|
Black Pants posted:In the end of the day it's still your ball. Why does everyone else get to demand that you let them play with your ball? You wouldn't download a car!!!
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Copyrights is a mistake that needed to be purged 20 years ago, please don't perpetuate this bullshit
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
Black Pants posted:In the end of the day it's still your ball. Why does everyone else get to demand that you let them play with your ball? "Don't worry guys, I have an identical ball, we can all carry on having fun!" "HOW DARE YOU"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
So no one should have control over content they created? Like if for example, I decided my mod which let you fly around in a giant fleshy obscene spaceship was really not appropriate material I wish to have attached to my name and is actually an embarassment, why should I not be able to take down my own work?  Or if I dunno, I find that I'd not be as covered under fair use for sampling, and as a result included a fuckton of copyright violations in my mod and I decided to legally cover my rear end it would be best to delete the whole thing except that someone decided that no you cannot do that, your name will be attached to these mistakes forever, also they will be available to anyone wishing to grab them for ever? Or if I discovered that I had a critical bug and decided to update my mod to fix that while getting rid of older content that wasnt working. Only some people decided they really liked that horrible poo poo and want you to go back to it. Do you know people will dig up your contact information and demand you update your mod even though you stopped playing it ages ago and have no loving wish to go back to it for reasons like, idk, the editor is a loving piece of poo poo and a nightmare to work in? Lastly wiping out old stuff that doesnt work anymore is good practice. You cant remove 'people sulking and taking off their stuff' without breaking everything else about workshop that provides near instant timely updates.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
ask me about these weirdly specific examples and why I gave up modding
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
Black Pants posted:People can do whatever the hell they want with their work. It's their work. They made it. They made it because they wanted to make it and if they want to unmake it there's a button there specifically for doing so. You didn't buy it, you didn't pay anything for it, you're just demanding it exists for your enjoyment. And if you subscribed to it, it hasn't been removed from your computer anyway. You don't really have any say in it as an end user, no matter how you feel about it. It's also completely useless to even care about this, since all your used mods are in a folder on your HDD, so if you fear losing them nothing stops you from copying them to your own back-up folder. People have all the rights in the world to delete their crap, after all they made it. And if you want to use it instead of mewling around uselessly, just save that mod on your PC. It's not like removing the mod from the workshop will send deletion rays across the information superhighway and randomly delete folders on your harddisc. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:So no one should have control over content they created? Sorry, maybe my point is unclear. You have every right to delete your content from the workshop for all of these reasons. That's absolutely fine. I have every right to re-upload your content under my own account and take over maintaining the mod because the original author no longer wants to. I absolutely should credit the original author, as all modders should with any content their mod is based on. (although I guess in some of your examples it's totally reasonable for you to request that they don't do this?) Doing this is completely standard open source behaviour. Discontinued projects get adopted by other developers all the time because they want the project to continue when the original author is no longer able to or willing to do so. My original point was in response to someone saying that doing the above is a "dick move". It really isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Sorry, maybe my point is unclear. If someone stops maintaining software because they were harassed by people, as may well be the case here, this muddies the waters enormously.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I have every right to re-upload your content under my own account and take over maintaining the mod because the original author no longer wants to. What exactly gives you this right to just appropriate someone's work? Seems doubly unwelcome if it explicitly goes against their wishes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Sorry, maybe my point is unclear.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:If someone stops maintaining software because they were harassed by people, as may well be the case here, this muddies the waters enormously. Well, if someone says "sorry guys, I can't keep maintaining this because there are too many assholes" and someone steps up and says "don't worry, I'll maintain it instead" that seems fine to me. Like unless we're saying the campaign of harassment was to force a takeover of the mod or something Synthbuttrange posted:What exactly gives you this right to just appropriate someone's work? Seems doubly unwelcome if it explicitly goes against their wishes. The same thing that gave the original author the right to utilise the modding tools, libraries, tutorials and other mods when they were making theirs. That's how the modding ecosystem works, when you make your derivative work others will fork it and make their own. It's a core part of the open source philosophy. Splicer posted:This is where you start distorting the narrative (presumably unintentionally, it's easily done) to support your point. The original author no longer wants their work distributed. Very different. By making it reavailable for distribution you are directly going against their wishes. Whether you would be justified in doing so depends on a lot of factors. In this particular situation I think the mod author is being a whiny drama addict BUT re-uploading it would be dick move. I don't mean to distort the narrative, I know that this came from a specific example that I've not delved into the details of - however, if I adopted an abandoned mod because I love it and want others to be able to play it, I would need a REALLY good reason to stop doing that. Not just "I don't want people to play it". Like an actual reason why you want that which will convince me to sacrifice this mod for it. Just restating your desire that nobody plays this thing that you yourself built on top of other people's work in the first place doesn't really cut it for me. It's an extremely problematic position to adopt and it's the reason companies have written TOS's that invalidate it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Well, if someone says "sorry guys, I can't keep maintaining this because there are too many assholes" and someone steps up and says "don't worry, I'll maintain it instead" that seems fine to me. Like unless we're saying the campaign of harassment was to force a takeover of the mod or something The former has been mentioned already, the latter is entirely possible in this case. Chalks posted:The same thing that gave the original author the right to utilise the modding tools, libraries, tutorials and other mods when they were making theirs. Permission from the people involved?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Permission from the people involved? The terms of the workshop are what let you do it. The ones the modder agrees to when they make their mod. By releasing a mod you agree to the terms of the modding api you're using as laid down by the developers of the game and/or the workshop. You're arguing that people should be able to retroactively retract this permission. I disagree. I'm entirely happy to reconsider my position if someone can give me a reason beyond digitally taking your ball and going home.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Chalks posted:The terms of the workshop are what let you do it. The ones the modder agrees to when they make their mod. By releasing a mod you agree to the terms of the modding api you're using as laid down by the developers of the game and/or the workshop.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
