ASCZ A2 Community Map Fixes (for AIA TP/SA)

[Dorak 11]

Just like Defunkt said a few pages back :

The original CWR2 maps haven't been ported (or altered in any way).

AiA improves ArmA 3's backward compatibility with ArmA 2. Evro's mod further extends that to improve compatibility for specific ArmA 2 content but by modifying ArmA 3's configuration, not by modifying content belonging to anybody else. I honestly don't think the CWR2 team's copyrights extend as far as dictating what modifications Evro or anyone else might make to ArmA 3.

I will reupload the config files as soon as i can. Eat shit.

[Stagler 39]

Cant believe the responses regarding original owners retaining their rights for their own products. Kind of justifies everything about how we feel about bi these days. No wonder I am the only one left who is active on these forums. Makes me chuckle that people are so spoilt and angry that they bother to have a pop at us about asking for our rights to be respected.

[Serza 10]

As far as I remember, the EULA for BITools contains a clause about author giving up any rights to his creation in favor of Bohemia Interactive.

Do you really want me to check that, or will we just assume you're hindquarters-hurt?

[Dorak 11]

Cant believe the responses regarding original owners retaining their rights for their own products. Kind of justifies everything about how we feel about bi these days. No wonder I am the only one left who is active on these forums. Makes me chuckle that people are so spoilt and angry that they bother to have a pop at us about asking for our rights to be respected.

Except you have absolutely no rights on the config file EvroMalarky did. Stop trying to avoid valid points on purpose to push your shit. Nobody cares. You ask people to show some respect while not showing respect yourself. Pathetic.

[Stagler 39]

As far as I remember, the EULA for BITools contains a clause about author giving up any rights to his creation in favor of Bohemia Interactive.

Do you really want me to check that, or will we just assume you're hindquarters-hurt?

My work is done here and I have done what I wanted to do.

Bi tool rights are irrelevant. Evro is not bi. Bi would approach us first and send us a message before marketing our products in their own project. Evro did not ask. Politeness really is a lost art nowadays. Might it have been different if he had asked us first? Who knows.

[Dorak 11]

My work is done here and I have done what I wanted to do.

Bi tool rights are irrelevant. Evro is not bi. Bi would approach us first and send us a message before marketing our products in their own project. Evro did not ask. Politeness really is a lost art nowadays. Might it have been different if he had asked us first? Who knows.

So wait a sec. You basically vanish from the scene, say fuck A3 and fuck BI, and when someone get to the conclusion that you guys aren't in the scene anymore and makes an external config ( that don't even touch your files in the first place ) you suddenly pop out of your fucking graves like a Jack-in-the-box to ask for politeness and respect ?

Is this a very elaborate joke ou you are king delusional ?

[kllrt 154]

Might it have been different if he had asked us first? Who knows.

I'm not sure about that because your web says otherwise...

Read this:

You are NOT allowed to port this Mod (or parts of it) to Arma 3!

We do not make exceptions, so don’t even bother to ask!

[chortles 263]

Besides what kllrt said, how was EvroMalarkey supposed to know that an external compatibility config would count as a port? (This is as opposed to "You are NOT allowed to port this Mod (or parts of it) to Arma 3! (An external compatibility config mod would count as a port, even if it uses unmodified CWR2 files.)")

Edited October 24, 2014 by Chortles

[Stagler 39]

He could of asked us and we would of told him.

And let me set this straight. I am not "not on the scene" anymore. I am working on other projects constantly. None of us are in "our graves". Infact I am the only dev that is currently working with the a3 engine. I personally did not touch any of the maps. Its not my thing. But as the rep for cwr2 on here it is me that has to communicate for the other ten or so devs.

[kllrt 154]

Okey, thank you for you answer.

[Cephel 10]

I feel my angle on this matter is relevant, as we ( our group ) recently won a case over a similar situation, where we made and provided fixes to a mod that is very popular ( that I'm not gonna name here ), the original mod creator took issue with our approach because we repacked our changes into the original pbo and distributed it as a simple package to overwrite the mod with.

To cut a long drama ridden story short, after personal intervention from Dwarden, who for those of you that don't know is an official Community Manager form Bohemia Interactive, we arrived at a solution that we provided the fixes in our own patch-pbo that contained no code from the original mod author and just works ontop of it. We also didn't distribute the original mod with our fixes anymore and instead linked to the original release thread.

