Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-05-14T20:26:20+02:00

FtXCommando wrote:
The astro situation is already resolved.

I'm not really sure why we would need a 3rd segment of the vault. The rules for the vault itself are already extremely lenient as it is. All creating a more lenient vault would do is allow maps with zero texture work and awful terrain that is buggy/lies to you. I have no idea what benefit that gives FAF.

I agree. One of the nice things I like about FAF has been lack of better way to put it curating of trash. Even if imho both of my current uploaded maps are in trash category (I need rework both of them, just been busy last couple of days but that another tangent). But one of the worst experiences I had before they did an Astro Purge, was when I joined FAF a couple months ago I went to vault looking for cool maps to play.

And like a lot of the maps were astro/gaps before they were hidden. Making finding new maps, for my friends and I to play on an experience. I would rather have our mods have something resembling control than creating a glorified fanfic.net or similar situation where trying to find something is hours of sifting.

Statistics: Posted by Dragun101 — 14 May 2020, 20:26

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-05-14T20:20:00+02:00

The astro situation is already resolved.

I'm not really sure why we would need a 3rd segment of the vault. The rules for the vault itself are already extremely lenient as it is. All creating a more lenient vault would do is allow maps with zero texture work and awful terrain that is buggy/lies to you. I have no idea what benefit that gives FAF.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 14 May 2020, 20:20

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-05-14T19:33:18+02:00

Hi everyone, I'm new to the scene and unwise on all the history, but I feel I can at least offer one thing.

From what I could garner of the situation, Astro feels like he's been deceived, and in large part that may be due to language barrier. It also seems like Astro is a Brazillian player. If that is correct, I can help bridge the gap being Brazillian myself and I can certainly bridge the communication channel.

Now back on OP's topic. I agree with the general sentiment: We don't want maps with no effort and we now have the tools (via adaptive scripts) to allow a single map entry to have wild variations. So I think the proposed curation of vault content will help get to that state.

Now what I believe is being missed is the fact that great concepts can come out of crappy/hasted jobs by creative individuals. It reminds me back on the beginning of Kongregate, where authors of crappy flash games put up a shit ton of new content every day. Well, lo and behold we got some gems out of that lot. Has a separation of a new area in the vault for "map protoypes" been discussed, with more lenient rules, but a huge disclaimer that it does not represent what the vault stands for? If it has, then I'd like to know the consensus of that discussion, but regardless, I think there must be room for that.

Anyways, my 2cc, I love what you guys have built and just want to contribute. Thanks!

Statistics: Posted by arhurt — 14 May 2020, 19:33

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-18T17:19:55+02:00

Unrank astro and gap, plz.

Statistics: Posted by mr_blastman — 18 Apr 2020, 17:19

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-16T08:33:15+02:00

biass wrote:
RedX wrote:The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed.

That isn't true. FtX said and I quote "Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors." which in short means that maps that are and I quote "legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it" are allowed.

These 2 sentences mean completely different things to me.

biass wrote:
RazerFeed wrote:It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea

Nothing here is under copyright,
stop saying things are under copyright.

Your maps are protected under a private design rights agreement.
AKA - these rules we're supposed to be discussing.

Everything is copyrighted the moment it's created. That rights are extended to FAF does not make the copyright invalid.

Statistics: Posted by RedX — 16 Apr 2020, 08:33

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-15T07:41:10+02:00

RedX wrote:
The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed.

That isn't true. FtX said and I quote "Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors." which in short means that maps that are and I quote "legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it" are allowed.

RazerFeed wrote:
It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea

Nothing here is under copyright,
stop saying things are under copyright.

Your maps are protected under a private design rights agreement.
AKA - these rules we're supposed to be discussing.

Statistics: Posted by biass — 15 Apr 2020, 07:41

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T17:13:54+02:00

RedX wrote:
Anihilnine wrote:There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.
If we're going by the law here then FAF need not enforce any copyright on maps unless formally requested by the creator.

I think in generally you'd find that derivative works don't generally apply to works which are inspired by another work but were created separately. For example, if I draw a picture of a person sitting at a bar, I can't claim copyright when somebody else draws a picture of a person at a bar in a similar pose but they drew it in their own style, and the bar looks different.

It's actually a fact, you can’t copyright an idea, so FAF rules are even more strict than in real world, lol.

"Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work."

By the way, when is BRS_Astro getting hes rights back and maps to the Vault/ranked? It's been pretty clear he was deceived by Resistance.

Statistics: Posted by RazerFeed — 14 Apr 2020, 17:13

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T16:45:28+02:00

biass wrote:
RedX wrote:don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea.

We're not (hypothetically) dealing with developing a completely new discord clone with a sdifferent syle and feature list.
We're dealing with (hypothetically) taking the existing discord codebase and then making the menu text a brighter shade of grey.

Also, it's not just about map author's rights; but also how the vault is presented to users attempting to find more content. Trash, broken maps, and mutiple copies of the same map are all hiccups in the user experience and the rules serve to prevent that. It's why content doesnt need to be on the vault and unhidden for you to play it - because the vault is for presenting things for our average users and thus should be of a certain quality.

If you're talking about literally copying the map and changing it a bit then I agree. The post I replied to made it sound as if a map that was made from scratch but was similar to, and inspired by, another map such as craters, would also be disallowed and would be removed. That is what I take issue with. I agree that we don't want trash, broken maps, 50 copies of the same exact map. But if somebody puts in legitimate effort to improve upon an existing concept with their own take on it, then I don't see why it shouldn't be permitted even if the end result is clearly similar.

Statistics: Posted by RedX — 14 Apr 2020, 16:45

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T14:37:22+02:00

I have a question which was prompted by BRS_Astro's post and the situation he was in.

