STEX Rules Clarification and Possible Revisions Discussion

[CorinaMarie 29,894]

Just to see if I'm up to speed on two points.

1. It's agreed that rotating and offsetting (or moving things around) is acceptable?
2. Scaling is a completely separate issue.

Then additionally, @Cyclone Boom and I have been discussing how we could have a set of rules to apply in general as well as we have a potential idea how there might be options such that each individual creator can impose more or less restrictions on certain aspects. CB will be posting details about that shortly.

[mattb325 28,891]

50 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Saying it's a grey area is neither agreeing nor disagreeing is it? So how can you expect me to clearly understand, if you don't give a clear answer?

??? Again, there is no clear statement there. I'm not stupid, I can read and I get your overall position on the matter. Which is precisely why in context of the whole, my position can be condensed into one simple question:

Would it be acceptable to continue allowing for people to offset and rotate models, without requiring permission. If that meant any other modifications were no longer allowed, without obtaining explicit permission?

You know, you could just get to the main point, rather than seeking to pull apart everything else, which was only intended to give context to my argument.

rsc204, clearly this is an antagonistic subject for you; I am not trying to "pull everything apart" as you say.

How many ways can I put it? For the love of whatever deity, help me to get through to you? Help, so that a common understanding can be reached rather than resorting to this....this....whatever this horrid, unpleasant exchange is......it is tiring for the entire forum to see this, so, help me find a way to explain my position in manner that will not cause all of this blech.

So, let me try again. On the subject of rotating and offsetting props, you and Tyberius06 have given some examples, some vague, some specific, of why you would like to rotate and offset or in fact de-offset props. I understand your examples, I have lotted and modeled more than 10x the amount of files than the two of you put together. I understand why you want to do it.

But I have given you an example - one of the most downloaded packages of all times - Porkissimos offset props and said, that it is a grey area as the content creator may have made their props to fulfill a very specific purpose such as Porkissimos models and changing them may indeed infringe upon their artistic intention.

I can't give you a specific answer, because I am not the content creator(s) in question, so why do you keep demanding from me a yes/no answer over custom content which I did not make? Any answer I give is no better than any one else's including yours, because I didn't make the content.

That's why I keep saying, ask the creator in question. It is not my place to tell you, Tyberius06 or anyone else for that matter whether you can do these things with models I did not make.

I don't know how I can make it clearer?

 

The point of this discussion has now moved towards the merit of allowing the community to decide whether it wants to allow content creators artistic rights to be amended and by how much, whether retrospectively and under which circumstances with which provisions.

So far, I'm the one mostly providing the examples of what scaling does to models or linking to offset prop packs (which is why, I dare say, you feel as though I am pulling it all apart), no one - and apart from the FrankU/Heblem example - you included - is really and truly providing the community shining examples of befores and afters (whether they are already on the exchnges or prototypes waiting to be released) as to why content creators should forgo their previously held assumption that their files will remain unaltered.

Can you please confirm that you understand and accept that this premise is a reasonable one, even if you do not agree with the content. I am being more than reasonable with you despite the repeated personal nature that this discussion has had. If you do not understand something that I have said, you need only ask for clarification.

I trust this has made myself clear to you, and more importantly I trust this sees a change in attitude.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

I can't give you a specific answer, because I am not the content creator(s) in question, so why do you keep demanding from me a yes/no answer over custom content which I did not make? Any answer I give is no better than any one else's including yours, because I didn't make the content.

That's why I keep saying, ask the creator in question. It is not my place to tell you, Tyberius06 or anyone else for that matter whether you can do these things with models I did not make.

I don't know how I can make it clearer?

Okay, @mattb325, so why I'm forcing an answere from you, because you've threatened us/the whole community here (and it's a threat with more than 300 quality and popular work behind you):

13 hours ago, mattb325 said:

If it decides that changes to the .sc4Model file are fair game for everyone on this site regardless of permission having been sought, then, sadly, I will review having any of my work in the public domain.

And I'm curios, that your threat above applies if a flexible approach will be accepted, or would you be open for some consensus. So if we decide that we can rotate/move copied version of s3d files on one or other axis (so the grey area would be acceptable without explicit permission from the original creator, but explicit and clear credit of course is required at every time), will you remove your work or not?
Because partially exactly the same threats (IIRC not from you at that time) shot down the ideas of plugin packs and plugin folder sharings in an organized way in Haljackey's topic.

So do you understand why we want to get a specific answere?

[mattb325 28,891]

I'm going to ignore the 'forcing an answer from me' part for your sake.

Reviewing my files based on a hypothetical outcome within the context of what was being said to me is not a threat. It is simply reminding you that this is an option. If you are mindful, it should also remind you that other content creators also have this option available to them, as well. I didn't say I would pull them down. I said I would review them and it is 'sadly' for me because I have never had cause to even consider reviewing my files before. But this is a major change to both the way sc4model files have been provided and the spirit in which they are uploaded.

There is a fundamental disconnect here; and quoting the inertia of the plugins pack discussion shows a lack of being able to secure a desired outcome through the constructive formulation of a cohesive, persuasive argument. It is further frustrated by allowing descent into the shrill.

You two have said that you want to rescale props and rotate props without prior permission from the creators, and so far neither of you has presented a clear and concise reason why the present community should agree to over-ride the accepted practices of the last 15 years which cover some 20K worth of uploads; all of which were uploaded with the understanding (implicit or otherwise) that .sc4model files would not be altered.

The two of you have said (and I'm broadly summarising here, so if I have left something out, then apologies) that: 

• the LODs are simplistic and automatically generated;
• the LODs are a Maxis product and are therefore fair game;
• the community is shrinking so modders have to be able to alter existing content without the 'pain' of seeking prior permission;
• that someone's car props which are rotated one 90 degrees should be rotated another so you can make a prop family for them in your files;
• that sim/lamp/bus etc props were offset rendered by a content creator and you wanted them to fit on a lot that you made;
• that the community will have loads of exiting new files as a result of changing the rules;
• etc

Fair enough. None of those points is super stand-out convincing, but not one is wrong, either.

But do you know what that simply has not been stated in any of this? Why you have chosen these specific props that didn't actually fit your purpose in the first place, such that you need to change the sc4model file, and furthermore that you need the community to change its rules so you can then upload them? 

I know why you chose them, it's primarily because you liked the look of them. But of all the tens of thousands of props and models available, are you telling me that there is not one other suitable substitute or compromise that didn't involve changing an .sc4model file? On that point I would be unconvinced. You've already uploaded the pack, and by your own admission could have contacted some of the creators, but didn't.

That's fine. It's not my argument to win: but there are so many other car, sim, bench, bin, tree props available from so many other creators that would not have to be rotated or offset or de-offset, that it is really up to you to convince the community why their rules need to change retrospectively to allow this practice to continue unchecked.

But again, that's not a crime: it's your job if you want to effect the change, to provide a convincing reason to the community so that the community will get behind that. It isn't my job to provide your arguments.

It isn't my job to provide you answers to your demands for impossible points that I have no authority over, it is your job to demonstrate to the community that this proposed change will be in the best interests of the community and content creators and to show them why and allay any fears. It is up to you to predetermine any likely opposition to the change proposed and structure civilised, respectful arguments to champion your cause without diminishing the concerns of the other parties.