The important thing to note here is that we discussed this for hours and explicibly arrived at an official solution regarding the boundaries of copy right when it comes to arma mods. The end of it is this: An external config fix that patches a different pbo, but is otherwise all your code, even if it is referencing class names, etc. is your work and your copyright, not the copyright of the original author.

The reason I'm chiming in on this debate is that I'm absolutely disgusted by the amount of egoistical poison and utter ridiculous insanity some mod authors in this community produce, when other people want to help improve their work.

Stopping an attempt at genuine improvement of your product should NEVER EVER be able to be stopped, because only a complete egocentrical lunatic would do so, and I will continue to fight for the right of the community to improve and fix the work of others, if they themselves show or have no interest in doing so themselves.

The mod we had our case on wasn't updated in more than a year and was full of issues, bugs and missing features, that the mod author either didn't have the time, or the will to fix in a timely manner. When we approached him on several occasions about expression our wish to help fix some of these issues, he lashed out against out in a manner that can only be described as a child kicking and screaming for not wanting their toy taken away or some other insane reason that doesn't even apply, since we never intentend to do so, just help him make it a better mod.

A mod creator is NOT entitled to prevent other people from continuing the legacy of their work, should they be unable or unwilling to do so themselves. This was directly confirmed by Dwarden who I've talked to for hours regarding the matter, as well as actual BIS lawyers to find the exact border at which copyright claims end for mods.

The gist of it is this: Your copyright ends at the pbo's you have written. If someone else writes a pbo to modify your work, it is NOT governed by your copyright, as long as you a) Don't distribute the original mod, b) Don't edit the original mod ( instead, you can use a patch pbo, which is ok ) and c) Give proper credit for the original mod, if requested. It is absolutely disgusting what some mod makers think they can get away with, and will fight tooth and nail to stop this.

As for this case in particular, since the author of the config fix has agreed to remove his fixes already, I guess the case is over, but I want to let you know personally, that this better be YOUR decision, because THEY have no say in this. Or to put it differently, you should be fully aware that the reason you're removing the fixes is out of gratitude, not because it is their right to ask you to.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Cephel

[Stagler 39]

I feel my angle on this matter is relevant, as we ( our group ) recently won a case over a similar situation, where we made and provided fixes to a mod that is very popular ( that I'm not gonna name here ), the original mod creator took issue with our approach because we repacked our changes into the original pbo and distributed it as a simple package to overwrite the mod with.

To cut a long drama ridden story short, after personal intervention from Dwarden, who for those of you that don't know is an official Community Manager form Bohemia Interactive, we arrived at a solution that we provided the fixes in our own patch-pbo that contained no code from the original mod author and just works ontop of it. We also didn't distribute the original mod with our fixes anymore and instead linked to the original release thread.

The important thing to note here is that we discussed this for hours and explicibly arrived at an official solution regarding the boundaries of copy right when it comes to arma mods. The end of it is this: An external config fix that patches a different pbo, but is otherwise all your code, even if it is referencing class names, etc. is your work and your copyright, not the copyright of the original author.

The reason I'm chiming in on this debate is that I'm absolutely disgusted by the amount of egoistical poison and utter ridiculous insanity some mod authors in this community produce, when other people want to help improve their work.

Stopping an attempt at genuine improvement of your product should NEVER EVER be able to be stopped, because only a complete egocentrical lunatic would do so, and I will continue to fight for the right of the community to improve and fix the work of others, if they themselves show or have no interest in doing so themselves.

The mod we had our case on wasn't updated in more than a year and was full of issues, bugs and missing features, that the mod author either didn't have the time, or the will to fix in a timely manner. When we approached him on several occasions about expression our wish to help fix some of these issues, he lashed out against out in a manner that can only be described as a child kicking and screaming for not wanting their toy taken away or some other insane reason that doesn't even apply, since we never intentend to do so, just help him make it a better mod.

A mod creator is NOT entitled to prevent other people from continuing the legacy of their work, should they be unable or unwilling to do so themselves. This was directly confirmed by Dwarden who I've talked to for hours regarding the matter, as well as actual BIS lawyers to find the exact border at which copyright claims end for mods.

The gist of it is this: Your copyright ends at the pbo's you have written. If someone else writes a pbo to modify your work, it is NOT governed by your copyright, as long as you a) Don't distribute the original mod, b) Don't edit the original mod ( instead, you can use a patch pbo, which is ok ) and c) Give proper credit for the original mod, if requested. It is absolutely disgusting what some mod makers think they can get away with, and will fight tooth and nail to stop this.

