Allright, with all due respect, but can we PLEASE just stop complaining and continue on with our lives? It's not like the world is coming to an end, so why make such a big deal of it? Just use the report function instead of posting weird memes and we're done.

Allright, with all due respect, but can we PLEASE just stop complaining and continue on with our lives? It's not like the world is coming to an end, so why make such a big deal of it? Just use the report function instead of posting weird memes and we're done.

It's more than that. Besides, what Cj24 is doing is nowhere near complaining, he's actually providing plausible points on why the system needs to change to prevent these mini-flame wars from occurring over someone posting images of ripped vehicle models.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, although I have been a member here for a little over a year, it saddens me to see all of this turmoil going on. It is unnecessary and just puts much more stress on the Community Team and other Staff members. I know for myself, I try to report things as often as I can if I see there is an infraction occurring. Not because I am a dick, but because I want the Community Team to know about whatever the issue is so it can be resolved in a professional and swift manor. So it doesn't spiral out of control into a flame war.

Allright, with all due respect, but can we PLEASE just stop complaining and continue on with our lives?

To be honest, where most people would just see a bunch of back and forth arguments, I see a possible opportunity. Sure, arguments are never fun, but sometimes you can't get anywhere without both sides expressing all of their views at once and then using them to change policies.

If we can gain valuable suggestions from all this, then I don't see an issue with both sides expressing their opinions and debating with each other. This isn't what anyone wanted to have happen, but it did happen, and it would be foolish to waste the opportunity.

Edit: I'm going to add that I am one of the newest additions to the CT. I came on board during the peak of all of this, and I haven't had the chance to dig myself into a trench and stick with the old ways of doing things (not that I'm saying the CT has necessarily done that). Both sides (and I don't even know why we need to have sides here, but we do) have messed up. I don't think there's any way to sugar coat that. We weren't fast enough in changing our policies (whether someone wants to blame that on us or on events we can't control is up to the viewer). CJ24 is right when he said "well, it worked, because Staff is taking action." Sadly, this whole mess is what it took to spur on large-scale talks and changes, but the important thing now is what we've started assessing the situation and coming up with alternative solutions. Sure, we took too long to do it, but at least it is being done now.

It's frustration all-round as I commented last night, there's some valid points on both sides of the argument when you dig below the surface. The "modders" (term used to loosely describe the people involved in this) believed that we didn't care and ignored them.

 

It's not the first time we have different views on certain things, then again, I don't expect us all to agree on everything, only that we respect each other and accept the compromises that we can agree on. The CT tries to take the majority of our users into account when we make decisions about the site, we don't expect individual users to do that, it doesn't invalidate their views or experiences, however it does mean that we can't take exactly what they say and implement it if it goes against the core values we believe the community stands for.

 

Someone mentioned that it's not just "what you say, but how you say it" that matters, that's also true, we wouldn't be here if the "modders" politely contacted someone via PM if they noticed that someone might be using their models or brought up their concerns with us instead of ignoring the rules because "we don't care about them"

 

We've had a user that was targeted by a small modding group because one of its members believed that the user didn't have permission to use certain parts of a model, they called the user out in public, one of the involved users even threatened with that" I could DDoS'ing your clan to its knees, how do you feel about that?"

 

That's the worst-case scenario, it can't really get much worse than that. I also think it's fair to mention that some of those that were involved realised that it was getting out of hand, stopped and fully co-operated with us, we took that into account and actually tanked them for doing so. The user that uploaded the image also responded back to the "attackers" before reporting to us which also escalated the issue, however the responses he received weren't proportionate to the situation, nor did the "attackers" contact us about it.
 

 

That situation escalated over certain parts of a model, the user that uploaded the image received two different copies edits of the same base model, he had permission to share and publicly use one of said models at the time, but was asked to keep the other model to himself. He complied with that request and used the model he had permission to show and share instead of the "private" version. Those involved could have talked about the issue, either by asking us to sit in and moderate the conversation, instead they opted for the "effective" approach of calling him out in public.

 

I'm not much for calling it "mod theft", theft is defined as:

 

a :  the act of stealing; specifically :  the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

 

b :  an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Source

 

You're not "deprived" of your models if another user uses it without permission. I think it's more aptly described as exactly that, using content without permission.

