Policy on Use & Attribution of Our Creations

[Gedemon]

I'm not moderating here, I'm informing.

And you think that I shouldn't have the right to post here because I'm too young on the forum ? come on, look at the joining date please.

That's funny, I'm the one coming here to inform you, because you seemed upset that no one has came before, and look how to you react to it ?

Fine then, I'll do as you want.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I'm not moderating here, I'm informing.

In other words acting as a staff member not a member of the C3 modding community. Everything you posted was as a moderator whether you put tags around it or not. Been there done that. I know the difference between posting as a moderator and posting as a member of the community I'm communicating with.

And you think that I shouldn't have the right to post here because I'm too young on the forum ? come on, look at the joining date please.

Specious. Come on, read and respond to what I wrote. I referred to your position as a junior moderator. If you want to make a straw man at least misquote me, don't make things up out of whole cloth. That just makes you look foolish.

That's funny, I'm the one coming here to inform you, because you seemed upset that no one has came before, and look how to you react to it ?

Part of what we're tired of is having one misinformed or totally ignorant flunky after another come around and try to get us to believe something completely different from what was said officially. You act like you're the first one to talk to us. You may be the first (junior) moderator to post in this particular thread but that's ony because other staff made the attempt to derail the meat of it into a private conversation no one else could read or comment on.

Fine then, I'll do as you want.

Hopefully that means you are going to go do your homework, not just take your ball and go home.

Hmm ... didn't somebody say they were looking to be corrected. Oh yeah, now I remember who

Correct me if I'm wrong ...

Looks to me like I did what you wanted.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Now I understand better the virulence in the other thread, seems there is a bit of misunderstanding here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the problem is not "only" the new policy proposal, it's the fact that the modiquette, a "compilation of all the unwritten rules", was made inside the civ4 section, not the civ3, civ5, civ2, or, better, the Site Feedback section ?

The modiquette is not a formal rule, it's a reminder of the spirit of the community, I didn't follow civ4 section since a long time, but I suppose it started there because that was the section that needed a reminder.

Now we have also that recent incident in civ4 section, in which a modder have used other mods as a base for his own, then have refused to share what he has added to that base. I don't know the details, but I suppose it can be found in C2C section in civ4 forums.

So we look for a way to prevent this, thought of a simple rule a few days ago, and wanted it to be presented to all sections, because if it's adopted, it will impact everyone this time. We're no more talking of a reminder of the community spirit, but something we can base decisions on.

It's a proposition, not something already decided, it's back to the drawing board, because it's not perfect in it's current form, far from it from the comments, and your feedback is of course required/welcome.

We never thought it would be taken as an offense by any section of the site. Now, if it appears that it can't be discussed at all, or is completely impracticable, then Kyriakos feeling of déjà vu will simply be confirmed.

I'm going to have to say that it is a positive that one of the staff has finally decided to actually visit here and make a statement about what is going on with the "policy" update.

But, on the other hand, it seems that what you're posting here doesn't exactly match up with what the upper moderators / admins have said. It seems to be that they're discussing a "policy" and not so much a "guideline". Very big difference there with regards to the implication of what is binding as a term of site usage and what is not.

As I said before, I do not oppose what was proposed entirely, provided that it remain only a guideline and not a binding rule that all modders must abide.

 

[Gedemon]

I'm going to have to say that it is a positive that one of the staff has finally decided to actually visit here and make a statement about what is going on with the "policy" update.

But, on the other hand, it seems that what you're posting here doesn't exactly match up with what the upper moderators / admins have said. It seems to be that they're discussing a "policy" and not so much a "guideline". Very big difference there with regards to the implication of what is binding as a term of site usage and what is not.

As I said before, I do not oppose what was proposed entirely, provided that it remain only a guideline and not a binding rule that all modders must abide.

The modiquette as it is now is only a guideline, but the change proposed in the thread in Site Feedback would be a rule if adopted. We're trying to make a better version, and will present it with more carefully chosen words I hope. Or we will put it away, and handle each case separately, depending on the result of the public and private conversations on the subject.