As for this case in particular, since the author of the config fix has agreed to remove his fixes already, I guess the case is over, but I want to let you know personally, that this better be YOUR decision, because THEY have no say in this. Or to put it differently, you should be fully aware that the reason you're removing the fixes is out of gratitude, not because it is their right to ask you to.

If evro wants to take it up with David then that's fine.

[evromalarkey 150]

My work is done here and I have done what I wanted to do.

Bi tool rights are irrelevant. Evro is not bi. Bi would approach us first and send us a message before marketing our products in their own project. Evro did not ask. Politeness really is a lost art nowadays. Might it have been different if he had asked us first? Who knows.

You are NOT allowed to port this Mod (or parts of it) to Arma 3!

We do not make exceptions, so don’t even bother to ask!

I think that you made absolutely clear, that CWR Team doesn't want to see their mod released in Arma 3. So I didn't ask and respected that. So instead I only pointed out that CWR2 terrains are backward compatible alongside All In Arma in Arma 3 and made my own additional config. I have not re-distributed your mod, I have not ported your mod and yeah, i'm not BI, why do you even mention that anyway? And how exactly I'm marketing your products in my own project? You can't be serious. I'm very polite person and I was trying to solve this reasonable. I wouldn't ever assumed that you or your team would react this way, that's why I didn't ask. I thought that I'm not doing anything wrong or against your rules.

If evro wants to take it up with David then that's fine.

I don't want to continue with this matter. I'm really disappointed from this, it cost me whole day and I'm really stressed right now. So I want this matter to be over, but on the other end I would wanted to know David's opinion on this.

Edited October 24, 2014 by EvroMalarkey

[Cephel 10]

I would wanted to know David's opinion on this.

Read my post, I outlined what the official consensus is, the CWR team has no legal or otherwise means to force you to remove your fixes, as long as they are contained in your pbo. I've talked to Dwarden extensively about this matter and he even got their lawyers on the line for it.

The gist of it was this: CBA is licensed under GPLv2, which explicibly states that any derivative work must also be licensed under GPLv2, you could ( and we did ) make the argument that any mod that uses CBA ( which is like every mod ever ) also counts as derivative work, would also fall under GPLv2 and thus is both open source and can freely be modified and redistributed. The official BIS standpoint on this matter is that mods made with a dependency of a different mod are in fact not a derivative work, as they don't directly communicate with each other, instead the Arma engine acts as an interloper for calling both sets of codes. This effectively means that any mod that uses a different mod as a dependency is not counted as a derivative work, and thus doesn't fall under the license of the dependency mod. Instead BIS grants you, the mod maker, the right to impose your own license on your own mod.

The direct consequence of this is that no license can ever govern your own pbo(s) or addon(s), as long as you strictly refrain from directly using their work in yours. So if you extern your config fixes into your own pbo, there is nothing they can do about it, as their license has no application here. The decision of wether or not to respect their wishes lies with you, they can not force you, period. It is very important to remember this.

[m1lkm8n 411]

So wait a sec. You basically vanish from the scene, say fuck A3 and fuck BI, and when someone get to the conclusion that you guys aren't in the scene anymore and makes an external config ( that don't even touch your files in the first place ) you suddenly pop out of your fucking graves like a Jack-in-the-box to ask for politeness and respect ?

Is this a very elaborate joke ou you are king delusional ?

Enough with the language. It doesn't make you look cool.

§1) No Flaming/Flame-baiting/bigotry

Abusive, racist, sexist, homophobic comments (or any other type of bigotry), personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the forum or through Private Messages. If you receive a Private Message that is abusive or you find offensive please forward it to a moderator who will investigate.

Flame-baiting is also not tolerated; flame-baiting is making a post to someone that is obviously intended to elicit an angry response. Mocking/teasing/ridiculing someone or the point someone wants to make is also flamebaiting. This also applies to other areas of the forums such as leaving visitor messages on people's profiles, messages posted in social groups, as well as quoting someone against their wishes in your signature to belittle/tease/mock them. If someone asks you to remove something they posted on the forum from your signature you must remove it. Common sense tells you that posting someone's Private Messages without permission is also flamebaiting and will be punished.

[HJohnson 16]

This happened...again.

Different mod.

Different patch.

