If you can mark something as nonreusable I should be allowed to only want my reusable stuff in other reusable stuff
What in the world is SRB2 Workshop?
- Thread starter Void Animates
- Start date
Banjo268
Certified Bonified Idiot
So here's where I'm confused. People defending reusability keep saying "I poured hours into this mod so I don't want it to be used willy-nilly", but you chose this. You chose to mod all this stuff into a 25 year old Sonic fangame. It was your choice. I get why you don't want edits of your mod, I agree with that. I'm talking about ports. I understand if the artist doesn't wanna be a associated with a mod, but others enjoy it though. It's really selfish to deny access to port their mod because they don't wanna be associated with it or they don't wanna port it wah. While a port can be unfaithful, the artist most likely would've even put in the same amount of effort into it. I feel like ports to 2.2 should be allowed, while its not the creator's intent, its been, what? 3 years now since 2.2? And they haven't said a single word about getting ____ mod to 2.2, then I think us fans should be allowed to port it. Remember, you chose to pour blood, sweat, and tears, and with requests to get a mod to 2.2, you've ignored it. Also, can a mod lock this thread and someone start a reuability and portlegs thread because the answer to this thread's question was long past due.
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
If you mark it as reusable, then that's that. You made it open. The burden is on you, not on other creators.
Post automatically merged:
This has serious "It's selfish of the artist to ask for any respect" energy. What's ACTUALLY selfish is getting upset that a mod isn't on YOUR preferred version. The mod is still extant, it can still be played in its original form.
Yeah but I can technically already do this if I want to, but it’s through a loophole of making my mod non reusable, saying it actually IS reusable, but your mod must also be reusable, and I think that should b a built in option so it’s not this weird loophole deal
Ace Dragon
Member
While no one here can technically go after anyone in a legal sense for using addon content not marked for reusability for a Sonic fangame, there is still the matter of respecting the creator. It is not a matter of what is legal, but a matter of whether it is ethical to do so, especially since there's also a lot of addons where people insert their original characters into the game (that is, their own creations which do not come out of existing games).
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
Eh... if you want it to be an entirely separate option, then sure. But it shouldn't apply to all reusable mods, and basic reusability should also be an option in any chain started under that third option.
Yeah I agree, I’m just saying I think that should also be an option, esp bc then it’s truly up to the artist and they’re able to think abt how they feel on it, as this might not come up to many making things reusable, but they may prefer this theoretical third option
Post automatically merged:
Yeah I can see how you feel that way, I’m still not sure how I do but it is a good point
And yeah having a thread abt that in general would b useful considering it’s a heavily discussed topic, and it’d be nice for us to have a space to discuss it where we can all respectfully state our views and like. Yknow. Come to conclusions that would help the whole community. Yeag
Last edited:
Banjo268
Certified Bonified Idiot
I never said anything about no respect for artists. Why do I have to play it in its original form? Why can't I enjoy it in 2.2's improvements? Why am I forced to play it in its 2.1 or earlier phase of the game because you won't allow us to port it for you? I get if you don't wanna do the work, so let us do it for you. Fans are perfectly content of doing the work for you, so why won't you let us do it?
Endermanch69
X LB RB RB B A Feelin' Good!
frfr
Nicest flame war I’ve seen
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
You didn't, but respecting the wishes of artists involves respecting the artist. If an artist doesn't want their work ported, then not respecting that wish is not respecting the artist. That's kinda been a major point of this whole discussion.
Last edited:
Banjo268
Certified Bonified Idiot
I understand respecting the artist. Let's say I wanna work on a port of ___, and the creator says they don't want any ports. So, I start a conversation with them asking why not. Weeks go by without response, and by now I've lost all motivation to even port ___. And lets say they do respond, and they go "idk" or "bc I said so". They have no real reason backing them up on why I can't port ___. This means that now the creator has full control on whether not people can enjoy themselves with their mod in 2.2. This feels extremely unfair that they can't even have a reason not for me and others to port ___. Why do I have to play by their rules when the rules are bogus?
