Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

We can talk in terms of gray areas and hypothetical situations all night long.

However, this thread is about hammering out a reasonable set of guidelines/rules to prevent what problems can be prevented.

It is not a cure for cancer... nor an answer providing for world peace... but it is a part of the solution to a problem.

Expecting perfection is unreasonable and not expected. Cases will be handled when they come up... and intellect/logic should prevail.

[JCWolf]

I do bellieve that Ducimus here haves a point 2.

but waths the point of making a mod that already is done or invented???


I will take this idea, of the creaits and permisions on the readme file including contact e-mail or other of some sort in any case, I think the ask permision haves to be a must have on the rule guide lines and on the reademe, this way there is no more, I sent permision or I sent PM and no replie...

A good idea is that the creators send a writed in black and white
as Duc. says permision and when the mod is done he includes the
writed creators permision on the reademe files...

This will prevent future missunderstandings...

Ask permision is for me prioritary isue!!!

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Looks like we cross-posted JCwolf... just read the post before yours too.

geez guys your on a path where you're gonna need lawyers before it's overwith.

remember that you are putting your mod up for public downloading so REQUIRING permission is a little much. asking that you be given credit is all you should ask.

if you want to dictate that closely how your mod is used then you should put it on its own filefront page and only give the link to those who ask persmission from you to use it if you want that much control over your mod.

if a mod does not state that you should give credit when using it then you do NOT need to give credit for using it. i agree it is the right thing to always give credit weather it is asked of you or not but there is a difference between the two.

as for all the mods out there that don't ask for credit if they are used, then i say it is up to the modder himself to add that to the mod if he truely desires crediting.

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.

please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

[KLARCH]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

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

I'm not a modder, so I understand if the moderators delete this post, but it seems hard if not impossible to call it "theft" when your mod is given away for free.

I understand you want recognition for all your hard work in making the game more enjoyable, and I agree that this should be the case. What bothers me about this situation is if someone makes a great improvement and is denied permission to use the files used as a springboard for the change, we don't get the chance to have an even better game experience. That would just be wrong, plain and simple.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by KLARCH

......What bothers me about this situation is if someone makes a great improvement and is denied permission to use the files used as a springboard for the change, we don't get the chance to have an even better game experience. That would just be wrong, plain and simple......

I agree with most of that. However, we are not trying to stop people improving/editing the game we all love. What we are trying to do is make sure that permissions are requested & credits are given. 9/10 if permission is asked, permission will be granted, there may be some guidelines/restrictions placed upon the release by the original modder but that is something we must respect.

Example 1 - I wanted to use GWX's campaign files for the Spy Sat mod, by design these were nessecary. I could have only asked Kpt.Lehmann for permission but I also asked BBW & Rubini as I know they worked long and hard on it. I did this out of courtesy. There were some restrictions placed upon me which were wholy acceptable. It had to be stated that it was not an official approved GWX mod and that it was a realism killer, which went against what GWX stood for.

Example 2 - I want to make a skin for a U-Boat, in my opinion it will be an improvement. I don't want to start from scratch with stock texture files so I decide to use GW/GWX's default grey textures which were made by Fubar. Before I even started to work on those I PM'd Fubar to ask if I could use his work as a base for mine. I waited 4 days. He eventually answered and although he didn't ask me to credit him, I did. In fact, I still have the PM exchange between myself & him which was back in Sept 06.

There will never be a situation where a would be modder comes to the scene and gets flamed & ostracized for releaseing work which may or may not be against any possible guidelines layed out here. This community is just not like that. In fact the new modder will more than likely be helped along & advised in private.

What I have stated here is just common respect, courtesy & undertanding and that is basically what modding ethics boils down to. How nice would it be for a n00b to come into the modding forums and see a sticky at the top asking him to follow the following guidlines. I know I could have used it when I first arrived.

[CaptainCox]

I agree with whats been said hear 100% but...who will finally draw this up, basically who will have the respect or approval to put this down as a set of "guidelines" as it stands now its a lot of opinions which is good. Being relatively new to the SH modding scene I feel that there is a lot of ppl with very responsible attitudes and less of the opposite, and that's great. But as i said, who will final draw this up. Mr.Stevens maybe would be the right guy (only thinking loud here)

[danlisa]

I think Neal or someone appointed by Neal will eventually end up with this hot potato.
Afterall, the person or persons compiling the guidelines will only be drawing from agreements made in this thread.