So far, because of the actions of how this thread has been handled (admins excepted),  it does not resemble any thing that is constructive, it is just a bunch of people arguing. I doubt any one beyond a few of us is reading it as a result and as a consequence, it is unlikely you will gain the broader traction that you will need to effect the change you desire.

But again, it isn't my job to tell you all of this.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

I don't really have much interest in getting involved with this because as a creator I really don't care what people do with my stuff as long as I get credit somewhere in there (I don't make money off of it so I don't give a damn, though I respective others' right to), but from my perspective, the courteous and correct way to go about things is to ask for permission if resizing or recoloring the sc4model files is involved. As far as modifying the file to make an offset version... ehhh. Personally I would say it doesn't matter but then again I'm not the type that cares.

Anything outside of that has been and definitely should remain fair game in my opinion, be that relotting, making a new desc file with different stats or functionality (with the original model file as a dependency obviously, I'm going to assume we're all on the same page here), whatever.

If the creator is active, I think permission should be gotten for modifying the actual appearance of the BAT in the game, unless they state somewhere that they don't care. If they are asked and say no, then I guess don't do it with their stuff. I really don't see the sense in saying no, but I'd say they are entitled to say no. If someone has been gone for 5 years, then I don't really know how to approach that... If they said "no, don't mess with my stuff" in the past then that's easy but otherwise, who's to say whether they would or wouldn't have supported more diversity in stuff for the game?

I feel like with active creators, the matter is clear-cut, ask for permission for those specific things. As with a lot of things in the community, the more confusing and murky stuff that gets left up to judgement calls by site staff is what do the with stuff made by creators who are long gone...

[Tyberius06 12,267]

5 hours ago, mattb325 said:

But of all the tens of thousands of props and models available, are you telling me that there is not one other suitable substitute or compromise that didn't involve changing an .sc4model file?

Yes, I'm telling that. Why I'm using big prop families with multiple HD rendered people props from Delecto and Namspopof, is because they look better on a lot and they give more diversity, which I like because this is an aspect where I try to get closer to realism in game. They were made with a different technique than the old Peg or Maxis or Simgoober ones. And the same applies for DocRorlach travelling people props with backpacks and handluggages. No one else made such props in that quailty, but they were rendered off-set by 2 tiles. Onto 1x4 or 4x1 LOT I can place it in one way, and I can not rotate in PIM-X because it would leave the dimensions of the LOT. Maybe it's not important to you, but it's very important to me. And no, there is no compromise, becaues I don't have an other model with backpack or handluggage in the exchanges.
2 pages ago I shared a picture about my GLR station relots, but for clarity I place it here to show what I'm talking about.

More or less the circled stuffs from DocRorlach were de-offseted (or something), simple because I couldn't place them onto that position. Of course I could place them elsewhere, but my intention, my creative view was to put them there where they are. The only similiar thing to these kiosk what's in Namspopof prop pack and I used that in many cases, but I can't use them everywhere. And there are no other options. I know that you use basicly the same prop packs for all of your lots (or you make props for yourself), but we are different. I like diversity I like to use new stuffs on my lots and not the same old SG and CP props everywhere which are fine and nice work, but if you see them on every lot, it just start to be boring. Luckily your models are outstanding by themselfs and those are the main atractions not the props behind it.
Of course I could go through all the available prop packs and might find "one other suitable substitute or compromise", one prop in every single prop pack, and I would ended up with a list which contains 100+ dependencies for a single LOT (I think my best was 50+ dependencies for 30+ GLR station LOTs and still one volume hasn't been released, but I have single lot with almost 30 dependencies not counting the additional dependencies). Yepp, that 's a working scennario. I know you could find a catch, why I can not convice you etc-etc... There is always a catch, there is always an explanation...

When I made my essential, the main goal was making timed props and timed prop families (ok these kiosk are not timed, but the circled peep prop is on the most right). I could use of course the SFBT railcar props, but those are not the same quailty as the SCF or Blanco_05 ones and they were already timed. But I prefer to use the better quailty and more diversity on my lots (that's why I have dozens of depencies for a single station lot like those above). So SCF made 4 GW Rils 652 models/props, but while 2 is centered, the other two is off-centered by couple of game-meters. Yepp, I could do a prop family with only two props and let the other two props out, or I can center that two slightly offset props and make a prop family with 4 props increasing the diversity and make my LOT less boring. Not to mention that nobody else made GW Rils 652 models (maybe Angry Mozart did, but he made 10000+ railcar props in any kind of rotation, which is quite overwhelming at this point and it's waiting for me to be discovered). 
But with this question of yours we are on a field of personal taste. You are satisfied using general maxis props and old CP and SG STATIC props, but I am not, that's why I spent months to make a full set of timed prop families (about 96 timed prop families) for my essential. And that required some times to reposition some of the offcentered models.

But next: 
heretic-blanco_05_Rignom_bus_white_90-v2
heretic-MS_AU_SVacanza_green_45_s3d_v2
I bring them together because they had the same issue. In the first file says "90" which indicates the straight position. But in the same prop set every single prop were rendered on the E-W axis and this one on the N-S (maybe it was the other way around, but it doesn't matter). Why? Maybe they were not made in the same time, and Blanco forgot that other props were rendered other way, but he didn't care about it...
Same with the Motokloss bus prop, but it's a diagonal model, it was rendered for example on the NE-SW axis, but the other props in the same set were rendered on the NW-SE axis... Why? who knows? But to use this prop together with his friends I had to reorientate. Of course I could leave it out, but again... more choice, more diversity, and there was no harm...
Can I use similiar quailty bus props from the thousands of available props. NOPE... There are bus props, but not the same quailty or type or etc... SCF made a bunch of bus props, and I was tempted to use them as well, but I left out from the first 2 release of my essentials because they were way different and I had enough bus props at that time.
This may change in the near future if @Fantozzi release his prop pack. 

The next:
heretic-orange_aston_martin_s3d_v2.dat
This was planned to be part of a bunch of timed car props from Orange's cars in a family and it suffered from the same issue as the above mentioned two other examples. However that set of cars never made it to the actual essential (at least so far), because I got bored after making 1000+ prop desc files, than naming them, than set the times up etc... And since than I already had a pretty huge set from Girafe's and the VIP Team's cars in a better quailty. And I'm not criticizing the older models to be clear before somebody missunderstands me, because I'm well aware of that they were made in different times with different tools.

The last ones (which has never been released and it's still in an early phase). These ment to be residental and commercial building families. "L" means they are facing to the left corner of a lot by default. "R" right corner. "M" mirrored version to face to the other side than the original. The bolded ones are the original models. The naming is coming from the made prop examplars, since I planned larger lots with one building and multiple building props in families.

heretic paris corner 01 L - n1 place dumeril 1 1x1
heretic paris corner 02 L - n1 place dumeril 2-M 1x1
heretic paris corner 03 L - n1 place dumeril 3-M 1x1
heretic paris corner 04 L - n1 place dumeril 4 1x1

heretic paris corner 07 R - n1 place dumeril 1-M 1x1
heretic paris corner 08 R - n1 place dumeril 2 1x1
heretic paris corner 09 R - n1 place dumeril 3 1x1
heretic paris corner 10 R - n1 place dumeril 4-M 1x1

heretic paris corner 11 R - pk dany shoes 1x1
heretic paris corner 12 R - pk la civette 1x1

heretic paris corner 05 L - pk dany shoes-M 1x1
heretic paris corner 06 L - pk la civette-M 1x1

There are a few other concepts from Xannepan's buildings, but those were change because they were out from the center comparing to other buildings what I wish to put into the same building/prop family.

