: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.

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.

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).

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:

Hmmm. :hmm: And you wonder why it is only ever you that attracts the "attention" from people? :hmm:

: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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..

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

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:

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?

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