Modding Ethics

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Its about time we had this out. IN PUBLIC... and start formulating the ground rules that prevent further serious problems from developing.

New modders shouldn't have to feel their way around in the dark as many of the reputable modders that contribute here have had to do in the past.

GWX uses several stand alone Mods as part of the overall package, with credit given...

Serious question: Did the GWX team go to each and every creator of the stand alone mods and ask for permission to use them in the GWX Supermod? Is it practical or even possible to do that?

EDIT: I am not trying to be funny and awkward, just I cannot see what the harm is in using what exists to make something else for people to enjoy? If credit is given and acknowledgement of origins where is the trouble? I genuinely don't understand how what is happening is so terrible.

It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.

The vast majority of the core elements of GW/GWX were designed "in-house."

Where former (now inactive) SH3 modding members and permissions are concerned, emails and/or PM's were sent and several days allowed to pass... If no response was found, modlets were included and detailed credits documented in the GWX manual.

The only time this policy was consciously violated, I take direct blame for. Early on, prior to the release of GW version 1.0 well over a year ago... (our first release) We notified Der Teddy Barr that we were going to include the stand alone ship damage models he had released and properly credited them.

This caused a great deal of heartburn for DTB (naturally in retrospect I suppose) and resulted in a public apology posted in this forum by me... (now archived) I got flamed... and I suppose I deserved it, at the very least for a breach of ettiquett.

As a result, the entire ship damage model system was redesigned from scratch by vonHelsching, Ref, and AG124 over the course of several months.

Many of you have seen accusations made by Beery that we based our work on, or engulfed the "Real U-boat" mod. This is absolutely baseless and untrue. NOTHING modded directly by Berry was included. When confronted directly, Beery did not produce ONE detail... only accusations.

Indeed, and in no small way thanks to Pablo author and keeper of the GWX manual (referred to by us as "Das Buch" lol) I feel that currently, we have the best available documentation and crediting. It protects both GWX modders and external contributors to the GWX mod both past and present.

to be continued shortly...

[Spytrx]

I don't think the idea of the other thread being closed was for more threads of that nature to spring up elsewhere -

let's leave it where it is before a flaming war starts to ruin what has become a great home to many of us...

[danlisa]

Agreed.:yep:

My hope or wish is that we can find some common ground/ground rules that we can all abide & work to rather than rehashing old news.

Thanks for clarifiying that Kpt. I was 100% sure it was the case but couldn't say so on my own volition.:up:

Pssss, Pen, don't feel singled out, eh?;)

[danlisa]

I don't think the idea of the other thread being closed was for more threads of that nature to spring up elsewhere -

let's leave it where it is before a flaming war starts to ruin what has become a great home to many of us...

This is not a thread to discuss the why's or wherefore's of the issue raised in the, now locked, thread but to rather find some agreement between all of us as to how any modder should proceed if he/she wish to produce a mod.

I think it needs discussing otherwise we shall see this situation again & again.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I believe it to be wholly and completely unethical for one person or team of persons to totally subsume and include a mod package. (especially when still currently and actively supported by its original creators)

Things might have been a little different if Carotio just made a tweaks package to go on top of GWX using JGSME... However, Carotio includes the entirety of the base GWX mod... and appears to depend on the GWX title to draw users.

(...And he wonders why we just might have a problem with that... or why HanSolo78 might have a problem with the same happening to the War Ace Campaign. I think a wooden man would have a problem with that.)

I also feel that lazy crediting is a slap in the face. Case in point: The "Ultimate" sound mod for SH4 "By Gunther Hessler/Hunky_Punk." The individual in question simply lifted a great deal of the sound files from GWX and plunked them into SH4 after crediting the AOTD group... making no mention of the people listed in the GWX sound credits or the GWX mod itself.

Proper crediting is at times a real pain in the a$$. However, if you can release a mod... you can spend a bit of time writing in those whose work came before if you add to their file(s). Even if you don't like the guy... it only takes a moment's pain to do the right thing.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I don't think the idea of the other thread being closed was for more threads of that nature to spring up elsewhere -

let's leave it where it is before a flaming war starts to ruin what has become a great home to many of us...

Well, I tell ya what. When you've spent two years creating and contributing (even if it is freeware!!!!) maybe you'll understand why it is that people feel close to their work... and that it truly is worth defending.

More than one person has felt that we... or others have been "unreasonable."

The fact remains that there are too many "unwritten rules" that modders sometimes have to feel their way around in the dark for.

... and the fact remains that some "modders" just don't give a crap.

No one wants to hold back modding in general. If you don't want big flame wars... clear rules need to be in place.

Clear rules have not been in place and the absence of the same breeds rust and mold... and lets any old joe just waltz in and say "I'll take that! Thank you very much!!!"

Didn't this happen with X1 versus Sergbuto? (Ummm... Yeah!)

Probably the most boring and tedious part of modding is making sure things are done the right way. Yes it is a PITA. It akes a little effort. However, if you are a non-modder who enjoys the labor of someone else... and want to thank a modder... Thank them by supporting an ethical process and an ethical evolution of modding.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

FYI, I have no problem at all with Penelope... She asked a good question.

[Chock]

First I'd like to point out that I think GWX is great, and I do use it, and on the subject of mods, if I post any mods, I regard it as fair game for anyone to do with them as they will. If they credit me, great, if not, I'm not that bothered. For all I know, there might even be some stuff I did in GWX, I've never been that bothered to find out.

While I'm sure you took the trouble to contact a lot of modders if it was hoped that their work was to be included, I seriously doubt anyone phoned up Peter Gabriel and got his permission to use the intro to Sky Blue on the loading screen, so there is a copyright issue with GWX before you even get to the simulation part that goes way beyond upsetting a modder. Similarly, I doubt Wolfgang Peterson or Bavaria Studios got a call, and there are most definitely some sounds from Das Boot in GWX too.

Originally the SH3 devs tried to get permission to do this (with Das Boot) for SH3 in its early stages, but the cost was prohibitive (seemed like a short-sighted decision to me actually, since it would have amounted to a huge plug for further Das Boot DVD sales, but there you go).

So from this I can only assume that 'It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.' is not exactly true.
Not trying to be funny here by the way, just pointing out that there are wider issues, than if 'submodder666' or whoever gets their work snaffled.

On the subject of sending emails and PMs to modders to ask permission for inclusion of their mod, a failure on their part to respond should not be taken as a blanket permission from them that you are good to go. As I've pointed out, anyone can do what they like with anything I mod and post on the 'net, but that's just me, and I always stick a read me in there pointing out that some of the stuff I've used might ultimately belong to UBISOFT or whoever.

I think if people make stuff available, they kind of forfeit the right to treat it as 'their ball' which no-one can tamper with, but I do think using the copyrighted work of people outside of the original game files, which do not fall into this category is not a very good idea and ultimately weakens the main point you make, which as I say, is fine by me.

[Spytrx]

When you've spent two years creating and contributing (even if it is freeware!!!!) maybe you'll understand why it is that people feel close to their work... and that it truly is worth defending.
this is the kind of assumption that lead to bad feelings - you don't know anything about me and you already talk down on me? Or do you feel you are higher standing than me because you have posted here two years? I have to remember that... :nope:

This is not a thread to discuss the why's or wherefore's of the issue raised in the, now locked, thread but to rather find some agreement between all of us as to how any modder should proceed if he/she wish to produce a mod.

I think it needs discussing otherwise we shall see this situation again & again. Correct me if I am wrong, but the matter in question happend on another board? So you can discuss and make rules and regs all you want, if these things happen elsewhere you have no control over it - and discussing it here (with accusations and name calling) doesn't help matters much either but spoils a good board.

I have been SMod on another board for many years and saw it destroyed (literally) by such things. If you want to create rules (or just list them), then do so but without referencing to quotes and such like, that is all I am saying...

Oh, and if it needs discussing - shouldn't that be in the relevant forum rather than here? ;)

[GoldenRivet]

It has been my experience with years and years of flight simulator modding that when anyone creates a mod for flight simulator there was never any hard feelings if that persons mod was taken and slightly changed or improved or tweaked and then reposted as a new mod AS LONG AS credit was given to the original modder.

Lehmann is right, there are too many fuzzy lines out there and not enough codes of conduct to cover everyones actions.

eveyone here has contributed well thought out responses to this thread so far, i hope we can keep it that wayt.

Though i noticed many similarities between RealUBoat and GWX they are two completely different animals suited to two completely different play styles, i have used both mods extensively. was there inspiration drawn from Real Uboats for the creation of GWX? maybe there was and myabe there was not.

All i know is that there are only so many ways to draw a stick figure and have it come out looking NOTHING like the other guy's stick figure - if that makes sense? or what i guess im trying to say is that since SH3 is based on historical events and everyone is shooting for some level of historical accuracy these mods are going to come across with tons of similarities.

Im not really sure where this started... i like GWX, i like RUB, i have only run a cross a couple of mods that while being neat ideas didnt suit my play style and with that said i was under the impression that all of the modders pretty much got along (and i still think for the most part that is the case) BUT I think the modders of these sub sims might stand to learn a bit from the modders of things like Microsoft Flight Simulator, and that is...

Unless the readme file says otherwise any other modder can tweak your mod to make a different one as long as the original modder is HEAVILY thanked and credited for it... If that is not what a modder desires - place it in the readme file (No person(s) may modify this mod without the express written permission of *insert name*) for example.

[ILL USE GWX IN THIS EXAMPLE NOW] though i think another neat idea that might serve to chop off the head of the "hey thats MY mod" snake might be to lose the howling wolf intro to GWX and place like a 20 second clip black screen with white text "The entire GWX team would like to thank all of the subsim modders and community for their continued support. Special thanks go to the following:" and then list every person and their association with every mod incorporated into the game.

just my two bits worth. :D

[Kpt. Lehmann]

....if I post any mods, I regard it as fair game for anyone to do with them as they will. If they credit me, great, if not, I'm not that bothered. For all I know, there might even be some stuff I did in GWX, I've never been that bothered to find out..

Well, that's great. However, we (and many other modders) disagree. I think this is enough to make an issue of it. Unless you went by another name before, nothing by you has been included. You would have received a request prior to such a thing anyway.

While I'm sure you took the trouble to contact a lot of modders if it was hoped that their work was to be included, I seriously doubt anyone phoned up Peter Gabriel and got his permission to use the intro to Sky Blue on the loading screen, so there is a copyright issue with GWX before you even get to the simulation part that goes way beyond upsetting a modder. Similarly, I doubt Wolfgang Peterson or Bavaria Studios got a call, and there are most definitely some sounds from Das Boot in GWX too...

The precedent was set by good old RUb lol... which included bites from Das Boot in the voice files with the explaination that it was freeware. Nor do we seek profit of any sort... or offer media in any sort of way that we can can make a profit.


Originally the SH3 devs tried to get permission to do this (with Das Boot) for SH3 in its early stages, but the cost was prohibitive (seemed like a short-sighted decision to me actually, since it would have amounted to a huge plug for further Das Boot DVD sales, but there you go)....

You know, if we manage to help Bavaria Studios sell another 10,000 copies of Das Boot... COOL. It helps them and fuels the submarine simulation community. NO money of any sort has lined our pockets... In fact I have turned down offers of "donations" more than once.


So from this I can only assume that 'It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.' is not exactly true.....

It IS exactly true as I stated that for each modification produced by this community externally to GWX... that was included in GWX... permissions were actively sought. Regarding members who have gone to other places and are not reachable... who produced good work... Should those works be lost? Honestly, for those individuals I suppose we could have simply added the work and claimed it as our own with little repercussion if any. Instead we used the best available credits and actively sought those credits.

On the subject of sending emails and PMs to modders to ask permission for inclusion of their mod, a failure on their part to respond should not be taken as a blanket permission from them that you are good to go. As I've pointed out, anyone can do what they like with anything I mod and post on the 'net, but that's just me, and I always stick a read me in there pointing out that some of the stuff I've used might ultimately belong to UBISOFT or whoever......

Everything except original works and intellectual property added to SH3 not using Ubisoft files as a base to work from... certainly does appear to "belong to Ubisoft." We understand that. However, what we refer to are mods produced by the community. If our work helps the Ubisoft Devs build SH5... Then mission accomplished!

I think if people make stuff available, they kind of forfeit the right to treat it as 'their ball' which no-one can tamper with, but I do think using the copyrighted work of people outside of the original game files, which do not fall into this category is not a very good idea and ultimately weakens the main point you make, which as I say, is fine by me.

So you imply that there should be no rules or even guidelines to establish a way forward.

Well, we also understand that GWX is easy to shoot at because it is a BIG FREAKIN' TARGET, LOL. Every Tom, Joe, and Harry is an armchair expert. We've taken just as much flak as anyone else over the inclusion of Das Boot sound bites etc...

Our true interest is pushing the simulation (and the developers) to set the bar higher and higher... but to do it in such a way that we recognize those who helped it go the distance... After all, all of those guys did what they did for the love of the game... for free... even if he was only "John Q Modder" and only modified a single file.

They deserve a mention.

In the same breath... it is simply bad form... to waltz in and make an actively supported mod your own without common decency.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

When you've spent two years creating and contributing (even if it is freeware!!!!) maybe you'll understand why it is that people feel close to their work... and that it truly is worth defending.
this is the kind of assumption that lead to bad feelings - you don't know anything about me and you already talk down on me? Or do you feel you are higher standing than me because you have posted here two years? I have to remember that... :nope:

This is not a thread to discuss the why's or wherefore's of the issue raised in the, now locked, thread but to rather find some agreement between all of us as to how any modder should proceed if he/she wish to produce a mod.

I think it needs discussing otherwise we shall see this situation again & again. Correct me if I am wrong, but the matter in question happend on another board? So you can discuss and make rules and regs all you want, if these things happen elsewhere you have no control over it - and discussing it here (with accusations and name calling) doesn't help matters much either but spoils a good board.

I have been SMod on another board for many years and saw it destroyed (literally) by such things. If you want to create rules (or just list them), then do so but without referencing to quotes and such like, that is all I am saying...

Oh, and if it needs discussing - shouldn't that be in the relevant forum rather than here? ;)

@Spytrx, No I am not "Talking down to you." In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... and I feel this fuels your desire to counter me.

This is entirely the best place I think to address modding ethics. This is a mods workshop after all.

Regarding "feeling close to the work" ... that is not an "assumption" as you say... but the pure and simple truth. Any artist or designer would naturally feel this way after a great deal of time and personal sacrifice to see a thing through.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way. I recognize that you've been other places before... but you have not been here for this story to unfold. No offence, but you joined us last month did you not?

I think that referencing prior problems... including our own... is entirely appropriate. It is why I opened with a mistake that I personally take responsibility for.