However, as yet I don't feel that we've had enough feedback from everyone who might be affected. We must have more input to make it a community chosen route.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

This is alot simpler then some people will make it.

It really is simple.

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

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

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


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

This is certainly the optimum solution for new mod releases. However, this will only cover releases from this point forward, and even then not all of them.

We still have the current releases to consider. And let's face it, there's been a LOT of mods released over the last two years that I can't see being updated just to insert a tweaked readme file.

And what about modders that, for whatever reason, don't insert any "clause"? How do we treat that? With guidelines in existance do we assume that silence means a free-for-all? Or do we fall back to the guidelines for etiquette assistance? Your "simple" solution doesn't cover these scenarios. In other words, we'll be back here again within the month.

Whilst one can very easily over-engineer a process - and we must be mindful of that here - one can just as easily be too untailored in defining a process.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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

That's true and something that is likely to happen. I don't think it needs to be covered off specifically in any set of guidelines though (otherwise we'll be here for the next month defining every possible circumstance - perhaps we'd be better following the Pareto principle?).

I see reaction to this scenario based a lot on the "integrity renown" of the modder. For example, I am sure people would naturally react to donots76 differently than they would to you in this circumstance. Why? Because you have a higher "renown" and people are less likely to be suspicious of you.

For new modders without "renown". I would certainly hope that concerns would be addressed privately, as they may not know better. But for existing modders who choose not to follow the guidelines and hence not earn "renown", well, I have no sympathy for them if other modders are suspicious of their releases. You reap what you sow.

But I'm sure if wanted some "common sense" approaches like this could be included in the guidelines.

So what do other modders think of the proposal? Would you follow a set of guidelines if they existed? Would you support their use? Or do you think this is merely a waste of time?

I know I see the success of such a proposal as being dependant on community support and a sense of "ownership" through active participation.

[CaptainCox]

I thought about exactly this issue

We still have the current releases to consider. And let's face it, there's been a LOT of mods released over the last two years that I can't see being updated just to insert a tweaked readme file.

Would require a lot of work actually, not only for the individual modder but also what you said as to regards if the mods are no longer followed up by the creator, who is then responsible, or does that automatically make it "free" for the market? etc.

These points from Danlisa would suffice for example

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

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

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

I also think the points proposed by Ducimus look pretty spot on for a start.

Still...it would not cover the problem of existing mods with no clause.

[HunterICX]

From what I've red about asking permissions and righst to use the particular mod

what I think teams of moderators or the chief of the team should include a Contact Email on the Readme/manual. even for the smallest mod , please include a readme with instructions and a Email so people / mod teams can get in contact with the creator

Ofcourse put a E-mail in it which is used and checked over on a regular basis.
as such its easier to get in contact with the owner of a Mod and things can be handled a lot easier. as we all know that between UBI and SUBSIM forum people may check the one forum more often then the other. and some visit Subsim all day but never or rarely visit UBI. so if you make a central point for requests and permission a Email would come in very handy.

just my thought and if its already done (I may feel stupid right now, as I,m at work at this moment working away a whole lot of paperwork)

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land. a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

as for a modder including an email addy for contact - get real, who wants tons of spam and repetative emails every day not to mention the occasional critic.

stating that if this mod is used then proper credit must be given to me and john doe is the reasonable thing to add in your mod code.

it's a good idea to REQUEST that it state this mod is or is not based on realism

as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download. i will give him full credit as best as i am able to but i would not lose sleep worrying that i couldn't contact him for permission unless the read me stated specifically that request.

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.

please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

[bigboywooly]

Well as this post is about ethics which includes credits thats why its being discussed here

My mods had the emails and contacts at subsim in and never had any problems though not sure everyone would want to use theirs

Versions and release dates are also good but that will apply more to SH4 than SH3 where mods are released now for a particular mod ie GWX,NYGM etc
A couple of years ago yes it would have mattered here though a lot of mods do have dates on anyway

Mods that have no readmes will always be a problem but credit to unknown modder usually covers it
Not a lot else you can do there

Besides very few old mods bar ones already in use in major mods will be dug and used as the game has evolved a lot since then

Permissions are easy to ask for
If its in black and white in a readme its even better

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land.