In other words acting as a staff member not a member of the C3 modding community. Everything you posted was as a moderator whether you put tags around it or not. Been there done that. I know the difference between posting as a moderator and posting as a member of the community I'm communicating with.

Specious. Come on, read and respond to what I wrote. I referred to your position as a junior moderator. If you want to make a straw man at least misquote me, don't make things up out of whole cloth. That just makes you look foolish.

Part of what we're tired of is having one misinformed or totally ignorant flunky after another come around and try to get us to believe something completely different from what was said officially. You act like you're the first one to talk to us. You may be the first (junior) moderator to post in this particular thread but that's ony because other staff made the attempt to derail the meat of it into a private conversation no one else could read or comment on.

Hopefully that means you are going to go do your homework, not just take your ball and go home.

Hmm ... didn't somebody say they were looking to be corrected. Oh yeah, now I remember who
Looks to me like I did what you wanted.

I know why you're trying to get sanctioned, but let my give you a friendly warning: I will not act on flaming or minor trolling here, you're right on that, but don't go to far while the section moderators are away, they'll be back and your comments here won't help to defend your point.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Fine then, I'll do as you want.

You've just proven how much you can be trusted. Don't even do what you yourself promise to so - let alone follow the policy you promised to when you became a moderator. You have no idea at all about who I am, what I want or why I do what I do. If you really understood what is going on you'd pay attention to who is standing together that normally wouldn't even speak civilly to each other & who is getting sent out to say things they don't understand about a situation they don't understand. Where I live we don't pay attention to the puppy who barks. We watch out for the dog with the grey on his muzzle.

 

[Gedemon]

I know exactly who you are, what you want and what you need since your first post on the proposed policy thread.

Now I don't have time to play your game and have only come to answer a post that asked for clarification, adding a comment on your's while I was here.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I know exactly who you are, what you want and what you need since your first post on the proposed policy thread.

This?

1. Why is a policy discussion that affects the entire site buried in a C2 subforum? No disrespect intended - it would be just as buried in any other version's modding subforums.
2. The new formal policy may differ from the explicit permissions given by creators who are no longer active on this site. It's troublesome that those permissions may be arbitrarily nullified.
3. The question of usages posted to/from other sites or for commercial gain is complex & needs to be directly addressed. Having a formal usage policy that is moderated by staff means that the site administration will necessarily be involved.
4. Does a having a formal policy imply that violations of that policy become infractable?

That post seems pretty clear. Neutral. Polite. Since you've got a lock on things why haven't you posted simple direct responses to each of those points over there where everyone can read what you have to say as the official spokesperson?

Now I don't have time to play your game ...

The "game" was started last January. We weren't even invited until injury time.

... and have only come to answer a post that asked for clarification ...

Then why didn't you clarify -

But, on the other hand, it seems that what you're posting here doesn't exactly match up with what the upper moderators / admins have said.

the discrepancies between what you say and what your bosses say in official announcements?

 

[Supa]

While it's certainly not my place to do it, can I pinpoint the topic should be less about actual users and more about the policy, opinions about it, or even the general (mis)communication issue ?

Independently of the quality and pertinence of any point made, I think this is getting a little out of hand.

 

[Plotinus]

All right.

First, let me clarify the situation regarding the Modiquette.

The Modiquette was put together earlier this year in response to a particular disagreement between modders in the Civ IV part of the forum. It was intended to be simply a statement of how, in practice, we behave here as modders regarding each other's work. It was meant to be a polite request that people continue to behave as they always have. Hence the title "Modiquette" - etiquette for modders - not an enforceable part of the site rules.

I quote from the staff thread on this:

I put the "Modiquette" together... so that everyone can read how it has been handled in the past and how we (as community) would like to have it handled.

And from the OP in the Modiquette itself:

This modiquette is the compilation of all the unwritten rules, which the modders here have essentially followed already. They show the essential spirit of this community, to help one another develop and enjoy the Civilization game. If you want to be a good member of this community, then please follow them too.

