The all new: Ask a moderator about the forum & rules

[Ravelair 1]

Everybody here is very satisfied of the anti spam system. It's sadly lacking on other forums...

I don't see any other forums with this amount of bot-checks and those forums do not have any problems whatsoever with such spam. And Im talking about many MORE popular forums than this one is.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I don't see any other forums with this amount of bot-checks and those forums do not have any problems whatsoever with such spam. And Im talking about many MORE popular forums than this one is.

That is because all the spambots were here, all the time. :p

[max power 21]

Ravelair,

To answer your questions, as other forum members have stated, these are anti spam measures to ensure a spamless forum experience. We didn't just decide one day to make registering on the forums more time consuming for users. It was a gradual and measured response to an escalating problem.

I am terribly sorry you are taking offence to the registration process. In a small number of posts, you will get full access to the forums without any restrictions. It may surprise you to know that complaints about the forum reg process are relatively rare. Much more frequent were user reports of irritating or even offensive spam. If you have any suggestions for other anti-spam measures, we would gladly hear them. What we will not be doing, unfortunately, is removing our current systems without a replacement.

And lastly, I do not believe a forum's popularity is a measure of its reg process or anti spam system. I think forum popularity is usually dependent on the topic of the forum. BI's games are popular, but they are niche games, and you would not expect the same amount of traffic here as on the Dice forums, for example.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Max Power
sp

[[aps]gnat 28]

I don't see any other forums with this amount of bot-checks and those forums do not have any problems whatsoever with such spam. And Im talking about many MORE popular forums than this one is.

You are wearing rose colour glasses my friend. Many other forums I visit (and Moderate) have MANY problems with Spam !

Anyway, not a problem for us members, we joined about 5 version of the forum ago, and pre-date the emergence of spam LOL ! :p

[vilas 473]

yes, exactly, i also moderate one forum and user-like spam-bots are often, they register and write messages like "i just bought excellent printer from ...(name of company) in ... (link to shop)"

a lot of it, i moderate one photographical forum and there are days that i ban 3 spam bots (while there are 8 moderators there)

[Thygrrr 1]

We at the CCGM forums would GREATLY appreciate a modding sub forum for Carrier Command (and all relevant threads moved there).

Would that be possible? We'd love you for it!

[.kju 3239]

Could forum mods please merge existing suggestions threads in the new sticky instead of just closing them.

Please do this also for the ones already closed by now - it is really pointless to copy and paste it.

[max power 21]

There is no need to copy and paste it. You can just click the quote several button and go to a different thread and make a post. But, I daresay that copying and pasting text is less involved than merging threads. Merging threads is not simple, this is probably why it's not done more often. Also, closing threads with a message is a form of in thread moderation, which is an alternative to issuing warnings or infractions. It's a valuable tool to get the message that users must read and follow the posting rules.

[PuFu 4591]

^^you can't quote if the thread is locked

[.kju 3239]

Merging threads is not simple

Are you serious about this? It is not like me among many others are mods in many forums and do have a lot of experience with such..

Drop your attitude and do behave like a moderator - which is to improve the forum and not just lock threads.

PS: If you would really have looked into the case, you would be aware that the closed threads existed BEFORE the new sticky.

[Placebo 28]

Merging threads would remove Martin's post as the original post, so if you like your suggestion enough just take the 30 seconds to post it in the new thread, please :)

[max power 21]

^^you can't quote if the thread is locked

D'oh. I can.

Are you serious about this? It is not like me among many others are mods in many forums and do have a lot of experience with such..

Drop your attitude and do behave like a moderator - which is to improve the forum and not just lock threads.

PS: If you would really have looked into the case, you would be aware that the closed threads existed BEFORE the new sticky.

I am quite serious. I guess you and I have different ideas of what a volunteer should do. I merge threads on a case by case basis, usually for users who have a very low post count.

I'm quite sorry that when I'm not doing what you ask you feel like I'm not 'acting like a moderator'. I am quite truthful and sincere in this thread. Obviously you have some ideas about what a moderator should do. I have all kinds of ideas of what forum members should do, but they aren't always realistic :p

Edited October 11, 2012 by Max Power

[.kju 3239]

Why has the thread about modding capabilities been locked?

Just because people have such a narrow view and don't see how limited it is, doesn't mean their view is anywhere near true.