Should mappers have the right to make their map unrated after the initial upload? For example, if the maker of Loki were to say they want that map unrated, why should that be allowed? What is the purpose of this feature? I don't understand where this right comes from or what its intended goal is.

I don't have an issue with disallowing rating at during the initial upload although this could also be questionable.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 14 Apr 2020, 14:37

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T09:38:35+02:00

RedX wrote:
don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea.

We're not (hypothetically) dealing with developing a completely new discord clone with a sdifferent syle and feature list.
We're dealing with (hypothetically) taking the existing discord codebase and then making the menu text a brighter shade of grey.

Also, it's not just about map author's rights; but also how the vault is presented to users attempting to find more content. Trash, broken maps, and mutiple copies of the same map are all hiccups in the user experience and the rules serve to prevent that. It's why content doesnt need to be on the vault and unhidden for you to play it - because the vault is for presenting things for our average users and thus should be of a certain quality.

Statistics: Posted by biass — 14 Apr 2020, 09:38

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T08:45:36+02:00

Anihilnine wrote:
There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.

If we're going by the law here then FAF need not enforce any copyright on maps unless formally requested by the creator.

I think in generally you'd find that derivative works don't generally apply to works which are inspired by another work but were created separately. For example, if I draw a picture of a person sitting at a bar, I can't claim copyright when somebody else draws a picture of a person at a bar in a similar pose but they drew it in their own style, and the bar looks different.

Statistics: Posted by RedX — 14 Apr 2020, 08:45

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-14T05:46:24+02:00

There are laws that differentiate how artworks can be considered different to each other or copying.

I'm not suggesting we get super serious about the law here - I am just saying we dont need to invent rules to manage similar-but-different content, such rules already exist.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 14 Apr 2020, 05:46

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-13T23:25:56+02:00

FtXCommando wrote:
As far as I’m aware two people own the “right” to the concept of astro maps, same situation as dual gap. Other similar maps are derivations of the original works and only exist at the discretion of the original authors. This is to prevent massive continuous spam of astro/dual gap copies.

I disagree with this idea that a map creator owns the right to the "idea" of the map and nobody can make anything similar. Just imagine the state of basically every other art if incremental improvement was frowned upon. Nobody complains that IRC didn't have the right the create a chat program because MUT and BBSes owned the idea. Nobody (most people...) don't complain that Discord had no right to create Discord because IRC owned the right to the idea. Or that FAF didn't have the right to copy the idea of GPGNet.

It also leads to this current state where the map author/owner has full authority to the decide the fate of an entire genre of maps for the entire community, indefinitely. I hate Crater maps with a passion, but it should not be up to one person to remove that entire genre and bar anyone from making a similar replacement.

Statistics: Posted by RedX — 13 Apr 2020, 23:25

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-11T17:57:19+02:00

Hello.

Through this message, I ask that the resistance be reversed.

1 ) At no time did I understand that I was passing the rights to my map to him. I didn't do it nor do I intend to donate, give my map to anyone.

2 ) I thought that when he spoke to me it was the will of all moderators and board members.
But I received messages from other moderators who didn't know anything and were amazed at such a decision from one person.

3 ) I accepted what he said because he thought it was the voice of all the members of the board and moderation, I felt pressured and thought that by not accepting the withdrawal from the rank I would be frowned upon by the board and moderation.

4 ) My conversation with him was really not very clear, I have to resort to google translator, I don't know the same also uses google translator
I have a history saved from the conversation if you want I can put it here.

5 ) speaking astro crater i know that the map has rank problems, and i would rather agree with the removal of rank from the map if it is clear the will of all members of the moderation board and of course if the community in general was consulted so that it is a choice for everyone and not just a man or just those who don't like the map.

6 ) in a democratic world I think that people have the right to play on the map if they want the star crater despite the hatred of some is very played, even without the rank and having been hidden people continue to play in it.
I think for now he should be ranked unhidden again, that would be my will as the author of the map, I am open to talk about the future of the map about him being ugly and not having textures it was not as said above that he was made in 3 minutes actually took much longer than that and I never thought the map would be a success, I mean people would play it straight every day all day. The idea came from a friend who was talking to me and I started putting things in the map editor. It was supposed to be simple, quick and objective.

And when the map was created, there weren't so many rules and many maps were made without texture. and colors the part of the wall is high on purpose the idea was that the team was protected inside the base.

7 ) Another thing that I noticed at some point someone deleted the map and that must have generated some complaint from the players and so they uploaded the map as an unknown author, luckily I always put my nick in the description of the map otherwise nobody would know the authorship making clear my Brazilian friends who debuted the map with me.

Finally, I apologize to those who like the map, I am feeling cheated and used.

Ratifying that when I accepted the withdrawal of the rank it was only due to pressure and for not understanding clearly and clearly what really happened. I really thought that it was the will of ALL moderators and members of the COUNCIL It was never mentioned in the conversation that he would be hidden too.

again i apologize if what i wrote is not clear because i use google translator and i don't know if what came out here in english is clear and explanatory.

BY: BRS_Astro
cya

Statistics: Posted by adjcn — 11 Apr 2020, 17:57

Re: Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

2020-04-10T23:52:54+02:00

We will never consider a “map rating per map type” system. That’s a lie, what I mean is that we did consider it and universally agreed it was an awful idea. Not only is it incredibly painful to have to restructure the database of the server/api or wherever to have to keep “up to date” with the new maps, but the maintenance of it will require consistently motivated people (pipedream) and it doesn’t even solve the issues of global rating.

Long story short, it is the equivalent of a logger cutting off one of the main branches in a disease rotten tree and exclaiming “Mission Accomplished!”

There’s a reason no major game uses such a system.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 10 Apr 2020, 23:52