The fact remains that permissions should be sought wherever possible... especially concerning "active" modding efforts and projects built by modders that call this place home... and have passed through its halls before.

This is not an unreasonable concept.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I have to go to work unfortunately... Hopefully, the moderators will see the need for this discussion... or it will only be doomed to repeat.

[JCWolf]

Here we go again:nope:

The way I see it is that there is this problem every each time new users
get in, and over the sudent. we have a lot of new modders, that in fact
is a very cool and good thing, but before you Mod anything you have to
learn some basics , and one of the most importante in any Moding community
is the respect for the others creations or ways of seeing their work, so
Ethic is important in any Modding forum, not only here...

But its like I said before, evrybody wants to mod, at any cost, and passing
over any moral or respect to the fellow modder , and this is not a question
of who posted more posts or opened more topics, its a question that I think
its going thru the pipe here...:yep: :nope:

Nobody owns your heads, but you can noy go into a place and just pic
a tv and change it by incorporating on it a DVD and after just take it to
your home without saying to the TV owner, Can I Sir?:yep: :hmm: :shifty:

To cents or not anyone can agree or desagree with what Kpt. L. posted
but its GWX work Not anyone else, so asking to use anything its imperative
and periode.:stare:

[Chock]

So you imply that there should be no rules or even guidelines to establish a way forward

In point of fact, I'm implying the exact opposite. In that it seems odd to suggest setting up guidelines or groundrules to be followed when from a legal standpoint, many have been sidestepped.

It matters not one iota whether anyone states that they are not doing something for profit, you cannot legally take copyrighted work and place it in a product (freeware or otherwise) and distribute it without permission. If I'd duplicated a music CD for a friend, I'd not be doing it for profit, but me saying that wouldn't make it legal!

That I think it is a shame is by the by. Because I've already stated that I think GWX is great. And since Peter Gabriel is hardly a pauper it's probably never going to be followed up, similarly, the inclusion of Das Boot sounds will doubtless not harm Bavaria Studios, but the fact remains that they wanted a vast sum from UBISOFT devs when asked. That such an inclusion had been set as a precedent by RUB might be so, but it is not a legal precedent.

So in essence, what I am saying is that to try and impose rules or guidelines upon things where there is no recourse, while simultaneously breaking rules where there are clearly delineated ones, is not a very firm foundation from which to start, and not that I don't think there should be any at all. My take on this matter for any mods I've personally done, was purely from a personal standpoint on that issue alone.

Taking a moral stance on one point and then glossing over another is bending morals to suit yourself. You can't be 'a little bit pregnant', you either are, or you are not.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, but if one is to set up some rules and 'have it out in public' as you say, then such an issue cannot be simply brushed aside as inconvenient and irrelevant with a 'LOL' as your reply does. I can assure you that nobody involved with GWX would be laughing out loud if they were taken to court over intellectual theft and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I'm sure you must be aware. When you consider this, a free modder getting upset pales into insignificance.

You know, if we manage to help Bavaria Studios sell another 10,000 copies of Das Boot... COOL. It helps them and fuels the submarine simulation community. NO money of any sort has lined our pockets

That may be so, but conversely, such a thing may have the very opposite effect to helping the sub sim community. If GWX has improved sales of SH3, Bavaria Studios might be able to take legal action against UBISOFT because of the fact that UBISOFT's profits have improved at the expense of an illegally distributed segment of work. How do you think UBISOFT would react to the notion of producing another submarine sim if that occurred?

If I'm honest, I really do not know where one would begin with setting out some rules, and I assume that the only way subsim could perhaps enforce such a thing would be in a manner similar to the one which makes posting 'hacks and cracks' for software a big no-no.

Although this subject has been discussed many times before, such discussions have often descended into vitriolic arguments, and I would like to think that this thread will not go the same way. I think it might be worth trying to set up at least some sort of 'ethical code' if you will, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

[bigboywooly]

Well I for one ALWAYS ask permission for anything not made inhouse
No permission - not included

Simple courtesy IMHO

[JScones]

It has been my experience with years and years of flight simulator modding that when anyone creates a mod for flight simulator there was never any hard feelings if that persons mod was taken and slightly changed or improved or tweaked and then reposted as a new mod AS LONG AS credit was given to the original modder.

Lehmann is right, there are too many fuzzy lines out there and not enough codes of conduct to cover everyones actions.
I'm gonna rant on the SH3 to SH4 "conversion" (for want of a better word) trend that seems to be happening at the moment.

I've noticed with the many conversions of units from SH3 to SH4, numerous modders are quick for the glory, but slow to recognise the source. A few people come to mind.

In other words, I agree with you. If I released something and someone added it to a bigger package, even tweaked it, I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't even expect to be asked for permission. However, if the credits merely read "Converted by me, oh, and BTW, thanks to the GWX team", I wouldn't be happy, especially when the full credits are in the GWX manual for all to see. I mean, in six months time that ship I worked on for three months becomes remembered as merely "the ship X converted to SH4".

Now, whether the underlying files belong to Ubisoft is irrelevant (in a purely crediting context). The fact is someone from the community (objectively) "improved" them. Their contribution should be remembered along the way from taking "SH3: the mediocre subsim" to "SH3: the great subsim".

Also, some people make snide remarks when guys like Sergbuto or the Kpt try to address this lackadaisical behaviour. These guys should be supported by the community, not ostracised. And it's usually only the non-modders that get on their high-horse and blame these guys for "ruining it for everyone". To them I say, "come back after you've sweated on making a mod only to see it credited as 'Converted to SH4 by X'". Ironically, it's the snide remarks from the few that stop the many "real" modders from continuing. One can only then convert so many units, if you know what I mean. ;) Simple narrow-minded thinking.

Perhaps even more concerning to the original modders (although it should be the players that are concerned) is that it's not just the credits that are given lazy treatment, it's the "conversion" as well - in some instances only half the job is done. Did anyone not think that the original modders may have ideas for importing their models, with the attention that is deserved, into SH4? Nup. Easier just to hammer it in and get it out "because they can".

Though i noticed many similarities between RealUBoat and GWX they are two completely different animals suited to two completely different play styles, i have used both mods extensively. was there inspiration drawn from Real Uboats for the creation of GWX? maybe there was and myabe there was not.

All i know is that there are only so many ways to draw a stick figure and have it come out looking NOTHING like the other guy's stick figure - if that makes sense? or what i guess im trying to say is that since SH3 is based on historical events and everyone is shooting for some level of historical accuracy these mods are going to come across with tons of similarities.
Many people seem to forget this VERY valid point. :yep:

Various people have "claimed" GWX files as theirs. I'm sure people have also claimed parts of RUb, or NYGM, or WAC as theirs too. Simple fact is, if we asked twenty people here to tell us when, say, 7 Flotilla started operations, all twenty would go straight to uboat.net and come back with the same answer. Why? Because history is static - it can't be changed. So just because one mod has an IX with 22 torpedos and another mod comes along with the same, it doesn't give anyone the right to accuse the second mod of "mod theft" on that basis alone.

On the subject of sending emails and PMs to modders to ask permission for inclusion of their mod, a failure on their part to respond should not be taken as a blanket permission from them that you are good to go.
My preference is to contact them as per their preferred channel outlined in their readme file. I always state my wishes in the affirmative. In other words, "We're planning on adding this to GWX, with full credit to you of course, pls let me know if that is not acceptable". If this is done via the modder's preferred interaction channel, then I have no problem using the mod if they do not respond. I must admit though, that every such email or PM I have sent has been responded to with a positive "go for it!".

I think if people make stuff available, they kind of forfeit the right to treat it as 'their ball' which no-one can tamper with...
I agree. Once it's out there you can do nothing about it, and it would be naive to think that you could continue to control its use.

However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here. ;)

While I'm sure you took the trouble to contact a lot of modders if it was hoped that their work was to be included, I seriously doubt anyone phoned up Peter Gabriel and got his permission to use the intro to Sky Blue on the loading screen, so there is a copyright issue with GWX before you even get to the simulation part that goes way beyond upsetting a modder. Similarly, I doubt Wolfgang Peterson or Bavaria Studios got a call, and there are most definitely some sounds from Das Boot in GWX too.
This is a good point, and one which would certainly undermine any "we ask everyone for permission" argument (for the record I am against the use of copyrighted material for this exact reason). But, we seem to be combining numerous different moral issues here. I would like to see credit improvements first from the minority of "offenders" before tackling copyright infringement, which opens a totally different can of worms going right back to the basic "can we even mod these files?" (and indeed results in a new thread on the topic every few months or so with no resolution, but copious amounts of personal flaming and "bush-lawyer" sproutings.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

With all thoes who say once you release a mod its out of your hands, I agrie but... It may be legaly ok but socialy its a diffrent matter. I agrie with LScones, all communitys have unoffical social guidlines. Modding included. And with the increasing # of thoe who dont care and want all the Glory for themselvs thoes become strained. One of the top rules(possibly #1) is m my book(and Im shure evryones) is "Give credit where credt is due". And the ones who break that are only dergrading themselvs.

[Onkel Neal]

It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.

The vast majority of the core elements of GW/GWX were designed "in-house."


I can vouch for this to a large extent. I was copied on some of the requests and the GW guys took extra effort to solicit permission on work used with their mod.

[Chock]

However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here.

That's a fair point. I wasn't trying to change the subject at hand, which as you say is 'modding etiquette', I was just reminded of the old adage about people in glass houses...

[WilhelmSchulz.]

However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here.

That's a fair point. I wasn't trying to change the subject at hand, which as you say is 'modding etiquette', I was just reminded of the old adage about people in glass houses...
And how was that?

[Onkel Neal]

Now, whether the underlying files belong to Ubisoft is irrelevant (in a purely crediting context). The fact is someone from the community (objectively) "improved" them. Their contribution should be remembered along the way from taking "SH3: the mediocre subsim" to "SH3: the great subsim".



I appreciate all the cool things mods have done but I have to speak up and say I disagree that unmodded SH3 was mediocre. That's just not the case.

[JScones]

Now, whether the underlying files belong to Ubisoft is irrelevant (in a purely crediting context). The fact is someone from the community (objectively) "improved" them. Their contribution should be remembered along the way from taking "SH3: the mediocre subsim" to "SH3: the great subsim".



I appreciate all the cool things mods have done but I have to speak up and say I disagree that unmodded SH3 was mediocre. That's just not the case.
Perhaps at the time of initial release it was not considered "mediocre", because there was no frame of reference other than SH2, or AOD. But go back to playing the released SH3 now (I mean v1.0) and I'm sure it would be considered that way.

Otherwise, then, if SH3 was "great" on release, what is it now with GWX, or WAC, on top? What's beyond "brilliant"? "Dazzling" according to my thesaurus. But I think SH3 has grown beyond merely "great" to "dazzling". "Mediocre" to "great" - I can live with that comparison. ;)

All frames of reference and all relative. :p

[joea]

Good thread, needless to say I am 100% on the side of the Kpt. and his feloow modders in seeking some guidelines on this issue. Courtesy ... is that too much to ask? :hmm:

[Spytrx]

So if I understood Kpt. Lehmann right it is ok to break the copyright of artists (sound, vision, etc) and the software developers (those poor souls that write the original code) because their ware is passed on as freeeware and no profits are sought, but once it has become the work of modders written permission has to be given, even though another modder takes the exact same approach as the original. Yes, in a hypocritical way that makes sense now... :)

Just because Ubisoft have not taken legal actions and Petersen and Bavaria Studio's don't do that either doesn't make it right - the developers of the program have spend much more than two years on writing the code that you so carelessly claim as your own now (even in a heavily modified way) and I doubt that anyone here (me included) wrote off asking permission for it (since it is a big no-no in the ToS and User Agreement right from the start)...

talk about ethics and morals - those programmers do this for a living... :hmm:

That's the thing about the Internet - you make it accessible to the world you loose control over it unless you place a copyright on it (which would be tricky considering the legality of things)...


flame me, burn me down, accuse me of sniping and snide remarks - won't change a thing about the legal stand of it all...


In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... You what? No mate - it stems from the view that if somebody does something to somebody else they can't later complain if the exact same thing happens to them... :)

[bigboywooly]

So if I understood Kpt. Lehmann right it is ok to break the copyright of artists (sound, vision, etc) and the software developers (those poor souls that write the original code) because their ware is passed on as freeeware and no profits are sought, but once it has become the work of modders written permission has to be given, even though another modder takes the exact same approach as the original. Yes, in a hypocritical way that makes sense now... :)

Just because Ubisoft have not taken legal actions and Petersen and Bavaria Studio's don't do that either doesn't make it right - the developers of the program have spend much more than two years on writing the code that you so carelessly claim as your own now (even in a heavily modified way) and I doubt that anyone here (me included) wrote off asking permission for it (since it is a big no-no in the ToS and User Agreement right from the start)...

talk about ethics and morals - those programmers do this for a living... :hmm:

That's the thing about the Internet - you make it accessible to the world you loose control over it unless you place a copyright on it (which would be tricky considering the legality of things)...


flame me, burn me down, accuse me of sniping and snide remarks - won't change a thing about the legal stand of it all...


In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... You what? No mate - it stems from the view that if somebody does something to somebody else they can't later complain if the exact same thing happens to them... :)

No one is talking about the legal stand bar you
Ethics
Courtesy

Read the thread properly

[Dowly]

Respect keeps the modding communities alive. Too bad there's so many people in the world that are striving only for the personal glory. :nope:

[Spytrx]

No one is talking about the legal stand bar you
Ethics
Courtesy

Read the thread properly
I have - have you?

Ethics - what is so ethical about taking a piece of code that is clearly labelled not to be taken and modified (read the end-user agreement you have with Ubi soft)?
Courtesy - are you talking about the courtesy that is shown to all that have a different view-point here, or the one applied when talking face-to-face?

And if I hear somebody be labelled an thief that automatically makes it a legal question since you are talking about property theft - wouldn't you agree? So I wasn't the only one talking about it - but the first to maybe name it for what it was!

don't give me ethical and courteous if you don't lead with example
this whole thing is clearly blown out of all propotions and I can see that anybody taking a different view to the one of the 'Modders team' is just getting a bruising at best - and as such I withdraw... :nope:

[denis_469]

Respect keeps the modding communities alive. Too bad there's so many people in the world that are striving only for the personal glory. :nope:

Alas it is an objective reality while there are those who considers that should ask the sanction to free fashions them in which is directly told what not for commercial use and can freely extend. Also speaks also that is wishing to specify to everyone its place, and it can not coincide with desires of the one to whom specify. It also does not cause desire to distribute the operating time. And opportunities at all different, and situations vital too. And simply threat of financial sanctions from those who has for this purpose opportunities also many forces to do for itself only.
(machine translate)

[GlobalExplorer]

I am mostly in sync with most of Lehmann`s standards - and I personally follow my own rules. I always go forward to get permission (and not just a lukewarm one) even before I include something made by someone else.