Just the fact the BI expands to Java, the amount of new scripting commands suggested in the CIT, engine/config/scripting/animation limitations asked to be removed or reduced, community made tools to expand the possibilities or use 3rd party software or that BI hinted at plans to ease and extend modding shows the lock is clearly the wrong step.

So I request for the thread to be opened again or a new to allowed to be created (and rather to see action against those that limit or endorse the discussion).

[[frl]myke 14]

I'm sorry, it seems i have missed the list with all detailed modding capabilities ArmA 3 will have. So far, all that exist are rumours and vague informations. At this point, asking why XY can't be modded is simply pointless in a ArmA 3 section. As soon we have something concrete at hand, discussion might make sense but for now it would be pure speculation.

[abs 2]

Can we get an ARMA 2 & OA: MODELLING (O2) subforum for tutorials? As of right now, the only way to find tutorials in the forums is to search for it (versus browsing through a list of tuts), and I think it would be nice to have a subforum where modmakers who create tutorial threads can keep them. If it's not possible for A2, can you guys keep this request in mind for A3?

Thanks,

Abs

[Double Doppler 10]

Hi, on regarding addon content:

If a user releases a mod for the Arma 2 community, do they own full rights to that addon? Some people are arguing that once you make an addon with BIS tools, or use the SQF scripting language, that it immediately becomes property of Bohemia Interactive Studios - yet I have witnessed users get banned here for stealing authors work and plagiarism. Is the model protected outside use from Arma 2? And what about internal use (de pbo'ing the file and wiping out the credits etc.).

I am a little cloudy on this subject, and I'm curious on what an addon creator does when they want to protect/claim their work (If the models provided were created from scratch, not imports from other games or sites).

[max power 21]

I wonder why some people are arguing that...

At any rate, the addons and mods you create with the BI tools are solely your property. If you use the example models to base an addon on, you're subject to that license. The example models license states, among other things, that you must release the derivative works under the same license. I believe you still retain ownership but some restrictions on that apply.

edit: I guess that I should add that that is so long as it isn't superseded by some other license, ie. you're using someone else's work that has some restrictions on derivative works, it doesn't all of a sudden become your unrestricted property if you use the tools.

Also, stuff you make with the tools may not be used in another game or sold.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Max Power

[Double Doppler 10]

I wonder why some people are arguing that...

At any rate, the addons and mods you create with the BI tools are solely your property.

Who/what enforces these rules? I know we have good moderation on the forums, and they mainly deal with these types of disputes, but outside the forums it seems to be a different story. In the case of a dispute, how would one prove that they were the original creator of that work? Is there a registering website of some sort? Or a certain method? Or is it the first person who released that addon (be it announced here on the forums, on armaholic or other download sites with similar terms) is assumed to be the creator if the claim to be? Is it simply posting date data that is the judge of this?

If you use the example models to base an addon on, you're subject to that license. The example models license states, among other things, that you must release the derivative works under the same license. I believe you still retain ownership but some restrictions on that apply.

So there is a separate terms and conditions issued with the Arma Sample Models, etc. What about code created in the SQF format, is there a terms and conditions related to works created in that language?

Also, stuff you make with the tools may not be used in another game or sold.

So its make with the tools not import then? If someone ported their model into Arma 2 using Oxygen 2, only the configs/selections/ported work they edit using the tools would be bound to these terms? (The original mesh that the creator made in a non-BI tools program would still be allowed to be ported into any other game/sold on sites etc.)

edit: I guess that I should add that that is so long as it isn't superseded by some other license, ie. you're using someone else's work that has some restrictions on derivative works, it doesn't all of a sudden become your unrestricted property if you use the tools.

So this would be why, say, most of the derivatives of the notorious "life missions" are getting "stolen" by other communities, because the people in the first place "stole" the mission files from somewhere else? (And no one really owns their copy of the mission/scripts. because it is a vicious circle of passing the content down the lines.)

What are the rules on regarding derivatives of this specific content? I noticed it is a heated subject regarding IP issues, that forced other communities like City Life 2 etc. to create their own, thus owning their own work with no catches or bounds. Where as, if the mission, say a build of "Zargabad Life", is not really yours (seeing as it was known to be a "rip" of CLU), then does anyone has the right to take the work you did on your build and put it on their mission/run it on their server?. (As you didn't own the mission in the first) place.

