Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[Hitman]

I have opened this topic in order to collect all rules of behaviour that seem to get unanimous approval from modders. The purpose of this topic is just to serve as appendex to the thread opened by Kpt. Lehman here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114500, collecting the results of the discussion.

Do not post here, post there and express your opinion. If at least we can agree in some minimums, it will help all the community of modders, veteran and new ones, by having a reference in etiquette.

Thanks. And now go to the main topic and add your feedback.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

What purpose does it serve to close the thread in question without any sort of guidelines drawn out of it.

What message does that send?

Is it going to get shoved under the carpet again?

I think it is a fair subject to see through.

Remove all the personal attacks etc. from that thread and there IS real substance there.

[Onkel Neal]

The original thread was hijacked by too much personal animosity. This thread will serve to allow discussion of the common goal of crafting a modders code of ethics that the majority of people will agree to and adopt.

I suggest that this thread be heavily moderated, too. So any hijacking or snotty remarks be removed.

Let's talk about this without pointing out who did what and when. I think most people will work for this.

Neal

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The original thread was hijacked by too much personal animosity. This thread will serve to allow discussion of the common goal of crafting a modders code of ethics that the majority of people will agree to and adopt.

I suggest that this thread be heavily moderated, too. So any hijacking or snotty remarks be removed.

Let's talk about this without pointing out who did what and when. I think most people will work for this.

Neal

Thank you.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Proposals drawn from previous material:

For future mod releases, I think it would be best for the original modders to state in their readme their crediting/use wishes. Doing so will avoid *any* ambiguity.

Said readme needs to be included within the mod download.

For existing releases or new releases which state no use requirements, then:

#1: Ask permission [JJ: via the preferred means outlined in the readme if existing, otherwise via PM or via the modder's mod thread if one exists. If activity is on another board (like a German one, or Ubi's) then find someone that can post there and ask. Some of us are members of various forums for this exact reason].

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message [JJ: I agree with this, but this policy does not cover where no response is received. If no answer, what's the approach? We need to cover for instances where modders have left the scene. So, use anyway with credits? Use only if x days have passed (a hard one to police considering not all mods contain readme files let alone release dates)? Or not use at all? Hmmm, a toughy. Personally, I think WHERE ALL AVAILABLE AVENUES FOR CONTACT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED (email, PM, forum, website...) then use with full credits is the best "win-win" solution for both players and modders. Players will benefit from the feature which the latest modder obviously thinks is good enough to add (they could always drop it if they think the dramas of lack of written permission was not worth the benefit of the inclusion), and the original modder will not go unnoticed. But in this instance the question needs to be closed and specific.]

#3 If permission is denied... accept it... and do not use the mod.

#4 "Blanket crediting" is unacceptable and lazy. If you are not sure how to credit something... ASK!!!

#5 If you are called on to correct your credits... don't get offended... just deal with it and fix it.

#6 If an organized mod package is actively supported by its creator... and you want to make an overlay for it that changes the original package to suit your taste... and then release it... deal with 1-5 first... and don't even think of including the entire original mod package. Doing so leaves the impression that you are the primary creator even if you say otherwise loudly and repeatedly... and is a NO NO!!!

(Note: additional comments by JScones based on original work by Kpt Lehmann.)

One thing though that must be remembered is that these are guidelines only. It's up to the individual modder to decide whether they follow them or not - they are not "enforceable laws". However, just like using JSGME has now become a "modder standard", I am sure that over time most modders will see the benefit in following some community-agreed behaviours.

What weare looking for here, is a common set of basic rules that will apply to everyone... designed to protect and recognize modders who submit original works.

Having rules prevents craptastic trouble... by providing a clarity for modders that has not been present here before.

The final results should ideally be posted in all modding forums.

(editing in progress)

[Onkel Neal]

Good comments and ideas.

If you are a modder, I challenge you to actively participate in this roundtable. There are good questions on how to handle credit, using large pieces of other mods, compilations, negotiating with other modders, handling disagreements, etc.

Post your thoughts here; be professional, work together, and let's see if we can forge a code. If you don't participate, you're not helping the cause.

thanks
Neal

[danlisa]

To further expand on the Readme Guidelines.

