• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

... because we actually don't do 2 or 3, if it just concerns modding, and not the general behaviour.

Could we get a bit more specific ?
What is meant with "if it just concerns modding" ?
 
We warn and infract people for flaming, trolling, spam and some other things, which might lead at the end to a ban (temporary or permanently).
If it's about giving credits, sharing work, behaving like a good community member, respecting the rights of others, etc. then this is at the moment nothing which is regulated by the forum rules.
 
We warn and infract people for flaming, trolling, spam and some other things, which might lead at the end to a ban (temporary or permanently).

That is what all forums I know do as well. :thumbsup:

If it's about giving credits, sharing work, behaving like a good community member, respecting the rights of others, etc. then this is at the moment nothing which is regulated by the forum rules.

Credits:

Other forums I know, do the same as above.
They first remember in a friendly way.
Then they warn in a more serious way.
If it is still refused they ban (mostly permanently).

Sharing Work:

I don't know any other forum that tries to enforce that.
I have tried to explain already, why this is critical.

I am convinced that there is no good way to force a modder to share.
And there is nothing to gain with even trying.
All that will probably happen is that community might loose some mods to play.

This is simply handled by the modders themselves.
Why should somebody cooperate with or help another modder that refuses to cooperate and help himself ?

Of course, other modders will not always be able to reasonably convince uncooperative modders.
It is simply a pitty then.

"respecting the rights of others":

The formulation is quite vague, but I guess it might be related to breaking explicit "terms of usage / permissions".

Other forums I know, handle this just the same way as they do for "Refusing to give Credits".
They first remember in a friendly way.
Then they warn in a more serious way.
If it is still refused they ban (mostly permanently).

"behaving like a good community member":

That formulation is very vague, so I don't know what to say about that.
 
Credits:

Other forums I know, do the same as above.
They first remember in a friendly way.
Then they warn in a more serious way.
If it is still refused they ban (mostly permanently).

Sharing Work:

I don't know any other forum that tries to enforce that.
I have tried to explain already, why this is critical.

I am convinced that there is no good way to force a modder to share.
And there is nothing to gain with even trying.
All that will probably happen is that community might loose some mods to play.

This is simply handled by the modders themselves.
Why should somebody cooperate with or help another modder that refuses to cooperate and help himself ?

Of course, other modders will not always be able to reasonably convince uncooperative modders.
It is simply a pitty then.
This is the heart of it. The Modiquette is a set of guidelines, not rules to follow.

In the past, I think modders did handle most things between themselves and that is a good system. When modders come to staff to resolve an issue, we turn to the Modiquette and try to resolve the issue in the way you describe. The problem comes when no one wants to resolve the situation. We have no forum rules to guide us in going further than how the Modiquette informs us.

I have read in this thread that it is ugly and divisive to the modding community and I agree with that. Currently, other than banning people outright, we have no tools to help us resolve the ugliness and make the forum a better place for all members. What you are seeing a piece of is what some of us have been trying to deal with for some time.
 
Currently, other than banning people outright, we have no tools ...

Exactly.
Other than reminding, warning and banning people when misbehaving, a modding forum can not / should not do anything.

With "misbehaving" I am talking about things like:
  • flaming / insulting / rudeness
  • trolling
  • spam
  • pornography
  • refusing credits <-- Please add to forum rules if missing
  • not respecting explicit terms of usage / permissions <-- Please add to forum rules if missing

I don't think much more needs to be handled by enforcable rules.
 
In order to ban someone, we should have a basis to do so. The Modiquette, then, needs to become forum policy, not just a set of guidelines.

Bans are taken very seriously by staff and we try to keep from taking this action.
 
In order to ban someone, we should have a basis to do so.
...
Bans are taken very seriously by staff and we try to keep from taking this action.

Agree. :thumbsup:

Then simply take 2 more passages into the forum rules:
One that clarifies credits and one that clarifies respecting terms of usage / permissions.

The Modiquette, then, needs to become forum policy, not just a set of guidelines.

Please leave the Modiquette what it is.
It does not need to become anything else.
 
Here is one way that could be written. Credit to several staff members. This is not the actual rule, but a basis for further discussion, as we'd prefer it to be something that most people can feel comfortable with. This version features 1) Allowing modders to specify otherwise; 2) Respecting the 3rd party; 3) Setting a default of "derivatives OK" if not specified.

draft said:
Unless stated otherwise by its author(s), any original work that is supplied through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to be re-used for non-commercial purposes within this community, without permission, as long as credit is given and no 3rd party rights are violated (not considering IP holders of the Civilization franchise and users from this forum)

Any derivative works, when allowed, are submitted to the sharing and modification rules set by the original author(s) or the forum's default rules if none were specified.