It was also meant to be a set of guidelines for the Civ IV modders in particular since they were the ones who'd had the disagreement. That's why it was posted in the Civ IV C&C forum and not elsewhere, simply to help them, as you can see from further discussion in that thread.

I, for what it's worth, wasn't involved in this - I only commented on the original disagreement that sparked it off.

The proposed change to the Modiquette is in response to further rumblings in the ongoing saga of disputes, the details of which need not concern us here. (However, the very fact that the Modiquette is not part of the enforceable site rules, but merely a polite request, was one reason why said saga continued to rumble, since you can't force people to follow an unforced set of suggestions.)

Since this would actually constitute a change in the way we treat each others' work as modders, the staff responsible for suggesting it have asked modders throughout the site for their input. That's what's happening now.

If you have comments on the suggested change to the Modiquette (including if you think the whole idea is terrible and you want to keep the status quo, or if you have an alternative suggestion for how to deal with the kind of incident that has led to this), you can make them on the thread linked to in the OP.

Now if I understand aright, the main issue raised in this thread is the confusion about the official status of the Modiquette, confusion that as far as I can tell stems from leif erikson referring to it as a "policy". I don't think that the word "policy" necessarily implies an enforceable element of the site rules. If anyone thinks that it does, I'm not going to argue definitions with them, just say that I do not think that this is what leif meant.

I do believe there's been some confusion and lack of clarity among the staff themselves. The Modiquette is, to repeat, merely guidelines. In response to the recent problems the staff have sought to modify the Modiquette to help address these problems. In so doing, they have not - in any of the many threads and posts on this topic that I have gone through - addressed the issue of the status of the Modiquette itself. It may be that at times the status of the Modiquette has been overlooked and people have discussed this proposed change as if it's a change to the rules. Some of this confusion may have bled out here.

Let me quote from a PM that leif erikson has already sent Blue Monkey:

First of all, what Gedemon wrote in that thread is the truth. Please allow me to categorically state that the Modiquette is not the official policy of CFC, it remains a guideline. Let me also apologize for using words that were not descriptive enough in what I posted. What I should have said is that we think the Modiquette should become policy and the change I referenced in the post should be a change to the Modiquette. In addition, I should have also said that we seek comments on not only the sentence I posted, but the Modiquette as well.

This is my understanding as well. To restate and, hopefully, clarify:

The Modiquette has not been posted or discussed forum-wide before now because it was not part of the site's official rules. It was merely a helpful aide for some Civ IV modders, to explain to them the informal approach we've always taken to this kind of thing.

The proposal is to change the Modiquette and make this change part of the rules, applying to everyone, not just Civ IV. Thus, the Modiquette itself will change materially, and its status will also change, if the proposal goes through.

Since this would affect everyone, everyone's being consulted on what they think, including whether they want such a change at all.

Please take this as a definitive statement regarding the status of the Modiquette and the proposed change to it. If you think that previous statements from staff have been inconsistent with this or with each other, please put that down to confusion, poor communication, lack of clarity, or just the fog of cyberspace in a forum where we must communicate by text and where English is not everyone's first language.

[I have no time to write more right now, but I will.]

 

[Takhisis]

But then it won't be an etiquette anymore, Plot.

(&#8230please put that down to confusion, poor communication, lack of clarity, or just the fog of cyberspace in a forum where we must communicate by text and where English is not everyone's first language.

Yes, this problem has been especially prevalent in the last couple years. At least you're not trying to pass it off as a joke like you did with the whole OT rearrangement, or the disastrous 'survey' of a couple years ago.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I think that the staff could have communicated better with the different communities and worded it better instead of say two different things at the same time.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification Plotinus.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I'm about to make a very long post. Mostly in response to Plotinus' remarks - which are greatly appreciated by the way. I stayed completely away from the computer on Sunday & spent substantial time writing out my thoughts on how this has been handled to clarify them for myself and try to find a way to make my conclusions easily comprehensible. Take out the heat but keep the temper in the steel, if you understand what i mean. That amounted to twelve hand-written pages. As long as this following post is, understand that this is the short version. There is other material not here that would be more appropriate to show staff privately since it is focused more on that side of relationships.

