Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

it conspicuous that people who make art and modding, have a completely different Point of view on this topic as People who are Not "productiv" in this way...

it is a pity that the opinion of the people who produce the "material base" of the forum, is overruled ... it is about their work.

it would be interesting (for me) how many moderators and administrators are modder and artists...
because they decide about this group.
But Maybe it's not important! I would not pour oil on the fire!

I did not think that this Discusion, which I am guilty, beats such large waves...

Ogedei_the_Mad said:

I don't see this as a "conspiracy" of sorts, but that your staff did not even bother to make the announcement in other sections of the CFC board comes off as demonstrating how much (or how little) regard you put upon the rest of us. Whether you like it or not, a lot of the life of the community comes from mod and graphics makers and the way this was not well-broadcasted is pretty much a slap in the face.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, my time on CFC is more modding than moderating, I won't be there if CFC wasn't a modding community.

We thought that posting the proposition in a redirect from every mods section would be enough. It seems we were wrong and are sorry about that, but now that the thread is broadcasted and placed in the site feedback section, we hope that we can talk of the policy itself, the reasons behind it, the change that should be made to it or if it should simply be discarded with each case treated separately.

Ogedei_the_Mad said:

Then why was a thread posted in August was posted only yesterday in the Civ3 C&C?

Click to expand...

I did not talk about any threads that have been made previously - I did post about this specific thread which is the first that attempts to discuss a site-wide policy change. The ones you reference were discussions about section wide policy that at the time were not posted in Civ3 because they were not thought to change the policy in civ3. The idea to set a site wide policy is relatively recent and this is the reason why it is the first site wide discussion thread.

Now of course it would have been better if the end result (the idea to set site wide policy) would have been envisioned from the outset and the respective discussion been started everywhere at the same time. However, such ideas do happen to morph during ripening and once it was clear that this would be proposed for a site wide policy it was also clear that it needed to be discussed with everyone involved.

Any particularly strong reason why you insist that those who provide original (or hybrid) work should be made to part with any rights they have on said work?

And as Tom pointed out, in cases of hybrid work (that is work which was originally content of another game, and later on was agreed upon to be allowed to have derivatives specifically for civ) it is not as easy as just comming up with a bright idea on anulling all creator rights, since then you effectively go against the rights other people had for their commisioned work. And i would not want to go into that trap if i was you.

But returning to purely original work, is it not unfair that anyone spends his precious time only to find out that ANYONE is allowed to alter his work in any way he pleases? Do you fail to see that this will only lead to the best creators just leaving this site?

We'll probably address the issue about 3rd parties in the next time.

raystuttgart said:

[...]

Click to expand...

This is more or less what the full set of "rules" says .

ls612 said:

[...]

Click to expand...

I thought that discussion was not about the fork itself, but about the placement of the thread...or not?

Monaldinio said:

it is a pity that the opinion of the people who produce the "material base" of the forum, is overruled ... it is about their work.

it would be interesting (for me) how many moderators and administrators are modder and artists...
because they decide about this group.
But Maybe it's not important! I would not pour oil on the fire!

Click to expand...

3 of the 4 moderators which are involved in this discussion are also involved in some sort of modding project.

Ui, Modding Moderators.. okay, i know the j was/is Modding...


it would be nice if we come back to the topic! Ensure the placement of the Thread and something like that is also important, but we should not forget the circumstance?!

The_J said:

I thought that discussion was not about the fork itself, but about the placement of the thread...or not?

Click to expand...

Sort of. I think the reason that he wants me to keep it in the modmods section is so that it stays 'dependent' on C2C and whatever changes come with that. I want to make my own changes and not be pulled along with C2C changes that I don't like. I thought that I'd bring it up here anyways because it seems to be under heavy discussion.

I would be curious to hear from a staff member what the supposed advantage of this policy change actually is. The first post in this thread, at least, really gives no explanation as to why in particular the staff propose to enact such a change.

This proposed policy sounds like it is essentially forcing everyone to use a license a bit like the Creative Commons — Attribution license. I think it would be better to allow mod authors to use whatever license they want to use for their mod; and perhaps just use the CC license as a default if the author doesn't specify anything.

For example, bundled with K-Mod are some files which imply that K-Mod is released under the GPL license - which has different conditions to the CC license.

That leads me to another important point: suppose I remove K-Mod from this site to avoid being affected by this policy change but I leave it on github for people to download and use, still under the GPL. I suppose that would mean no one at this site could legally use my components in their own mod, because the GPL requires that all derivative works must also use the GPL, and this site proposed policy would contradict that license.

In short, I think this proposed policy is flawed and needs revision. But to be honest, I'm not really sure what the current policy is like anyway.