New Content Mods could include the following in the readme:

A clear & precise statement of the owners wishes regarding re-use or editing of said mod.
Example - <This mod can be used without prior agreement or This mod can not be used without my express permission.>

Relevent contact details.
Example - <You can contact me through Subsim, My username is JoeBloggs, I am also available though Ubisofts Forum, username JonSmith.>

A statement of non-contact.
Example - <If you have been unable to contact me through any of the above channels and have waited a suitable amount of time (TO BE DECIDED ON) for a response then please assume that this mod is no longer supported by me and is free for the modding community to use as they see fit.>

I personally think that 1 week is enough time to wait for a response following a PM or email. This is open to debate though.

I also think that any correspondance sent by the person requesting the use of someone else's mod/files should be saved/archived/printed out. This is to stop the situation where the creator of the mod returns to 'active duty' only to find that his work has been used and where he could claim that no effort had been made to contact him. Although PM/emails will be hard to verify as genuine, a new topic/thread on the modder's preffered forum might help here.

One thing I'm keen on, is to make this process as easy & understandable as possible as not to deter any would be modder who might wish to contribute to the community. Although these rules/guidlines will be easy enough to adhere to, they may be quite daunting to a newbie who just wishes to get something 'out there'. We don't wish to stiffle anyone's creative process. As such, I think some leniency and guidance must be given to newcomers, as it has been in the past, this must continue.

2p

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Remember, if you are a modder and you don't participate in the construction of guidelines for permissions and crediting... It pretty much removes your defense when it is your work that is harmed.

It is in your best interest as a modder to be involved in the process that forms the guidelines that protect your hard work from blatant theft or unethical use.

Have a little courage. Be a part of the solution. No one is going to chop off your head.

[JCWolf]

What to say,


Is this for reall or not....?
If someone brakes this guide lines what happends!? :hmm:

[Ducimus]

This is alot simpler then some people will make it.

It really is simple.

1.) Include a permissions in your readme. along the lines of "You may use this mod provided you credit the source, or "you may not use this mod without my expressed permission."

2.) Abide by the permissions written in the readme. ITs right there in black and white for all to see. No ambiguity, no he said, she said, no BS.

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


Problem solved. Simple as that. Enforcing something thats right there in black and whilte (permissions in readme) is much more clear cut and alot easier then some implied list that everyones just expected to know from top to bottom. Furthermore itd gives modders the freedom to work without the constant fear of some mod gestapo breathing down their necks. Additionally, if you as a modder don't really care if others use your work, you dont get unwanted emails or PMs. If you do care about it, then youve already established that in your readme, and its right there in black and white.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by jcwolf

What to say,


Is this for reall or not....?
If someone brakes this guide lines what happends!? :hmm:

Then they are given the opportunity to remove the mod and update or correct its included readme.

In the worst cases where this has been repeatedly and flagranty ignored... it may result in suspension or banning if it is a clear case of theft. Repeat offenders will show their true colors and can rightfully accept the disdain of the community that they bring upon themselves.

Honorable modders who bother to make a true effort of obtaining permissions and proper crediting have nothing to worry about.

[Ducimus]

You know a thought just hit me.... God help the guy who genuinly thinks up something on his own, posts it, and then someone else try and "virtually" sue him over "copyright" infringements.

A few years ago, I can't count the number of times i genuinly thought up something on my own, posted about it, only to find out someone figured it out a few weeks prior. New guys are going to run into that ALOT. Coming down with an moralistic hammer is a great way to stiffle budding creativity or discourage participation.

[Umfuld]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Coming down with an moralistic hammer is a great way to stiffle budding creativity or discourage participation.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Lets stay on target here. We are talking about hammering out a reasonable code regarding obtaining permissions and proper crediting... not limiting anyone's creativity... but promoting it... and lending it longevity.

Clear guidelines/rules will prevent a great deal of future misunderstanding and untold heartburn. This concept is a good thing... not a bad thing. Its success can only be measured in the end... by all of the problems that never happened as a result of its emplacement.

It just takes a little guts to hash it out.

[Ducimus]

I am on target. What if someone comes out with a mod that mimics some aspect of GWX, almost to the letter. Thats not a far off thought. With many things in modding, theres only so many ways you can go about to achieve a desired effect. In some cases, theres only ONE way to do something. What if someone were to post such a mod, what then? You gonna demand he give you credit when he thought of it on his own? What if he refuses?