But those are just that, the personal standards of Kpt. Lehmann and many others, including myself, but not everyones. And in some way they are double standards, because the distinction between legal (as in Peter Gabriel) and moral claims (us) is problematic, though not completely illogical.

What I think is that it is ok to ask and encourage these rules to be followed by everyone, but I am against trying to enforce them onto any newb and lamer that might come to these forums - I mean I think it is great to try and be a gentleman, a man of honor, but it`s a decision you have to take yourself. There should be no moral police telling you what to do, especially if there is no legal ground you can stand upon.

So: if some loser slaps his name onto some mod that I made - and it can`t be called intellectual theft because neither has the stuff ever belonged to me, nor does he earn a penny with it .. Then I am not giving them applause for that - but what the heck.

I would say thats what tolerance demands.

[fredbass]

Don't forget that sometimes people just make honest mistakes. Nobody's perfect. A lot of modders are newbs too, ya know. :) I would think that usually if you can just a provide said author with a little friendly advice and helpful info, then it will go a long ways towards helping rather than hurting.

[Umfuld]

To all SubSim modders:

I hope you guys know you have our full support and thanks. I understand where you are coming from on this matter completely.

While I don't think we need to be throwing words like "theif" around lightly, I do want to know if someone here is unhappy with what has been done to their mod.
With the understanding that that's all you can do. Let people know and then that's it. Move on.

Personally I doubt I'd use a mod if it the original modder was unhappy about it. But some people will and there's nothing you can do except to stop making your mods public.

I pray that doesn't happen.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

So if I understood Kpt. Lehmann right it is ok to break the copyright of artists (sound, vision, etc) and the software developers (those poor souls that write the original code) because their ware is passed on as freeeware and no profits are sought, but once it has become the work of modders written permission has to be given, even though another modder takes the exact same approach as the original. Yes, in a hypocritical way that makes sense now... :)

Just because Ubisoft have not taken legal actions and Petersen and Bavaria Studio's don't do that either doesn't make it right - the developers of the program have spend much more than two years on writing the code that you so carelessly claim as your own now (even in a heavily modified way) and I doubt that anyone here (me included) wrote off asking permission for it (since it is a big no-no in the ToS and User Agreement right from the start)...

talk about ethics and morals - those programmers do this for a living... :hmm:

That's the thing about the Internet - you make it accessible to the world you loose control over it unless you place a copyright on it (which would be tricky considering the legality of things)...


flame me, burn me down, accuse me of sniping and snide remarks - won't change a thing about the legal stand of it all...


In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... You what? No mate - it stems from the view that if somebody does something to somebody else they can't later complain if the exact same thing happens to them... :)

You know, anyone bringing up the issue of modding ethics is doomed to get mud on their face. So be it.

@Spytrx and other non-modders who may have just arrived here. You have no vested interest in the last two years of creation that have gone on here... apart from cherry picking whatever you like that suits your gameplay style... even if it includes gratuitous explosions or whatever. Ergo calling me a hypocrit is shooting from the hip... because you don't like what I/we have to say.

Yes, we didn't change something you didn't like and held our ground... so you now have a problem with us or me or whatever. Your posting history is easy to review by anyone here.

You haven't had to suffer individuals who have developed a parasitic relationship with your work as Carotio has done with GWX and has announced plans for concerning WAC.

The story might have had a different outcome had Carotio decided to make some sort of overlay mod package for GWX and present it independantly... but that is not what he did. He re-destributed the entirety of GW and GWX without seeking any permission.

Carotio's actions are taken and chosen with total disregard for any sort of process that goes against his wishes. We've taken a direct stance against his cavalier attitude (and others) who have total disrespect for the origination of original created material. He has made it clear that he has no intention to change how he goes about doing things regardless of the outcome... and we intend to oppose such behavior.

What Carotio is doing, is little different from what donots76 did... (former "GWX Dev" who slapped his name on some pre-release files created from thin air by Boris, and released them as his own... later playing the "poor me" note when we decided to bare our fangs and excise the cancer.)

You may view me as egotistical or the front man for the "big oppressive GWX organization." I no longer care. I view it as my duty to protect the effort that our guys make to improve the submarine simulation... and the work created by the artists who have contributed directly to it. I'm sure this feeling is mutual when you view HanSolo78's righteous anger when confronted with the same set of adverse conditions.

Carotio has had the same opportunities that the rest of the modding community has had... to build something from the ground up... Instead, he chose the easy road... and a personal mission in life to view all others as "suppressing poor old Carotio." Very well. He can also accept the natural resistance that people will give when someone takes without permission.

I'll address the "copyright infringement" issues separately in a few moments... and at some point soon I will propose some ground rules to clear the way for future modders with honorable intentions.

[denis_469]

And in teme ethics:
That I should think when have seen it:
Add Dornier Do.24 searchplanes/bombers (thanks JScones)
Link: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111353
As I remember - it's my plane, and I saw that it plane JScones!!!!!
What do I deal with it fact? It is not so simple inclusion of my unit in mod, it already its giving to itself.
May be any talk me - that I should think when have seen it?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

And in teme ethics:
That I should think when have seen it:
Add Dornier Do.24 searchplanes/bombers (thanks JScones)
Link: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111353
As I remember - it's my plane, and I saw that it plane JScones!!!!!
What do I deal with it fact? It is not so simple inclusion of my unit in mod, it already its giving to itself.
May be any talk me - that I should think when have seen it?

Hi mate.

Much is lost in translation.

The Dornier Do.24 is not included in GWX to be clear.

[denis_469]

And in teme ethics:
That I should think when have seen it:
Add Dornier Do.24 searchplanes/bombers (thanks JScones)
Link: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111353
As I remember - it's my plane, and I saw that it plane JScones!!!!!
What do I deal with it fact? It is not so simple inclusion of my unit in mod, it already its giving to itself.
May be any talk me - that I should think when have seen it?

Hi mate.

Much is lost in translation.

The Dornier Do.24 is not included in GWX to be clear.

It's read in link teme, and place or not plane in you mod - it's you deal, but giving to itself - it's other.

[bigboywooly]

Hi Denis

That thread refers to a Dutch mod in SH4
I think Jaesen was just pointing out there was a DO24 aircraft around

It isnt in GWX and would have been up to the mods creators to ask for inclusion

[Carotio]

It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included. Where former (now inactive) SH3 modding members and permissions are concerned, emails and/or PM's were sent and several days allowed to pass... If no response was found, modlets were included and detailed credits documented in the GWX manual.
GWX team always ask permission! Check!
GWX team gets no answer? -> use anyway with credits! Check!
That's what I read!
I believe it to be wholly and completely unethical for one person or team of persons to totally subsume and include a mod package. (especially when still currently and actively supported by its original creators)
Well, who says that the creators of all the small mods used in GWX play the game the same way as you GWX guys?
It would be very strange, if all played this game the same way. And just because GWX is one package, it doesn't mean that all parts are accepted by everyone!
Things might have been a little different if Carotio just made a tweaks package to go on top of GWX using JGSME... However, Carotio includes the entirety of the base GWX mod... and appears to depend on the GWX title to draw users.
What a piece of b*llsh*t! Again Kpt Lehmann fills you all with lies! GWX-TA is not GWX in its entirety! It is "a tweak package to go on top of GWX using JGSME..." So again Kpt Lehmann shows his ignorance!
(...And he wonders why we just might have a problem with that... or why HanSolo78 might have a problem with the same happening to the War Ace Campaign. I think a wooden man would have a problem with that.)
One word: relax!
You'll only become older much faster, when spending your time being angry all the time!
I also feel that lazy crediting is a slap in the face.
Above you admitted to have done just that yourself!
Proper crediting is at times a real pain in the a$$. However, if you can release a mod... you can spend a bit of time writing in those whose work came before if you add to their file(s). Even if you don't like the guy... it only takes a moment's pain to do the right thing.
That's really a cheap remark! Easy to say: ask for permission, when the standpoint is allready taken to deny the request!

No one wants to hold back modding in general.
Yes, you do! And some other guys too! You don't want a "GWX for casual players"!

If you don't want big flame wars... clear rules need to be in place.
Break those yourself, and expect others to do the same!
Probably the most boring and tedious part of modding is making sure things are done the right way. Yes it is a PITA. It akes a little effort. However, if you are a non-modder who enjoys the labor of someone else... and want to thank a modder... Thank them by supporting an ethical process and an ethical evolution of modding.
No-one cares except some modders! Sorry to tell you the truth!

While I'm sure you took the trouble to contact a lot of modders if it was hoped that their work was to be included, I seriously doubt anyone phoned up Peter Gabriel and got his permission to use the intro to Sky Blue on the loading screen, so there is a copyright issue with GWX before you even get to the simulation part that goes way beyond upsetting a modder. Similarly, I doubt Wolfgang Peterson or Bavaria Studios got a call, and there are most definitely some sounds from Das Boot in GWX too...
The precedent was set by good old RUb lol... which included bites from Das Boot in the voice files with the explaination that it was freeware. Nor do we seek profit of any sort... or offer media in any sort of way that we can can make a profit.
Nor I or anyone else supporting me seek profit!

So from this I can only assume that 'It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.' is not exactly true.....
It IS exactly true as I stated that for each modification produced by this community externally to GWX... that was included in GWX... permissions were actively sought. Regarding members who have gone to other places and are not reachable... who produced good work... Should those works be lost? Honestly, for those individuals I suppose we could have simply added the work and claimed it as our own with little repercussion if any. Instead we used the best available credits and actively sought those credits.
Again you admit to have included mods without obtaining the permission first, but with proper credit!
@Spytrx, No I am not "Talking down to you." In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... and I feel this fuels your desire to counter me.
I know this was not adressed to be, but it's just so funny that you accuse others to use previous differences in the new approach, when you do exactly the same yourself always!
To cents or not anyone can agree or desagree with what Kpt. L. posted
but its GWX work Not anyone else, so asking to use anything its imperative
and periode.
Interesting, when comparing to a quote from another GWX team member, made in ubi forum ->
So let me state now, that I, as a contributing modder to GWX, do NOT GRANT YOU PERMISSION to use my creations in your "supermod". Let's see how you maintain credibility (LOL!) if you ignore that.
It just shows how selfish this GWX team is!
This team would like to use other people's mods, but refuse the use of their mods inside other mod packs! So JScones, does this apply to me only or everyone in general?
Various people have "claimed" GWX files as theirs. I'm sure people have also claimed parts of RUb, or NYGM, or WAC as theirs too. Simple fact is, if we asked twenty people here to tell us when, say, 7 Flotilla started operations, all twenty would go straight to uboat.net and come back with the same answer. Why? Because history is static - it can't be changed. So just because one mod has an IX with 22 torpedos and another mod comes along with the same, it doesn't give anyone the right to accuse the second mod of "mod theft" on that basis alone.
So if someone else does a mod, which is similar to yours or anybody elses work, it's okay, given that it's based on historical facts!?
Interesting!
My preference is to contact them as per their preferred channel outlined in their readme file. I always state my wishes in the affirmative. In other words, "We're planning on adding this to GWX, with full credit to you of course, pls let me know if that is not acceptable". If this is done via the modder's preferred interaction channel, then I have no problem using the mod if they do not respond. I must admit though, that every such email or PM I have sent has been responded to with a positive "go for it!".
So you admit also that if you would get no answer, you would use it anyway also! Hmmm.... interesting!

I think if people make stuff available, they kind of forfeit the right to treat it as 'their ball' which no-one can tamper with...
I agree. Once it's out there you can do nothing about it, and it would be naive to think that you could continue to control its use.
However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here.
Point taken, we discuss the way how to act! Okay: asking + crediting vs. no asking + crediting vs. no asking + no crediting
You want: asking + crediting, period! Right?
Then you have to accept an incoming request for the use of your mods in other mods as well, if you use other modders mods in your mods! Anything else would be ridiculous! Especially, when you have allready admitted to intend using mods yourself with credits only if no answer given!

However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here.
That's a fair point. I wasn't trying to change the subject at hand, which as you say is 'modding etiquette', I was just reminded of the old adage about people in glass houses...
Glass houses... that's a good one! LOL!
What I think is that it is ok to ask and encourage these rules to be followed by everyone, but I am against trying to enforce them onto any newb and lamer that might come to these forums - I mean I think it is great to try and be a gentleman, a man of honor, but it`s a decision you have to take yourself. There should be no moral police telling you what to do, especially if there is no legal ground you can stand upon.
Honestly, I think this is well spoken! But selfproclaimed internet-forum policemen will get no respect! Courtesy will come out of itself, not when ordered!
You haven't had to suffer individuals who have developed a parasitic relationship with your work as Carotio has done with GWX and has announced plans for concerning WAC.
At least, I do not call you a parasite just because you ripped of material from Bavaria Studios and put it in your mod!
The story might have had a different outcome had Carotio decided to make some sort of overlay mod package for GWX and present it independantly... but that is not what he did. He re-destributed the entirety of GW and GWX without seeking any permission.
What a piece of b*llsh*t! Again Kpt Lehmann fills you all with lies! GWX-TA is not GWX in its entirety! It is "a tweak package to go on top of GWX using JGSME..." So again Kpt Lehmann shows his ignorance! For the second time in this thread! He hasn't even bothered to try out GWX-TA to see the difference for himself. So much for his argumentation! Which is inferior!
Carotio's actions are taken and chosen with total disregard for any sort of process that goes against his wishes. We've taken a direct stance against his cavalier attitude (and others) who have total disrespect for the origination of original created material. He has made it clear that he has no intention to change how he goes about doing things regardless of the outcome... and we intend to oppose such behavior.
Yada, yada, yada... I haven't even published this so-called join-mod of WAC and GWX! And not even here at subsim! But false rumours spread in the water, when the talking maschine of Kpt. Lehmann and his lieutenants spread their accusations. Just visit ubi forum, look for my GWX-TA thread and look at page 5, where I proclaim the join-mod. Which sentence did I finish the announcement with? = "Mostly thought as a joke!" I guess some people just don't have sence of humour! In the first place, I didn't even know, whether it was possible to do or would demand too much work. Maybe, I would need help from others to do it! I had not even started the discussion, before this future mod AND GWX-TA was attacked! And I must say, GWX-TA has been falsely attacked! Kpt. Lehmann (and others) continue to claim GWX-TA to be GWX in disguise, when it's NOT! Continously, it's suggested to make it a tweak mod for GWX, only problem for the accusers is that it allready is, and as such hasn't been investigated properly! And this is WHY, I honestly NOW consider to try do this join-mod! So thank yourself for your continous false attacks!!
What Carotio is doing, is little different from what donots76 did... (former "GWX Dev" who slapped his name on some pre-release files created from thin air by Boris, and released them as his own... later playing the "poor me" note when we decided to bare our fangs and excise the cancer.)
Since donots76 isn't around anymore, at least not with his past alias name!, to defend himself, I think it's a cheap attack!
You may view me as egotistical or the front man for the "big oppressive GWX organization." I no longer care. I view it as my duty to protect the effort that our guys make to improve the submarine simulation... and the work created by the artists who have contributed directly to it. I'm sure this feeling is mutual when you view HanSolo78's righteous anger when confronted with the same set of adverse conditions.
Well, you are an egoist!
Carotio has had the same opportunities that the rest of the modding community has had... to build something from the ground up... Instead, he chose the easy road... and a personal mission in life to view all others as "suppressing poor old Carotio." Very well. He can also accept the natural resistance that people will give when someone takes without permission.
Let me quote you now: I no longer care.

