Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

At some point soon, all the suggested guidelines will be gathered up with the intent to generate a poll... with "agree" or "disagree" assigned to each.

It will not be a cure-all.

It will not cover every conceivable circumstance or "grey area."

... and it will not proclaim guilt or innocence to anyone regarding past conversations and events.

It will be democratic.

There is enough blame to go 'round for every one of us... for something somewhere.

We can all become better people than we are.

[Hitman]

I have been deliberately letting things go on for a while despite the tendency to off-topic that was to be expected, because I wanted that everyone had not only a chance to make contributions, but also to portrait himself accurately in front of the rest. It has happened now enough, and it is time to draw conclussions, not only from what has been said, but also from what has not been said. :hmm:

My main conclussions as external and impartial observer are:

1.- ALL modders have to a certain extent one or two rules of thumb when they make public their work. Nobody yet is a complete anarchist in that regard.

2.- ALL modders don't like too much to see their work degradated

I have a great amount of respect for the work of all who have participated in this thread, but it is sad to see that it has been turned into a Kindergarten as soon as the moderators have let the discussion go on openly.

Now some will not like what I'm going to say now, but here it goes:

The GWX team has been obviously offended sometimes in the past by attitudes and practices from other modders that were far from respectful in courtesy terms. As soon as I saw the original thread by Kpt. Lehman start, I tried to steer the thread towards somethingpositive: A wellcomed set of minimum rules for everyone and from everyone.

But the flow of the conversation has proved to me that a part (not all) of the rules that have been proposed later were tailored specifically against certain person's behaviours. Which is not strange, since those behaviours have been the cause of much anger (Rightfully or not is something I'm not going into). In turn, other people's posts have been clearly made not against the GWX guys proposals -which would have been the logic and correct thing to do- but instead against the GWX guys themselves. And of course, rules have been proposed to ensure that certain actions would now become clearly legitimated if adopted.

I have said it many times already, but I will now repeat it with other words, just to see if the message is correctly received: Subsim.com will NOT go on a witch hunt among moderators. And it is not letting anyone down by doing son.

It is more than obvious that the arrival of SH4 and the shift of public interest to it, plus the arrival of new blood has produced big changes in the community. I saw that when SH2 appeared (BTW I was also a modder in BIG projects back then), later when SH3 appeared, and I'm seeing it now. Nihil novum sub solem, used the romans to say (Nothing new under the sun). Apparently, the lack of big projects to be started (Almost anything that could be done has been done) has given some people time to remember the old pending affairs. But there is also a big amount of silent observers and readers of the SH3 that are currently astonished and disgusted to see how all this has now surfaced.

And it has to come to and end, even if for *public health* reasons. The forum has to recover its calm, friendly, helpful and productive path as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will have the risk of having it turned in the future into a dinosaurs-graveyard, where angry ex-modders try unendlessly to resolve their pending queries in endlessly disputes and flaming posts, and new users do not even dare to post.

I'm closing this thread for exactly one day. Everyone put the anger aside and re-read everything, think well a proposal, and write it down. There were VERY good ones, so it is not difficult. Tomorrow I will open the thread and any post that does not have in it a list of proposals will be deleted for off-topic reasons.

Once all proposals have been done, I personally will read down them and see if there are rules in common to all proposals. If there are, I will put them in a list and stick them as officially recommended practices and ethics. No democratics or such. This is not a matter of majorites, it is something to be put up by unanimous consensus. Otherwise subsim.com will wash his hands and forget the idea, because all subsim users have the same rights.

That's all, folks. Take it or leave it.:hmm:

[Hitman]

OK it is now the moment to extract conclusions and something positive out of this whole thing. Now the thread
is open again, and every modder is wellcomed to post his proposals.
Here's a few rules for keeping this thread useful:
1.- Only one reply per person, though you are encouraged to EDIT it later if you like what other proposals
say.
2.- Even if you don't specifically copy rules proposed by others, you can indicate that you approve them.
3.- Anything that is not a proposal of rules will be deleted for off-topic reasons.
4.- The thread will be open one week. Next friday I will close it and write down the rules accepted by ALL.
Hitman

[JCWolf]

The Original Idea for me that haves all that I bellieve its correct
and covers most fields was opriginaly posted by Kpt.Lehmman...


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!!!

I will stand by the majority decisions.
I state it here and now.
I will also adopt the statement in a read me as to how any mod I do may be used.
Should I not make that statement, then it is a community release to do with
as one sees fit.

Privateer

[Ducimus]

I have, and will always reiterate the following, regardless:

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

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

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


As an aside, a minor reality check:

The reality is you really have no control over who does what with your mods, especially after you post it on the internet, which essentually makes it public domain. All this talk bout rights, copyrights, etc. doesnt mean anything when you look at cold hard reality. You post a mod on the internet under a usehandle ( a false name), retaining anonmymity.

So who the hell is "userhandle" anyway? Is there any legality to that as a known entity? Anybody could be "userhandle". You could create "userhandle" on the offical forums, post a mod there, and be an entirely different person.

And whats to say your mod posted here, isn't reposted on the offical forums, and then borrowed by localized forums accross the world, and then 6 months from now you hear about a bavarian version of your mod posted " by anotherUserhandle"?