 

 

What we don't like about what's been going on is the lack of respect directed at us. I made it clear in the staff thread we had about the issue early on that the "modders" actions aren't acceptable but that I can understand their frustration, it doesn't excuse their behaviour, but we do understand that people get frustrated.

 

 

That's a PM I received from a "modder", he wasn't banned, he didn't even get a warning for that, instead we exchanged several PM's (15 thus far). 

 

Here's another PM from a different "modder" in a similar tone:

 

The user in question was given several in-thread warnings about accusations, he was one of the 25 modders we contacted, he was given several warnings, temp suspension,put on moderator approval, temporarily revoked posting rights, then created a second account to circumvent the sanctions (where he also posted a thread asking "where he can rip" mods).

 

 

 

Some of the people we contacted were reasonable and were interested in engaging in a conversation about the issues, however the PM's above, especially the first shows the attitude by some people, being the majority of people that claim that we don't listen or care about theft. Those people are why this thread is here and that's why we're acting the way we are in this thread.

 

 

Another kind message sent by a user less than 30 minutes ago.

And there goes yet another bit of my faith in humanity. Why can't people just solve this in a normal, professional way?

Edited January 23, 201412 yr by SuperStumpje

I certainly think that it's time to wrap up this issue at least in public. We could all spend our time on something more productive and I don't want to give those involved in the serious violations any more attention because they quite frankly don't deserve it. However this is degrading to mudslinging and that's not really doing much good, but it does go to show what's going on "behind the scenes" nowadays.

 

Anyone who has constructive input concerning the issues discussed are more than welcome to PM me or Sam so we can take it into account when we work on the site.

I'm sorry, but I believe publishing private messages to defend yourself and pillory the users is a pretty desperate move, especially because it basicly violates your own rule which says you shouldn't accuse anybody publicly. You were posting that deco didn't have permission for using Dodgeboy's Interceptor in this thread, yet you have no proof and are doing the same things you punished others for.

 

I'm going back to my main statement: This thread is causing a hatred on those involved. What was the cause for the issue? Thieves. Since you don't like the word, let's speak about license violators. While you keep saying ripping is bad, it took you months to start serious investigation, instead modders get warning points. Wait, let's stick to your vocabulary, they got "no harsh punishments". Now thieves are not even the issue anymore, instead there're people saying everything is better if modders stopped caring about their work. Do you seriously think somebody puts their spare time and effort to create something completely free for the community to use and then stops caring?

What is going on with the community? Whoever believes modders should not be allowed to protect their work: Stop using mods, you're not worth them.

 

I don't see why we should continue this discussion. There's no move forward, just repeating the same things.

I honestly don't know how much longer this topic can be debated without getting to the point where people start degrading to the use of profanity and silliness. And yes I called it a debate. To say people were "arguing" would imply fault and blame which I refuse to do.

So, I'm going to just throw in a suggestion, and leave it here openly for you to decide upon.

 

Here goes:

 

Why don't we all just call it quits, let the "modders" or "content creators" or "thieves" or "general forum users who like cake" or "whatever you classify yourself as" get on with what they want to do, and let the staff put their heads together and figure out a reasonable but suitable way of solving the "problems"

If you think there is a violation of anything, there is a report button. Might I suggest, actually using that rather than adding fuel to the fire?

 

Just a suggestion. Do with it what you will.

 

 

 

Finally.

 

 

:)    <----Smiley face makes everything better.

I'm sorry, but I believe publishing private messages to defend yourself and pillory the users is a pretty desperate move, especially because it basicly violates your own rule which says you shouldn't accuse anybody publicly. You were posting that deco didn't have permission for using Dodgeboy's Interceptor in this thread, yet you have no proof and are doing the same things you punished others for.

 

I'm going back to my main statement: This thread is causing a hatred on those involved. What was the cause for the issue? Thieves. Since you don't like the word, let's speak about license violators. While you keep saying ripping is bad, it took you months to start serious investigation, instead modders get warning points. Wait, let's stick to your vocabulary, they got "no harsh punishments". Now thieves are not even the issue anymore, instead there're people saying everything is better if modders stopped caring about their work. Do you seriously think somebody puts their spare time and effort to create something completely free for the community to use and then stops caring?

