he was off the team. He wanted things like [i]Acrocanthosaurus[/i] on Nublar, and other such things that didn't have sufficient evidence backing the idea. He didn't do anything really wrong aside from being insistent, but he got himself banned from inGenNET. More recently, there have been staff on JPL that have tried similar things with a more sinister twist. Ty was well known for jumping the cases of, if not firing, people he saw as blocking progress, and people took advantage of that for their own ends. Well, we don't want that anymore, and we will not have it anymore. Period. We will terminate people for trying to pass off speculation as fact or trying to manipulate the process by going over people's heads. Yes, you've read that correctly. Fired. Instantly. Permanently. We don't have time to clean up messes created by people letting their desires override their abilities to think critically, and we don't have the ability to fix emotional scarring caused by the people that use such cowardly tactics. You all know I won't hesitate on that, and neither will TJ. Maybe now you can begin to understand our frustration with this behavior. Sadly, because of these events and my resulting absence, the old protocol was broken for 5 years. People stopped really discussing the research, and started the "bring it to Ty = $$$" approach. Now that I am back, I am here to revive the way the research is supposed to be done: the right way. This makes it necessary to lay out the basic principles that are the foundation of our research here. - Among the research staff, all findings, opinions, et cetera are equal. They are equal in that nobody here is right based on position, time in, or any other measure of the person. All opinions are equal in their ability to be affirmed or challenged by any research staff. This means all research staff are subject to having their input challenged, so long as the challenge is backed by proper evidence, good research, and logic. Nobody is right because they insist they are right. Everyone is entitled to have their say on a matter, again, so long as there is proper evidence, research, and logic to back it. That said, be mindful of what you challenge or or how you challenge it, because the thing being challenged may actually be correct, and we want to avoid stepping on anyone's feelings. - Hand in hand with the previous point is that research staff are expected to research all matters relevant to whatever subject is under discussion. We do mean [u]all[/u] matters, including the source material. If something requires knowing certain concepts of physics to make sense of it, learn them. Know what you are talking about to the best of your ability, if you're going to bother saying something. We will try not to slam people for being genuinely uninformed, but it is best to be right about something in the first place rather than embarrass one's self. We don't want feelings hurt. - Another facet of the previous two is that we consider peer review important. Post your arguments and evidence whenever possible. You are all research staff, and you are all expected to research the subjects of discussion to provide informed thoughts. [u]Never[/u] rubber stamp any proposal. Always look at everything with a critical eye. If you find something is off, voice that thought. Never allow something to pass just to avoid being the bump in the road. - Be objective. Always look at things logically, and never from an emotional standpoint. Emotions will cloud your judgement. Don't trust them. Follow the evidence wherever it goes. If your emotional state is a driving force behind challenging or defending an argument, more than likely something is wrong with the argument. If your argument relies on emphasis to make it seem right, there is something wrong with your argument. A good argument will stand on its own. A bad one will fall apart once people get past the surface of it. - Fanon (aka, fan wants, etc) is [u]strictly[/u] forbidden. We are not in this to just make up whatever "facts" we choose. We go by the evidence, and what follows logically. The canons are to be treated as the same as our own reality, except in cases where they are clearly different, or where the evidence sufficiently points to it being different. We just want the facts, and if speculation must be used, then it needs to be used sparingly and clearly flagged as such so there is no confusion for the end user that will read our work. Speculative info is just that, speculative. It is not fact until proven otherwise because if it were proven at all, it would be a fact and not a speculative point. There are minor exceptions where we give a little wiggle room, such as the maps, because of their very nature. However, the encyclopedia proper should not contain any fanon at all. - All hard evidence from source material counts. It doesn't matter if the prop is in some way inaccurate, or whatever. If it's something we see in the films or read in the books, etc, that is what is there and we have to deal with it. We cannot wish it away, or throw it out without having an evaluation of the matter. Even then, it would take very jarring error for a decision like that to be made for an individual item, and even then a decision will probably be made as whether that particular piece of media as a whole is canon or not to the universe it is being attached, depending on what is found. - If you make an argument, back it with hard evidence, proper research and sensible logic. If your argument is dis-proven, then revise your idea and bring it back for evaluation, or drop the idea. We don't have room for people insisting something is right in spite of evidence to the contrary. It wastes people's time, and it wears on people's nerves to deal with that. If you think you're right, prove it, or let it go and walk away with dignity. Do not try dancing around the facts. We will know. - Personal politics have no place in the research. Go after the idea, not the person. Do not use the research position to attempt to make people look bad. Personal politics coming into play here with be dealt with most harshly. - This is not a democracy. We do not "vote". The majority does not rule. The majority opinion means nothing if it is wrong. (See above regarding rubber stamping.) If there is a conflict of opinion regarding something, it is to be discussed rationally until a clearly defined conclusion can be drawn based on the evidence. Ultimately, the senior staff make a decision based on the facts at hand. If opinions split for any reason and neither are wrong while both are based on sufficient facts, research, and logic, the matter is to be given further consideration for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If a matter proves inconclusive, the matter is either left out of the encyclopedia, or included with clear indication of the speculative nature of the matter, though the latter is to be avoided as often as possible. These are the important ones, and this is all on the protocol for now. If there are points I have missed, they will be added as necessary. As a further note, we want the encyclopedia to look professional. We expect proper research, well written articles with a wealth of information, as well as proper grammar and spelling. The following are reminders. - Incomplete sentences do not belong in the encyclopedia! The quote a few points below has a good example of an incomplete sentence. If I were to read this anywhere else, I guarantee I would almost immediately assume the writers are lazy, if not mentally handicapped, and move on to something more worthy of my time, and I'm sure others will do the same. We don't want us looking like a bunch of tards and being the laughing stock of the internet so fix these whenever you find them, and do not make new ones. - Write the highest quality articles possible. There may be stubs, but we've noted that articles that should have more info are needlessly short and non-descriptive. A picture and a paragraph belongs on a cheap dating site, not the encyclopedia. Educate yourself, if you must, so that articles are something the people would want to read. As an example, this: [quote]Visitors Center (S/F) A building that has some tour cars come out of it.[/quote] ...is not acceptable. Writing a paragraph and a half on something that can easily be more is not acceptable. Don't be lazy. Write it out, even if it takes longer. We would much rather have high quality articles that make people go "Woah! I didn't even know that!" over a ton of articles where people can go "I knew all of this just from watching the movie. This site blows!" Is this getting through? If you all were to go to say for example Wookieepedia, or Star Wars Technical Commentaries, and they had the same kind of short articles that say so little, would you even want to go to those places? Would you feel good about reading the material if it were like that? We all know the answer to that, so let's act on it. If you still don't quite know what I mean, let's take my VC rewrite in progress. My version has four paragraphs of general information alone. Four. That's an intro, notes on the exterior architecture (which I did not know previously! *points to the second clause in the protocol*), security details, and production notes alone. The sub-locations will each have at least a paragraph of their own. If I can do it, you can do it. - Report your progress often. Ty and I get impatient when we see nothing done for days and then have to push you all for more work, only to get hastily written short articles that I've already stated above should not be happening for things deserving of being detailed. This goes well with what we've stated in past about writing better articles, so we know you're working on things. By we, I mean the senior staff. We decide who's worth keeping based on what we know of what you're doing. That's why you don't see me making progress posts. I don't need them. You do. If we see people hardly doing anything, we consider them inactive, to put it kindly, and we want people that are motivated. - Write the articles as "in universe" as possible. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid mentioning the films/novels/whatever everywhere, and try to refer to specific events that happened in the franchise instead. - Make sure entries are interlinked properly. Not only do we want links to related articles, but we want to be sure they're interlinked within the same canon for now. Cross canon interlinking could get messy, so let's avoid that. - If you use pics, align them left or right. Centered pics must be separated from paragraphs. Thumbnails should be in the 350 x 210 pixels, or close to it. - Make sure you're putting in the canonical information, real world specifications, and production notes where applicable. We want to see all of these things in your articles. Leaving out one thing or another brings it all up short. If you have access to the information, be sure to include it. - Make things organized. We don't want to see mishmashed articles. Format them accordingly for ease of reading and locating specific information. I only want to see some good efforts made. This is the pinnacle of the site, and our flagship project. Our passion for JP should show in how we treat it. I know we can do this. I've seen this project grow from the beginning, before it was even a project, and while it has stumbled, it has a chance to continue growing until it reaches its full potential. When you look back on this work long after it's done, you should be able to say "Yeah, I was a part of that" with pride. Link to the Jurassic Park Legacy Encyclopedia: http://www.jplegacy.org/jpencyclopedia/

Criticisms
During the reign of BrachioInGen, Jurassic Park Legacy has often come under fire for the reputation it had under those times. BrachioInGen turned Jurassic Park Legacy into what some had called "a prison" where only Jurassic Park topics were allowed and only the "right" opinions could be voiced. The use of profanity period was also stricken from being permittable, rather than the "Keep it PG-13" stance that is what was originally and presently permitted. Jurassic Park Legacy has also taken a strict stance in asking that members show politeness and acceptance towards their fellows, something which has led some members to question the board's stance on "freedom of speech" or other such nonsense as an exuse for members to continue their belittlement of their peers. A recent incident in Jurassic Park Legacy history involved it's Paleontology community in the Autumn of 2012. A small clique of elitist paleontology orientated members which had allowed to fester within the Paleontology Corner forum of the Board. The removal was under the grounds of these elitist members attitude of not allowing any other members but those that belonged in the clique to comment in the Paleontology Corner forum for fear of ridicule.

Trivia

 * The creators of Jurassic Park: The Game often used JPLegacy as a source of information.
 * JPL has over 1,000 members, with upwards of 300 participating on discussion on an active basis.
 * Universal employees have made comments about the site and that NBC Universal Studios respects the JPL Encyclopedia Project and it's legitimacy to information on Jurassic Park.