I ask that you please do not tl,dr and then comment on something you haven't read in context. It has taken nearly four hours to get those twelve pages down to this length. It's of a piece & needs to be read as a whole to be understood.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I want to speak from my experience both as a staff member and as a member of this particular creative community. These are the main issues that concern me (not in any particular order as they bear more or less equal weight):

• Before anything is said publicly there needs to be a staff consensus. With a situation this complex that means that everyone involved needs to understand what to say and how to say it.
  
  
  Example: I just checked and neither the wording of the official announcement to us by leif nor the sitewide announcment of ori have been changed to match what you tell us is the case. Simple boolean logic shows that when there is this much of a difference between the official statement and the position that staff try to take during the discussion both cannot be true. Someone is telling us something false. This may not be intentional. Someone may know the truth and intentionally be lying. Someone may have been lied to and is repeating what they thought is the truth. Someone may be lying to themselves - even unknowingly. But something false is being stated. Being forced to choose between an official statement and a post by an individual junior moderator or moderator the official statement obviously carries a lot more weight. Knowing you as well as I do, Plotinus, I believe what you just posted. OTOH - as I pointed out early on - the exact wording of something official is what will matter in the long run. Intentions won't. Comments buried in an old thread don't. Since it is the official wording I make the choice to continue to call what has been publicly posted a policy & treat it as until that wording is changed.​
• Give us a single contact person or no more than two. This helps us identify which staff members are just expressing an opinion and who we need to make sure seriously understands what the whole staff involved need to know. I don't think it's giving anything away to point out that this has been a problem with staff/staff discussions, let alone staff/member interactions.
  
  
• I did the count last night and more members from C3 C&C have posted about this situation in three days than C4 C&C did between January and August when the open thread discussion shifted to C5. This alone should make it clear that we are concerned enough about this to deserve an equal opportunity to have a discussion in C3 where we can define for ourselves what is important to our way of doing things and come to a consensus about what we would like to see in a - potentially - written set of guidelines that will protect our way of working together.
  
  
• The sitewide thread has been cluttered up with continued wrangling about situations in C4 & C5 that make it difficult to sort out what is relevant to us & what would be better dealt with in their own subforum. I had to stop & think about what a modmod is - in the process losing my understanding of how a long post relates to the overall issue. Had to reread it multiple times. Same thing goes for stopping and thinking about the implications of reusable sections of code. A process I understand but thinking about how it relates to what happens here in C3 C&C forced me to back up and reread long sections of that thread. In the same way there are issues peculiar to our little community that there is no reason for them to care about. C4 people had six months to work things out for themselves & still couldn't do it. We are being asked to sort out what is unique to us in a sitewide thread with all sorts of irrelevant or misguided comments from people - including staff - who have no idea at all of the history and personalities involved.
  
  
• Examples of things that work for us in C3 C&C that the policy subverts:
  
  1. Kyriakos has made clear in the sitewide thread where he stands on the use of his work. It makes no difference whether or not I agree with him. I respect his right to do so. The policy as written would mean that I can extract his files from something like MEM, do what I want with them, repost them and his feelings be damned. That would result in a valued member of our community removing the opportunity for everyone else to use his work. Not good.
     
     
  2. We could not hold our monthly polls in the same way: "Files that were the combined effort of more than one artist will need the expressed permission of each artist involved in this thread." That is in direct contradiction to the policy as it stands. Continuing on from the above hypothetical - I could CnP elements from different city sets by Kyriakos and submit them to be voted on without his permission or even prior notice. By my own ethical standards this would be totally wrong yet it is within the bounds of the policy. I can just imagine what Yang Liu would do with that kind of license.
     
     
  3. Ares Terrain beta which he has been working since 2006 - "DON'T PHYSICALLY EDIT OR CHANGE THE FILES ITSELF WITHOUT PERMISSION" (his emphasis not mine). AFAIK in six years no one has intentionally violated this. I would dearly love to have some bamboo terrain. I started a prototype base on his jungle and then set it aside as needing too much work atm. By following the policy as it stands I could make my modifications and upload them without ever getting his permission. I certainly don't want to lose the possibilities of future collaboration with him, let alone affect the community as a whole if he becomes reluctant to share his work.
  
