Ship length in Recognition manual [Nasty Hack]

Skyhawk · 08-22-09, 10:22 PM

"Up 'til now, Ubi's been very reasonable concerning mods. Are they likely to shoot the gift horse in the mouth by shutting down *all* mods because they object to a distributed modified executable? I doubt it. If they take offense, it'd probably be centered on the executable.

That being said, I'm with RR on this one... modifying the executable for such a simple feature, knowing that it might cross the line into territory Ubi finds objectionable... I'm not sure it's worth it. "

What you and RR are failing to acknowledge is that the intent behind this mod is the same as any of the other mods that you and RR think UBI finds acceptable. Again, the methodology is the only difference between this mod and any of the other mods which are much more contractually objectionable and which are already being used by thousands while being distributed both here at subsim and elsewhere.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

vandalism - the willful or malicious destruction of public or private property , especially of anything beautiful or artistic.

Nobody is destroying anything with willful malice by editing an executable to create a mod which is by it's very nature is intended to increase the entertainment value of SH4 for LEGITIMATE customers. This edit of an executable is not done with any more intrinsic intentional malice than any other mod that is posted on this website.

Anyone can fail to acknowledge this fact if they choose to do so, but that doesn't make the premise of this mod being illegal and a dangerous precedent any more valid by virtue alone. At the very least the OP doesn't deserve to be treated like a software pirate or "vandal". That is simply absurd and being condescending for no reason whatsoever except to "fire for effect".

If you want to tell the guy you think his idea is good but his methodology is wrong that is one thing, but there is no need to accuse him of "vandalism" any more so than any other of the much appreciated mod contributors to this community.

I interpreted the intention behind the use of the terminology "nasty hack" to mean that the edit was very difficult to achieve, not that it was a kind of subconcious clue by the OP that his mod was illegal. There is more than just a single, negative, perspective to be taken on the question at hand.

Ignore logic, reason, and established precedents all you like to make your arguement, that doesn't add any validity to the negative perspective at all.

Perhaps someone is even owed an apology, and I don't mean UBI.

08-22-09, 10:22 PM	#30
Skyhawk A-ganger Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 79 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	"Up 'til now, Ubi's been very reasonable concerning mods. Are they likely to shoot the gift horse in the mouth by shutting down all mods because they object to a distributed modified executable? I doubt it. If they take offense, it'd probably be centered on the executable. That being said, I'm with RR on this one... modifying the executable for such a simple feature, knowing that it might cross the line into territory Ubi finds objectionable... I'm not sure it's worth it. " What you and RR are failing to acknowledge is that the intent behind this mod is the same as any of the other mods that you and RR think UBI finds acceptable. Again, the methodology is the only difference between this mod and any of the other mods which are much more contractually objectionable and which are already being used by thousands while being distributed both here at subsim and elsewhere. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: vandalism - the willful or malicious destruction of public or private property , especially of anything beautiful or artistic. Nobody is destroying anything with willful malice by editing an executable to create a mod which is by it's very nature is intended to increase the entertainment value of SH4 for LEGITIMATE customers. This edit of an executable is not done with any more intrinsic intentional malice than any other mod that is posted on this website. Anyone can fail to acknowledge this fact if they choose to do so, but that doesn't make the premise of this mod being illegal and a dangerous precedent any more valid by virtue alone. At the very least the OP doesn't deserve to be treated like a software pirate or "vandal". That is simply absurd and being condescending for no reason whatsoever except to "fire for effect". If you want to tell the guy you think his idea is good but his methodology is wrong that is one thing, but there is no need to accuse him of "vandalism" any more so than any other of the much appreciated mod contributors to this community. I interpreted the intention behind the use of the terminology "nasty hack" to mean that the edit was very difficult to achieve, not that it was a kind of subconcious clue by the OP that his mod was illegal. There is more than just a single, negative, perspective to be taken on the question at hand. Ignore logic, reason, and established precedents all you like to make your arguement, that doesn't add any validity to the negative perspective at all. Perhaps someone is even owed an apology, and I don't mean UBI.