Scenarios:

Modder includes 3rd party (e.g. music) with permission and states this. The 3rd party works cannot be derived without obtaining rights.

Modder does not state any sharing rules. Derivative works are allowed as long as no other rights are violated.

Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.

In any case, EULA enforcement is not included in the scope. In all cases, proper credit must be given.
 
I'd be happy with that wording
 
Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.
I have a problem with permissions for all time.

I believe if the modder is no longer active on the forum after defined period the requirement to obtain permission should lapse, and the works then fall under the normal sharing guidelines of the modiquette and all that remains is to continue to give credit to the original author where possible.
 
I believe if the modder is no longer active on the forum after defined period the requirement to obtain permission should lapse, ...

I understand your motivation about that and share your concerns about work not being usable by others aymore.

But I am still not sure about that. :think:

  • If a modder explicitly states that his work requires permission to be used, could this simply be ignored after let us say a year of inactiveness ?
  • Could that rule even account, if his work was never uploaded here but on another site ?
  • Some of the users that are inactive here can still be contacted with their eMail through their user profile.
 
While the requirement to obtain permission may seem it is ignored and yes the PM system does allow for email etc., the fact that we say you must continue to give credit should allay most concerns after a defined period.

My mod for example is hosted on "Atomic Gamer" and it is available for download via the download database. I still feel it is a Civfanatics resource.
 
Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.
If a modder explicitly states that his work requires permission to be used
What constitutes a modders work? If said modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, received help in writing code, or has used or modified graphics and studied other mods codes etc and incorporates this in his mod, can he then claim that it is all his own work?
What are you (who like to think of yourself's as so important) doing to the community!
What of newer members, just starting out who, because you don't want to share will not have the advantages that you had in producing your mod. The fact is, you have taken advantage of others willingness to share but are not willing to do likewise and seek to gain all the credit for yourself.

This is still a community and this is a Rule change and every member has a right to be heard and that includes those who do not have a big fancy mod to there name.
I understand that there is a need in certain circumstances to require permission but it is also now necessary to protect sharing and openness. You can dismiss the EULA if you want but the fact remains civ modding exists because of the openness of 2K and the fact they allowed you to do what you want with their code, you would nothing without that.
Therefore the rule change must also require people to share "their" work, the community as a whole must be protected and not just the rights of a few powerful individuals.
Whats next on your agenda, consultancy fees? Are we going to have to buy the rights to your mod? pay to download it? start to sue each other for infringement of intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style and other alleged similarities in mods?
Admin have a duty to protect the rights of all.
Those who want the right to demand permission must have reasonable Cause for doing so and saying "I worked hard on it" is not sufficient!
What exactly are they claiming to right of ownership to? The concept? The whole mod? Elements in it?


One other thing if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod he will be banned, hope those who think the wording is fine are aware of that!
 
Ok, let me first clarify again, how our mod handles this, before anybody might get personal again. :)
Spoiler :

This mod is based on TAC ?

Yes, it is originally based on TAC and almost completely includes everything that is in TAC 2.03_final.
With its amazing size, love for the detail and outstanding quality TAC was a great base for this project.

However, we have heavily changed, improved or added to that base.
A very big part of Religion and Revolution is new features not known in TAC.
(In many cases adjusted / improved versions of features from other mods / modcomps but also often created by ourselves.)

We really have to thank all the modders out there for their great work.
Special thanks again to the TAC team.
Without all their hard work, this mod would not exist. :thumbsup:


Is it allowed to use our work ?

Yes, generally you can use our source code, graphics, images, ...

!!! However !!!

1. We do contain music that does not belong to us.
René Osmanczyk for example has allowed us to use his music.
If you want to use and publish it as well, you need to ask him before doing so.

2. We do contain a lot of work from other modders and mod projects (especially TAC).
Please consider that, when giving credits as well.
If you are not sure, who to credit, simply ask us and we will try to tell you.


Some Remarks about Distribuiton and Rights of Usage:

Religion and Revolution is a non-commercial mod project.
If you use or distribute Religion and Revolution please pay attention to the copyright.
We allow usage and distribution as long as Religion and Revolution remains non-commercial.
As a matter of course it is permitted to use Religion and Revolution in an own mod project
as long as the copyrights are not harmed, and it is a non-commercial project too.
If you use Religion and Revolution in an own mod project you have to make clear that you have
done changes to the original Religion and Revolution and eventually also to our base project TAC.