  
• I'm not convinced a sitewide policy is needed - but we at least deserve the opportunity to see what we C3 modders can agree on as a set of written guidelines to meet our needs before we're asked to defend them against people from elsewhere who have their own axe to grind. Neither is there any reason at all that we should need to have our discussion rushed by some deadline imposed by the situation in another subforum which they can internally deal with. Nor by a moderator who is not assigned to this forum and thus is ill-equipped to understand what is important to us & what can be set aside in order to move ahead.
  
  
• In the post above Plotinus has referred to it both as a policy and as rules. The implication is that by formalizing a set of guidelines written to accommodate C4 into something enforceable the whole site will benefit. There is no reason at all that an enforceable policy needs to be identical in C3 C&C and C4 C&C any more than the strictures on language and decorum are the same in OT and in Site Feedback.
  
  
• We are being repeatedly told by staff & others that if we don't like the policy we can leave. It's the sort of comment I would expect a moderator to make to a recalcitrant OT troll who ignores the policies on foul language and race-baiting. Are particular creators - by asking us to give a little bit more respect to the individuality of their work than the rest of us expect - worthy of being treated the same way as people who have been permabanned because they won't follow CFC policy?
  

------------

Before I sum that all up i want to make some remarks about my own posting style in these two threads. I have been thanked privately for bringing this issue to my fellow creators' attention. None of them are at all responsible for what I myself have said or how I have said it. Ogedei posted that the way staff handled this felt like a slap in the face. Ares has referred to it as ugly and offensive. I don't think either one of them has ever been characterized as hostile, a conspiracy kook or - prior to this situation - as an"angry creator".

Most of those from C3 C&C who have posted here or in the officially sanctioned thread are a lot more productive than I am in terms of posting things in usable form. When I was invited to join staff as a moderator I was reluctant to sacrifice my creative time. I knew as well that sooner or later I would be forced into the position of sanctioning people I consider friends. I made the decision to do so because after discussing it with Plotinus and others I felt by doing so I could help protect our little community of creators and help it to thrive. I would benefit more by sacrificing my time than by being selfish about it. I left staff when the need to be creative and to freely participate in our discussions outweighed any ability to achieve those goals from within the staff.

I'm still as passionate about protecting our ability to work together as I was when I first became a moderator. I've been accused - by someone who imho has no business posting as a staff member in this subforum - of trying to be sanctioned. I no more want to be infracted or banned than I want a poke in the eye with a frozen dishrag. What I have said in PMs to Plotinus & leif is that I am willing to warned/infracted/banned if that's what it takes to get the attention of someone on staff long enough to realize hopw important this is and listen to people like Ogedei, Ares, Kyriakos and the whole long list of everyone else who has or may yet post about the sordid way this has been handled by staff. As I was explaining to someone in RL this morning I'm well aware of the long process it would take to legitimately get rid of me completely. If being polite doesn't work there comes a time when it is necessary to be forthright and even rude. As Krishna advised Arjuna you do the right thing & accept whatever consequences come. Better me than the people whose work I admire and respect.

Either Gedemon - on his own - completely has it wrong when he claims that he knows who I am or else he is using a distorted version of something I wrote in a PM. Having been on the other side of things I know that from time to time PMs necessarily get posted in the private staff forum. There would be no way to intelligently discuss and find a solution to many problems that arise without knowing how people involved felt about it. I was repeatedly encouraged by leif to discuss things via PM. I PM'd both leif and Plotinus and was completely honest in expressing the full force of my feelings. Now if Gedemon is intruding into a forum he is not assigned to and publicly posting his distorted version of something that was written confidentially then he is doing something both unethical and immoral. It's also foolish since he has declared by doing so that it is fair game to say things publicly that I would otherwise have kept private.