[Dowly]

And Carotio is still thinking why everyone is so mad at him... sorry little sod he is. :shifty:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

LOL, the way Carotio bends words to suit himself is laughable and obvious.

Tis a shame... it looks like he's taken days to build that post.

Plain and simple, Carotio has leeched on, and intends to depend on, the success of others for whatever he throws out there and hopes will "stick."

Regarding GWX TA not including the entirety of the GW or GWX mod... well its about time.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Don't forget that sometimes people just make honest mistakes. Nobody's perfect. A lot of modders are newbs too, ya know. :) I would think that usually if you can just a provide said author with a little friendly advice and helpful info, then it will go a long ways towards helping rather than hurting.

I agree with this :roll: Hopefully all of this will not scare away those just getting into modding, be a shame if it did.

RDP

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Things might have been a little different if Carotio just made a tweaks package to go on top of GWX using JGSME... However, Carotio includes the entirety of the base GWX mod... and appears to depend on the GWX title to draw users.
What a piece of b*llsh*t! Again Kpt Lehmann fills you all with lies! GWX-TA is not GWX in its entirety! It is "a tweak package to go on top of GWX using JGSME..." So again Kpt Lehmann shows his ignorance!

Escuse me but if I go on your site and look for TA the 2nd sentince is this.

As things seem to be in the moment, it looks like GWX-TA1.3 will appear as stand-alone add on mod for GWX1.03/04.

Whan you see "standalone" it usaly means that you dont need the origanal program to install it. So I can understand why Lehmann(and the rest of the GWX community) thinks that. But if you look farther down the page you see this.

use JSGME allready provided by GWX to enable it!
So your installment should be made in this order:
1) SH3 (installation)
2) Official Patch 1.4b (installation)
3) GWX (installation)
4) GWX1.03 (installation)
5) GWX-TA1.3 (by JSGME)
6) Optional GWX-TA mods (by JSGME -> move the folders to the MODS folder first!)

Now Im confused. is it a standalone mod, or a addon to GWX? If its just a addon I sugest you change your page to remove or edit the sentince quoted above.

[Carotio]

LOL, the way Carotio bends words to suit himself is laughable and obvious.

Tis a shame... it looks like he's taken days to build that post.

Plain and simple, Carotio has leeched on, and intends to depend on, the success of others for whatever he throws out there and hopes will "stick."

Regarding GWX TA not including the entirety of the GW or GWX mod... well its about time.

Well, since you also bends the words to your liking that's make two of us! :huh:

Since your initial post was made less than one day ago, I couldn't have made the reply over several days, so what a cr*p reply!

GWX depends on the music made by artists to be succesfull, and some mods created "out of the house" too!

About time? What do you mean? Do you now say, you think, I should make that hypothetical super-mod? Well, IF I do, I did say IF, then it would not be the entire GWX. I would leave out your damage model as one example!

[Carotio]

As things seem to be in the moment, it looks like GWX-TA1.3 will appear as stand-alone add on mod for GWX1.03/04.

Whan you see "standalone" it usaly means that you dont need the origanal program to install it. So I can understand why Lehmann(and the rest of the GWX community) thinks that. But if you look farther down the page you see this.

use JSGME allready provided by GWX to enable it!
So your installment should be made in this order:
1) SH3 (installation)
2) Official Patch 1.4b (installation)
3) GWX (installation)
4) GWX1.03 (installation)
5) GWX-TA1.3 (by JSGME)
6) Optional GWX-TA mods (by JSGME -> move the folders to the MODS folder first!)

Now Im confused. is it a standalone mod, or a addon to GWX? If its just a addon I sugest you change your page to remove or edit the sentince quoted above.

By stand-alone mod, I mean nor GWX-TA1.0, nor GWX-TA1.1, nor GWX-TA1.2 will be necessary anymore, since I have removed some files (TGAs)

GWX-TA is an add on mod for GWX, which also is quite obvious, when you look at the installation instructions, so I don't get it, why some accuse me first, before asking for an explanation first!

This entire thread is about asking! You want me to ask! But some don't ask me first! Some just accuse me of several things first! So I did the WU thing to be very provocative! Nobody just read the last sentence in my ubi post!
So much for reading skills!

[Hitman]

I'd like to bring back the original subject, leaving aside who did what in which ocasion. There is a point raised by Kpt. Lehman that is worth trying to agree here: What to do if a request or permission to use/include/modify a mod is forwarded to the author, and no answer comes?

Can we agree in an etiquette for that case? Since many people do mods and then vanish in the cyberspace, I think it is something of upmost importance, for starters.:hmm:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Concerning the use of 4-5 seconds of instrumental non-vocal work by Peter Gabriel in the opening intro to GWX... umm we're not competing with his band FFS. We had to put something useful there for the sake of consistency. GWX is not Napster.com.

Concerning the use of various little sound-bites from Das Boot... this is also stated in the GWX manual... and where they came from. We aren't hiding anything shameful... and if anything, we've only included enough to make people curious enough with the tease, to go buy the movie. I concede that this isn't a perfect arrangement... but we haven't made any effort to hide these items either. The Das Boot sound bites were released as a mod here in Ogg Vorbis format... We asked for permission and were granted said permission by the creator of the Das Boot sound mod... many moons ago.

I'm truly torn down the middle about these things... They are easily controversial and no doubt the Carotios out there will be happy to throw these things back in my face to try and confuse the whole matter.

Other mod packages have not removed them... and we will not.

Carotio is on a witch-hunt... and has been for some time... nothing new there.

No doubt that he will turn around now and say the same. Tit for tat... it could go on forever.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I'd like to bring back the original subject, leaving aside who did what in which ocasion. There is a point raised by Kpt. Lehman that is worth trying to agree here: What to do if a request or permission to use/include/modify a mod is forwarded to the author, and no answer comes?

Can we agree in an etiquette for that case? Since many people do mods and then vanish in the cyberspace, I think it is something of upmost importance, for starters.:hmm:

Cool... sorry about the cross post.

[Penelope_Grey]

If its just a addon I sugest you change your page to remove or edit the sentince quoted above.
Well, I have a suggestion for you...

It was you that stirred up this little hornets nest afresh. Left to their own devices, the guys concerned may have been able to hammer out a conclusion or come to some sort of arrangement. Maybe they still can.

Why not just be quiet and leave the concerned parties in this matter sort it out in their own way without anymore "suggestions" from you Wilhelm.

[Penelope_Grey]

FYI, I have no problem at all with Penelope... She asked a good question.

Thanks, and I appreciated the answer. I didn't understand at first hence I asked but lately I am seeing the whole idea of how the modding and freeware principles should ideally work. :)

[Carotio]

worth trying to agree here: What to do if a request or permission to use/include/modify a mod is forwarded to the author, and no answer comes?
Can we agree in an etiquette for that case? Since many people do mods and then vanish in the cyberspace, I think it is something of upmost importance, for starters.:hmm:

I would like to present my view, which is:
Both present and non-present modders and their work need credits!
That's it! No more!

Permissions needed? No! But best!

Then let me ask another thing:
I have downloaded mods containing NO readme file whatsoever about who created that mod!
Then what?
Neither permission or credits are possible then!

[bigboywooly]

Well its a valid point Hitman raised

I have some single missions from the community I want to use in GWX
All authors still around have agreed but some I have no idea of how to contact and others havent been on the forum here for a couple of years

Those sorts of things are easy as a simple cedit will do - the missions were written for SH3 1.0 lol so shows how old they are and have had a fair bit of work done to them by me to make GWX 1.04 compliant

Any other stuff generally speaking that will included in 1.04 is fresh and new and the modders are still about so it isnt a problem

Now if a modder says NO then I wont include anything of theirs
Simple

[denis_469]

worth trying to agree here: What to do if a request or permission to use/include/modify a mod is forwarded to the author, and no answer comes?
Can we agree in an etiquette for that case? Since many people do mods and then vanish in the cyberspace, I think it is something of upmost importance, for starters.:hmm:

I would like to present my view, which is:
Both present and non-present modders and their work need credits!
That's it! No more!

Permissions needed? No! But best!

Then let me ask another thing:
I have downloaded mods containing NO readme file whatsoever about who created that mod!
Then what?
Neither permission or credits are possible then!

I think, that in it case not place autor and mod unname. In other variant we havy my post primer.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Modding policy proposals

#1: Ask permission.

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message.

#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!!!

will add more proposals after a bit of coffee.

[Hitman]

So we have basically two different points of view:

1.- If the author can't be contacted, use the mod but give credit

2.- If the author can't be contacted, stay away from using the mod. Don't think you have implicit authorization by the simple lack of reply.

That's already two positions for discussing.

We also seem to have agreement in two points:

1.- Always give credit for whatever work of others you use

2.- Never use a mod against the express will of his creator

OK I will open a new topic thread -sticky- to include those points for modder's ethics that are have agreement by everyone. Do not reply there, just go on discussing here and I will post the results there.

I'd like to raise another question:

What about the use of mods that also include mods from others?.

Example: A mod is done to allow the use of long leather jackets in good weather. The work is done from scratch, but textures from the Elite Uniform mod are used (With permission from author). Now I am creating a super-mod and get permission from the creator of the "Leather jackets for good weather" mod. Shall I also get permission from the author of the Elite crew uniform mods?

[Takeda Shingen]

Modding policy proposals

#1: Ask permission.

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message.

#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!!!

will add more proposals after a bit of coffee.

Well, the real problem comes when one asks the inevitable 'or what?'. So long as you work in the vein of public domain, you will have no legal recourse. You are utilizing UBI's, EA's, Sonalysts or whoever's program as a basis for your mods. Accordingly, the link with even intellectual property is reaching at best. The discussion of protocol becomes, as such, academic in the light that the protocol itself is not enforcable.

I understand that you work hard. I also sympathize with your desire to keep your work as your own, and to have it recognized. Unfortunately, it just seems that the law, which is what you would need, is not on your side. An honest programmer is going to ask you. One that is not so scrupulous will just tell you to get lost, rules or not.

[Jimbuna]

@Carotio

One question if I may!!
If it wasn't for the existence of GWX and WAC, just what in hell would you be plagiarizing ? :hmm:

It's only because of the existence of these mods which were based upon countless hours of talented peoples efforts that you have something to leech off.
Try putting similar thought and effort into something of your own and make it JSGME compatible...some sort of mini add on...some work that is truly that of your own creation and then...only then will you perhaps get some form of recognition.

Better still...start reading the threads and count all those supportive posts out there....then listen to all the voices raised in support of you....I think you'll find the silence is deafening :arrgh!:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Concerning modders who are no longer active with the community... and obtaining permissions for their previous mod work...

There should be some sort of "abandonement clause" I guess that would allow the work to go back into circulation after 90 days of no activity by said person... or something like it.

(again as long as proper crediting is observed)

Also, there should be some sort of method to deal with offenses... first and second etc.

[Hitman]

OK, new thread added here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114540

Please stay away by now from the discussion about commercially copyrighted stuff (Das Boot sounds, scenes, etc.). We can discuss that later, but for now it would be the most interesting to be able to set some basic rules of courtesy between modders.

Accordingly, the link with even intellectual property is reaching at best. The discussion of protocol becomes, as such, academic in the light that the protocol itself is not enforcable.

I understand that you work hard. I also sympathize with your desire to keep your work as your own, and to have it recognized. Unfortunately, it just seems that the law, which is what you would need, is not on your side. An honest programmer is going to ask you. One that is not so scrupulous will just tell you to get lost, rules or not.

That's exactly why the topic was opened with the word "ETHICS". This does not go about legal matters, but about courtesy and ethics. The rules Kpt. Lehman proposed that we adopt are of course just ethic, but the power of being able to say that someone is not following them is not irrelevant, believe me.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Modding policy proposals

#1: Ask permission.

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message.

#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!!!

will add more proposals after a bit of coffee.

Well, the real problem comes when one asks the inevitable 'or what?'. So long as you work in the vein of public domain, you will have no legal recourse. You are utilizing UBI's, EA's, Sonalysts or whoever's program as a basis for your mods. Accordingly, the link with even intellectual property is reaching at best. The discussion of protocol becomes, as such, academic in the light that the protocol itself is not enforcable.

I understand that you work hard. I also sympathize with your desire to keep your work as your own, and to have it recognized. Unfortunately, it just seems that the law, which is what you would need, is not on your side. An honest programmer is going to ask you. One that is not so scrupulous will just tell you to get lost, rules or not.

1) GWX is not about "me" as much as people might like to make it such. I do feel a great deal of loyalty to it. I can't help it.

2) No legal recourse is expected... however, recourse can and should be expected within the community itself. The idea of self-policing isn't unreasonable... and would prevent a lot of crap. That's all. This place does have a great deal of influence.

[Edit/Addenda] Until now there has been no protocol and no roadmap. There should be one.

[Carotio]

@Carotio

One question if I may!!
If it wasn't for the existence of GWX and WAC, just what in hell would you be plagiarizing ? :hmm:
Better still...start reading the threads and count all those supportive posts out there....then listen to all the voices raised in support of you....I think you'll find the silence is deafening :arrgh!:
- Well, stop modding and I would still continue to shape the game as I want, untill I'm done with what I want to do!
- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails! Maybe one reason why I continue is because some like my changes!
- Well, you asked, so you got an answer! ;)

[bigboywooly]

A time limit for ppl no longer around seems reasonable

One look in the captains roster will tell you the last time that person visited and if is still active

I always send a PM anyway but someone who hasnt been here for 2 years is hardly going to reply

And a readme with the original modders name always goes a long way
I include my email and subsim address in mine

What little I have released :rotfl:

[bigboywooly]

- Well, stop modding and I would still continue to shape the game as I want, untill I'm done with what I want to do!
;)

:rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

@Carotio

One question if I may!!
If it wasn't for the existence of GWX and WAC, just what in hell would you be plagiarizing ? :hmm:
Better still...start reading the threads and count all those supportive posts out there....then listen to all the voices raised in support of you....I think you'll find the silence is deafening :arrgh!:
- Well, stop modding and I would still continue to shape the game as I want, untill I'm done with what I want to do!
- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails! Maybe one reason why I continue is because some like my changes!
- Well, you asked, so you got an answer! ;)

Would you like to provide the evidence ?:hmm:
The overwhelming number of posts is our evidence :yep:

[WilhelmSchulz.]