1. We absolutely recognize that we contain a lot that does not belong to us.
2. In our Credits, we try to list the people that we have used word from or received help.
3. We are very willing to share and help others.
4. However, we do have some terms of usage and cannot allow usage of work that does not belong to us.
5. We have always accepted if somebody refused to share or cooperate with us.

What constitutes a modders work ?

Everything he created himself. :)
Start questioning that and you will cause damage to a modding community.

If said modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, received help in writing code, or has used or modified graphics and studied other mods codes etc and incorporates this in his mod, can he then claim that it is all his own work?

Does your government own everything you have ?
Do your friends or teachers own everything you have ?

You should be thankful of course.
But that still does not mean they own what is yours.

When you rent a house or are allowed to live in it.
Does all the furniture you put in it belong to the owner ?

What are you (who like to think of yourself's as so important) doing to the community!

1. Simply trying to protect the community from
  • lots of arguing
  • modders leaving the community
  • mods not becoming available for players
  • legal problems with 3rd parties
    ...

2. Simply trying to protect our own work and the work our mod contains from others from abuse (meaning unwanted usage).

What of newer members, just starting out who, because you don't want to share will not have the advantages that you had in producing your mod.

Modders that are uncooperative and unwilling to share will simply get problems with other modders because those will also not share or cooperate.

The fact is, you have taken advantage of others willingness to share but are not willing to do likewise and seek to gain all the credit for yourself.

This is not about modders generally not being willing to share.
It is about accepting, generally respecting modders' rights and that they can have some word about their work.
It simply is and must stay the free decision of a modder what he shares under which conditions or how he cooperates.

This is still a community and this is a Rule change and every member has a right to be heard and that includes those who do not have a big fancy mod to there name.

Who ever said, that only modders with "big fancy mods" should be heard ?

I understand that there is a need in certain circumstances to require permission but it is also now necessary to protect sharing and openness.

There is no need to worry about sharing and openness.
Sharing and openness is common sense.
Every modder that shares and cooperates profits from that.
It simply should not be enforced, but volantary and under the conditions a modder can accept for himself.

Therefore the rule change must also require people to share "their" work, the community as a whole must be protected and not just the rights of a few powerful individuals.

Sorry, I disagree.
You simply cannot force a modder to share if he does not want to.
He will simply get angry and leave.

Whats next on your agenda, consultancy fees?
Are we going to have to buy the rights to your mod?
Pay to download it?

Who has ever been talking about making money here ?

Those who want the right to demand permission must have reasonable Cause for doing so and saying "I worked hard on it" is not sufficient!

Well I believe that "I worked hard on it" is sufficient.

One other thing if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod he will be banned, hope those who think the wording is fine are aware of that!

Of course not.
Where in the proposal for the new rule is said, that a modder forgetting credits will be banned right away ?

First he is asked politely to include credits.
Everybody can forget or oversee something.

If he ignores, some more serious discussions may start.
If he then still refuses, he should be banned.
 
I have a problem with permissions for all time.

I believe if the modder is no longer active on the forum after defined period the requirement to obtain permission should lapse, and the works then fall under the normal sharing guidelines of the modiquette and all that remains is to continue to give credit to the original author where possible.

I'd disagree. If a modder has specifically stated that derivatives are not to be made from their work without permission, then you shouldn't attempt to make derivatives from their work until you explicitly gain that permission. The fact is the vast majority of mods will remain available for use in the creation of derivatives, whether through the default "assume you can use it, unless otherwise stated" or because the modders explicitly give permission. It can not be too much to ask that the modder's express wishes be respected.

What constitutes a modders work? If said modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, received help in writing code, or has used or modified graphics and studied other mods codes etc and incorporates this in his mod, can he then claim that it is all his own work?
.
If a modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, etc., then all that info is available to whoever else wants to use it - you just have to look. You don't need to defy their requests relating to their work.
 
What constitutes a modders work? If said modder has used tutorials, read threads and asked questions, received help in writing code, or has used or modified graphics and studied other mods codes etc and incorporates this in his mod, can he then claim that it is all his own work?

That's for what we have this part:
Any derivative works, when allowed, are submitted to the sharing and modification rules set by the original author(s) or the forum's default rules if none were specified.

;).
So you can't take other people's stuff and say "it's mine", that will not work :).

One other thing if a modder accidentally forgets to include a credit for a unit in his mod he will be banned, hope those who think the wording is fine are aware of that!

lolwut nobody said anything like that.
 
Modder says that permission is required. Derivative works are only allowed with permission, as long as no other rights are violated.

I have an issue with this, how would it be applied to large multiple-person projects such as C2C? Who's permission is necessary? Would one modder on a large team be able to tell others not to make derivatives, when the mod is worked on by ten people?
 
Top Bottom