In the same vein I think I understand Plotinus' motivation in posting a portion of a pm here. I didn't write it but since it is in direct response to a pm of mine I would have appreciated prior notice. What is quoted is accurate yet potentially misleading out of context. No date or time is mentioned. leif's pm as a whole had mostly to do with explaining things he himself had posted and responding to things I had said in previous pms. It was sent to me prior to the exchange in this thread - at just about the time I was writing and editing my first long post in response to Gedemon. What Plotinus has quoted needs to be seen more as a response to leif & my pm exchange rather than as a response to anything written after Gedemon's initial post.

------------

Since an administrator has now opened the door to quoting from that private dialogue I will sum up by quoting from one of my PMs to leif. It's couched in very strong language. Part of our discussion was based on my experience as a moderator so I'm going to elide certain references from the end of it. They are about specific staff and aren't appropriate to a public discussion. It does not change the sense of what is quoted - what is actually seen here is intact. I don't expect anyone from C3 C&C to agree with the way I've said this. But if you can set that aside I think core of what I suggest is what we all want - clarity from staff and the opportunity to discuss amongst ourselves what we ourselves need as far as informal written guidelines.

If you want things to calm down here's some advice.

• Get every single staff member who has posted publicly on this issue to apologize publicly. At minimum get an administrator to do so. But getting the people who did the damage to be the ones is the only way that will really work. Be clear that apology doesn't mean telling us we misunderstood. You are - both individually and collectively - going to have to admit you were wrong. Anything less and we may appear to have calmed down. But think about what it means to deal with people who are used to remembering everything involved in a complex project that may take years and who also have an excellent memory for who has done what, who is good at what and what kind of problems there are in dealing with people you can't avoid.
• Back completely off from this idea of imposing a written policy on us. At least for the present. And make it blindingly obvious that is what you are doing. If you do want something formal and workable do the same with us as was done with the C4 modders. Our own thread in our own forum. With a clean slate as far as any codified policy goes. If you do nothing else in this list this alone would do the most to defuse things.
• Get a single spokesperson. Other staff can certainly speak their mind. If you want us to stay coolly rational then eliminate the contradictory statements. Make it blindingly obvious who is presenting the official position.
• The spokesperson doesn't necessarily need to be the staff member in charge of what is going on at the staff end. It should not be a plain old old light blue moderator running the show on something this complex.

 

[Takhisis]

Get every single staff member who has posted publicly on this issue to apologize publicly

Let's see, every single time a moderator stops being one steps down it's for 'personal reasons' and everyone's very thankful for their efforts, even some obvious cases of moderators breaking the rules themselves, or infighting between forum staff. There was no apology over the gross mishandling of the surveys and the OT split. Why should another mistake be recognised? If it weren't for users communicating privately, most of the causes for such things would remain unknown. Indeed, this change itself would remain unknown.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I can't figure out if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just taking the opportunity to rant about something else?

 

[Gary Childress]

All right.

If you have comments on the suggested change to the Modiquette (including if you think the whole idea is terrible and you want to keep the status quo, or if you have an alternative suggestion for how to deal with the kind of incident that has led to this), you can make them on the thread linked to in the OP.

Hi Plotinus,

I think it would help a bit to know what the incident was that led to all this stir in forum policy or rules or guidelines or whatever they are. Perhaps if we knew we could put forth suggestions for how to deal with the kind of incident. But I for one have no idea what the nature of this "incident" was. Can't really comment effectively on something I don't know about.

I mean, is this incident of significance that it needs to be addressed by a change in forum wide policy or is this something that can be addressed on an individual basis and perhaps the author of the incident should be banned to set a precedent that no one do it again?

Furthermore it might help to know what sparked this so that we know what NOT to do?

 

[Gojira54]

This seems real simple folks.

Civ 3 forum has been up for 11 years and has ran just fine without the need of formalizing the policy.

Civ 4 is the newer forum that apparently has some need for the new policy.

While I personally have no issue with the policy, others clearly do. This whole thing seems like a giant fuss over an unneeded thing.