Hardly. In its barest form common courtesy and "the right thing to do" should determine matters at the end of the day here.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

At Subsim.com, I think it is a fair thing to say that it has been tradition to first ask permission. Customarily receiving "no" as an answer is unusual. Some may cite impatience or inconvenience as a reason for not asking. This is a cop-out to circumvent good old common decency.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

stating that if this mod is used then proper credit must be given to me and john doe is the reasonable thing to add in your mod code.
it's a good idea to REQUEST that it state this mod is or is not based on realism
as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download.
i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more
at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod
does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod. please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

Common basic courtesy is not too much to expect. Expecting you to first ask permission and then credit modders whose work you hope to build upon... is a bare minimum that should be expected.

Non-modders who may have just arrived here. I am not talking down to you or trying to minimize your enthusiasm for submarine/naval simulations. The simple fact is that you have not been here to observe the story unfold that has brought us to this point. You just don't have the vested interest in the last two years of creation that have gone on here... overcoming obstacles.

Failure to make a basic effort to ask permission and credit is just lazy and/or rude.

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.

This thread is not opened to set rules than conform to a MAJORITY but instead rules that apply to ALL.


As Hitman stated in a similar thread that went south:

Originally Posted by Hitman

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 veterans.

Some people here at least try to conduct their modding in an ethical fashion. Some flaunt it that they do not... I think that it should be just fine and dandy that people take issue with the latter in a vocal manner. In this it is a matter of right versus wrong.

This does not violate civil rights or harm the act of creation. Boundaries are in place at Subsim... and you agreed to them when you registered. It is only natural that boundaries/rules for mod permissions and crediting carry into the mods workshops. (not just SH3)

Perfect uninamity in deciding said rules and ethics will naturally be impossible as well... because it serves the interests of those who just don't care who they step on to reach a goal... they will oppose it.

Somewhere between the simple... and the complicated proposals there is a reasonable set of guidelines...

Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required.

Otherwise, the sense of calm, friendly decency, and near professionalism that you can find here on the best of days... is just a veneer of polish... over continuously erupting anarchy.

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

Hardly. In its barest form common courtesy and "the right thing to do" should determine matters at the end of the day here.

At Subsim.com, I think it is a fair thing to say that it has been tradition to first ask permission. Customarily receiving "no" as an answer is unusual. Some may cite impatience or inconvenience as a reason for not asking. This is a cop-out to circumvent good old common decency.

Common basic courtesy is not too much to expect. Expecting you to first ask permission and then credit modders whose work you hope to build upon... is a bare minimum that should be expected.

Non-modders who may have just arrived here. I am not talking down to you or trying to minimize your enthusiasm for submarine/naval simulations. The simple fact is that you have not been here to observe the story unfold that has brought us to this point. You just don't have the vested interest in the last two years of creation that have gone on here... overcoming obstacles.

Failure to make a basic effort to ask permission and credit is just lazy and/or rude.

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.

This thread is not opened to set rules than conform to a MAJORITY but instead rules that apply to ALL.


As Hitman stated in a similar thread that went south:

Some people here at least try to conduct their modding in an ethical fashion. Some flaunt it that they do not... I think that it should be just fine and dandy that people take issue with the latter in a vocal manner. In this it is a matter of right versus wrong.

This does not violate civil rights or harm the act of creation. Boundaries are in place at Subsim... and you agreed to them when you registered. It is only natural that boundaries/rules for mod permissions and crediting carry into the mods workshops. (not just SH3)

Perfect uninamity in deciding said rules and ethics will naturally be impossible as well... because it serves the interests of those who just don't care who they step on to reach a goal... they will oppose it.

Somewhere between the simple... and the complicated proposals there is a reasonable set of guidelines...

Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required.

Otherwise, the sense of calm, friendly decency, and near professionalism that you can find here on the best of days... is just a veneer of polish... over continuously erupting anarchy.

so are you trying to set guidlines whereby you can deny access to those you deem in violation of your rules? because as you continue to return to words like enforce and then you state that this forum is not opened to set rules that conform to a majority but instead that apply to all. this sounds like you are saying the majority should not make the rules but must abide by them. that is not open discussion.

don't get me wrong here kpt. i feel you are the injured party in the past drama that occured but as it seems now you are sounding like you want to go overboard and instead of guidlines to follow you want rules and punishments for not following these rules. the punishments and enforcing the rules part is where i disagree with you. that i fear will spell the deathnel here as it will turn off members new and old.


please read my post here which better explains my views on mod ethics

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114633