Now... do I have multiple choice to replace these parisian models from the thousands of available props? NOPE... of course technically I could replace them with 1x1 japanese corner buildings... well... no...
In this case, N1 is still active sort of. And since he has a more or less semi-active thread, I could ask his permission. Since now it's a big deal, I will do it, if I decide to release these lots. But Porkissimo? He hasn't been around for 5-6 years. Really unlikely that he will respond anything from me.
Xannepan? I sent a message to him a couple of months ago and asked his help with one of his airport stuffs. I know he is officially retired/moved away from SC4 and became a CS modder/developer, but I tried. He read the message and I didn't get any respond.

@Simmer2 and you say that I should move forward and use other props from other creators. BUT HOW? If there isn't any other option. Simmer2 made a bunch of props for me already, for which I'm really greatful, but I can't expect that it would apply for making parisian building corners in two "rotation" to cover my set-ups. Neither from you. And I'm not talking about one building. Same style almost same colour but a bit different version and 3-4 models to give enough variety... Yepp sure... are you up to it?  
But here is an other example: Simmer2 made GLR shelters for me (of course he released his own really nice LOT versions). I was lucky enough to work with the first version which was only offset (to work with multiple networks, because it didn't have any modelled base). And I right away changed it back to a centered version, because I couldn't use that shelter on a possible 1 tile wide lot. Than he made two versions, one offset, and one centered versions. But what if he only makes a centered version, for work with only one network, but I wish to make a lot  where it could serve multiple networks? An offset version with Tweaker would be sufficient. Do I have an other GLR/transportation shelter on the exchanges with the same quality/dimensions etc...? Nope I don't have. 

But again we are stepping onto a field of personal taste. I love variety. I like dense/busy lots (I think it's obvious if you look at my LOTs), and I prefer some kind of quality specially if on the LOT the other props are represent a stage of quality.

And to narrowing the issue. I wasn't aware of that these simple modifications would require any permissions, because at least they are in a grey area, and I had to face with multiple different oppinion which can be found on the forums. And since most of these creators no longer active and my action does not do any harm on their original work, and since I give the credit to them and the original models always listed as dependencies, I didn't see any problem. 

Quote

@mattb325

it is your job to demonstrate to the community that this proposed change will be in the best interests of the community and content creators and to show them why and allay any fears.

I doubt any one beyond a few of us is reading it as a result and as a consequence, it is unlikely you will gain the broader traction that you will need to effect the change you desire.

And I just do this over 3 pages. No offence, but most of the community haven't even realised that I used these modifications, or didn't care about it. I wrote in the readme and on the upload pages what I've done and never mentioned that I got any permission from anyone (I didn't know that  I should ask for these non-essential changes) to make and release those modifications. No questions were asked. So do you think that most of the simple users do care about this at all? It's only important to US custom content creators to clarify these things, because the enduser wouldn't be more careless - respect for the exception ones (Hungarian phrase I do not know if there is a more proper translation for this.) They get the new content and that's it everybody is happy... - that was sarcasm  

So from a creative point-of-view, these changes were necessary to provide my lots in a way how I like to share them, knowing that I didn't altere/change anything essentially on the original models. 
But right, at this point this argument and discussion is getting totally pointless, because I can say anything you will find always some catch on it why it is not good enough... But as I can not convince you or Simmer2 why it's necessary and replacing these props with others why isn't sufficient, you can not convince me about what harm I do make with these simple modifications...

 

[T Wrecks 10,210]

Hello @mattb325 - I'm paging you because this thread is beginning to get difficult to navigate, and I wanted to reply to your post that showed my rescaled and recoloured version of JBSimio's buildings. I agree that these are probably a good example to show what kind of modifications we are talking about.

What's less ideal is that they show a combination of two different modifications, and by "different" I'm also referring to what goes on in the background.

• The rescaling operation is carried out using cogeo's SC4 model tweaker. It normally alters the S3D files inside the model directly. Let's leave that part aside for now. It's a more complicated case, I guess, and this thread is enough of a labyrinth already. I want to focus on the recolour first because that's easier.
   
• The recolour is NOT a part of the original model. I made that one by exporting only the required textures, changing them, and putting them in a separate .DAT file. This file on its own won't do anything. It absolutely requires the original model to work.
  
  Therefore, the analogy with the Jesus picture is absolutely not correct for recolours. If anything, you can imagine the recolour like a filter that you could get separately, and if you put that filter on your lens and look at the original, untouched, unaltered, Jesus picture that is still available for everyone to look at in its original state, then and only then will it look like the painted-over version, and only for the person(s) with the filter in front of their lens.
  
  What would the painter say about that filter? Would they get a chuckle out of it? Would they think it's corny and their original painting was way better? Who knows. IMO, it doesn't even matter. Why not? Because I don't give a shit about the painter and don't have respect for them? No. It's because the painter still has their original painting on the wall, unharmed, untouched, and unaltered. What the painter thinks about the painting and what the people think basically boils down to opinion and personal taste and preference. There will always be people with different tastes and opinions, and who of them is right? All of them are, because it's their lives. As long as nobody forces their opinion on others, I don't see a problem. Nothing gets destroyed, nothing gets lost. In the analogy with the picture, the original art got destroyed and is irretrievably lost, and I would disagree with that even if the change had been the other way around because the original art deserves to be preserved, no matter what I think of it personally. But nothing is lost or irretrievably altered here, and therefore the analogy doesn't apply to this case.

[sejr99999 8,370]

first  I want to thank all the content creators for their contributions to this game since 2003.    Often there have been some beautiful models uploaded with minimal modding and lotting and that is where I get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction in making them more functional and with more detailed lots but I would never alter the author's original model without permission (if I had that skill)    Because of that my cities are not filled with non-functional buildings that play Big Ben's chimes when queried.   I highly respect the Batters and also the modders that can create beauty and variety for this old game.   For 15 years this community has worked together to encourage each other and to be helpful in creating the best content possible.   Some are skilled at model making, others with modding and then there are some who excel at both.  I think that this has been an excellent process that has worked well for 15 years.     anyway, that's my two cents worth from someone who can't Bat to save his life

[mattb325 28,891]

6 hours ago, T Wrecks said:

Hello @mattb325 - I'm paging you because this thread is beginning to get difficult to navigate, and I wanted to reply to your post that showed my rescaled and recoloured version of JBSimio's buildings. I agree that these are probably a good example to show what kind of modifications we are talking about.

What's less ideal is that they show a combination of two different modifications, and by "different" I'm also referring to what goes on in the background.

• The rescaling operation is carried out using cogeo's SC4 model tweaker. It normally alters the S3D files inside the model directly. Let's leave that part aside for now. It's a more complicated case, I guess, and this thread is enough of a labyrinth already. I want to focus on the recolour first because that's easier.
   
• The recolour is NOT a part of the original model. I made that one by exporting only the required textures, changing them, and putting them in a separate .DAT file. This file on its own won't do anything. It absolutely requires the original model to work.
  