- Well, stop modding and I would still continue to shape the game as I want, untill I'm done with what I want to do!
Your kidding me right? :roll:

[Dowly]

- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails!

Rofl! :rotfl:That was good one!

[Ducimus]

Modding policy proposals

#1: Ask permission.

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message.

#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!!!

will add more proposals after a bit of coffee.


I really hope this is a community effort to formally establish ethics, and does not turn into a dictation made by one person that everyone just nods their head to and says "Ok" without a rebuttle.

On permissions. I will flat out openly admit, i do not always ask permision. Given the rate at which i work, and my RL schedule, its not always feasible because i simply dont have time to wait around for 2 days to 2 weeks waiting for someone to read their PM or email. It really depends on the author though. If they flat out state in their readme, "You cant use this without permission", or otherwise have a tone on their mod thread that would indicate they are not subseceptiable for usage by others, THEN i wont use it. In any event If they come back and yell it me, then i will remove it. No questions asked, no complainig from me

On that note, i think it would be alot easier if everyone stated in their readme, "You may" or "you may not" use this mod without my permission You'd solve alot of bull**** right then and there. No guesswork involed, no waiting around, no BS, no assumptions, no ambiguity. put it right there in black and white and everyones happy. Infact NOT putting that in your readme, is probably being lazy. Hell, I'll update my readmes with just that effect after i get done posting this.

But that leads me to my next point: "blanketing credit"
Sometimes, its just neccessary. Particuarly when your dealing with mods that have been around for freaking ages, and you have no clue who made them anymore. I think the single overriding point here is, if you know who made the mod or not is irrevalnt, what is relevant is that you dont take credit for it if its not yours. Don't get me wrong, if you know who made the mod, you better credit them, but if you don't, then i think one had better establish, that "No, i didnt do this", in the interests of being HONEST.

My 2 cents. Im off to update my readme file now.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

But that leads me to my next point: "blanketing credit"
Sometimes, its just neccessary. Particuarly when your dealing with mods that have been around for freaking ages, and you have no clue who made them anymore. I think the single overriding point here is, if you know who made the mod or not is irrevalnt, what is relevant is that you dont take credit for it if its not yours. Don't get me wrong, if you know who made the mod, you better credit them, but if you don't, then i think one had better establish, that "No, i didnt do this", in the interests of being HONEST.

My 2 cents. Im off to update my readme file now.

Nah, I feel that blanket crediting is just lazy. All you have to do is ask if you don't know. There's enough ppl here that have been around long enough and have sharp memories, that you can find out if you bother to ask.

[bigboywooly]

Most readmes contain the phrase you may NOT use this mod in any commercial mods

I suppose the line could be added to say whether was ok to use in a freeware mod

As to not knowing who made what a simple post on the forum will usually get you the answer
Of course if the mod isnt from this forum thats a bit different

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Okay, I really should sleep at some point today/yesterday whatever now is...

...before returning to work. I've put on my flame resistant nomex PJ's and me pickelhalb.

TTFN

[Ducimus]

But that leads me to my next point: "blanketing credit"
Sometimes, its just neccessary. Particuarly when your dealing with mods that have been around for freaking ages, and you have no clue who made them anymore. I think the single overriding point here is, if you know who made the mod or not is irrevalnt, what is relevant is that you dont take credit for it if its not yours. Don't get me wrong, if you know who made the mod, you better credit them, but if you don't, then i think one had better establish, that "No, i didnt do this", in the interests of being HONEST.

My 2 cents. Im off to update my readme file now.

Nah, I feel that blanket crediting is just lazy. All you have to do is ask if you don't know. There's enough ppl here that have been around long enough and have sharp memories, that you can find out if you bother to ask.

Tough. If i feel a blanket statement is needed, then ill make one, and not worry about it. IThe important thing i feel is not taking credit for others work, and that, ultimatly is all i really care about. Not other peoples perceptions of how they think i should be conducting myself.

Besides Alot of works are derivitaves, so if your out to cite every little source, your going to be writing ALOT of names in your readme, and from that standpoint, everyone had a hand in just about every major mod job in existance. From the first version of "improved convoys" and everything that came out around the same tine, and since. Community et all. Being lazy? I don't think so, its an acklowledgement of the full lineage of a mod, in a short concise statement.

[Spytrx]

The situation is really simple -

- if you can't obtain permission, you can't use it (who is to say that the request wasn't heard but ignored?)
- don't use a slightly moddified version of the mod to get around the above problem


the abanonment clause proposed is absurd - what if the modder moves on to another board or place continuing his/her work there (which could be a reason why a request is ignored or no forwarding address found)?

[Ducimus]

The solution is alot simpler then that.

A statement in your damn readme file:

Along the lines of:

"You may not use any portion of this mod without my expressed permission"

OR

"You may use any portion of this mod as long as you credit my work as the source used"



How hard is that? No muss, no fuss. No ambiguity, no politics, no BS. Its really not that hard to add it to your readme file.

Anyway, since this is a SH3 mod forum, im going to go back to minding my own buisness in the SH4 mod forum, as that is where my intrests lay, not here.

[Carotio]

Another rule proposal:

- One modder cannot use the mods of others, if he/she denies the use of his/her own mods!

It's either free of use (with credits) or "no go" both ways!
Anything else is double morale and pure egoism!

[bigboywooly]

@ Ducimus

That may well work in future but not for all the older mods out there

[bigboywooly]

Another rule proposal:

- One modder cannot use the mods of others, if he/she denies the use of his/her own mods!

It's either free of use (with credits) or "no go" both ways!
Anything else is double morale and pure egoism!

And how would that work ?

GWX is a team mod
So if I say anyone can use my GWX single missions\ships etc then I can add other mods to GWX
BUT other GWX members dont want their stuff used so they cant add nothing ???

?????????

Another half assed idea

[Carotio]

Another rule proposal:

- One modder cannot use the mods of others, if he/she denies the use of his/her own mods!

It's either free of use (with credits) or "no go" both ways!
Anything else is double morale and pure egoism!

And how would that work ?

GWX is a team mod
So if I say anyone can use my GWX single missions\ships etc then I can add other mods to GWX
BUT other GWX members dont want their stuff used so they cant add nothing ???

?????????

Another half assed idea

Like this whole discussion!

Yes, GWX team are surely well skilled enough to do their own mods from scratch, which some of you tell all the time! Then do it! Include no other mods than the mods of the team members! Also exclude all external content like music! Go compose some synthesizer music yourself to include etc. Do everything by yourself, if you don't want to share anything!

Again a provocative post, which anybody probably can't seen the joke about...
This whole discussion is a joke!

[Spytrx]

- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails!
Rofl! :rotfl:That was good one!

true none-the-less

just like people of the opposition try to 'change' the minds of those still not following the GWX party line... :x very mature, I have to say
(I find help elsewhere then)

[bigboywooly]

The vast majority of the mods in GWX are from the GWX team
Whats the point of building another ship that someone else has built just for the sake of it ????
Every shipbuilder contacted is happy to have the ships included in GWX so they are used and seen as they were intended to be when built

Its beyond the realms of most ppl playing this game to script new shipping in the right places

Take Geromes heavy Br cruisers
D\L them yourself and add them in your install
You will never see them as there are no entries for them in ANY campaign files in any majormod released on here UNTIL those ships were released

Same goes for the majority of specific shipping\aircraft

The credits in the GWX manual include the credits from GW
Not all of those mods are still in GWX as have been superceded by GWX team ones and later community mods but the original credits are still there

[Carotio]

The vast majority of the mods in GWX are from the GWX team
Whats the point of building another ship that someone else has built just for the sake of it ????
Every shipbuilder contacted is happy to have the ships included in GWX so they are used and seen as they were intended to be when built


Vast majority means most but not everything! Right?
Then GWX was not built from scratch as some of you always claim!

So what's the point of scripting an event that someone else has scripted just for the sake of it ????

I'm sure they were happy to have their work included in GWX!
Which makes me wonder: why are some GWX team members then grumpy about having their work included in an alternative mod, which differs from the original GWX work and appears different!?

[Dowly]

@Carotio

The only joke in this thread is you. Would you behave like this if it was someone else who made this topic? I'm guessing no. :roll:

[Dowly]

Then GWX was not built from scratch as some of you always claim!

Mate, you should really stop here. You are making an butt out of yourself. It only takes 5 secs to take a look to the manual and see that there are credits for people who's models/graphics/sounds/mods have been included partly or completely in GWX.

I have never seen any of the dev team saying that everything in GWX is made from the scratch by the GWX team.

[bigboywooly]

Because one ship is just one ship

GWX as a mod is a COMBINATION of that one ship plus HUNDREDS of other parts from the GWX team and others
A lot of them you will never see or know are there

And why script something because someone else has ?
Because scripting isnt easy and ppl want to keep their scripts to themselves

I would happily have used the Weserubung from WAC as it was already done but Hans didnt want that so I scripted my own
I could have just used it but he said no so wasnt used

Simple really

If someone released a ship we wanted to use and they said no then it wouldnt be used and may possibly be made by someone on the team

Working for GWX is free and very time consuming
If you can include a ship\unit someone else has built then its a great timesaver for us and for them the ship gets used as intended
Everyone is a winner

Totally different to cherrypicking someone elses months of long hours\frustration and hard work just because you are too lazy to do it yourself

I could add every city you have added in GWX and make your mod redundant
Whats the point
The dev team arent interested and neither is the bulk of GWX users

Anyway this thread is about ethics not you or GWX

From now on the GWX credits will probably contain the line Ducimus proposed about no usage by anyone unless permission asked
Has been asked before and granted

Simple

No permission no use
Thats the rules I adhere too

[Carotio]

@Carotio

The only joke in this thread is you. Would you behave like this if it was someone else who made this topic? I'm guessing no. :roll:

Well, that's your opinion! But maybe, just maybe, some read it and think some of you are just as much a joke as me! :yep:

Besides, who behaves how against who?
Would you all write like you do, if it wasn't me? :hmm:
No, and that just shows this is some sort of personal vendetta against me and anybody else who thinks otherwise than you!

And there you go, why I write how I do! This whole discussion started in two ubi threads, where a mod there asked the discussion to take place elsewhere. Continuous attacks there against me and a theft-accusation here can't stay unanswered, and you know that! If several people continuously attacked you, you would defend yourself too, don't fool yourself! :nope:

[bigboywooly]

theft-accusation here can't stay unanswered, :nope:

Was made by a member of the forum
Not by a member of GWX

[Dowly]

If several people continuously attacked you, you would defend yourself too, don't fool yourself! :nope:

Nope, I would call them a ********** a**h**** and get myself keelhauled. :rotfl:

[bigboywooly]

If several people continuously attacked you, you would defend yourself too, don't fool yourself! :nope:

Nope, I would call them a ********** a**h**** and get myself keelhauled. :rotfl:

Ah more potato peeling

:rotfl:

[Spytrx]

@Carotio
The only joke in this thread is you.

I like the way it get's personal when arguments fail to jump to mind - very clever


Again the indications are that if GWX wants - it gets -- by any means necessary
And crediting is due from others... I have been asked in an e-mail not to comment anymore because this thread borders on getting out of hand and way off topic, but just for a laugh I read the credits of your 'handbook' - incomplete would cover it nicely I'd say - but by your own new standards that you have set today that should be rectified with an update in the very near future no doubt


Since the whole tone of the discussion is getting towards personal abuse, the set discussion about the two points that were suggested are sidetracked in favour of the latter, and the opinion of those that weren't here from day one (see, I was only born the day I logged in here, no previous live, no experience in any field besides being a dumb noob (as I was called in another mail, nice touch)) I'd be calling it a day before the threats (and spelling mistakes in them) burst my sides

[bigboywooly]

And what part of the GWX manual credits are incomplete ?

You wouldnt know as you dont know whats in GWX

We could easily resrt to personal attacks but too low

Facts do the talking so no need for them IMHO

[Spytrx]

You wouldnt know as you dont know whats in GWX And you know that how?

Facts do the talking so no need for them IMHO the first quote shows how much you stick to facts (maybe the ones in your own mind, who knows) -

'nough said

[Dowly]

I have been asked in an e-mail not to comment anymore because this thread borders on getting out of hand and way off topic

:o

You needed someone to e-mail and tell you that?

[bigboywooly]

Try reading pages 271 to 281
10 pages of credits :hmm:

As you know whats there you can tell me whats missing

[Jimbuna]

@Dowly and BBW

Your wasting your time guys.......a leech is always a.....leech :yep:

[Dowly]

But herrrr kaleeeeuuunn!! I still have loads of torps and provisions left!! :rotfl:

[HanSolo78]

my five cents to carotio and this issue.....

have been said at the beginning of this whole issue and in the german ubi forum....

unaceptable!

I agree to Kpt Lehman´s recommendations!! :rock:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails!
Rofl! :rotfl:That was good one!

true none-the-less

just like people of the opposition try to 'change' the minds of those still not following the GWX party line... :x very mature, I have to say
(I find help elsewhere then)

Cool, now we are a political party... says the guy who just fell off of the banana boat.

Off with their heads.

Very well, while I am polishing my hobnailed jack-boots and practicing my "I've Elected Myself as Emperor of SH3" speech... (In that 'stentorian' voice that Sailor Steve said I have.)

... maybe this thread can come back to its basic purpose... to determine a reasonable set of "rules" and then decide on community-based consequences for breaking the same.

Otherwise, the free-for-all furball will happen again and again ad nauseum.

[Safe-Keeper]

My preference is to contact them as per their preferred channel outlined in their readme file. I always state my wishes in the affirmative. In other words, "We're planning on adding this to GWX, with full credit to you of course, pls let me know if that is not acceptable". If this is done via the modder's preferred interaction channel, then I have no problem using the mod if they do not respond. I must admit though, that every such email or PM I have sent has been responded to with a positive "go for it!".Precisely. I have the same experience with NorOps. It costs so little to ask, and every time I've asked someone for permission I've gotten a yes.

That's the thing about the Internet - you make it accessible to the world you loose control over it unless you place a copyright on it (which would be tricky considering the legality of things)...Everything you make is automatically copyrighted. No need to register anything anywhere.

As for Das Boot content in GWX, I believe Fair Use laws covers the taking of a few minutes of audio out of a six hours long movie.

- One modder cannot use the mods of others, if he/she denies the use of his/her own mods!

It's either free of use (with credits) or "no go" both ways!In short, this is a black-and-white approach, as every user has different reasons to give or not give.