What is going on with the community? Whoever believes modders should not be allowed to protect their work: Stop using mods, you're not worth them.

 

I don't see why we should continue this discussion. There's no move forward, just repeating the same things.

here is something you said "instead modders get warning points. Wait, let's stick to your vocabulary, they got no harsh punishments" I hope your not trying to say a warning point is a harsh punishment because if you are i am going to freak out

No, "modders" are not supposed to stop "caring about their work", they're supposed to treat other users with respect. As you said, this issue has persisted for months, public accusations, attacks other users, it has been going on for months.

Yes, it took us a while to look at the issue beneath the surface, the "surface" issue was bad enough (the accusations in the gallery).

 

We're being accused publicly about not caring about the issue at hand and ignored the pleas that have been made as if we've deliberately done so. TThat the "modders" have done "nothing wrong", that they're the ones defending "what's right" by attacking other users.

Are we not supposed to explain our side of the issues, to show what has been going on. We didn't make this announcement because we wanted to sling mud, we've been pushed and pushed even after the announcement.

 

 

The hated is caused over gallery images, not mods that are uploaded to the site, but gallery images, that's what has caused all this. We're not desperate for anything apart from not having fights, accusations and drama every day over something as pointless as gallery images.

 

As I said more than a week ago, we are working on new rules that will reflect the change in the community since the current rules were made. Modding has increased its presence on here so the rules should reflect that. The new rules will make it far clearer what "theft" is and how it's enforced and possibly most importantly, how it's dealt with by both users and us. It will also make it far clearer that everyone has behave respectfully towards everyone else.

 

You say we've treated "modders" with no respect in this thread so why should anyone respect that part of the new rules or even the current rules?  As you said, this issue has persisted for months, we've lashed out after months of daily accusations, of sanction evasions, and after failed attempts to resolve this peacefully without making a big fuzz.  The "modders" wanted to take it public from the start so that's where we are now.

 

Yes, it is absolutely pointless to go on any more, there's nothing to add. There's two separate issues and both issues needs to be addressed which they are going to be.

I actually think there's a lot less disagreement here than it seems like there is. We all agree that people shouldn't be able to upload mods to the database without permission from the people who created them. I think we pretty much all agree that modders should get to control whether or not someone is allowed to edit and redistribute their work. The disagreement on the rules end seems to be 3 points:

1) If someone's *not* redistributing a model, is it OK for them to rip and edit? When it's for personal use only, do modders get to control whether or not they edit it? Note that the meaning of "redistributing" is point 2. Point 1 only applies to when you feel they're genuinely only doing it for personal use - for example, everyone could probably agree that if they don't tell anyone about ripping, don't share pictures or videos of the car, and don't upload it anywhere, it's only for personal use.

2) At what point is something no longer for personal use only? Obviously, uploading a model means it's no longer for personal use. What about taking pictures of it and uploading them? Does it depend on the type of picture (e.g. some pictures are primarily to show a cool scene, possibly with a story; others are to show off a car; others, it could be either depending on interpretation).

3) Depending on the answers to (1) and (2), to what degree should the community team try to enforce them? How should that process work? What recourse does a modder have if they think something shouldn't be allowed, but we don't think it falls within our scope to enforce?

Part of the issue is that at this point, there are two 'sides' which have elements which are automatically hostile to each other. That taints the whole argument. But I don't see why we can't have a reasoned discussion on points 1, 2, and 3. Much of this topic has been a discussion about those.

FWIW, my answers to the three points:

1) No one else gets any say in what I do on my personal computer. If someone is ripping models and not sharing them (for whatever definition you choose of "sharing"; for example, for Cj24, this would not apply if they are uploading pictures of the models).

2) Uploading the model is certainly sharing. Using it on your own computer without uploading pics or videos is not sharing. I'd actually be partial to a system where the only time it's being shared is when it's uploaded anywhere; in that system, if you accuse someone of ripping the model in an image, it'd be fine to say "Yeah, so? I'm not giving it to anyone else, not even privately. Why's that an issue for you?"