[PuFu 4591]

Who/what enforces these rules? I know we have good moderation on the forums, and they mainly deal with these types of disputes, but outside the forums it seems to be a different story. In the case of a dispute, how would one prove that they were the original creator of that work? Is there a registering website of some sort? Or a certain method? Or is it the first person who released that addon (be it announced here on the forums, on armaholic or other download sites with similar terms) is assumed to be the creator if the claim to be? Is it simply posting date data that is the judge of this?

There is easy to prove one to be the original creator when it comes to 3d models/meshes. At least in my case, i always have the files saved in different stages of development (in my case, i actually have 3ds max set to save iterations of the work each time i save). Moreso, i have learn that it is a good practice amongst the professionals to digitally sign their 3d models (thanks rock). I am not gonna say here how i do it, but i always do it.

regarding rule enforcement, if there is a suspicion of IP(intellectual property) fraud, the admins here, or other proper websites, will block access until those are resolved.

I cannot comment on SQF files since i am hardly a scripter. I would say one could do pretty much the same as above

So there is a separate terms and conditions issued with the Arma Sample Models, etc. What about code created in the SQF format, is there a terms and conditions related to works created in that language?

Yes: for Arma samples: if you use any part of the released samples, you are to inherit their license: derivative, non-commercial. That translates into the fact that one using those samples is obliged to release his content in non-binarized format (mlod).

So its make with the tools not import then? If someone ported their model into Arma 2 using Oxygen 2, only the configs/selections/ported work they edit using the tools would be bound to these terms? (The original mesh that the creator made in a non-BI tools program would still be allowed to be ported into any other game/sold on sites etc.)

The license says the following: you are not allowed to use BIS tools for anything other than non-commercial ArmA/TKOH games. The mesh is still the IP of the Creator. Moreso, if i use my commercial tools (in my case Adsk Suite) to create this mesh for arma, i am well within my rights to sell the said mesh on turbosquid, or private contractors just the same.

So this would be why, say, most of the derivatives of the notorious "life missions" are getting "stolen" by other communities, because the people in the first place "stole" the mission files from somewhere else? (And no one really owns their copy of the mission/scripts. because it is a vicious circle of passing the content down the lines.)

I cannot comment a lot on life missions. Their addons are mostly based on meshes that found on ripping hosting websites, hence most of those addons don't even reach BIF, but are hosted on their own mirrors.

Regarding SQF files, some are started from ground up, some have been improved versions released back in A1 days. It is harder to find the original creator i guess.

What are the rules on regarding derivatives of this specific content? I noticed it is a heated subject regarding IP issues, that forced other communities like City Life 2 etc. to create their own, thus owning their own work with no catches or bounds. Where as, if the mission, say a build of "Zargabad Life", is not really yours (seeing as it was known to be a "rip" of CLU), then does anyone has the right to take the work you did on your build and put it on their mission/run it on their server?. (As you didn't own the mission in the first) place.

I'll let the moderators comment on this one.

[[aps]gnat 28]

3d models are IP and particularly because they can be used outside of BIS games, and even sold for a profile, they need to be controlled and enforced.

As for scripts, my comments are that 99% of script code is just a refined copy of someone else's.

- code to eject paratroopers from a plane .... dozens based on the same if-then-else and for loop that have been done and distributed

- code to check if enemy is aware of you .... done and distributed

- code to do a heli LZ ... hundred done and distributed.

- etc

- etc

But the Community expects credit should be give when great chunks are used.

Which brings us to special mission (script) packs with a major theme.

CTI

Battlezone

Domination

Warefare

etc

etc

This ones difficult.

But as the pack can only be used in ArmA, seems selfish to restrict the whole community to just your version, unless you intend to build AND SUPPORT it like DayZ.

If you are supporting the current (your) derivative then others should back off.

But personally I feel that those who make a BlahBlahSuperMish and then demand no one creates a derivative ever somewhat ridiculous.

..... particularly when they've departed the community 3 months later or no longer updating and still demand no one makes a derivative ! Really!

Anyway, derivative should have FRONT and CENTER credit to the original creater.

...... but how far do you take this?

Should Doolittle and Mike Melvin be credited for their original gene makers?

Probably not. The codes now vastly different.