[edit]
As a side note, I'm not even completely sure K-Mod is allowed to use the GPL in the first place - because I don't know what kind of license the original Civ4 code is released under.

leif erikson said:

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, without permission, as long as credit is given.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that already the implicit rule for a good part of the creators anyway ? Its formalization looks good to me.

While I understand one's will to keep a tighter control of his/her creations, especially when they're not already derivative of someone else's work (as most of my releases are), I think some valid points are made as why that's would probably less positive for the overall community in the long term than the proposed policy.

Also, it brings an additional question : at which point does the integration of a released creation into a fully playable mod/scenario is considered modifying the base creation ? Its integration at all, its modification to insert it alongside other graphics (in a pcx), its eventual modification to go along with the mod mood (lightning, color balance, other minor modifications) ?

Tom brings up a good point about derivative works from an author or company outside of CFC, even with these author's authorizations. I'd like to see it developed.

Given the open minded spirit of the forum and the general free exchange and summarization of informations on the boards I've visited and enjoyed, I think it's quite fair I share my creations the same way people I've built upon shared theirs (tutorial, charts, models) : to be used and abused.

To satisfy most points, I think it would be best to search along the lines of Quintilus's proposition. It confirms what I think it's the general opinion of the subject and what I think is the best for the community while allowing authorized derivate works from outside CFC to be released without worry and creators specifically not agreeing with this policy to protect their assets.

Credits is always a must, though.

As a contributer to the current Modiquette, including the name , I feel I should add my two cents to this discussion.

The Proposed wording

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, without permission, as long as credit is given.

Click to expand...

Actually that is not really correctly worded. It simply means we can use any mod that is uploaded and play them.

As this discussion is directed at modders not simply players, how about this one.

My rewording to clarify it better

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database, all its content is free to use in other mods, without permission, as long as credit is given.

Click to expand...

This makes it more specific to the modding community, whereas the above is more appropriate to the general site rules.

In my opinion, I think there needs to be something like this.

Any mod or mod resource hosted on CivFanatics servers is free to use for non-commercial purposes, without permission, as long as proper attribution is given.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think one should have the reasonable expectation that their stuff isn't going to be used if it's hosted somewhere else.

And really, who is the owner of this site to exert control over remote content that is simply linked to? The only thing you do is put the users in a situation they wouldn't normally be in if it weren't for you giving permission for them to use it.

An exaggerated example being...

I host a mod on my webserver. The mod has its license. I link to it on the forums. Another user makes a modmod of it, and distributes it all over the place. I can now sue Another user for transmitting my intellectual property without permission.

That's a situation he wouldn't be in if you made it clear that offsite materials are off-limits.

And yes, there are legitimate situations where a mod author wouldn't want certain assets of his mod being used without permission. An example of this would be putting something in the mod that only the mod author has permission to use.

Having a community full of endlessly regurgitated content just cheapens not only the regurgitations, but the the original mod itself. It also makes the community look like it's comprised of nothing but talentless, uninspired children.

I'm sorry if you don't have any skills whatsoever to make your mod. Maybe modding isn't your thing. Or maybe it is? If so, learn something, and stop being lazy. And if you still can't do it, go hunt yourself down someone that can and build a team.

Let's face it, if you're embarking on an ambitious project, you're going to have to be reliant on someone at some point or another. That's just how the game works. All I know, is that I'm tired of seeing a stagnated mod community with umpteen mods using the same resources.

TL;DR

I don't want and mods that I have released, or will release ever to be cheapened just because some lot of children doesn't have the patience to learn some skills apart from cursing over X-Box Live and jerking it to a Sears and Roebuck catalogue.

That's what letting people use other mods' resources does. It cheapens the original mod.

You've GOT to protect your mod authors, else they'll probably find somewhere else to go. And it's a shame, because this is a nice place. It does have its flaws though. Flaws that I'll seek to rectify in whatever way I can.

You protect your mod authors, and they'll be glad to poop out all kind of stuff. They just need a safe environment to do so.

Why can't there be an opt-out for those who oppose it? I see no negatives to that proposal.

If you don't like the guidelines, you are free to post your content or links to your content elsewhere.

Irkalla said:

That's what letting people use other mods' resources does. It cheapens the original mod.

Click to expand...

Wow, that is a pretty negative way of seeing things ...
... but if that is what a mod creator feels, it should be respected.

And yes, I am a mod creator myself.
(Me and my team have created the largest Civ4:Col-Mod that currently exists.)

I personally feel honored, if somebody likes my work so much, that he wants to create a modmod from it or reuses parts of it for his own mod.
(As long as he gives credits.)

But that is simply how I feel about my own work.

Simply let everybody do however he likes.
If he does not want certain things to be reused in other mods, he should simply explicitly say so.
(And that should be respected then of course.)

If he does not say anything, it is considered that he does not mind his work to be reused.
(Of course it would still be respectful to write a private message to the creator and ask.)