3) For uploaded models, it's easy - we have the model, and if it's someone else's and they say they didn't give permission, then the file goes down, and we deal with the uploader.

In addition, there's one more question, not directly tied to rules: What do you mean by "modders should have control of their work?" If a mod is released to the public, but is locked and comes with the condition "no editing without permission", what interests are being protected by that? Why do you want to restrict editing?

I should note that there are a decent number of good reasons for wanting to do so; the thing is, the reason matters. If your goal is to prevent people from taking credit for the work, then it means that someone who edits it but credits you hasn't caused that issue. If the goal is to get decent use out of the model by keeping first dibs on any configuration (if you release unlocked, it can mean that other people make different setups before you can: for example, if Kevin released the Bearcat unlocked at first, then someone else could have stuck the Arjent on it before him, so the other person would get the praise and downloads that Kevin should have had). There are plenty of other reasons as well. So what are you actually trying to protect when you lock a model?

Everyone is on the same page about theft, it is bad. The disagreements are about when something is considered stolen and what's acceptable behaviour when you see something that you believe is stolen.

I guess it's best simply to stop discussing whether was happend was right or wrong, I don't feel like continuing to defend other's actions. I only hope that your new rules are going to surprise me in a positive way.

I still need some more clarification on mods, though:

1) If someone's *not* redistributing a model, is it OK for them to rip and edit? When it's for personal use only, do modders get to control whether or not they edit it? Note that the meaning of "redistributing" is point 2. Point 1 only applies to when you feel they're genuinely only doing it for personal use - for example, everyone could probably agree that if they don't tell anyone about ripping, don't share pictures or videos of the car, and don't upload it anywhere, it's only for personal use.

It is never okay to rip and edit, since it's not what the auther wants. You usually have terms like "No redisitributing or editing, textures may be modified". The difference is, if a thief doesn't show anything, nobody knows about that. And how are you supposed to care about something you don't know? I might was too quick when I said I don't care about these guys, it's more like tolerating them because there's no chance to find it out anyways.

 

2) At what point is something no longer for personal use only? Obviously, uploading a model means it's no longer for personal use. What about taking pictures of it and uploading them? Does it depend on the type of picture (e.g. some pictures are primarily to show a cool scene, possibly with a story; others are to show off a car; others, it could be either depending on interpretation).

That's why I said "No public redistributing" - I don't care about people sharing the car with friends or editing skins. As soon as everybody could access it, it is public. I never wanted more than edited textures, as said before. As soon as somebody is ripping a model though, he does not follow the terms and this is immediatly an issue.

 

3) Depending on the answers to (1) and (2), to what degree should the community team try to enforce them? How should that process work? What recourse does a modder have if they think something shouldn't be allowed, but we don't think it falls within our scope to enforce?

I, and all modelers agree on that, believe that ripping and "normal" theft are very different things. A ripper is actually using complicated methods to unlock these models and IHMO he doesn't deserve a place in the community then.

I think, and that's what I did on my website as well, it's required to enforce the modder's terms. If somebody finds violations, he should be allowed to report it and have staff look into it. It's usually as simple as comparing two files or place a deadline until a proof of having permission is shown, depending on the violation. Unless is somebody is severly violating these terms, like a ripper or a repeater, I don't think any website penalities are needed. You can solve many things by simply talking to people, while recieving a warning point always gives a bad feeling.

When GPM enforced their "No permission needed" policy, many modders left. If you decide mods or certain terms are not your scope, the same is going to happen here, and already has happend here.

I think a main problem on LCPDFR.com is the staff. If there were more staff members, especially skilled modders, finding thieves would be a lot easier. For modelers like Kevin or EVI, it is no problem at all to indentify specific parts. This website has a damn large amount of members and a forum is no self-managing website like a social network, you obviously can't do enough because there's not enough manpower.

 

In addition, there's one more question, not directly tied to rules: What do you mean by "modders should have control of their work?" If a mod is released to the public, but is locked and comes with the condition "no editing without permission", what interests are being protected by that? Why do you want to restrict editing?