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
Because they made the mod. You are not entitled to release edits of things that aren't yours like you claim. YOU think the rules are bogus, but this standard is common across the internet. Here's three snippets from the Gmod Steam Workshop rules:
Banjo268
Certified Bonified Idiot
1. That doesn't really apply to SRB2 besides addon edits bc any port is really a reuploaded addon, just to 2.2.
2. I really hope no one is doing this and getting away with it in submissions.
3. Once again, ports by other members can contradict this rule, especially if given permission to port said mod.
Why did you skip my argument above? I clearly pointed out that modders can have little to no reasons as to why I can't port bc "they said so". They don't even say why they don't want the port. That is a horrible way to base something like reusability system on.
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
I didn't skip your argument, I addressed it in the second sentence. You are not entitled to release edits of things that aren't yours, even if the creator cannot give you a reason they don't want their mod ported. The burden is not on them, the default assumption is not that you are entitled to release that edit. What counts as a "good reason" is highly subjective anyway.
You are acting like you are owed the ability to reupload work that isn't yours, or publish edits of it. But that's not true. The creator is the one who did the work, so they get the say, not you. If that means you have to play the addon in a version other than your favorite, then so be it. That's not a major loss.
Last edited:
Okay, so this is stupid. DylanDude isn't backseat moderating. He's just expressing his opinion. But more importantly, who has been banned for the equivalent of what Dylan is doing on this thread? I think I was pretty clear earlier that this entire thread is an okay and an important discussion to be having. I'm not interested in censoring anyone down on any side of the issue. It's a legitimate thing to discuss.
I like that you acknowledge that it's normal for people to not want edits of their mods. (this is very sane, copyright exists and is a pretty good system -- I know I feel that way) but simply say that it's weird that people don't want ports of their mods, because they're not the same.
Don't infer my opinion from the following (I'm not very personally invested in this topic, but I AM listening):
Just as a point to help communication here,
The reason people are passionate about not wanting ports is because the community's rules have always treated a port as a form of editing, ever since, like, SRB2 version 2.0 in 2010, when the reusability system was first implemented by staff whose exact responsibility has been lost to time (not kidding lmao). They didn't specify the difference at the time (they should have) and over time as staff shifted in and out and the game changed enough for porting things even to be an issue, it was always interpreted in the most strict sense. "Yes, a port is technically an edit, even if very minor, so ports are not allowed from people who didn't want edits."
Is this a good way to interpret it? That's up for debate. But I think you may find that context important because it tells you why things are the way they are currently: It's simply been the way the rule has been for over a decade. A lot of people are comfortable with this exact system, so it's normal for them to defend it if they're passionate about it.
I, for one, did not make the reusability system in the first place. I am not a hardcore stan of it; I'm actually rather indifferent (at least since the clarifications that were made a few months ago). I do have opinions about it, but they're not the strongest ones, so I haven't bothered sharing them much of anywhere or acting on them. Its exact implementation has never been a huge sticking point to me; there are other aspects of moderation I care about a lot more. But it doesn't mean I haven't been reading and making mental notes about this all. I appreciate these things being brought up.
If people can make good cases about hot topics without going wildly off the rails or just plain being ignorant or insultive, that helps everyone. That's why I like your post specifically: Because it doesn't undermine the validity of authors trying to protect the integrity of their art (something which I DO have strong and solid opinions on. It's literally a legal matter.). It simply questions whether the version of SRB2 it was made for is a fair thing to lump under "author's intent."
That's why this thread is so important: Don't underestimate the level to which staff (me and others) do pay attention to threads like this. Where there are strong opinions, it's good to have a place to voice them, so that people who are less personally invested in them (whether staff or not) can see different perspectives and consider them.
I don't personally see another thread as necessary, as I think everyone coming in can gather what the topic is here and why it's being talked about. I'd prefer to keep the information in one consecutive place anyways.
Kekrock
just play fallout new vegas it's really good
as someone who used Steam Workshop before, i can safely say none of the rules apply here due to Reusability system.
1. this is not actually enforced in any way, as there are addon reuploads, like the previously banned Trollface addon because it contained malicious code inside
2. this only applies to Valve code only, not made by a community member, you can take code from an other addon to yours, just credit the author in it's description
3. collections exist for a reason.
DylanDude
Overeager Raposa
Here's the Zdoom rules then.
(That board mentioned at the end is comprised of off-site links to the original mod sources BTW.)
Here's idgames:
Doomworld has a comparable system of reusability:
Again, not an unusual standard to require permission. The reusability system simply makes it easier by requiring addon creators to declare their wishes beforehand, removing the need to even ask for permission in a plurality of cases.
Last edited: