Arma 3 Photography : Questions and Comments

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Nicolia'z your most recent post has been hidden as the scene it depicts (execution) is in poor taste. Combat photography is one thing, but staging an execution for a screenshot is too much. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Nicolia'z Posting the same image a second time will NOT get it posted. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@PapaFidel your most recent post has been hidden as the scene it depicts (execution) is in poor taste. Combat photography is one thing, but staging an execution for a screenshot is too much. 

[x_DarkSpecter_x 207]

9 hours ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:

@Nicolia'z your most recent post has been hidden as the scene it depicts (execution) is in poor taste. Combat photography is one thing, but staging an execution for a screenshot is too much. 

 

So before I share my thoughts on this, which I normally don't do, I just have to make sure. Are you aware that @Nicolia'z picture is depicting a particular scene from Call of Duty MW2? 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

It does not matter, this is now the second time he has been warned on the issue.

 Secondly, whilst we understand the nature of the game itself and that players and NPCs alike may be killed, the fact remains that depictions of executions are prohibited. There is a very fine line as to what is acceptable and what is not. "A patrol that comes across villagers which may have been executed is very different from a scene when a figure has villagers lined up and is shooting them". Context is everything. 

[x_DarkSpecter_x 207]

4 hours ago, FallujahMedic -FM- said:

It does not matter, this is now the second time he has been warned on the issue.

 Secondly, whilst we understand the nature of the game itself and that players and NPCs alike may be killed, the fact remains that depictions of executions are prohibited. There is a very fine line as to what is acceptable and what is not. "A patrol that comes across villagers which may have been executed is very different from a scene when a figure has villagers lined up and is shooting them". Context is everything. 

 

Well, I'll keep my thoughts to myself because I understand that there are rules, and this picture broke them. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Nicolia'z  Once again, your post has been hidden. The mod VSM is banned here due to ripped/stolen content. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@PapaFidel Once again, your post has been hidden. The mod VSM is banned here due to ripped/stolen content. 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Roach_ your most recent post has been hidden as it contains content from known IP thieves (SWOP).

[TiredGiraffe 1]

Nice pictures :)

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@BLKOUT666 your most recent post has been hidden as it contains a non-publicly released mod. (USP Mod)

[Homesick 290]

10 minutes ago, fingolfin said:

On a different note: As long as BI has no compunction to post pictures of stolen/ripped content on their twitter pages, SitReps/Community Radar posts, this sometimes excessive enforcement of rules here seems quite hypocritical.

 

To my knowledge this has happened 1-2 times, in which both scenarios was my own fault. It is no excuse what so ever, but this happened in my starting months of being a BI employee, and I had next to no knowledge about ripped/stolen content. After these occurrences, I've learned from my past mistakes, and personally ensured that each and every picture I've included on our social platforms are checked by me, and several groups of Mod-authors in the community to ensure that this does not happen again. I do however take full blame for those mistakes.

 

However, to the main point of this past discussion;

 

I can clearly see that there are some questions regarding the rules, and especially the photography rules. I am currently in the process of looking through our forum guidelines, as well as other rules that might not be clearly stated in the guidelines to avoid situations like these (and other) in the future. As of now the photography thread rules clearly state: 

 

Quote

"Private addons" should not be used in screenshots, only public addons.

 

Essentially this could be perceived as quite vague, and I do understand your concerns regarding this specific rule, and recent occurrences. If you are found to use a mod that is not publicly available the image will be hidden from the thread. If the mod is publicly available, but is receiving updates in say a month's time that are not yet available for the public those would be work in progress pictures. These pictures are allowed in the thread as the mod is available to the public, even though the upcoming update might not be. 

[Dedmen 2716]

38 minutes ago, fingolfin said:

Is an early access version for patreons a private mod?

That would violate the Arma 3 Tools license.
Commercializing mods is not allowed.

 

And yes it would be private. But also banned here (happened already in the past).

[Homesick 290]

41 minutes ago, fingolfin said:

That's good to know, thanks to both of you, @BIS_Homesick and @Dedmen.

 

Perhaps the first post in the photography thread should be specified accordingly to avoid such confusions in the future.