We (the modders) are not children, we can handle things by ourselves through friendly and respectful communication.
(From my experience, the cooperation between modders is just great, thus rules or even guidelines are not really necessary.)

This has always worked and will always work.

This is my ONLY stipulation with my work.

You do not get to use my creations for profit. I will sue.

I'm looking at you unnamed Canadian software company.

kiwitt said:

If you don't like the guidelines, you are free to post your content or links to your content elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Guidelines aren't the same as rules. The former are just advice while the latter have to be obeyed.

Wyrmshadow said:

This is my ONLY stipulation with my work.

You do not get to use my creations for profit. I will sue.

I'm looking at you unnamed Canadian software company.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a time when a person in the Civ3 area started using modders' graphics for a game he intended to charge people for, and it was found out about by accident.

I am glad the moderators have notified everyone about this.

Isn't the discussion superfluous though? From my reading of the Civ IV licence, Firaxis own all derivatives, so every mod exists by Firaxis' benovolence.

I have a question for the (apparently few) people who don't want their work to be used in derivative works.

What does it hurt, if you're properly credited? I could see this being a problem if your art was commercial and the availability of similar content for free would take money out of your pocket, but if that were the case it would not make sense to post it in a free community in the first place. The point about others not profiting from your work has already been made, and yes that's an important point.

Assuming you're not doing it for money, then satisfaction would be my next guess. And people wanting to use my works as a basis for something more (and giving me credit for it) would increase my satisfaction, not decrease it. Now using it without credit is the sticking point, and that's what this thread is really about anyway -- in a nutshell it boils down to no using other people's work without properly giving credit. Isn't that what you want anyway?

In my experience the majority of modders work out their own ways of negotiating & handling permissions that differ from the usual. There are so many special cases that one wording is not going to cover them all yet be specific enough to be of any use. Where there is disagreement it ought to be handled as an individual situation.

It's not fruitful to this discussion to try and convince anyone to change what arrangement they are comfortable with for their own work. Most of that comes off as "my way is the right way" whether intended as such or not.

A lot of what staff are writing here is couched in fairly arrogant language. That needs to stop. If you want to treat us like misbehaving children then start handing out the yellow and red cards. Otherwise take a more collegial tone.

• As I pointed out earlier not all subforums for modders received notice even at this most recent point. Stating that they were is flat wrong. If anything was announced to to Civ1 or SMAC modders it was done after I pointed this out.
• The official announcement was stated to be about a modification of a policy. That's not the same thing at all as a guideline or a proposal. CFC policies get enforced with infractions and bans.

In both those cases the contradiction is blatant enough to be considered lying. All we have to go on is what was written. We can know nothing whatsoever about what was intended but left unstated. If it's the staff's intention to confuse us about what is going on they're doing a decent job. If not then make a clear and unequivocal statement about things as they stand now and what your intended direction is. If staff can't speak with a single voice about this then you made a mistake in making this public at all.

• At this point it sounds like staff want to force a single way of agreeing to collaborate onto multiple complex communities involving exceptional individuals whose arrangements may - out of necessity - vary from project to project.
  
• At this point it sounds like there is already a policy in place. And that a substantial portion of the modding community was intentionally excluded from input during the formative phase.
  
• At this point it sounds like one individual wrote this policy rather than it coming from any consensus.
  
• At this point it sounds like we are going to be warned / infracted / banned for violating this policy - the same as flamers, posters of inappropriate content, etc.
  
• At this point it sounds like CFC will be in control of our work rather than those of us who make it. It sounds like they want to argue that they own it. Ultimately that means taking away our ability to edit or delete files we have posted to the downloads database.

The phrase "for the good of the site" has been used by one staff member. That's quite a different stance than "for the good of the creative community".

The site benefits from "hits", traffic as measured by things like number of posts and number of members. Without the creative work posted all those numbers will plunge - as another poster pointed out. Without the downloads database and everything contained in the modding forums there's not much here that justifies its existence as something distinct from a company-sponsored official fan forum. The community benefits from the internal autonomy & freedom to collaborate in a way that works well enough to produce that work. It is, in fact, essential. In that sense the modding & the related discussions are the site - despite the attitude of some staff to the contrary. Without doing what is "for the good of the community" the site will disappear. Is that in Thunderfall's best interests - let alone ours?

Thunderfall owns the site. Staff are his public voice. Does Thunderfall really want to remove our ability to negotiate our own ways of collaborating? Such language is there in the policy. Does Thunderfall really want to tell us we have no choice about the boundaries of the use of our work? Such language is there in the policy. Does Thunderfall really want moderators to start infracting and banning members who don't follow the proper procedures in creation? That's the language of policy rather than guidelines.

Coercion and external control stifle the creative process.