If the goal is to get decent use out of the model by keeping first dibs on any configuration (if you release unlocked, it can mean that other people make different setups before you can: for example, if Kevin released the Bearcat unlocked at first, then someone else could have stuck the Arjent on it before him, so the other person would get the praise and downloads that Kevin should have had). There are plenty of other reasons as well. So what are you actually trying to protect when you lock a model?

I used to try to release as much unlocked as possible, but majority of modders doesn't want that. The main reason is, as you said, obviously getting the tribute. You don't get anything else, so you'd at least want to be the one getting the recognition, nobody else. Since the community is growing that large, you don't feel like getting much positive feedback anyways, even though you try your best to make your models over average quality.

You all need to be honest, who actually reads credits to find the authors of every single part? In the end, for many it's just the one who released the car, even though he might didn't do anything.

Keeping a model unlocked to have nobody rip it is like keeping your house open so nobody has to break in and damage something. You rather try to get stronger locks, and if somebody still breaks in, you want the police to get him.

Regarding the rules, here's the current draft of the section pertaining to modding, credits and permissions.

 

 

Modding, credits, permissions and disputes

The modding community is based on sharing your work with other users. “locking” 3d models can easily be circumvented and textures can be easily modified.

As such, we require everyone to obtain permission from the creators of the content used before submitting modifications to the site, whether it be textures, 3d models, scripts, sounds and any type of modification not listed here to the download section. You must also appropriately credit users if you include their work in your submission.

 

Failure to comply with this will result removal of the modification in question and further sanctions may be applied depending on the circumstances.

 

 

I personally that that is a reasonable way of addressing theft, the same rules can be applied to the forum sections that's designed to show off mods that are already hosted here or will be hosted here.

 

The rule wouldn't work for the gallery as there's no way for us to know if we're handed the same model as there's shown in the images. The download section gives us a much stronger leg to stand on because we can take any disputed mods and put them in the game next to the claimed original mod as well as compare textures.

 

In addition, permissions can be abused, a user could revoke "permission" after sharing a 3d model, part of a texture or a script with another user. 99.9% of modders wouldn't do it, but the possibility is there,  pretty much everyone who gets 3d models or from other users could fall victim of it. My only suggestion is to make sure you can back up your permission with proof of it, it'd be mutual assurance that everything is as it should be. The same goes for handing models out, secure some form of documentations about it, even if you decline a request in case the user requesting it gets it somehow.

 

In addition to the addition. Mods exclusive to multiplayer groups has caused reports in the past, they occurred as the creators of the mod changed his mind about it being exclusive to the group he is or were a member in.

Regarding the rules, here's the current draft of the section pertaining to modding, credits and permissions.

I personally that that is a reasonable way of addressing theft, the same rules can be applied to the forum sections that's designed to show off mods that are already hosted here or will be hosted here.

I don't see a change to the existing policy, apart from being written down in the guidelines instead of a thread. Requiring permission for anything is no smart move either, since there're enough people that don't want that. Circumventing the ZModeler locking tools being easy isn't true either, there're only a few people doing that. It's basicly always the same guys, yet there're usually always using the same websites whose staff doesn't care.

 

The rule wouldn't work for the gallery as there's no way for us to know if we're handed the same model as there's shown in the images. The download section gives us a much stronger leg to stand on because we can take any disputed mods and put them in the game next to the claimed original mod as well as compare textures.

So you don't want to change anything, even though the old system caused many problems? I can only repeat my suggestion: If there's a plausible report including pictures of the poly of the apparently stolen model, you request the author of the picture show the poly of his part. If they're the same or the author doesn't reply, the picture gets removed. If they're not the same, nothing happens, of course.

 

In addition, permissions can be abused, a user could revoke "permission" after sharing a 3d model, part of a texture or a script with another user. 99.9% of modders wouldn't do it, but the possibility is there,  pretty much everyone who gets 3d models or from other users could fall victim of it. My only suggestion is to make sure you can back up your permission with proof of it, it'd be mutual assurance that everything is as it should be. The same goes for handing models out, secure some form of documentations about it, even if you decline a request in case the user requesting it gets it somehow.