  Therefore, the analogy with the Jesus picture is absolutely not correct for recolours. If anything, you can imagine the recolour like a filter that you could get separately, and if you put that filter on your lens and look at the original, untouched, unaltered, Jesus picture that is still available for everyone to look at in its original state, then and only then will it look like the painted-over version, and only for the person(s) with the filter in front of their lens.
  
  What would the painter say about that filter? Would they get a chuckle out of it? Would they think it's corny and their original painting was way better? Who knows. IMO, it doesn't even matter. Why not? Because I don't give a shit about the painter and don't have respect for them? No. It's because the painter still has their original painting on the wall, unharmed, untouched, and unaltered. What the painter thinks about the painting and what the people think basically boils down to opinion and personal taste and preference. There will always be people with different tastes and opinions, and who of them is right? All of them are, because it's their lives. As long as nobody forces their opinion on others, I don't see a problem. Nothing gets destroyed, nothing gets lost. In the analogy with the picture, the original art got destroyed and is irretrievably lost, and I would disagree with that even if the change had been the other way around because the original art deserves to be preserved, no matter what I think of it personally. But nothing is lost or irretrievably altered here, and therefore the analogy doesn't apply to this case.

I'm not sure why you think that the Jesus picture is an analogy to recolouring or your work?

I have never said any thing of the sort and that is an exceedingly long bow to draw.

They are from two seperate posts anyway.

But in that exact same post you can see exactly what I have to say about the Jesus picture and why it is used.

As far as I am concerned there is no link between your apartments and the Jesus picture.

Also in my post I made it very clear that I knew that two separate techniques had been applied: recolouring and rescaling. I also very specifically stated that I was not focused on the recolouring issue of the apartments. I could not have been more clear in my post in that regard.

So, to repeat. The Jesus picture has no analogy to your apartments nor to allowing the original and/or 3rd party rescaled/recoloured/retextured versions of a BAT to exist side-by-side and your assertion to the contrary is unfounded, not least because of what I have already had to say on the topic.

[mattb325 28,891]

@Tyberius06

Thankyou for the post, I have indeed read through it, and I am not going to latch onto every little detail as you say, but essentially, what you are doing is asking the community to change its rules so that the artistic integrity of your vision for your lot can potentially (potentially, because we don't know as the creator hasn't had the opportunity to say anything) over-ride the artistic integrity of the vision of the creator of the props you have chosen to use on your lot.

Seeking permission from the creator aside, by simply choosing an alternative prop, or excluding the off-set rendered prop from the prop family and just using the off-set prop on its own within the lot,  the utility and function of these lots (which are very nice btw, I have told you that before) will not be compromised. In other words, the glr station will still function as such regardless of the type of sim, bus, etc props on that lot. Sure the prop families won't be as lively, and I I understand that point, but the function and overall look remain largely unchanged.

Additionally, many batters, including myself - remember I made that giant terminus at your request - have made things for you in the past. And let me assure you, if that is a concern to you, that my discussions on the topic are not about trying to have your prop pack altered or shut down for being somehow against the 'rules', it is just trying to balance - going forward - your wishes against the long-held expectations that batters have operated under when submitting their model files.

Lastly, I would recommend you steer clear of making assertions about which "old" props I am "happy" to use on my lots. I make compromises and a series of choices on the lots I upload for the broader community benefits of  utility, form, aesthetics and function: believe me those same lots for my own use have completely different props on them.

[mattb325 28,891]

Lastly, let me state in a single post what my position is in regard to all of this. It is closely aligned with @Simmer2's summary, but that has now been buried in a sea of words.

The Rules of the site, as they now stand, are sufficient to cover both the requests made to alter model files and protect the artistic rights of the batter.

The present rules, Point 6 a), make it absolutely clear: "Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload." 

As such they cover exactly what we are talking about and need no further tightening or embellishment.

To my own opinion as to what I have picked out from each of the individual requests in this 'wish-list'. My opinion in no way detracts from the existing rule of the site, and if there is confusion or clarification required, Point 6a) is the reference.

However :

• On the subject of scaling a BAT by any amount or along any axis using Cogeo's Model Tweaker/Reader. Permission is sought from the original creator prior to uploading and the ID's must be such that the original and altered can exist side by side and that the new version is a dependency of the original. Personal use is excluded;
• On the subject of re-colouring or re-texturing using GoFSH/photo-editing software or the reader/tweaker. Permission is sought from the original creator prior to uploading and the ID's must be such that the original and altered can exist side by side and that the new version is a dependency of the original. Personal use is excluded. The only caveat(s) is where a rendered BAT has had corruption in the render process and it is clear that the initial (and now absent, uncontactable) creator did not intend it to be that way; additionally, now-uncontactable creators who made BATs in older versions of BAT4Max which are not compatible with the current Dark Nite/Maxis Nite game set up can have the appropriate overlay applied from the GoFSH extension to make them compatible provided that no other texture changes are applied.
• On the subject of changing the image taken of a BAT and then altering that image for use in a CJ: go for it!
• On the subject of relotting. I believe that it is not ideal to take another users, or Maxis lot, and simply re-decorate it and re-upload it. Unfortunately, the original instructions for the Lot Editor by Maxis instructed the community to do this and as such, it is accepted practice. The advent of the PIM-X has made it very easy to create a new lot from scratch, but by the time it was released, there is almost a decade of precedent and few users know how to create a .lot file afresh in the reader. As such, community precedent holds.
• On the subject of creating new exemplars for existing models either from prop packs or single uploads. Community precedent says that permission is not needed so long as the model files are linked as a dependency.
• On the subject of de-offsetting previously and deliberately offset rendered props. Permission is sought from the original creator prior to uploading and the ID's must be such that the original and altered can exist side by side and that the new version is a dependency of the original. The decision to off-set render a BAT is a very specific one and the batter must use careful calculations to ensure that the offset object works as intended in game. Personal use is excluded. The only caveat I would give here is the one or two examples of a new batter who has uploaded a bat that is so wildly off-center that it has to sit on a very large lot and that such an action was clearly unintentional. There is a good example of the NY Flatiron or Singer building (if I remember correctly) that was effectively so off-centered it just couldn't be used as intended;
• On the subject of merely rotating props one way or the other along a 90 degree axis. Permission is sought from the original creator prior to uploading and the ID's must be such that the original and altered can exist side by side and that the new version is a dependency of the original. Personal use is excluded. If the creator is no longer available, then it can be done on a case-by-case basis. The intention of the prop pack, the descriptions and use as described by the creator (if any) will be used as the determinant to whether the action of rotating a prop may infringe upon the creators original intention.
• On the subject of off-setting previously non-offset props. Permission is sought from the original creator prior to uploading and the ID's must be such that the original and altered can exist side by side and that the new version is a dependency of the original. Personal use is excluded. If the creator is no longer available, then it can be done on a case-by-case basis. The intention of the prop pack, the descriptions and use as described by the creator (if any) will be used as the determinant to whether the action of rotating a prop may infringe upon the creators original intention, however it is unlikely that any content creator will object to offsetting as off-set rendering is more difficult to do in the 3D environment (as outlined above)

As I said, this is just my stance, and I don't think the rules need any amendment as they cover the options. If I have missed anything or any point that someone has raised, please let me know.

  Edited December 16, 2018 by mattb325  
Added upcoming GoFSH application to the 2nd bullet point

[T Wrecks 10,210]

34 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

I believe that it is not ideal to take another users, or Maxis lot, and simply re-decorate it and re-upload it. Unfortunately, the original instructions for the Lot Editor by Maxis instructed the community to do this and as such, it is accepted practice.

Why "unfortunately", though?  This very instruction may very well have been the spark that really paved the way for the big and bustling modding community for SC4 in the first place. Why would I be mad that someone takes stuff I made, changes a few things, and re-uploads so that more people might enjoy it?

This has, in fact, been the one big premise under which all content creators - lotters, modders, mappers - have been uploading their stuff for almost 15 years now: Anyone is free to use anyone's ideas, tweak a few things, and re-upload - as long as they don't claim ownership of anything that isn't theirs, and give credit where credit is due. BATters didn't have to think about that because the tools didn't exist initially, but now... well, here we are.

It's a pity that so many people are unavailable these days. JBSimio, for example, is no longer active, I think. I would have hoped that other people might have liked my re-scaling, recolouring file for his BAT, and that it would give that old BAT many people may not even know about some fresh downloads, and maybe make them aware of his work in the first place. Without the possibility to get his explicit permission, though, this won't be possible.

I've also been testing an extension for GoFSH with rivit that would allow 3dsmax BATs without DarkNite render to be converted to DarkNite, but several authors have long since left the community. Guess that means no DarkNite patches, or only for me because I can't share then.

If that should be the decision that's taken, fine - I have the stuff. But it still makes me sad because I'd prefer to share the fun with others. That's more what I would have thought makes a non-profit hobby community.

[mattb325 28,891]

I use the word 'unfortunately', because such lots, when made in that fashion are prone to technical issues.

1 hour ago, T Wrecks said:

I've also been testing an extension for GoFSH with rivit that would allow 3dsmax BATs without DarkNite render to be converted to DarkNite, but several authors have long since left the community. Guess that means no DarkNite patches, or only for me because I can't share then.

Thomas, who do you think do you think did all of the grunt work with Ron prior to you testing that extension? I did approximately six or seven different renders in gmax and 3dsMax for him to test his colour theory prior to making public discussions on the differences between the renders of gmax, Maxis nite and Dark nite. If you don't believe me, please contact rivit directly. But please, get your facts straight before trying to engage in a game of one upmanship.

Do not try and paint me as some inflexible ogre trying to stifle everyone's creativity. I have been at the forefront of it for 13 years now. Sometimes I am mentioned, sometimes I am not; that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 

I am saying what I am saying to protect the long-held assumptions of batters when uploading this site.

I am all for creativity and broad and varied, quality custom content. But this is not a free-for-all, and the site has long established rules and traditions.

Edit: just for you, and even though the extension doesn't actually exist in the wild yet, I've made an amendment on my list.

[matias93 7,535]

Wow, that was a really long read! Ok, my two pesos here.

1. I consider Matt & Nick proposal as the most reasonable one in general, even if I have some discrepancies to be cleared right away.
2. I understand T Wrecks, Tyberius and Robin worries and feel that their arguments are also looking for the well-being of the community, promoting the 'tinkering' attitude that has made this game much more interesting than other, less moddable ones.
3. I reason that the main issue here isn't the protection of the artistic integrity of the works of currently active batters. If we adopt the proposal made by Matt & Nick, it would be entirely possible to see batters allowing beforehand to different degrees of modifications of their models, or to authorise it on a case-by-case basis.
4. The issue is with the works of long-inactive creators, that cannot be reached to ask for permission and that weren't clear about it when releasing their creations. This is the case on which the choosing of an specific wording can have big consequences, either allowing for open modification of old models, restricting severely new uses of them, or anything in between.
5. That's where I think Shriefer has been wise: the same rules shouldn't apply for active creators' creations and long-inactive creators' creations. There should be a way to protect some of their artistic integrity while allowing for new creative uses of their models, considering also how the standards of a modded game have changed with the years.

Let me explain this point with some examples from things I've interested on doing (but found no free time to do, nor reglamentary certitude to invest time on it).

Those are Deadwoods' Raised Parks. Released in 2006, they fill a niche that is still unexplored by any other creator. When they were created, the NAM only offered L2 (15 metres high) elevated networks, so the parks are adapted to those specifications, and even include some stations.

On the twelve years that have passed, Deadwoods stopped to participate on the forums around 2011, opened his account for last time in 2015, and the NAM team developed a full range of much more realistic, more flexible and more stable L1 (7.5 metres high) elevated networks, that are fully incompatible with the Raised Parks and their stations.

A logical idea then, would be to tweak the models of the Raised Parks, to reduce their height and make them fit the new network standard. I made a little experiment on such a purpose, and as you can guess and see, the results, as with anything else that goes through the Model Tweaker for a big change, are just 'acceptable':

To my taste, the flattened version has more realistic stair slopes and more vivid rock textures on the perimetral wall, but undoubtedly, the modification also make the model rigged with Moiré patterns on the stairs and a strange double beam on the entrance. For my personal usage, that's a fair exchange and I would use it if I were to have enough free time to modify the entire set.

But I would also intuitively guess that some other players could have the same preferences as me, and could be interested on this modification, that simply follows from the logic: "this was made to fit under the most common elevated networks of the time, and now the most common standard is different."

The parks aren't the only model on the same situation. Tadasu's sunken stations are also based on the old 15 metres standard, are also one of a few in an entire category (sunken stations), were been made in 2007, and they are still a perfectly good model, and one that could be used more flexibly if some changes were made, such as scaling it heavily on the vertical axis. Tadasu also hasn't been active on the community since long ago (2012), and differently to Deadwoods, they didn't belong to a batting team that can be still reached to ask for authorisation.

You could still hold that everything I've exemplified this is just my fussiness about scaling, but there are some models that, I believe it could be argued that objectively would be benefited from extensive changes. An example of that is the LBT House Pack:

Also old, pigeonholed on a very specific category (Latin American low rise buildings) and lacking of custodianship, this models also are way off of what we now, in 2018, consider the best practices on texturing and colour choosing, something that all proficient batters and most long-time users can recognise at first sight, simply comparing the saturation and brightness of the models to their sorroundings. Normalising the colouring of this models would be a big endeavour because of their sheer number, something that I guess, most of us wouldn't be interested on doing just for personal usage (at least I wouldn't).

Redistributing a colour-changed pack without the impossible-to-get authorisation of all the original creators would be actively against the current rules and the most reasonable proposal here presented, but I still feel it would be somehow justified, just for the sake of making quality content compatible with the new standards the modding community has evolved together.

What is more, and here I second T Wrecks, is that the original models and their characteristics wouldn't be lost, and given the need to still use them as a dependency when using modified versions, the end users could still judge if the modification indeed improves or degrades the original models, and to choose between them both.

***

That was long too! Resuming: while I mainly back Matt & Nick proposal to stick with the more orthodox interpretation of the current rules and to put the artistic integrity on the centre of our worries, I still believe that we should provide for some reasonable exceptions when a series of requisites are met: the models are old and lacking of some innovation that is widely used by now, the original creator or their custodians are longly unreachable, the model fullfills a very specific function for which some option isn't available, and the technical feasibility is such that the original models can always be prefered by the current end users, making the new mod simply an alternate version.

By no means I think this should be adopted as a general rule, but as a last measure to be considered in a case-by-case basis, only avoiding the need to improvise contingent rules when the need arises. What do you think about it?