For example, if you make a Norwegian Coastal Defense warship, it's in your interest to share it with someone modifying campaign layers in order for your ship to see in-game action.

On the other hand, when I was asked if I wanted to contribute my NorOps addition of cities, towns, etc. to this guy who has been working on filling the whole SH III world with cities, towns, etc... I said no. Reason being that I want NorOps to be as unique as possible, and that it feels better to me to have all my NorOps work in one place, namely in one big mod.

Again a provocative post, which anybody probably can't seen the joke about...
This whole discussion is a joke!To you it may be a joke, as you apparently couldn't care less about respecting other designers' work. For the rest of us, however, it is a very important thread and should result in a sticky with community-wide guidelines for what is and isn't fair game when it comes to using others' projects.

I like the Kaptain's suggestion about works 'entering the public domain' after a period of inactivity, although I think 90 days is much too short.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

...I think 90 days is much too short.

Agreed, the time frame is certainly negotiable.

[Ducimus]

... maybe this thread can come back to its basic purpose... to determine a reasonable set of "rules" and then decide on community-based consequences for breaking the same.

Otherwise, the free-for-all furball will happen again and again ad nauseum.


Ahh, i think im starting to see now. Havent read the entire thread, as most of it is the usual flame war ping pong, but Something happened. I dont know what it is but i suspect it has to do with some Sh3 to Sh4 ship mod conversion. Didnt really look at it or into it, only noticed it in passing.


So.. something happend there, that got KL all fired up. So now, much like the "church of silent hunter 4", there seems to be this holy crusade taking place as a backlash.

Im not going to play along. Theres only one real major ethic that ive abide by, and theres only one major ethic that i will continue to abide by.

NO PLAGURISM.

The rest of it is a whole lot of "pork". Now, i know KL is used to getting his way and bending people to his will, but im saying right out now, whatever comes out of this thread, i dont care. Im not changing myself just to accomidate one or two peoples agenda. Sorry, dont mean to be an ass, but when i feel others are trying to impose their will upon me, im as stubborn as a mule, with the temper of a badger.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

It was the news that Cartorio was going to combine GWX and WAC and call it his own suppermod.

[JCWolf]

@Carotio

One question if I may!!
If it wasn't for the existence of GWX and WAC, just what in hell would you be plagiarizing ?
Better still...start reading the threads and count all those supportive posts out there....then listen to all the voices raised in support of you....I think you'll find the silence is deafening
- Well, stop modding and I would still continue to shape the game as I want, untill I'm done with what I want to do!
- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails! Maybe one reason why I continue is because some like my changes!
- Well, you asked, so you got an answer!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :o my supporters:lol: :D :rotfl: :rotfl:

This is to sad....

I finally found my sleepers!:rotfl:

Is this guy for real?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

... maybe this thread can come back to its basic purpose... to determine a reasonable set of "rules" and then decide on community-based consequences for breaking the same.

Otherwise, the free-for-all furball will happen again and again ad nauseum.


Ahh, i think im starting to see now. Havent read the entire thread, as most of it is the usual flame war ping pong, but Something happened. I dont know what it is but i suspect it has to do with some Sh3 to Sh4 ship mod conversion. Didnt really look at it or into it, only noticed it in passing.


So.. something happend there, that got KL all fired up. So now, much like the "church of silent hunter 4", there seems to be this holy crusade taking place as a backlash.

Im not going to play along. Theres only one real major ethic that ive abide by, and theres only one major ethic that i will continue to abide by.

NO PLAGURISM.

The rest of it is a whole lot of "pork". Now, i know KL is used to getting his way and bending people to his will, but im saying right out now, whatever comes out of this thread, i dont care. Im not changing myself just to accomidate one or two peoples agenda. Sorry, dont mean to be an ass, but when i feel others are trying to impose their will upon me, im as stubborn as a mule, with the temper of a badger.

Concerning the person you refer to... that was handled respectfully in private... and an agreement was reached. He was a new guy... and he was not raked over the coals. You are the one trying to make it a public issue and twist it to meet your wishes.

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

I don't understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with that.

Having a "screw everybody" attitude isn't helpful.

Having rules prevents this sort of crap... by providing a clarity that has never been present here before.

[JCWolf]

[quote]

The rest of it is a whole lot of "pork". Now, i know KL is used to getting his way and bending people to his will, but im saying right out now, whatever comes out of this thread, i dont care. Im not changing myself just to accomidate one or two peoples agenda. Sorry, dont mean to be an ass, but when i feel others are trying to impose their will upon me, im as stubborn as a mule, with the temper of a badger.


We know you 're not an Ass mate,
but I know Kpt.L for quite some time now and never in my all
course within the Gw and GWx I was bended to his will or ever saw him try
to force on any of us his thoughts or ideas...

I know you have a past issue with him but I think that is certanly not a nice thing
to say here just to throw more wood into the fier...

I have a great respect for you but I'm preaty sure I will loose it with atitudes like this mate...
I never saw the Kpt.L talking about you that way, you should be more Gentleman
and give the change in the same respectfull way bro..

:hmm:

[Ducimus]

Im sorry guys, but all i see in this thread now is two things:

Agenda and backlash.

Because:

It was the news that Cartorio was going to combine GWX and WAC and call it his own suppermod.

If this is the case, then why and repremand the rest of the community for it? One person does somethign bad, and now the rest of us have to hit a **** sandwich?

[JCWolf]

Cause it looks almost natural this days that someone uses others work without crediting or giving a Damn mate...

I don-t even like the idea of My work in GWX beeing used by Carotio,
as I didn't liked to see work that I never released that was not released
when we were building the GWX and all of a sudent I see work of mine
posted for download on some sites And discoverd that was posted by Mr. Donuts:)


:nope: I didn't liked it, and the idea of seeing my stuff used on the Carotios
Mods just makes me sick...

However I have no problem with you for example using some of my work if you do...

cause we know you, and we know what you are, and the respect is mutual...:hmm:

In part I have moved my stuff to my forum cause of this kind of guys...
And I love SSim...:shifty: :yep:

[KLARCH]

If someone gives you a free red Corvette, and you decide to have it repainted blue, the original owner has no say about it. This does not imply that EVERY freely given Corvette must be painted blue as well, nor should they have to stay red as initially given. Those in possesion of a Corvette must decide for themselves what color it should be.:yep:

[Ducimus]

Cause it looks almost natural this days that someone uses others work without crediting or giving a Damn mate...

I don-t even like the idea of My work in GWX beeing used by Carotio,
as I didn't liked to see work that I never released that was not released
when we were building the GWX and all of a sudent I see work of mine
posted for download on some sites And discoverd that was posted by Mr. Donuts:)


:nope: I didn't liked it, and the idea of seeing my stuff used on the Carotios
Mods just makes me sick...

However I have no problem with you for example using some of my work if you do...

cause we know you, and we know what you are, and the respect is mutual...:hmm:

In part I have moved my stuff to my forum cause of this kind of guys...
And I love SSim...:shifty: :yep:


:hmm:

Well, im gonna bow out of this one. I feel this is primarly a Carotio issue that doesn't concern me. But as ethics go, i still maintain the one rule. No plagurism. If your not citing your sources, or at the least, make it adamatly clear your not the orginal author, then your plagurising. Simple as that.

Right now, one of the beautiful things about modding for Sh4, is that everything is still relavitly new, so admittdily, this is a much stickier issue with SH3, having been around and modded for so long. At any rate, im gonna go back to minding my own buisness, this doesnt concern me.

[Hitman]

Ducimus,

This thread is not opened to set rules than conform to a MAJORITY but instead rules that conform to ALL. The fact that Carotio and some others jump in at the slightest opportunity to continue their personal discussion should not obscure a good proposal.

You have said your main rule is "No plaguiarism". That's already something you have in common with others. The purpose of the topic is agreeing in some ethics that all of you consider worth respecting. It could well serve as a guide for new modders and orientation for veteran ones, nothing else.

[JScones]

And in teme ethics:
That I should think when have seen it:
Add Dornier Do.24 searchplanes/bombers (thanks JScones)
Link: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111353
As I remember - it's my plane, and I saw that it plane JScones!!!!!
What do I deal with it fact? It is not so simple inclusion of my unit in mod, it already its giving to itself.
May be any talk me - that I should think when have seen it?
Just to clarify, I have NEVER claimed the Do.24 as mine (although for the record I think it is a *great* plane). My actual comment was "Another nice Dutch addition would be the Dornier Do.24. That does exist as a mod in SH3 and I'm sure could be ported over.". In other words, all I was doing was bringing its existance to the "Royal Netherlands Navy" mod creator, for the obvious reason that the Do.24 was a Dutch plane!

It would be up to him to secure approval from the original developer, ie you, before adding to his mod (ie through reading the readme file and contacting you as per your instructions).

[JScones]

So let me state now, that I, as a contributing modder to GWX, do NOT GRANT YOU PERMISSION to use my creations in your "supermod". Let's see how you maintain credibility (LOL!) if you ignore that.
It just shows how selfish this GWX team is!
This team would like to use other people's mods, but refuse the use of their mods inside other mod packs! So JScones, does this apply to me only or everyone in general?
Just to you Carotio. In much the same way that I refused use of my work to combatplanes (regularly misquoted as X1). Or are you saying that because I refused combatplanes permission to use SH3Cmdr (for payment mind you) that I should refuse its use to everyone? If so, consider it done! And I'll give you FULL credit for that!

But tell me, will you be stealing my work anyway? Answer that. Oh, you did, same thread:

I'll use YOUR mods anyway, so you can start the boycut announcements in your own private forum: subsim! GWX dev team allready owns that place, so go play over there!
Hmmm. :hmm: And you wonder why it is only ever you that attracts the "attention" from people? :hmm:

Various people have "claimed" GWX files as theirs. I'm sure people have also claimed parts of RUb, or NYGM, or WAC as theirs too. Simple fact is, if we asked twenty people here to tell us when, say, 7 Flotilla started operations, all twenty would go straight to uboat.net and come back with the same answer. Why? Because history is static - it can't be changed. So just because one mod has an IX with 22 torpedos and another mod comes along with the same, it doesn't give anyone the right to accuse the second mod of "mod theft" on that basis alone.
So if someone else does a mod, which is similar to yours or anybody elses work, it's okay, given that it's based on historical facts!?
Interesting!
:rotfl: You make me laugh. I mean, is that what you think I wrote?

I am saying that claiming theft on the basis of some same values alone is wrong. However, if file stamps are the same (as I found with a recent, unrelated and uncredited release), or other telltale contents (like watermarks or fingerprints in dat/image files) exist then no, it's not OK.

My preference is to contact them as per their preferred channel outlined in their readme file. I always state my wishes in the affirmative. In other words, "We're planning on adding this to GWX, with full credit to you of course, pls let me know if that is not acceptable". If this is done via the modder's preferred interaction channel, then I have no problem using the mod if they do not respond. I must admit though, that every such email or PM I have sent has been responded to with a positive "go for it!".
So you admit also that if you would get no answer, you would use it anyway also! Hmmm.... interesting!
Actually, I've NEVER had no answer - as I posted - so have never had to worry about it. Although, if a modder's readme states "Email me at <address> if questions or problems", then that's what I do. If they did not respond, then I'd try PM, or a forum post. If still no response, then I'd use it, with full credits. But for me this is moot because it's never happened where I've used a mod without written approval from the modder. In some instances, as a few modders here will attest, I have asked twice or more, simply because I couldn't find record of prior approval given.

Some of us, dear Carotio, have ethics.

- My supporters rarely write supporting posts here at subsim, they use PMs or mails!
Wonder why. ;)

BTW Carotio, I love reading your posts. You are such an fun guy to argue against with your out of context word twisting. Thanks for the laughs mate. :up:

Oh, and I'm eager to see how you twist my words around this time - I love it! :rock:

Anyway, back on topic...

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.

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.

[mr chris]

Well what a thread how have i missed this for so long?
Well its most likely best really as i would have been flung out of here faster than a speeding bullet.

I agree with what has been said by many here though the does need to be some sort of honour or code with which the modders to use. I for one hope it will if set up and used do away with some of the cowboys that have been spotted around here in recent times.

[ReallyDedPoet]

For the record I don't mod, but that may change soon. The more you play SH3 and now SH4, you kind of go in the direction of wanting to make the experience the best it can be.

From the time I have been here, June of 2006 ( shadowed the site for a time before that ) for the most part there has been a lot of respect between modders, lots of positive discussion\sharing in an effort to make the gameplay experience a better one.

Those that have not given proper credit or none at all are in the minority, we have to be careful here not to paint all the others with the same brush.

There are a lot of new modders since the arrival of SH4 ( and GWX as well ), some very good ones at that, a few have made mistakes but they are learning the so called unofficial code ( giving proper credit, asking permission ) Hopefully talk like this does not discourage them or new modders from coming onto the scene.

Every single member here started as Bilge Rats, we all had to start out and learn
the ropes, lets not forget that.

RDP

[Chock]

Six pages so far and still going, but no end in sight yet. One thing that does prove beyond doubt is that it is an issue people are bothered about. With that in mind, let's try and unstick this jam and get moving...

First some points before I get to my suggestion:

I do think it's a little unfair to accuse people of having an agenda when all they are trying to do is set up some guidelines, I've stated my qualms about the thorny issue of copyright with regard to that early on, so I'm not going to rehash that here, as 'modding etiquette' is the real issue this thread is attempting to resolve.

Even if someone does have 'an agenda', the fact that this is a forum thread means that there is nothing stopping anyone from putting forward their 'agenda' too. You've got to be in it to win it, as they say, and a refusal to participate in thrashing something out is like complaining about a political party getting in when you couldn't be arsed to vote!

One or two modders, have clearly stepped on a few toes, but I think even some of the more contentious will admit that on occasion they've not exactly gone out of their way to placate people.

Others too, have pointed out things that have burned them a little bit, and while this might be regarded as unfinished business, nothing can change what has occurred in the past, so we could perhaps prevent it from happening in the future by getting on with at least agreeing on a declaration of intent.

So, my suggestion is, a vote; such a vote could list the varying working methodologies of people, and it would seem to be a fair way of determining the way forward which most people approve of, since it would be different from any one person writing out a list and thus opening themselves up to accusations of being 'power mad' etc.

I didn't start this thread, and since I am not one of the major modders of sub sims, I'll leave it to everyone else to say whether they think this is a good idea, but just to get you rolling, here's a sample of how such a vote might be set up, and the various choices one might include:

Do you think it's okay to use people's mods without permission?

Do you think it's most definitely not okay to use people's mods without permission?

Do you think that a credit in the read me file is necessary?

Do you think that a credit in the read me file is not necessary?

Do you think that a link to any original mod you've used, should be in the read me file?