Same reasons.

Same intentions.

Same reactions.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Okay, I'm a bit out of my league here, and I think Dwarden should have a say before this goes any further, I would just like to point out that this type of thing has been done before, that what Evro did doesn't violate any license by BI OR the CWR team, and that Evro himself seems to be a pretty nice guy. You all need to stop with the insults, the expletives, and the back and forth bickering, right now, and wait until the official word comes down.

My personal opinion is that in my 8 years here I have seen this type of situation (Person A makes mod/addon/ Person B makes separate PBO that modifies Person A's mod, either making them replace BI's work or stuff from other missions, or updates them for a new patch or newer game) before, and it was deemed by all involved to be acceptable. I am disappointed that Colonel Stagler has reacted the way he has, and I am disappointed in the community members that have lashed out at him. The status-quo = Evro has done nothing wrong. That's the way it has been for a very long time. In light of this incident, I think Bohemia should examine this issue in order to bring about a peaceful and well thought-out answer to this.

Stagler, I'm just going to point out that you and/or CWR had no grounds to believe this type of thing is forbidden. You did not expressly forbid it, and it is a solution that has been used for a very long time in the community. If you wished for CWR to be completely locked down, then you have to specify that no external PBOs can be made effecting your mod. Otherwise, things like this will happen. However, you've brought the issue up now and caused a lot of stress for somebody who doesn't appear to deserve it, so we might as well wait and seek an official word from BI, and perhaps a statement from AMAR in the meantime, if a consensus can be reached. (I'll create a thread there as soon as I'm done here.)

Edited November 16, 2014 by Darkhorse 1-6

[cifordayzserver 119]

It's quite simple... Look to the center of all rights disputes, and the influx of "freetards" here... DayZ...

DayZ was a mod for A2, made by an employee in his free time using the BI tools. That IP was purchased by BI and they developed a standalone retail game for it. You are expressly forbidden from using any part of the Arma 2 Mod or content in Arma 3. Compatibility config or not, you CAN NOT use DayZ content from the A2 mod in A3 PERIOD. If BI and Dean Hall have those rights to exclude use then SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE.

I think the way that everyone has acted here towards CWR2 team is pretty unacceptable, and I very often lean on the side of "you can't stop fair use"... however this is clearly not a case of that.

They made their intentions very clear prior to release of A3 they wanted no part of their content being hosted or made usable in A3, going against the public wishes, as well as the express license provided, is NOT acceptable.

Too many people nowadays skip passed the permission request aspect of modding, and that's simply not an optional step, even if you're "just" providing a "fix" for another team.

The mudslinging on both sides is embarrassingly childish... join date?, mod teams owing their hard work to the community?, refusal to remove w/o satisfactory reply?.. lets try to elevate our conversational skills just a bit here folks.

@Cephel

A mod author is entitled to protect any/all of his/her work they feel they should. PERIOD.

You, nor BI have any right to demand that an author continue to host his addon for public download, so when it comes down to it, any author can remove their work from the approved hosting site and prevent the use of a piggybacking mod. They could also make any number of changes to their package to break compatibility with yours... it's THEIR WORK. PERIOD.

[Cephel 10]

You did not expressly forbid it, and it is a solution that has been used for a very long time in the community. If you wished for CWR to be completely locked down, then you have to specify that no external PBOs can be made effecting your mod. Otherwise, things like this will happen.

That is not true, even if they literally said that their mod shall not be used together in Arma 3 with Evros modification, they have no basis to make such a rule. Nothing they can put in a license governs either a) what individual users do with them, ie. if the license said "you shall not use this mod in arma 3, because we don't like arma 3", and a user downloads it, he is fully allowed to use it in arma 3. Or b) what other mod makers do with their mod as a dependency as long as they don't violate conditions based on distribution and giving credit. If the license said "you shall not make a patch pbo that uses this mod as a dependency" you can go straight ahead, and do just that, because their license does not govern pbo's or addons other than the one they made.

A mod author is entitled to protect any/all of his/her work they feel they should. PERIOD.

You, nor BI have any right to demand that an author continue to host his addon for public download, so when it comes down to it, any author can remove their work from the approved hosting site and prevent the use of a piggybacking mod. They could also make any number of changes to their package to break compatibility with yours... it's THEIR WORK. PERIOD.

You can remove your work from the hosting website(s), that is true, but that is also where your involvement ends.