[Simmer2 23,831]

After carefully reading @mattb325 opinions regarding rule Point 6 a, I whole hardheartedly  concur with them.

I may also add that in order to make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt, I would amend Rule Point 6 a to include @mattb325 opinions so that anyone who wishes to proceed with any of the outlined steps, will have to abide by the rules and any appended amendments.

Simmer2/Nick

[CorinaMarie 29,894]

Wow! Y'all've been busy whilst I was out running errands. A big thanks to everyone for providing specific details. This helps me understand individual aspects of what needs to be addressed.

Here's one thing tho,

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

The present rules, Point 6 a), make it absolutely clear: "Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload." 

The part I highlighted in red. It is my understanding that this pertains to actual inclusion within a new upload such that permission must be obtained to add in someone else's files (or parse out and include) textures, props, models, et al. This in no way says someone cannot utilize any of those while linking to the originals as dependencies.

In case I've misunderstood your premise on this are we in agreement on this part, Matt? Permission is not needed to use them as a dependency. (And for this part I'm talking about unaltered items.)

[Jasoncw 11,949]

Everyone please forgive me for only skimming through the thread. Matt has posted his position on specific situations very clearly and concisely, and so it seems like a good starting point for me to respond to. I had started by responding to each of his bullets individually, but I found that my responses were the same and fell into a few general themes.

 

I think that mods of mods (overwrite/replacement mods. Plugins which share IDs) are fine. I don't think the issue is whether or not someone is conforming to the original author's artistic vision, I think the issue is whether or not someone is uploading something that they do not own. I think regardless of any of the nuances of our arguments, "modifying" something in order to essentially upload something that isn't yours, in bad faith, isn't allowed.

 

I think that the spirit of "link to it as a dependency" works for mods of mods (rescale, de/re offset, recolor, etc.) at least some of the time. In other words, only containing the modified parts, and then linking to the original as a dependency, even though the upload would technically contain portions of someone else's upload.

For example, if there was a BAT that had an American flag on it, I think someone should be able to, without permission, upload a .DAT containing a modified (photoshopped to change the nationality) version of the .FSH slabs that contain the flag. They would then link to the original BAT, which would contain all of the other .FSH and .S3D files, as a dependency, and would name the installation folder and give explanation, so that the new .DAT would overwrite the original.

There are circumstances where isolating certain parts and making the original a dependency isn't technically possible, and the only way to share it is to upload the whole thing, in a complete, standalone, independent, modified version. In some situations this would be unacceptable to me (the flag example (reuploading the whole package just with a different flag)), but I can also imagine there being situations where my gut feeling would be that it's fine.

[T Wrecks 10,210]

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Thomas, who do you think do you think did all of the grunt work with Ron prior to you testing that extension?

Matt, our work is absolutely irrelevant in this context. This is not about you or me. The DarkNite conversion thing was merely posted as an example of stuff that was not possible back then, is possible now, but I fear might rot away unused because many of the authors who made the relevant stuff are no longer here. No matter if you, I, or the President of the USA did the test renders, and how many of them. You saw the function in action yourself - I'm sure you want to see it put to good use so people can enjoy the results?
 

 

2 hours ago, mattb325 said:

I am all for creativity and broad and varied, quality custom content. But this is not a free-for-all, and the site has long established rules and traditions.

Yes, and as I tried to explain, to my knowledge there has never been a particular tradition or agreement that tools won't be used on BATs in a particular way although that would, technically, be possible. There have just been circumstances when such tools didn't even exist and, hence, there wasn't even a need for any particular regulation other than the usual "don't just repost my file under your name" - which has always been upheld and will not be changed either way, that much is sure.

Now that the tools are there and it looks like they might actually be used to some relevant degree, the question arises how we deal with this new situation. There is no retroactive change of rules or traditions. It's not like BATters had always been told, for example, "if you upload, you can trust your BAT will never be converted to DarkNite", and now some jerks come and say "April Fools! Guess what, we'll change that policy, haha!" There was a time when such modding was not relevant, and now it suddenly is, and we need to find a way to deal with it.

What's worse, times have changed, whether we want it or not. The community is shrinking, there is no longer a reliable flood of new stuff, there are not many creators left. Sites are disappearing, links are dying, persons are disappearing, and it becomes increasingly harder to keep things together. Meanwhile, the heap of old stuff grows, and so do the possibilities we have to make the best out of it. That's the situation we're in.

I don't want to take stuff from other peoples' hands and claim it. Nobody does. I wish we'd find a way to show respect to the creators, but also keep the sharing spirit of the community alive and present content in a way that's accessible for newcomers. We need that more than ever. I'm sitting on a ton of stuff, and although I might not know much, I can apparently make stuff that some people appreciate and enjoy. I want to share it, and I'd be happy if others jumped in as well. I don't wanna shrug it off and say "Oh well, creator gone - bad luck, folks." I don't want to show pictures in threads and stroke my ego when people say "Hey, that looks cool". How sad would that be? I'd be happier if I knew that some other blokes downloaded that stuff and enjoy it - and if I could introduce them to a creator this way, all the better.

As @matias93 showed very well in his post, it's particularly the older stuff that has potential to be brought back to a second life with a few tweaks. If all of that was ineligible for changes because the author can no longer be contacted, wouldn't that be wasted potential?

I'd therefore prefer a solution along the lines of what @Jasoncw wrote above. It would make sure that the authors get credit, that downloaders get to know the authors' names (and potentially their other stuff), that the original file remains available in an unaltered shape, and that the community can keep evolving, tweaking, modding, and sharing. I cannot see any wrong in that because nobody loses anything.

[mattb325 28,891]

42 minutes ago, T Wrecks said:

Matt, our work is absolutely irrelevant in this context. ..... I'm sure you want to see it put to good use so people can enjoy the results?

I've seen the results. They're beautiful and rivit was able to almost faithfully recreate my Debenhams file in Maxis nitewhich we used as the guinea-pig; I only did the basic grunt work on the  renders so rivit could cement his theory on how the various game/gmax/bat4max renders works.

Your post was 20 minutes ago. Perhaps you haven't seen my two edits over an hour ago on the two posts in question? You might want to take a look at what I edited in the comment and the bullet points   But very specifically, I can't give everyone an answer for every potential scenario that has arisen or may arise some time in the future....you guys are the custodians of this site and hence have the responsibility to look after all aspects of the community.

Just to address a repeated concern, that the community is shrinking, no new content, etc....from my point of view (remember, it is up to everyone) being allowed to alter the model files isn't necessary to keep content fresh.

This relot:

takes THE OLDEST, MOST COMMUNITY SCORNED CONTENT available and turns it into something truly beautiful. Not a single tweak to the models required.

Again, that's just my opinion

 

1 hour ago, CorinaMarie said:

In case I've misunderstood your premise on this are we in agreement on this part, Matt? Permission is not needed to use them as a dependency. (And for this part I'm talking about unaltered items.)

 

Yes, we sure are 

[Cyclone Boom 17,031]

Hi everyone,

As @CorinaMarie said previously, together as Admins this is an important subject we wish to hear all of your thoughts on.

Change does imperatively need making, and I can say with assurance how this time change shall be made. Yes, seriously.