 

I will definitely look into re-writing it a tiny bit so that it is less confusing. 

[Dedmen 2716]

On 3/19/2019 at 7:20 PM, wsxcgy said:

I don't believe those patreons you see exist to sell and commercialize the mod, its to pay for software licenses and such so the developers can continue to develop. early access builds are way of saying thanks to the supporters, and as with the standard patreon format, people are given early previews of whats in store. I really don't see this as a "commercial" situation.

In the end the mod is behind a paywall. Which is commercial use. What the money is used for doesn't matter. People are paying to access mods.

 

We aren't talking about donations here. Donation != paywall to access a mod.

 

You are trying the same game as lots of life servers. "We aren't monetizing our server, we are just giving bonuses to our donators to thank them".

 

Paywall == commercial. Pretty clear.

 

 

A donation is giving something to someone without any personal gain.
Paying money to access a mod, is buying something. Not donating.

[Homesick 290]

This is not a thread to argue about 1 specific mod, nor argue about how moderators handles different rulesets. I have clearly made my statement regarding the main issue at hand, and that is final. If you guys want to discuss how our moderation team are handling day-by-day reports, and issues feel free to contact me directly. As for the whole USP discussion, take it to direct messages as well. 

[jeza 5416]

Quick one, can those who use photoshop and or other tools after the fact mention along with their addons listed if possible? Would be nice to know whats vanilla and whats been touched up post ingame. 

[haleks 8212]

Why did you guys delete the recent posts?

It's an important topic and some valid and interesting points were raised.

 

Man... looks like we can't have an honest conversation here.

[Dedmen 2716]

25 minutes ago, haleks said:

Why did you guys delete the recent posts?

It's an important topic and some valid and interesting points were raised.

Nothing has been deleted. Only hidden. Everything irrelevant to this thread has been hidden. The relevant things have been kept.

To repeat Homesick:

On 3/20/2019 at 9:45 AM, BIS_Homesick said:

This is not a thread to argue about 1 specific mod, nor argue about how moderators handles different rulesets.

 

[R0adki11 3949]

59 minutes ago, haleks said:

Why did you guys delete the recent posts?

It's an important topic and some valid and interesting points were raised.

 

Man... looks like we can't have an honest conversation here.

 

If you have questions/issues regarding the the forum rules or the moderating team please PM @BIS_Homesickto discuss as appropriate.

[haleks 8212]

The discussion was raising some interesting thoughts about the broader aspects of license enforcement, but fair enough.

[R0adki11 3949]

Just now, haleks said:

The discussion was raising some interesting thoughts about the broader aspects of license enforcement, but fair enough.

 

I can appreciate and understand your concerns. But that very subject is quite complex and vast, and in my opinion it probably should have its own topic rather than within this thread. 

[Homesick 290]

12 minutes ago, haleks said:

The discussion was raising some interesting thoughts about the broader aspects of license enforcement, but fair enough.

 

The discussion was also raising some pretty hefty accusations in which have no place in this forum thread, hence why I asked our moderation team to hide any post that included these accusations. If there are any questions, or concerns regarding license enforcement that does not include specific mod-authors/community groups, and does not target a specific individual/group feel free to discuss it 🙂

[x_DarkSpecter_x 207]

@wsxcgy hey man love that old school SFOD pic. How did you get that gear configuration on that guy with the vest, ALICE, and DHI's holster with the gun in it? Or was that just some sort of of photo trickery? 

[wsxcgy 1960]

2 hours ago, x_DarkSpecter_x said:

@wsxcgy hey man love that old school SFOD pic. How did you get that gear configuration on that guy with the vest, ALICE, and DHI's holster with the gun in it? Or was that just some sort of of photo trickery? 

sadly, its just trickery. I took 3 separate shots. one where they all had tactical vests, one where they all had ALICE, and one where the two on the right had the holster and the side bag thing. then I just combined them all. on a somewhat unrelated note, I'm pretty sure I've seen a handful of vests configed into the backpack slot. perhaps making the ALICE webbing a backpack could work, but i wouldn't know where to begin with that. its too bad the DHI holster in the glasses slot won't accept the sidearm proxy system.