If the Civ 4 forum wants to apply this to their forum, let them. Don't apply it elsewhere. Civ 3 did fine without it for 11 years, Civ 2 longer than that.

You will never be ale to please everyone, but the old policy of no policy seems to please most of the people most of the time. Sure, their have been a few issues, I can think of 3 or so, but out of how many users over the past 11 years?? Leave it as is and move on please.

 

[Plotinus]

But then it won't be an etiquette anymore, Plot.

I suppose not. But - well - what of it?

It's important to understand that we don't plan everything we're going to do with the site years in advance, like Michael Heseltine planning his political career on the back of a napkin. The Modiquette was designed and posted in response to a particular problem. It wasn't created with the intention of later making the changes that are currently being discussed. Rather, the situation has subsequently developed, the Modiquette already exists, and the natural thing to do has been to take the Modiquette and see if it can be adapted. If we'd known how things would pan out then no doubt we would have done it differently, but life isn't like that. As Gedemon has already said, quite rightly, the process hasn't been perfect, but that's just how things have happened. If anyone here with a TARDIS would like to go back and change the past in the light of what we know now, they're entirely welcome to do so.

Hi Plotinus,

I think it would help a bit to know what the incident was that led to all this stir in forum policy or rules or guidelines or whatever they are. Perhaps if we knew we could put forth suggestions for how to deal with the kind of incident. But I for one have no idea what the nature of this "incident" was. Can't really comment effectively on something I don't know about.

I mean, is this incident of significance that it needs to be addressed by a change in forum wide policy or is this something that can be addressed on an individual basis and perhaps the author of the incident should be banned to set a precedent that no one do it again?

Furthermore it might help to know what sparked this so that we know what NOT to do?

The disagreement was, and still is, over a "modmod", as Blue Monkey implied in his post. Which, for the uninitiated, is a mod that is itself a mod of an existing mod. Suppose I like Rob's Anno Domini mod but I think it could be better. So I tinker around with it and make lots of changes. Then I post the revised version myself. That would be a modmod. And the question is: can I do that without Rob's permission? What if someone then takes my modmod and makes their own modmod of it, and I don't like it?

That's more or less what happened in this case, the principal players in which can be worked out from the discussion thread.

So the key incident on which this turned is not simply people using other people's work, but people making their own mods based on existing mods.

 

[embryodead]

A small clarification, "modmods" of various kinds are common in Civ4, often encouraged, but the modiquette specifically states permission *is* required, and it was the unwritten rule (see "How we deal with modmods").

The second part is the question whether making a modmod which is say 90% work of others, gives you the right to prohibit others from using the 10% content that you've added, as that's what happened.

 

[Wolfshade]

Just $0.02:

Suppose I like Rob's Anno Domini mod but I think it could be better. So I tinker around with it and make lots of changes. Then I post the revised version myself. That would be a modmod. And the question is: can I do that without Rob's permission? What if someone then takes my modmod and makes their own modmod of it, and I don't like it?

There are 2 main actions:
1) change someone's work;
2) share it publicly.

My humble opinion:
(1) yes, anyone can do anything. Suppose, I changed a "Rood" and didn't said anything to anyone. This action has no impact for anyone/anything - no one knows I made change and probably will never know, so it's not a problem.
(2) no. Public sharing of the modmod should not be allowed. One wants to share their work with their friends? There are millions sharing facilities on the Internet, so it's not a problem. But CivFanatics is a key website for all versions of Civ game, so there should be described and stored original mods only, not modmod...modmods. And, if someone's looking for something very special (modmod...modmod) - they'll find it. People like to promote their even nuisance work, so they will inform any interested person who posts in the thread about the original mod.
And special case if someone's doesn't want to share their work (there were posts from a user who said about the "free will" in the discussion thread). It goes to the (1) in my post. It's OK. No sharing - nothing to discuss. What they did with the mod - it's their own business and they just has a too long tongue to promote themselves. Such posts should be reported and deleted by moderators - there's a PMing service, so they may promote their work through it.

Sorry for interrupting and thanks for attention.