Understandably the subject nature of content redistribution and author rights is sensitive. Oftentimes with contrasting and divided views on the subject, it can lead to passionate and heated debates. But the issues concerned are ones which have long been in need of addressing, following on most recently from the mentioned Sharing Plugins discussion. It's understandable when people have opposing views. This is human nature after all, and as such it's about trying to establish an appropriate compromise. Most of all we want this to be the best possible outcome for the community as a whole, and so each of your opinions is valued. The main idea is to move away from the "old guard" mentality, instead giving people freedom of choice which new policies they wish to accept. We will not be forcing change on those who at present, adamantly express disapproval. We are also listening to those who adamantly express approval.

A possible approach we're considering is by providing each STEX author the privilege to implement a notice atop their file(s), detailing specific predefined and selectable policies, applicable to their own content. This way there'd be the new written clarified rules as part of the Site Guidelines, then additional terms authors can optionally copy over from provided templates. From here we'd offer 2 different options. First to let the author impose varying degrees of tighter restrictions for what they would allow with regard to re-lots and re-use of their creations. These could be stricter than the general policy (as will be determined). Then going the other way, let the author grant varying degrees of greater freedom with regard to more modifications than the general policy. These notices would be visible before downloading, and as site staff we'd honour and implement all specified clauses. It's an idea. Nothing is final. We're open to feedback.

On the contrary it could be done the other way with authors opting in to less stricter rules. That (and everything else) is to be decided.

This is all about listening to what each of you have to say. So before anything gets implemented, changes big or small, we're going to allow some time for everyone to contribute to this discussion. Reaffirming, as some of you have already shared such valuable input, how we'd particularly like to hear:

What amendments to the Simtropolis Site Guidelines concerning policies of the STEX would you consider fair and reasonable from your own perspective?

We're interested and actively encourage views from both content creators and content downloaders alike. This is important because all of you have an opinion of the matter, and as proven already from the discussion about LODs in models, it's also complex from a technical standpoint. Once we've assessed, Cori and I will discuss all ideas on the table. Then collectively with Dirk's approval, we'll determine a suitable advancement with everyone's interest at heart, for the continued betterment of Simtropolis.

Thanks all!

[Tyberius06 12,267]

@mattb325

6 hours ago, mattb325 said:

but essentially, what you are doing is asking the community to change its rules so that the artistic integrity of your vision for your lot can potentially (potentially, because we don't know as the creator hasn't had the opportunity to say anything) over-ride the artistic integrity of the vision of the creator of the props you have chosen to use on your lot.

Well, maybe and no. We have been over-riding the artistic intergrity in any and every way when we repurpose a model on a new lot, when we are relotting a model with the same purpose as the original was, but with different look. The goal is the same the tools are different. That's why I don't understand your obsession (sorry, I know that it's not the best word for this, but it's late for me and I'm generally tired atm) about artistic integrity of the vision of the creator in this matter. The goal is to shape other's creations to match with our visions. What I'm asking is a little flexibility which allows custom lotters/modders to make minor modifications on other's BAT's and than they can share those to the community without running extra rounds asking permissions from non-anymore-active batters... Specially that technically the original BAT would be intact. Because none of the described methods by me alter the original BAT itself. It alters a copy of a component (which is the s3d "examplar" in a sc4model file) of the model, which is in relation with the original model of course (that's why the original model has to be listed as an external dependency, and of course it can not be included with the modified files), but by itself it is useless and do nothing at all... So saying that the release of these modified s3d files are redistributions of the original models without permission, doesn't seem to be accurate at all. Because the other components of the original model, actually all the components of the original model is still untouched - technically).

But my concern in the most cases is still about the inactive creators. Asking your permission regardless of the outcome is still easy, but asking Simgoober's permission or Ill Tonkso's permission or Porkissimo's permission - well good luck for me... These are just examples with the names.

5 hours ago, mattb325 said:

On the subject of de-offsetting previously and deliberately offset rendered props.

This point (?) has different guidlines than the following two ones. I'm not sure whether difference is intentional or not. And I do not really understand if it's intentional, than why? The two other contains the options what If the original author is non-active and this one doesn't. If there is a 2 tiles offset rendered prop and I want to use that prop on a 1x1 lot or a 2x2 lot, than I can not do that without tweaking the model. Now if the creator is no longer active, you would exclude the use of this prop on those smaller lots. Why? It can not hurt more the "a.i." than making from a hospital building a prision lot. And I don't understand the difference between how we handle the deliberately offset rendered props and the normal rendered props. Why would we assume that those were not deliberately normal rendered? In some cases offset props are usefull, I had plans to make a bunch of offset building props and place them onto a plain texture based prop model (my first and so far only gmax model experiment, which was never continued after the first problematic render), which would sit on a 1x1 tile overhang ploppable lot, and this lot would allow to draw sunken networks or place FLUP puzzle pieces underneath the whole model/prop complex. But for me most of the times the offset props give extra headache. 

7 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Additionally, many batters, including myself - remember I made that giant terminus at your request - have made things for you in the past.

Oh, I can not forget that, and I really appreciate that you made not just that terminus, but that whole set. It was/is the main inspiration and gave me the power to start working on my essential pack. I remember once I asked you if you would model my old Hungarian family house, where I grew up, but that was the time when you were mainly inactive in the community. And yepp not just in the past, @Simmer2 constantly supports my ideas, and makes models to me, and @MushyMushy is working on something which would make more alive the last unfinished GLR station. And I am really greatful for eveybody who ever helped or will help me in any way regerdless that we agree or disaggre of certain aspects of the life of the community. And thanks for the compliments

7 hours ago, mattb325 said:

Lastly, I would recommend you steer clear of making assertions about which "old" props I am "happy" to use on my lots. I make compromises and a series of choices on the lots I upload for the broader community benefits of  utility, form, aesthetics and function: believe me those same lots for my own use have completely different props on them.

The most general prop packs what I saw listed on your dependency lists are the two C.P. mega packs and the SG megapack, and your own prop packs of course. Speaking of the CP and SG packs. They cover many areas, and they are so common that probably everybody has those. But for me the props comparing to newer sets or even your prop sets look old. Nice to have them on older lots, because they represent for me a golden era of the SC4, but I wouldn't use those if not really really necessary, because there are options for more modern/newer props. Which means for me more separate, independent prop packs on my dependency lists.
Your last sentence is a point (among others), where we are different. I make only one version, which I release. No extended cut, no directors cut (by the way I love those in TV serieses and movies, but because a lot of times the directors are forced to cut their movies, and their original version is much better in a lot of way...) for my own use. The only thing what I do in this matter is alternate versions to cover more variety. Sure I could use for releases the SHK car props, which are nice and quite diverse and  I think they are even timed (that would mean instantly minus four dependencies on my extensive lists), and for myself I could use my essential with all the extra variety and tweaks etc-etc, but why should I make this compromise? Why do I need to hold myself back and not giving the "best what I can achive" for the community?
I think if I/anybody can provide my/one's best - or improve - ,what I can achive, to the comminity with a little tweak on existing models, that would serve the community in long-term. Specially that I give all the necessary credits to the original creators (for example in the very first upload of mine, on the upload page of the Heretic Seaport set - and in the readme as well - I linked all the original contents what I relotted, to show to the possible user, that here is my version, but if you interested in and prefer the original ones, you can find all of them on the links.) On the download pages of the recent GLR sets I say thank to anyone whose main bulding models were used on my lots. 