I've talked to Dwarden, and Dwarden talked to BIS lawyers about this.

Alot.

You are wrong, you are not entitled to prevent patch pbo's. You simply aren't, this is the official stance and a necessity because otherwise every single CBA dependend mod would have to be licensed as GPLv2. This is a fact, you can not prevent patch pbo's, period. Your choices are:

- Remove the mod from all hosting services and announce it as "over". You effectively end the mod, that is your right.

- Intentionally modify the mod to include malware to prevent people from hooking their patch routines onto it. That is your right, but that should also mean that nobody should EVER download a mod like this that is willing to fuck over its users just to spite someone who wants to help make your mod better. And I highly encourage everyone from instantly dropping support of any mod that sinks to such a level. Besides, finding out how you made it inaccessible and modifying the patch pbo is easier than modifying the original mod to make it inaccessible in the first place. So you'll accomplish nothing in the long run.

And to explicibly reply to "it's their work" comment: The patch pbo is NOT their work, so you have no say in what happens in it, period.

We have won against the last guy who argued that they can decide what the user ends up running or what patch pbo's gets made, and I will win again, because I know under which conditions BIS allows you to make mods, and you don't. So please, just stop posting.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Cephel

[m1lkm8n 411]

This is getting tiresome. It's fine to make points guys but the language has got to stop.

[cifordayzserver 119]

That is not true, even if they literally said that their mod shall not be used together in Arma 3 with Evros modification, they have no basis to make such a rule. Nothing they can put in a license governs either a) what individual users do with them, ie. if the license said "you shall not use this mod in arma 3, because we don't like arma 3", and a user downloads it, he is fully allowed to use it in arma 3. Or b) what other mod makers do with their mod as a dependency as long as they don't violate conditions based on distribution and giving credit. If the license said "you shall not make a patch pbo that uses this mod as a dependency" you can go straight ahead, and do just that, because their license does not govern pbo's or addons other than the one they made.

You can remove your work from the hosting website(s), that is true, but that is also where your involvement ends.

I've talked to Dwarden, and Dwarden talked to BIS lawyers about this.

Alot.

You are wrong, you are not entitled to prevent patch pbo's. You simply aren't, this is the official stance and a necessity because otherwise every single CBA dependend mod would have to be licensed as GPLv2. This is a fact, you can not prevent patch pbo's, period. Your choices are:

- Remove the mod from all hosting services and announce it as "over". You effectively end the mod, that is your right.

- Intentionally modify the mod to include malware to prevent people from hooking their patch routines onto it. That is your right, but that should also mean that nobody should EVER download a mod like this that is willing to fuck over its users just to spite someone who wants to help make your mod better. And I highly encourage everyone from instantly dropping support of any mod that sinks to such a level. Besides, finding out how you made it inaccessible and modifying the patch pbo is easier than modifying the original mod to make it inaccessible in the first place. So you'll accomplish nothing in the long run.

And to explicibly reply to "it's their work" comment: The patch pbo is NOT their work, so you have no say in what happens in it, period.

We have won against the last guy who argued that they can decide what the user ends up running or what patch pbo's gets made, and I will win again, because I know under which conditions BIS allows you to make mods, and you don't. So please, just stop posting.

I have also had extensive conversations with many folks at BI about licensing rights, and issues, I'm a member of AMAR, and have actually had content under direct license from BI, so I'm fairly sure I have a pretty good idea as well. However I would not be so bold as to assert my word, as being the word of BI as you so boldly do.

If you are not allowed to prohibit use of your addons in future iterations of the engine, then kindly explain the DayZ mod License?

By what witchcraft are BI able to prevent use of a publicly available addon for A2 in A3?

I am not saying that you can prevent personal use, but you can prevent public hosting, and especially promotion of that mod on these forums, if it violates the terms of your license.

[Cephel 10]

If you are not allowed to prohibit use of your addons in future iterations of the engine, then kindly explain the DayZ mod License?

By what witchcraft are BI able to prevent use of a publicly available addon for A2 in A3?

a) BIS is making the license(s) in question and can freely modify them to suit their needs, this is something that mod makers cannot do

b) DayZ the mod and DayZ the standalone game are two completely different things. The license you're talking about governs the standalone game ( the one about disallowing the use of content from that game in arma 3 )

[mikero 79]

I greatly admire Evro's response, irrespective of his feelings on the matter.