If there is no means of contact to the author of a mod you wish to use, do you think it is okay to proceed?

If there is no means of contact to the author of a mod you wish to use, do you think you should not use it?

I'm sure others can think of options that might be an idea to include in such a vote, and to prevent everyone from putting themselves forward to set up such a vote, and thus open up partisan accusations again, I think that either Neal, or one of the moderators should be asked to set up such a vote.

Clearly some people have been offended, and some people have said perhaps more than they should have, but we are not children and to leave something like this unresolved, or descending into personal attacks, is harmful to what I regard as one of the best online communities there is.

Chock :D

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I will respond in more detail after I get some sleep. Just arrived home.

I do not think that a "vote" is useful in this case. Clearly there is more than one non-modder out there with an axe to grind. Seriously, speaking for GWX... we've made enemies simply for not jumping when some joe wants us to jump.

I think voting on common sense issues that should be decided on by forum owners, moderators, and modders can be too easily skewed to the dark and lazy side.

To take this one step further... why make a set of rules without recourse against people who willfully and repeatedly disregard them. Recourse would only be taken if action isn't taken by the offender to correct the matter.

Really, we're not talking about throwing people into a dungeon... just suspend them, or boot 'em off of the forum after X-ammount of offenses... or failure to address the issue.

Furthermore, a vote would just drag this out longer than it has to be.

It seems to me that maybe the only persons who have anything to worry about may be bitching the loudest.

The idea of producing a basic set of rules, ethics, and a couple of consequences isn't as hard as some would like to make it.

Following the emplacement of the same... its not like the issue will come up every five minutes.

Seriously, this is not a civil rights issue or an execution.

[Hitman]

we're not talking about throwing people into a dungeon... just suspend them, or boot 'em off of the forum after X-ammount of offenses... or failure to address the issue

Wait a moment. I never understood it like that:nope: The power to suspend, ban and such is exclusively from Neal, and I doubt very much that he would be willing to go that route (Though you are wellcome to ask him).

Subsim is not a court to make trials about modding issues and corresponding public punishments. To make such decissions -which are beyond the scope of this forums- would requiere a procedure for verifying what happened, who did what, and such. None of us has the time to do it, and obviously none of the modders involved or who have some link to the modding world would be impartial enough.

I applaude and will help the creation of a modders ethics code that everyone can know and follow, and that holds rules which eveyone agrees to. But I will never consider appropiate to enforce that code as a subsim "law". It should suffice that modders who consider themselves offended by actions of another modder point to that code and found their claim on it. Complicated matters like abandoned mods (For mods created after the rules were made public) could very well be solved through that if there is unanimous acceptance of rules. But using those rules as "law code", subsim as a "court", and suspension or banning as "punishments" look to me something entirely unrelated to the very nature of this forums.:down:

RE the vote: I do not think that modding ethics shall be adopted via majorities. I believe there is enough consensus in certain things to allow unanimity. Any rules not adopted unanimously are IMO not appropiate in an ethics code.:88)

[jimmie]

Why don't you people consider using some of major licenses for software such as BSD, MIT, GPL, and etc?

Mod work has many similality to open source software. Stuff like versioning scheme could also take advantage from software development world's convention. Mega mod team could even use SVN, trac and etc, then downloading particular version or even branching (i.e. branched by different philosophy) would be possible.

Using real world customs will educate people (who're not in software development world), too.

[Chock]

All I'm suggesting is that since this thread has already run to several pages without a concensus, there needs to be something to break that deadlock in which all concerned can have a say.

There is no such thing as 'ethics' per se, it's not a natural human trait, it's a concept based on a conditioned response, the dictionary defines it as: 'the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group'.

So if we were to state a range of principles from all parties, and everyone could pick the ones they are in agreement with, an agreed 'code' could be reached, and a simple sticky up at the top of the modding forums could list what the majority feel to be right.

Anyone who regards themselves as in the majority should not be concerned about such a matter. And anyone who didn't want to follow those rules could do so if they wished, but know that it would meet with disapproval from most people. Ergo, end of argument and end of endless discussions going round and around..

[Hitman]

So if we were to state a range of principles from all parties, and everyone could pick the ones they are in agreement with, an agreed 'code' could be reached, and a simple sticky up at the top of the modding forums could list what the majority feel to be right.

Anyone who regards themselves as in the majority should not be concerned about such a matter. And anyone who didn't want to follow those rules could do so if they wished, but know that it would meet with disapproval from most people. Ergo, end of argument and end of endless discussions going round and around..

Since that is what I'm saying already from the start, I obviously agree with it :up: :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Anyone who regards themselves as in the majority should not be concerned about such a matter. And anyone who didn't want to follow those rules could do so if they wished, but know that it would meet with disapproval from most people. Ergo, end of argument and end of endless discussions going round and around..

That's one of the fundamental points of this whole debate :yep:

We already know what the majority think/believe......:yep:
There is an obvious element who do not want to abide by this consensus of opinion.....:nope:

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY....those that are in the majority ARE CONCERNED!! :arrgh!:

Let me put it another way....my job in the UK is law enforcement. If someone is the victim of a theft whether the stolen goods are of a material or intellectual form then I think it is safe to assume that those people who make up what is called society, who are law abiding citizens, will definitely be 'the majority'
The victim of the theft obviously will be included within said 'majority'
Do you not think that said victim would or should be concerned ? :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Ultimately, what is wanted by the modding community? Recognition for work done? Not taking work from others and painting in a different color and calling it their own? If these are the things the MODDERS CODE OF ETHICS would look to handle, how does one enforce it? I can not see any valid way to do so. How would one who creates a mod thinking it is new find out that it has been done before thus creating a spark that potentially starts a fire?

I believe we have to hope others do not take and make someone elses work their own. To do so, is morally incorrect but then again, morals are like flatuance in the wind. When someone looks to gain notoriety or financial gain, it is no hole barred. So, I ask, without being the school hall safety patrol, how to enforce and look after this eithics code?

[Jimbuna]

So, I ask, without being the school hall safety patrol, how to enforce and look after this eithics code?

You could suspend or even ban the individual (depending on the severity of the offence)...It's been done on here before :yep:

[bigboywooly]

There may be no sensible way to enforce it but it wouldnt hurt to have a set of agreed principles we can all abide by
Especially helpfull for new modders

Wouldnt go amiss in the SH4 forum as well

[Hitman]

Jim,

Look at my previous post (#114 in this thread): Subsim forum moderation powers are IMO not meant to be used as tools for enforcing modder rules.:nope:

[bigboywooly]

Agreed
So lets just draw up a list of agreed ideas and move along

[Dowly]

Look at my previous post (#114 in this thread): Subsim forum moderation powers are IMO not meant to be used as tools for enforcing modder rules.:nope:

And like Jimbuna said, it has been done before. ;)

[Takeda Shingen]

Look at my previous post (#114 in this thread): Subsim forum moderation powers are IMO not meant to be used as tools for enforcing modder rules.:nope:

And like Jimbuna said, it has been done before. ;)

Yes, but in an exceptional circumstance. I strongly feel that it should never become standard policy. This is dangerous to future mod development, and community stability, and would, as such, be contrary to the aims of this set of rules.

[CCIP]

Look at my previous post (#114 in this thread): Subsim forum moderation powers are IMO not meant to be used as tools for enforcing modder rules.:nope:
And like Jimbuna said, it has been done before. ;)

That's not to say, of course, that there's no overlap between basic forum behaviour rules and modding ethics. Or the fact that someone caught doing something that goes against all possible sorts of ethics shouldn't be disciplined. :hmm:

[Spytrx]

Really, we're not talking about throwing people into a dungeon... just suspend them, or boot 'em off of the forum after X-ammount of offenses... or failure to address the issue.
There we have it - the wolf finally showed his colours...


Look mate - you can create all your rules, make an ethics thread and whatever game you want to play - the point is:

People don't have to log on to view anything they like here - do you really think that somebody like me goes through the trouble and asking questions in order to learn something (and mostly get fopped off) comes along to steal your precious little mod? What would I want with it? I have my own ideas how to play the game and there is nothing that your mod offers me. Hell, I almost like it as little as I like the way you (and your posse) talk down on people. The only reason I got involved in this discussion (even with constructive suggestion but you were to busy shooting people down to notice that some of your opponents actually try to get this over with) is simply because I am fed up with meeting people like you everywhere I go that like to take charge and rule over other people. Read the first sentence again - this is a public, open forum! People don't even have to log on to see the threads and can take what they like!

Get real - you think that those people you want to protect yourself against even bother to read your rules and ethics? Even if they did, they just smile and do it for the heck of it. I like to wager that some of those are now inspired to go and get a piece of the code before it goes underground - and that is where you should put it if you want to protect it.

Those modders with morals and ethics don't need a set of rules - and those that do won't bother with them. Look at MS (a company I worked for for many, many years). They spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to protect their work - with little result. The more they try, the more of a target they have become...

You know, some people see the copying of their work as flattery - everybody knows who is behind GWX (there isn't a single forum where your mod isn't discussed and praised, and believe me, I tried to find one) and most of the other big Mods, and most forums are crediting you for passing on a link to your sites alone - you won't see them stealing your work. Those that actively participate aren't the thread here - it's those lurking in the background that you want to get and they laugh themselves silly how we dig into each other instead of trying to live (and work) with one another. I am all for talks - where people talk and compromise that is, not where individuals are attacked by passers by that don't have anything else to contribute but to throw flamables onto the fire...


Seriously, this is not a civil rights issue or an execution. it is actually - since you are suggesting to suspend my right to say what I think (and others like me) and are guilty of character execution!

You can get away with calling me a leech (though I shared on this forum just the same), calling me a noob (your kind is at home at nearly all the forums these days so we get used to it), ridiculing me for my critique (some people just can't accept that their work isn't loved by everyone) and verbally abuse me ('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip) - but I'd be damned if I let you come along and stand by as you (or anybody else) demand that my freedom to speak my mind is taken away! You need to wake up and smell the roses, friend - you are in the real world here, not in your game where you throw around commands and can get rid of anybody that thinks different or suspend their rights and liberties. Last I checked this was a public forum - I suggest you go and make your own little place where you can have all your friends around you and nobody that thinks differently...

And stop seeing this as a personal vendetta of mine - I don't even know you!

[Hitman]

And like Jimbuna said, it has been done before. ;)

Not by me:stare: I am not willing to use moderator privileges for such things (And only Neal can change that policy), and whatever happened in the past, remains in the past. In the latest times, this forum has been a mature, calm and enjoyable place though I know it wasn't so many times in the past. I wellcomed the discussion about a voluntary ethics code, I did not wellcome personal attacks or attempts to solve old personal disputes publically, and I will not wellcome suggestions to use moderator powers to enforce matters that IMO are not to be settled by the forum staff. Whatever pending disputes there are from the past between some people here, don't count on me to settle them by giving ammunition to one of the sides implicated.

Unless Neal tells me otherwise, that will be my policy as moderator of this forum.

As bigboywooly said, moving along and extracting something positive is the best thing.

[CCIP]

Right, and I thought we learned something from previous conflicts. As you might recall, Neal and moderators did get involved in various mod conflicts, but not as enforcers [of anything but forum policy], rather just to help talk through the issues and try to settle things out. In extreme cases, it was the higher-level administration (usually the Onkel himself) would only take action. Let's not take the exceptions as precedent for a policy though.

Likewise, I don't believe in enforcement of codes like this. What's more, I don't believe in a permission-based modding culture, so I have no intention to be involved in creating or supporting one.

[bigboywooly]

('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip) !

:nope:

[Spytrx]

('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip) !
:nope:
I'd appreciat if you quote me in context:
and verbally abuse me ('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip)
sounds completely different now, doesn't it? Course you can stand there and judge, but when it comes to it things are different (I like to see you being called names and being slandered and have annonymous posts made on your web blog threatening to get you off this board) - some are just more open about it... ;)

And overall has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, just a hint that verbal abuse is actually against the rules... Though it proves my point that the real points raised by certain individuals are ignored for the one bit that can be twisted against them. Thank you for that...

[bigboywooly]

I believe which ever way you quote it its a personal threat

Mind you it wont be you that gets a kicking for posting it but someone else

:roll:

[Penelope_Grey]

Violence is not the answer Spytrx. Why threaten it in response to verbal abuse? I have been called dreadful names but not hit people for it. You start typing things like that, people will see you as a thug with a keyboard, then your points of view will lose all cred.

[Safe-Keeper]

it is actually - since you are suggesting to suspend my right to say what I think (and others like me) and are guilty of character execution!No country's constitution protects your right to express yourself in privately owned Internet forums.

I really would not mind if people were kicked from the forum or otherwise disiplined for using work without permission. It is, even if people do not realize it, a rather serious no-no. Ultimately, of course, this is up to Neal to decide, and I can do no more than voice my opinion.

I'd appreciat if you quote me in context [...] sounds completely different now, doesn't it?...no:shifty:.

[Spytrx]

Violence is not the answer Spytrx. Why threaten it in response to verbal abuse? I have been called dreadful names but not hit people for it. You start typing things like that, people will see you as a thug with a keyboard, then your points of view will lose all cred. Who has threatened?
I said that these people that use the kind of language wouldn't dare do it if they were to discuss these things face to face with me. I meant that people feel save behind their screen and just dig into people because they feel safe - something they wouldn't do in r/l (heck, I am German trying to construct a sentence in a foreign language here - try reading it as it is without reading things into it?)

I do not believe in violence - I teach Aikido and Ju-Jitsu and would condemn any act of unprovoked attack on a weaker person or just to get a point across not only by my students.

If you read the sentence it should tell you that I put up with the verbal stuff because I know they wouldn't do it to my face (just behind the screen where they are safe)


But again - thank you all for ignoring the valuable stuff and just going for someting lost in translation and reading things into stuff...

Why don't you just tell me (and the others that have a different view) to buzz off


and who was talking about any country's constitution?? Where do you get this stuff from???
I am talking about my individual rights as a member of this board - as long as I follow the rules I have the right to stand my point of view - or are you denying me that? :)


Funny thing that - all the people with GWX in their signature are out to shoot a me... :)

[Dowly]

I actually though, that this thread had calmed down, but noooooo, Mr. Spit**** here just had to open his mouth. :shifty:

Funny thing that - all the people with GWX in their signature are out to shoot a me...

Who the **** you though there would be to talk for the GWX team!? A ****ING SANTA CLAUS!?

[Spytrx]

I actually though, that this thread had calmed down, but noooooo, Mr. Spit**** here just had to open his mouth. :shifty:
I appreciate your constant sniping without any real input from you - thanks for your contribution - I hope you feel real good about yourself now. I particularly like the racist remark - has real class and shows character...