guys guys how about space-based narrative-led 4Xs they're cool On that subject: https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1134032417671528448?s=19 I do loathe the caravaneers and will happily remove them from all my games in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I hope
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
Where's my "maybe" option
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The enforcers of the TOS are apparently siding with the mod maker so... Then the reason you can't do it is because it's against the TOS. It's still a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but if it's against the TOS you can't do it. *edit* alright I'll shut up.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is where you start distorting the narrative (presumably unintentionally, it's easily done) to support your point. The original author no longer wants their work distributed. Very different. By making it reavailable for distribution you are directly going against their wishes. Whether you would be justified in doing so depends on a lot of factors. In this particular situation I think the mod author is being a whiny drama addict BUT re-uploading it would be dick move. Solution: Rename the mod, change some random things. Now it's not the original mod anymore. Everyone is happy.  Aethernet posted:guys guys how about space-based narrative-led 4Xs Edit: Thank gently caress! Those bastards were funny at the beginning, but they keep messing up my games and I hate that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Then the reason you can't do it is because it's against the TOS. It's still a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but if it's against the TOS you can't do it. Again, according to a throwaway comment in this thread which may be lies. e: you had more stuff but it's gone Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:44 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
I like the Caravaneers but I don't like when their system spawns to close to me and ruins my pretty borders. All the other enclaves are chill with me technically owning their system, why can't I just guarantee the Caravaneers free access to and from their home system and still plant my flag on it? Maybe even the Marauders too, if you do some quest chain or beat them up a bit or whatever. This is a paradox game, surely they know by now we're willing to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of pretty borders
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's not against the TOS, the enforcers of the TOS are (according to a post in this thread anyway) not allowing people to upload copycats, despite the TOS allowing them to allow it. They have made a judgement call to allow the mod maker to withdraw their content despite having the authority to not allow them to. Yeah, I figure it's a pretty context specific decision they've made here. Paradox can make the rules as they see fit and if someone's abusing the TOS to harass someone or whatever then it's good that they respond to that. I removed the rest 'cause it's probably time to stop making people read my dumb posts.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's not against the TOS, the enforcers of the TOS are (according to a post in this thread anyway) not allowing people to upload copycats, despite the TOS allowing them to allow it. They have made a judgement call to allow the mod maker to withdraw their content despite having the authority to not allow them to. Where exactly does the TOS require giving unrelated third parties unconditional rights to distribute and modify things uploaded to workshop in the first place? It explicitly gives *Valve* less rights for workshop than it would do for other user content, and explicitly says that mod makers can withdraw mods, and that wold even terminate additional rights *Valve* has (but that people who downloaded them will still keep using them) https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#6
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I removed the rest 'cause it's probably time to stop making people read my dumb posts. No you're not allowed to do that
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Rumda posted:No you're not allowed to do that No, I am, but you're allowed to quote them. This analogy is way better than the ball one, I regret not thinking of it before I totally stopped posting about this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Chalks posted:No, I am, but you're allowed to quote them. This analogy is way better than the ball one, I regret not thinking of it before I totally stopped posting about this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Ah, but if I had copied the other stuff you'd posted (which I did see and read!) and continued that part of the argument, ignoring whether I have the right to do that (I do), would you have considered that a dick move? It would have served me right. I admit it, I'm addicted to fake editing my posts after I make them and I deserve everything I get.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
This is roughly the point where someone makes a joke about ethics in games modding, right?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:guys guys how about space-based narrative-led 4Xs I Iike the caravans, they offer some handy techs and buildings. Only thing I wish for is if I've said 'No' to an offer (because I don't want it, not because I lacked resources to buy it) they stop spamming me with it every time they enter my territory; don't ask me again until you have something new on offer.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Stellaris: The Word for Mods is Goodbye
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
Guilliman posted:I'm totally ok with this to be fair. Though some room for nuance is appreciated. Old mods that are still public and abandoned should be free to take (after at least one attempt to contact the owner). I think that's more than fair. Just Kramering in to say I love your mod and enjoy the game a lot more since I started using it. Also I will be super sad if 2.3 breaks it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Just Kramering in to say I love your mod and enjoy the game a lot more since I started using it. Thanks! I'm not expecting 2.3 to break it (much). But I'm not sure the update I'm working on will be 100% save compatible with the current live version of my mod. There's a lot of changes and improvements I'm working on. I'd hold off using my mod with 2.3 to be safe.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
I would kill for something like ksps module manager. I want to add something to every district without replacing every district.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-150-2-3-wolfe-patch-notes.1183870/ patchnotes
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Oh, I see a little nerf to Ecus in there: the districts take rare resources to build and maintain. Also Dyson Spheres got super buffed. It's now 1000/2000/3000/4000.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Stellaris posted:* Low habitability now also reduces pop growth and job output by 0.5% per missing habitability 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
* Low habitability now also reduces pop growth and job output by 0.5% per missing habitability
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Is this one of those Keep Your Save or Goodbye To Save patches? I'm partway through my first game in like six months.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Is this one of those Keep Your Save or Goodbye To Save patches? I'm assuming a Goodbye to Save patch, considering how much poo poo is changing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
I wonder if Glaviusīs AI mod will still be necessary or functional given that some parts were incorporated into the patch (which is cool af for him!).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:42
|
|