[janus0104 3]

b) DayZ the mod and DayZ the standalone game are two completely different things. The license you're talking about governs the standalone game ( the one about disallowing the use of content from that game in arma 3 )

Especially since BIS simply cannot forbit use of DayZ mod stuff. It's not just Rocket's work in there, and I certainly did not sell my artwork to BIS. It all falls under the expressively different DayZ Mod License Share Alike (DML) licensing terms. I.e. they can use the artwork, anyone else can use the artwork for ArmA 2, but BIS can't restrict the artwork.

Or, you know, pay me.

[lordprimate 159]

I feel my angle on this matter is relevant, as we ( our group ) recently won a case over a similar situation, where we made and provided fixes to a mod that is very popular ( that I'm not gonna name here ), the original mod creator took issue with our approach because we repacked our changes into the original pbo and distributed it as a simple package to overwrite the mod with.

To cut a long drama ridden story short, after personal intervention from Dwarden, who for those of you that don't know is an official Community Manager form Bohemia Interactive, we arrived at a solution that we provided the fixes in our own patch-pbo that contained no code from the original mod author and just works ontop of it. We also didn't distribute the original mod with our fixes anymore and instead linked to the original release thread.

The important thing to note here is that we discussed this for hours and explicibly arrived at an official solution regarding the boundaries of copy right when it comes to arma mods. The end of it is this: An external config fix that patches a different pbo, but is otherwise all your code, even if it is referencing class names, etc. is your work and your copyright, not the copyright of the original author.

The reason I'm chiming in on this debate is that I'm absolutely disgusted by the amount of egoistical poison and utter ridiculous insanity some mod authors in this community produce, when other people want to help improve their work.

Stopping an attempt at genuine improvement of your product should NEVER EVER be able to be stopped, because only a complete egocentrical lunatic would do so, and I will continue to fight for the right of the community to improve and fix the work of others, if they themselves show or have no interest in doing so themselves.

The mod we had our case on wasn't updated in more than a year and was full of issues, bugs and missing features, that the mod author either didn't have the time, or the will to fix in a timely manner. When we approached him on several occasions about expression our wish to help fix some of these issues, he lashed out against out in a manner that can only be described as a child kicking and screaming for not wanting their toy taken away or some other insane reason that doesn't even apply, since we never intentend to do so, just help him make it a better mod.

A mod creator is NOT entitled to prevent other people from continuing the legacy of their work, should they be unable or unwilling to do so themselves. This was directly confirmed by Dwarden who I've talked to for hours regarding the matter, as well as actual BIS lawyers to find the exact border at which copyright claims end for mods.

The gist of it is this: Your copyright ends at the pbo's you have written. If someone else writes a pbo to modify your work, it is NOT governed by your copyright, as long as you a) Don't distribute the original mod, b) Don't edit the original mod ( instead, you can use a patch pbo, which is ok ) and c) Give proper credit for the original mod, if requested. It is absolutely disgusting what some mod makers think they can get away with, and will fight tooth and nail to stop this.

As for this case in particular, since the author of the config fix has agreed to remove his fixes already, I guess the case is over, but I want to let you know personally, that this better be YOUR decision, because THEY have no say in this. Or to put it differently, you should be fully aware that the reason you're removing the fixes is out of gratitude, not because it is their right to ask you to.

this times 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000...

Enough with the language. It doesn't make you look cool.

§1) No Flaming/Flame-baiting/bigotry

Abusive, racist, sexist, homophobic comments (or any other type of bigotry), personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the forum or through Private Messages. If you receive a Private Message that is abusive or you find offensive please forward it to a moderator who will investigate.

Flame-baiting is also not tolerated; flame-baiting is making a post to someone that is obviously intended to elicit an angry response. Mocking/teasing/ridiculing someone or the point someone wants to make is also flamebaiting. This also applies to other areas of the forums such as leaving visitor messages on people's profiles, messages posted in social groups, as well as quoting someone against their wishes in your signature to belittle/tease/mock them. If someone asks you to remove something they posted on the forum from your signature you must remove it. Common sense tells you that posting someone's Private Messages without permission is also flamebaiting and will be punished.

cute how milk man is quoting the rules after he just came in here and called everyone children.. piss off... you Are the pot calling the kettle black.. just get out... so its ok to belittle everyone as you see fit but of someone curses you think thats a rule breaker... please milk... get a clue your just a guilty of breaking the rule you just posted so again .. piss off