[konyo 14]

Why is it when posting a reply on these forums from the mobile device site the signature dosent get attached to your reply? Because I then have to log onto the computer when I next can to edit the post and tick the add signature box?

[max power 21]

Who/what enforces these rules? I know we have good moderation on the forums, and they mainly deal with these types of disputes, but outside the forums it seems to be a different story. In the case of a dispute, how would one prove that they were the original creator of that work? Is there a registering website of some sort? Or a certain method? Or is it the first person who released that addon (be it announced here on the forums, on armaholic or other download sites with similar terms) is assumed to be the creator if the claim to be? Is it simply posting date data that is the judge of this?

On the forums, we moderators try to support addon creators by enforcing the rules for content permissions. Other communities, such as moddb have limitations on content as well. Just like on this forum, if an addon creator or someone else has come across a situation they think they should contest, they should make sure that the relevant people are informed.

So there is a separate terms and conditions issued with the Arma Sample Models, etc. What about code created in the SQF format, is there a terms and conditions related to works created in that language?

Yes, the ArmA Sample Models come with a license. In every case, you should review the license that something is supplied with.

So its make with the tools not import then? If someone ported their model into Arma 2 using Oxygen 2, only the configs/selections/ported work they edit using the tools would be bound to these terms? (The original mesh that the creator made in a non-BI tools program would still be allowed to be ported into any other game/sold on sites etc.)

You may not sell anything you make with the tools. If you create a p3d or other file with O2, you may not sell those files. If you create a file with another tool, then you must obey the license of that tool. For instance, if you have 3ds max on a student license, you must obey the terms of the student license.

So this would be why, say, most of the derivatives of the notorious "life missions" are getting "stolen" by other communities, because the people in the first place "stole" the mission files from somewhere else? (And no one really owns their copy of the mission/scripts. because it is a vicious circle of passing the content down the lines.)

What are the rules on regarding derivatives of this specific content? I noticed it is a heated subject regarding IP issues, that forced other communities like City Life 2 etc. to create their own, thus owning their own work with no catches or bounds. Where as, if the mission, say a build of "Zargabad Life", is not really yours (seeing as it was known to be a "rip" of CLU), then does anyone has the right to take the work you did on your build and put it on their mission/run it on their server?. (As you didn't own the mission in the first) place.

The rules for all content is you must obey the license supplied with content. If there is no license supplied, it is assumed to be a full copyright. If there is an unauthorized port or adaptation of a work, that derivative is the intellectual property of the original creator.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

Gnat;2246092']But personally I feel that those who make a BlahBlahSuperMish and then demand no one creates a derivative ever somewhat ridiculous.

..... particularly when they've departed the community 3 months later or no longer updating and still demand no one makes a derivative ! Really!

Anyway' date=' derivative should have FRONT and CENTER credit to the original creater.

...... but how far do you take this?

Should Doolittle and Mike Melvin be credited for their original gene makers?

Probably not. The codes now vastly different.[/quote']

On this forum there is a procedure where you must make a reasonable attempt to contact the original creator for permissions. If you can't, then you can ask the moderating team to have a go.

You credit people if their license demands it, no matter how many iterations have been between the current build and the original.

I appreciate that there are many opinions on the subject, but let's not muddy the waters. The fact of the matter is that if a user on this forum is found to be in violation of any license with any content he is releasing, there will be moderator intervention.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Guys,

I want to resurrect this thread. It's approaching it's second birthday of inactivity.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?110166

It's quite an unspecific thread title, but I hope it might, if we can bring it up again, lead to wider discussion. If I were to start a new thread, it'd have exactly the same title.

In particular, I want to ask were exactly one should use the command. Is is in the SQM? The biki talks about it being executed from a config init event, whatever the heck that means.

I have done a search. kju mentions the command in another thread. but all he does is link to the biki page. I think he knows much more and I'd like to tease it out of him. :)

So, would it be OK for me to bring that thread back to top by asking it's original question again in the hope of more recent insight AND to ask some supplementary questions?

[max power 21]

If you have additional questions to ask, I would say that is a significant contribution.

[jefferspang 2]

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I reckon Moderators should be able to delete threads that are locked. The number of locked/useless threads clogging up the General discussions is quite unsightly and it does make finding recent productive threads more troublesome.