What "community standards" should modders abide by?


#21

Transparency about the need to change things, and the why, as the decisions are being committed to for the current iteration, is much better than surprise changes that break expectations set up from never being told otherwise, except in annoying catch-all legalese.


#22

To me, the financial one is the main issue that needs to be made crystal clear right from the get-go. Everything else is gravy.

Anyone getting money involved will be screwing over the community. They will almost certainly lose us OSE and 505 support entirely.

That seemed Markie’s point, I think. But as we wait for Update 4 to come out, we have time to spend on planning and discussing, and it doesn’t seem harmful to me to do that. What’s gained by avoiding talking about this stuff?

Feels like, the worst time for a modding newbie to find out that it’s not OK to distribute stuff from another game in their mod without permission, is after they finish and release their mod. It’d be reasonable for them to feel upset and defensive about all the work they put in, and to say “screw you, I’ll distribute it anyway”.

If they know from the start that the problem exists, they can plan their approach and work with everyone to figure out how best to tackle making the mod they want.

So it seems sensible to make newbies aware of the culture and the laws the craft involves, rather than smack them down after the fact for “unspoken rules” they had no way of knowing.


#23

My philosophy for building functional human systems is pretty simple:

  1. Define clear rules at the very start, and enforce them consistently.

  2. Make sure at least one of the rules describes how to change the rules.

In other words, starting off with some simple rules that you can change if necessary has a better chance of yielding the organizational products you want than if your strategy is to hope that the emergent rules of an unfocused group will produce the desired outcomes.

I also suspect OtherSide would have some guidelines for acceptable fan modifications to their game. If so, then that’s already a few rules; most additional constraints from the fan side would IMO just be some practical considerations for achieving a working technical structure and dev/integ process that satisfy the Official Rules.

Simple, consistently enforced, and improvable seems to me like a reasonable model for a new group.


#24

All I’m saying is don’t set everything in stone before you have a stone…you might cut off some avenues of interest without ever knowing about them. Also, be proportionate - it’s all very well evolving a huge memoranda, but you need to gauge the true scale of the interest first, not go off the initial ground swell and count-me-ins.

Flatfinger’s ‘improvable’ is good, in theory…

Money…personally I agree…but to some this is a byword for lack of quality/accountability.

Btw, what exactly could OE be ‘in for?’ . And at what level are they taking notice? There seems to be two distinct tiers of comms with OE…


#25

For what it’s worth, Walter and I are both keeping tabs on these discussions. It’s good for us to have an idea of where the community stands on these, and can give people pre-emptive warning about any legal measures if we see discussions about certain mods we wouldn’t be as comfortable with. Hope this helps a bit.


#26

Yep, we’re tuned in. As a former modder (anyone remember Action Quake 2 / Reaction Quake 3?), I’m very interested in what you guys are thinking.