Thats all i have to say about this, as i have nothing further to add.

[danlisa]

Apart from what I have previously posted.

I would like the term 'Guidelines' adopted rather than 'Rules'.

Apart from the fact that no-one will enforce these 'rules', I feel that the final 'guidelines' are only a recommended format for future modders to follow thus removing the ambiguity when someone wishes to use the originators files.

Just because someone makes their files public does not mean they can be used in a way against their wishes.

[NeonSamurai]

Lets keep this on track please. Flames, arguing, insults, and responding to them are counter productive and will get this thread locked for good if it continues.

[NeonSamurai]

I wasnt going to originaly but im also gona post my suggestions. So Subsim Moderator cap off..


Here is my view.

• if you use or base your mod off/on top of another mod you should give credit to them.
• Anything which is absolutly copyrighted by the modder (such as unique models, skins etc, anything where there is definatly no grey area as to ownership) they should ask permission if they plan to include it in their mod.
• Tweek packs that go on top of existing mods or mods that add new features to existing packs should not require permission from the base mod's creators as long as the original mod isnt included in the pack (just the tweeks or additions in the addon pack). Since tweek packs are largely code changes on top of code changes.

I also think that as for credit, if a mod group does the mod then they should be credited as a group not individualy otherwise the readme's will get unnessisarily messy and oversized, not to mention make the person who is writing the readme file unnesissarily difficult. Also credit shouldnt go too far back into history, at most 2 authors back otherwise the credits will end up looking like some family tree.

Plus as for altered/tweeked files, im sorry but those are definatly not owned by the modder, even if you could convince a judge that the work you did changes the files significantly enough to give you copywrite over the altered file, Ubisoft could still pull out their trump card that your not allowed to mod the file to begin with which kills it right there.


As for those of you thinking, well who is he to comment on modding? he isnt a modder!... Well for SH3 in a sense your right, and wrong, I do mod SH3 but only me and some RL friends as i dont want to get into the hassle of credit and permission etc. Ive also done alot of modding for many other games and in other communities. Plus ive also had people steal work from me (and this was original work too) and take credit for it with out them even changing a single thing, or use it without asking. But that is just the way it is, always has been always will be. There isnt any point getting angry and causing a huge ruckus over it as it wont change anything.


Ok thats it. Moderator cap back on

[Beery]

In an effort to be constructive, here is the process I try to use when altering or using someone else's mod or when applying information that tells how to mod a file:

1. If it's a mod I ask if I can use or alter the mod. That applies whether or not the modmaker asks to be contacted for permission. The only time not to contact a modmaker is if he's stated that all his mods are freely available to others. In that case I use the mod and give proper credit.

2. If it's info listed on a public website it's free to use. Sometimes info comes to me second-hand or third-hand (i.e. "Some guy told me this is the way to mod feature X"). I always credit the person who came up with the idea if I know who it is.

3. If possible I ALWAYS credit ALL people involved in creating the mod - that includes all people who have had anything substantial to do with it, from concept through all versions and toolmakers whose tools help create the mod. If my readme is 200 pages long due to all the credits so be it - ALL the people who did the work should be properly credited - after all, no one is forced to read the readme or credits file.

4. If the modmaker asks to be contacted for permission but if he cannot be contacted and if I've tried a bunch of times without success, I use the mod and give proper credit. Many times modmakers make mods then drop off the face of the Earth. I think it's crazy to refuse to use good work simply because the original modmaker couldn't be bothered to stay available for contact.

5. People who steal mods or don't give credit for work done on a mod can either be doing it unknowingly or they may simply be unscrupulous. If they're doing it unknowingly they will give the modmaker an apology and proper credit. If they're unscrupulous they will deny and attack their accuser. These people will eventually get their just reward from the community - you can't fool all the people all the time and the truth has a tendency to come out.

EDITED by moderator (Hitman) to remove a part that had nothing to do with rules proposal

[Hitman]

I have stated very clearly the rules that govern this thread. Please no more off-topic comments here, otherwise I might consider them a conscious and repeated attempt to ignore the moderator's authority.

There are other topics open about the same purpose, go post there and leave this one for the modders rules proposals

[Dowly]

Now, why did my reply to Berry's number 5 got deleted? It was perfectly ON TOPIC.

[Hitman]

It wasn't. No modders rules were proposed, it was just a comment about Beery's rules. Read my post as I opened the topic again. Even if you only do it ONCE...at least

[bigboywooly]

I propose the following " guidelines "

1, All new mods to contain a thorough readme stating if the mod can be used in ANY other mod
Black and white and simple

2, If permission is allowed in the readme then permission should be sought - this needs some form of contact available either subsim or email
If not granted then dont use it
Simple

EDITED: Partially edited by Hitman as moderator, to keep the same criteria for all off topic chat. Notify me privately if someone else makes off topic comments in your opinion so I can revise them. Thanks.

[Reece]

EDITEd by Hitman to remove what was not relative to rules. What follows I take it as a proposal and thus leave it.

I myself try to contact creators & ask for permission & then give credit, or if the creator is no longer around just give a statement & credit!
That's it!!