You obviously should always try to keep a proof for permissions. Since I believe this is mostly done via PM though, there shouldn't be any issue.

I personally don't know anybody ever revoking permission, unless it's conditions have been violated. If you're giving permission to somebody, you need to be sure about it. It's like with gifts, you won't get it back.

 

In addition to the addition. Mods exclusive to multiplayer groups has caused reports in the past, they occurred as the creators of the mod changed his mind about it being exclusive to the group he is or were a member in.

That's another problem when terms are not clear. You don't know whether an author did grant the complete rights or not. It's the same like with "normal" permissions.

If a MP group can't proof they have the sole permission for deciding about the work, the author likely didn't allow it.

While you might want to keep your current draft as standard terms, you definitly need to consider terms for specific mods. That means unless somebody is writing that no permission is required for redistributing or editing, that's the way it is. I don't know if I'm based too much on licenses, it's definitly an easy way to tell the mod's users what to do.

Additionally, you definitly need rules for the gallery. It's irresponsible to give thieves a wildcard to show their booty.

There's no way for us to know if we're looking at the same 3d model in zmodeler as there's shown in the gallery image, we can't download the car and install it in the game, we'd rely on everyone being honest about the issue and that's not likely to be the case if it is a ripped model.

In theory, my Charger model could be considered "stolen" by another user if he converted the same model to a police version, our models would look nearly identical in the gallery and the same would be the case if we compared images of their wireframes because we based our work on the same model.

 

 

Ripping, theft and using models without permission is already against the guidelines:

 

Plagiarism & Copyright
Most G17 Media services and projects depend on, and are shaped around, communities of like-minded people who share all forms of media. For legal reasons, we require that you do not upload any material that is copyrighted, or contains copyrights not owned by you. We ask that at all times the dedication, skill and work of everyone who shares content across our communities is respected and appreciated through proper acknowledgements and credits.

 

The definition of "respecting the work skill and dedication" is to not rip, to not steal and to not upload mods without permission from the people that made the original models. You're not respecting someone else's work if you rip a locked model, copy a skin or use anything without permission.

 

 

We have no way of knowing if a model is ripped, it's not written on the model and very few people are likely to say that they ripped a model if we contact them, however,  it's reasonable to assume that you don't have permission from the author to use the model if you rip it so it would be against the new rules.

 

Permission can be as little as getting the model from the creator without being told not to include it in any mod releases. The same goes for unlocked models that are released publicly, they're freely available so it's reasonable for anyone to assume that they can freely use the model without being concerned about permissions as long as the creators are credited for the model when it's released.

 

We can't address ripping on their own, we can make it clear when we consider something to be used with permission and encourage everyone to make sure that they have something to support their statement in case someone disputes it.

 

 

The gallery is a bit more troublesome, partly for the reasons I talked about earlier in this post and in my earlier post. Any restrictions that would combat the problem would also place restrictions that aren't reasonable on the 99.9999% of users that aren't involved in modding or who are showing off mods that aren't ripped or used without permission. As you said, it's only a few people who do rip so the way we deal with the issue should reflect that.

I'm not saying that we're ignoring it, but the way we deal with it should not punish the vast majority of users that aren't ripping and stealing.

Just read the topic. Oh my God the drama.

 

This is what happens when you let an egoistic bunch get out of control. This whole deal reminds me of these people who complained that some Arma 2 modders stole some GTA IV car mods which were originally from Driver San Francisco. You can guess a shitstorm followed. The thing is, they didn't even own them to begin with.

 

Anyway, why on earth do so many of you begin to just get out there and attack people for what they've done? If something is wrong just report it for crying out loud. That's why they do have a moderator team. Instead you act like immature fools and sink yourself to their level, that is just ridiculous. This is one of those times I'd wish to be back onboard to support our dev team, other staff and to hand out justice when necessary.

 

Keep doing what you do best G17.

 

And this is why I work with unlocked models.

Edited January 24, 201412 yr by Olanov

It is quite a lot of drama on the first few pages, but since people started talking normally, we're getting closer to a solution. Keep on talking and stay nice, and it'll work out fine.