[bigboywooly]

What racist remark ?
I dont see one

[Dowly]

I actually though, that this thread had calmed down, but noooooo, Mr. Spit**** here just had to open his mouth. :shifty:
I appreciate your constant sniping without any real input from you - thanks for your contribution - I hope you feel real good about yourself now. I particularly like the racist remark - has real class and shows character...
Yeh, I feel damn good for knowing that no matter how low I go, there's always someone below me.

What racist remark ?
I dont see one
Me neither. :roll:

Oh and what comes to the contribution side, your first post to this thread (the 2nd post of the thread) was off topic and had nothing to do with this thread.

[Penelope_Grey]

Who has threatened?
You did, when you mentioned putting someone on a drip if they said what they have here to your face.

Funny thing that - all the people with GWX in their signature are out to shoot a me... :)
Im not shooting at you, I just felt that the remark about putting people if they insulted you to your face on a drip was very overdone, and uncalled for in any circumstance, if someone calls you a name you clal them one back, you don't beat them up.

Also, the bringing in of violence to your message does in my view counteract the effectiveness of your points a bit.

[Ducimus]

Whats an anurism feel like anyway? I think i just got one.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

First off, i dont think its resonable to force a multinational crowd of people to conform to some arbitary list of "ethics or morals". Its tantamount to ramrodding down someones throat, and im not down with that at all. And newsflash, not everyone beleives the same thing that you, I, or another person might beleive! Some people, just don't give a **** for what you feel is ethical or not.

If you must hatch up this arbitary ruleset, for christ sakes keep it simple.

Post a damn permissions in your readme (you may, or may not), honor the permissions you find in a readme, and don't plagurise, how hard is that? Anything beyond that, is just one big slippery slope.

[AVGWarhawk]

So, I ask, without being the school hall safety patrol, how to enforce and look after this eithics code?

You could suspend or even ban the individual (depending on the severity of the offence)...It's been done on here before :yep:

Ultimately this would lay with Neal. Now, this "Code of Modding Ethics", should it be drawn up and left as a sticky in the mod forums? A sticky that will not let responses be made in the postive or negative? This code can not certainly by made up as we go along and interpret things to our liking. What is to go in the code?

My fear here is to what ownership to we attach the modification to the Moddie? Is there a list somewhere? Is a list needed? Perhaps the code just simply states, please acknowlege any work done on this current modification to the original author, I'm just improving the modification or altering the original to fit a different situation? I'm not precisely positive on how one would go about keeping a record of such thing.

As far as GWX, I believe there are 10 pages of acknowledgement for all involved. That is comprehensive in my view. I do not believe other modders should be making new mods with the foundation of GWX, RUB, and the other major modifications as the spring board without acknowlegement and the stamp of approval from the authors of these major mods. The guys spend numerous hours of their time and have a vested interest in keeping the integrity of their creations. So, yes, I believe a code should be set. If there is gross negligence or flagarant disregard for the original authors, then steps should be taken. In all reality, how hard is it for one building on others work to take a minute or two to ask for permission and acknowledge their names in the new mod? Not much at all. We only hope others who decide to build on ask first and build later when permission is granted.

Ok, I spoke my piece.

[Onkel Neal]

Let's keep the personal remarks out of this discussion, please. The topic is modding ethics. Why don't we discuss that without pointing fingers or making examples.

I doubt there's any way to enforce a set of mod guidelines, it seems to rely on the honor system. Except in the most egregious cases, Subsim is not going to try to referee disagreements or or prescribe punitive measures. You have to work these things out with the parties involved.



This is not a thread to discuss the why's or wherefore's of the issue raised in the, now locked, thread but to rather find some agreement between all of us as to how any modder should proceed if he/she wish to produce a mod.


That is exactly what we should use this thread for. Now, take a breath and resume this discussion but keep it civil.

Neal

[AVGWarhawk]

If you must hatch up this arbitary ruleset, for christ sakes keep it simple.

Post a damn permissions in your readme (you may, or may not), honor the permissions you find in a readme, and don't plagurise, how hard is that? Anything beyond that, is just one big slippery slope.


Exactly, a simple statment asking that permission be granted to tool around with anothers creation. Please state in the read me who has done what. Nothing more and nothing less. For those parties who feel their creation has been sniped, then these parties must come to an agreement. That agreement would simply state who has done what in the read me.

[Spytrx]

Post a damn permissions in your readme (you may, or may not), honor the permissions you find in a readme, and don't plagurise, how hard is that?

thank you - I can live with and obide that...

[Ducimus]

If you must hatch up this arbitary ruleset, for christ sakes keep it simple.

Post a damn permissions in your readme (you may, or may not), honor the permissions you find in a readme, and don't plagurise, how hard is that? Anything beyond that, is just one big slippery slope.


Exactly, a simple statment asking that permission be granted to tool around with anothers creation.


Just to clarify, some example "permission Satements:

Example 1:

Permissions:
"You may use any porition of this mod, provided you cite your source and credit the orginal work"

Example 2:

Permissions:
"You may NOT use any porition of this mod, without my expressed permission"

Find a mod you like? Check the readme, what does it say? Its kind of hard to subvert that because its right there in black and white. It puts the responsbility of protection upon the modder, and doesnt ramrod this list of ethics down the communiitys throat that sound alot like directions for the holy hand grenade of antioch.

[Safe-Keeper]

and who was talking about any country's constitution??'Freedom of speech' is a pretty constitutional term.

I am talking about my individual rights as a member of this board - as long as I follow the rules I have the right to stand my point of viewNo, actually, you don't. Neal can kick you out for putting the letter 'S' in your user-name if he so wishes. This is a privately owned forum.

As for your valuable stuff:
It's a valid point. Rules to agree upon by signing up, as well as Sticky threads with exclamation marks in their title and dangerous-looking icons both tend to be ignored by certain people. If I decided to rip off GWX's new damage model, rules on the forum wouldn't stop me.

I still want them, though, because some people will follow them, instead of the no people who will follow the rules if they aren't there.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Wow, GWX conspiracy theories, anuerisms, and personal threats.

Whatever.

Anyone who thinks I'm having fun here needs their head examined IMHO... and I feel that anyone bringing up the matters that are intended to be discussed here was doomed to get a little mud on their face.

I view this thread as a long overdue effort to simply clear a minefield that has been danced around long enough.

Personal freedoms should not extend to the point where they are chopping off someone else's nose.

Rules, will promote good modding and/or crediting... not slow it down or damage it.

Rules without some sort of recourse are pointless.

Rules placed clearly and prominently in the modding forum here and in the SH4 modding forum will reduce problems... not increase them. Suspension and/or banning would naturally be reserved only for the worst examples. That much has already been done here.

[Addenda: I think any suspensions or bannings would remain and/or be a quite infrequent event. The threat of suspension or banning should be there though for flagrant violations.]

[JCWolf]

Really, we're not talking about throwing people into a dungeon... just suspend them, or boot 'em off of the forum after X-ammount of offenses... or failure to address the issue.
There we have it - the wolf finally showed his colours...


Look mate - you can create all your rules, make an ethics thread and whatever game you want to play - the point is:

People don't have to log on to view anything they like here - do you really think that somebody like me goes through the trouble and asking questions in order to learn something (and mostly get fopped off) comes along to steal your precious little mod? What would I want with it? I have my own ideas how to play the game and there is nothing that your mod offers me. Hell, I almost like it as little as I like the way you (and your posse) talk down on people. The only reason I got involved in this discussion (even with constructive suggestion but you were to busy shooting people down to notice that some of your opponents actually try to get this over with) is simply because I am fed up with meeting people like you everywhere I go that like to take charge and rule over other people. Read the first sentence again - this is a public, open forum! People don't even have to log on to see the threads and can take what they like!

Get real - you think that those people you want to protect yourself against even bother to read your rules and ethics? Even if they did, they just smile and do it for the heck of it. I like to wager that some of those are now inspired to go and get a piece of the code before it goes underground - and that is where you should put it if you want to protect it.

Those modders with morals and ethics don't need a set of rules - and those that do won't bother with them. Look at MS (a company I worked for for many, many years). They spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to protect their work - with little result. The more they try, the more of a target they have become...

You know, some people see the copying of their work as flattery - everybody knows who is behind GWX (there isn't a single forum where your mod isn't discussed and praised, and believe me, I tried to find one) and most of the other big Mods, and most forums are crediting you for passing on a link to your sites alone - you won't see them stealing your work. Those that actively participate aren't the thread here - it's those lurking in the background that you want to get and they laugh themselves silly how we dig into each other instead of trying to live (and work) with one another. I am all for talks - where people talk and compromise that is, not where individuals are attacked by passers by that don't have anything else to contribute but to throw flamables onto the fire...


Seriously, this is not a civil rights issue or an execution. it is actually - since you are suggesting to suspend my right to say what I think (and others like me) and are guilty of character execution!

You can get away with calling me a leech (though I shared on this forum just the same), calling me a noob (your kind is at home at nearly all the forums these days so we get used to it), ridiculing me for my critique (some people just can't accept that their work isn't loved by everyone) and verbally abuse me ('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip) - but I'd be damned if I let you come along and stand by as you (or anybody else) demand that my freedom to speak my mind is taken away! You need to wake up and smell the roses, friend - you are in the real world here, not in your game where you throw around commands and can get rid of anybody that thinks different or suspend their rights and liberties. Last I checked this was a public forum - I suggest you go and make your own little place where you can have all your friends around you and nobody that thinks differently...

And stop seeing this as a personal vendetta of mine - I don't even know you!

:nope: :nope:

('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip) !
:nope:
I'd appreciat if you quote me in context:
and verbally abuse me ('cause I know you wouldn't do it to my face without ending up on a drip)
sounds completely different now, doesn't it? Course you can stand there and judge, but when it comes to it things are different (I like to see you being called names and being slandered and have annonymous posts made on your web blog threatening to get you off this board) - some are just more open about it... ;)

And overall has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, just a hint that verbal abuse is actually against the rules... Though it proves my point that the real points raised by certain individuals are ignored for the one bit that can be twisted against them. Thank you for that...

:nope: :nope: :huh:

[JCWolf]

Violence is not the answer Spytrx. Why threaten it in response to verbal abuse? I have been called dreadful names but not hit people for it. You start typing things like that, people will see you as a thug with a keyboard, then your points of view will lose all cred.

I said that these people that use the kind of language wouldn't dare do it if they were to discuss these things face to face with me. I meant that people feel save behind their screen and just dig into people because they feel safe


oops:-? :cry:

Now I am really afreid man...

I even think I would not be able to sleep....:dead: :roll:

But I guess I'm safe that I am behind the screen ...:hmm: :shifty:

You know something, some times I wishe I was closer to some of the guys
we meet over the net, just to get some good old fashion fight and clarify
some ideas...:arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

If you must hatch up this arbitary ruleset, for christ sakes keep it simple.

Post a damn permissions in your readme (you may, or may not), honor the permissions you find in a readme, and don't plagurise, how hard is that? Anything beyond that, is just one big slippery slope.


Exactly, a simple statment asking that permission be granted to tool around with anothers creation.


Just to clarify, some example "permission Satements:

Example 1:

Permissions:
"You may use any porition of this mod, provided you cite your source and credit the orginal work"

Example 2:

Permissions:
"You may NOT use any porition of this mod, without my expressed permission"

Find a mod you like? Check the readme, what does it say? Its kind of hard to subvert that because its right there in black and white. It puts the responsbility of protection upon the modder, and doesnt ramrod this list of ethics down the communiitys throat that sound alot like directions for the holy hand grenade of antioch.


Above and beyond some other posts here, it simply boils down to the honor system. Although we all know some do not honor the honor system, these are the folks that have to live with themselves in the end. In essence, I do not see a way to police this at all. One must understand that the mods are created for all to use. The modders created them in good faith that these will be used free of charge as posted (freeware). This person must know that the mods will be tweeked and edited to the users liking. So, if the new mod is put up as someone elses personal work and it is not, then this person, when proved lifting a mod, becomes suspect to all his dealings thereafter. Again, if there is a problem, the two involved should work it out via email or PM.

[Ducimus]

Well, if you want to boil the fat away, i dont know how you can realistically expect to enforce any set of rules. If anything what i suggested is much easier to enforce then the holy handgrenade suggestion. Seriously , Did thoust ask? Did thout send an email, did thoust wait 90 days? etc etc etc etc.

But your right, no matter what system his hodged podged out of this, it will always boil down to the honor system.

Again, if there is a problem, the two involved should work it out via email or PM.

If thats the case, why is this thread here? Seems to me its orginated from a private matter, and is just chasing its own tail. Regardless if some rules or "ethics" come out of this to be imposed, i honestly dont expect anything around here to change one much, if at all. How many real incidents have existed on subim? Im only aware of 3. Its not like making some arbitary rules is going to change anything.

I know one thing, if i have to constantly worry about "intellecutal copyright" issues, like some mod gestapo is looking over my shoulder, ill quit. Its just not worth the headache or drama.

[AVGWarhawk]

OK ladies and gentlemen, I have 8 pages of thread basically going no place and fast....I have read the thread over and a central theme is making itself present. It looks like this theme has gone on for years. This theme looks to contain less than a handful of people who wish to air out past indifferences. The people know who I'm talking about. I do not believe these indifferences will be cleared up in this thread nor any to follow.

Basically, these created mods are set up as freeware. The copywrite is implied but not enforcable. It can not be enforced as far as I can see, this includes enforcable by local, state or international law. All that is asked is anyone swiping all or bits and pieces need to recognize the originator. For those that do, excellent and a fine upstanding member of modding community. For you will gain respect from the modders and the community in general. For those that do not, can live with themselve knowing they are only kidding themselves and probably do with other things in their lives. For those that look to uphold an ethic, bear in mind some will swipe your creations and put it out there like it is their own. It is just the nature of the beast.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, if you want to boil the fat away, i dont know how you can realistically expect to enforce any set of rules. If anything what i suggested is much easier to enforce then the holy handgrenade suggestion. Seriously , Did thoust ask? Did thout send an email, did thoust wait 90 days? etc etc etc etc.

But your right, no matter what system his hodged podged out of this, it will always boil down to the honor system.

Again, if there is a problem, the two involved should work it out via email or PM.

If thats the case, why is this thread here? Seems to me its orginated from a private matter, and is just chasing its own tail. Regardless if some rules or "ethics" come out of this to be imposed, i honestly dont expect anything around here to change one much, if at all. How many real incidents have existed on subim? Im only aware of 3. Its not like making some arbitary rules is going to change anything.

I know one thing, if i have to constantly worry about "intellecutal copyright" issues, like some mod gestapo is looking over my shoulder, ill quit. Its just not worth the headache or drama.


And to this from Ducimus who I hold in high regard and happen to agree with him close this thread. It is looking to be a personal matter as I stated as a central theme in the thread.

Please all read my post prior to this.