And for the end of this wall-of-text (again), here is my statment:
I made/will make all my creations for myself (to serve my creative needs and visions) and secondary for the community.
My only concern and requirement regarding my creations (at this moment strictly prop examplars and prop families - because so far the original models and props were created by others-, custom textures and custom network paths, basicly what is in the Heretic Essentials - with a few exceptions regarding @Simmer2's and possibly @MushyMushy's special custom models/props/textures to my request and the modified s3d file *.dats, where I give explicit credit to them and the original creators in the readmes and on the download pages) is the given credit to me. If I make models in the future, the same will apply. I would not and will not require any permission requests for redistributing or changing/altering my creations (my original uploads has to stay intact as they were uploaded), but my name (Tyberius06) as the original creator has to be mentioned and my original creations has to be linked as a dependency. If I'll have become inactive, after 1 year inactivity (IF I wouldn't respond to any email, PM, Discord etc...) all my creations will belong to the community entirely, in matters/cases the community/staff/admins will have the right to decide what should happen with my original creations/uploads.

[blunder 1,080]

On 12/15/2018 at 5:44 PM, mattb325 said:

Edit: Added a picture, I think it is quite pertinent to the discussion, perhaps others do too.

Just like SC4, the original artist couldn't be contacted and just like SC4, the re-touched version was done by someone else for no money. This picture made headlines a few years ago.

This is a perfect example Matt.

8 hours ago, mattb325 said:

The present rules, Point 6 a), make it absolutely clear: "Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload." 

As such they cover exactly what we are talking about and need no further tightening or embellishment.

7 hours ago, mattb325 said:

I am saying what I am saying to protect the long-held assumptions of batters when uploading this site.

I am all for creativity and broad and varied, quality custom content. But this is not a free-for-all, and the site has long established rules and traditions.

I agree 100% with Matt. Released BAT models are individual pieces of art. They might be great art, or they might not even be decent art, but they're someone's art, and that someone would not have released it unless he cared about it. Re-releasing a tweaked model without explicit permission is massively disrespectful and should never be ok.

1 hour ago, Tyberius06 said:

Well, maybe and no. We have been over-riding the artistic intergrity in any and every way when we repurpose a model on a new lot, when we are relotting a model with the same purpose as the original was, but with different look. The goal is the same the tools are different. That's why I don't understand your obsession (sorry, I know that it's not the best word for this, but it's late for me and I'm generally tired atm) about artistic integrity of the vision of the creator in this matter. The goal is to shape other's creations to match with our visions. What I'm asking is a little flexibility which allows custom lotters/modders to make minor modifications on other's BAT's and than they can share those to the community without running extra rounds asking permissions from non-anymore-active batters

Relotting is taking someone else's individual pieces of art and incorporating them into a larger canvas. Using someone else's original model shows respect for the quality of their work. You could think of relotting as putting a different frame around someone's piece of art. For instance, updating a good model with ground/parking textures and surrounding it with flora prop models that didn't exist when the building was released.

(The following is not going to sound nice, but i can't think of a way to make it sound nice, sorry. This is a statement, not an attack) Honestly, if someone has a vision of something they want in their city, but can't find a model (building or prop) that meets their needs or is "good enough," the solution is not to go tweaking someone else's model, no matter how small the adjustment might seem. The solution is to learn to BAT and build their own. Every single BATer and content creator started out this way; seeing a need or desiring something specific, seeing nothing existing in the community to fill it, so they stood up and made it themselves.

Quote

That's why I don't understand your obsession (...) about artistic integrity.

Artistic integrity is about showing respect for the work of others. If someone doesn't understand that simple fact, they don't have that respect. As a creator, i wouldn't want my work to be in the hands of such a person. Just because other people have shown such disrespect in the past doesn't mean it should ever become OK.

Quote

...The goal is to shape other's creations to match with our visions.

No. This (disrespectfully) makes their work all about your vision, and it most certainly is not. If their work is good enough to be used by you in your own vision, then use it. If it's not, and you can't find something that is, it is time to make your own.

______

4 hours ago, Cyclone Boom said:

A possible approach we're considering is by providing each STEX author the privilege to implement a notice atop their file(s), detailing specific predefined and selectable policies, applicable to their own content

This is a simple yet elegant solution. List some kind of GNU like license in the rules section for allowing reworking, and if an author chooses they can opt in by placing a tag in the webpage for the file: "this file released under Simtrop (GNU/commons) license yadda yadda"

[T Wrecks 10,210]

4 hours ago, blunder said:

Re-releasing a tweaked model without explicit permission

When you speak of "re-release", what do you mean exactly, from a technical point of view? Just so we're on the same page.

9 hours ago, mattb325 said:

I can't give everyone an answer for every potential scenario that has arisen or may arise some time in the future

Of course not, that would be way too specific. Therefore it might make sense to stick to some general principles that can be applied pretty much universally. The "standalone vs. patch" differentiation would allow that. No matter what unforeseeable possibility arises in the future, this general principle should continue to be applicable.

[Tarkus 6,933]

3 hours ago, blunder said:

Every single BATer and content creator started out this way; seeing a need or desiring something specific, seeing nothing existing in the community to fill it, so they stood up and made it themselves.

. . .

If it's not, and you can't find something that is, it is time to make your own.

Indeed, the first point is what inspired me to get into transit modding.  I wanted to be able to cross an Avenue viaduct over an RHW-4, which wasn't possible at one point.  So I learned how to do it.  It's also worth noting, at the time (late 2006), the ground-level RHW-4 was the only existing RHW network.  I got into it, others started liking where it was going and started to figure out how they could help, and it snowballed from there.  The RHW now comprises 34 networks, the project is still going.  The thing I've learned in the SC4 community is that dedication will carry one a long way--and skills end up being fairly transferable to other domains of SC4 content creation. 

I'm also still finding things that I want for the game that don't exist, or aren't in the form I want.  I started learning how to make tree controllers and MMPs a couple weeks ago . . . because I wanted more control with things like cacti and signs. 

All that said, with the NAM end of things, there is an understanding that when you make something on that end, you are effectively contributing it to the project for future use, re-use, and modification, with proper credit given.  It's generally worked very well for the project, and indeed, it probably wouldn't still be going without that.  It is worth noting that it did cause one particularly notable internal blowup within the team a bit over 10 years ago, after one pocket of the team membership--which most notably included someone who contributed a sizable amount of content to one prominent NAM plugin--tried to place some ex post facto licensing restrictions on their work that were not acceptable.  We pulled all their content and replaced it with content from people who did share the NAM vision, as well as officially spelling out a "Terms of Agreement" document, to prevent any chance of a future occurrence.  (Despite the removal, credit is still given in the "Contributors and Testers" section.)

If there's something you can't do or aren't good at doing, but can provide a useful service to someone who can--especially a skill that isn't the other person's specialty--form a joint venture with them.  If you wonder how the BSC became the huge juggernaut it did, and produced thousands of uploads, that's basically the recipe of how it all started.  Ditto with NDEX.  That sort of teamwork, if done properly, can accelerate the content production pipeline, meaning less work and more new stuff.

1 hour ago, T Wrecks said:

The "standalone vs. patch" differentiation would allow that. No matter what unforeseeable possibility arises in the future, this general principle should continue to be applicable.

On the subject of "patches"--there is technically a huge end-run that someone who wishes to share their changes to a BAT, without permission, and without running afoul of the current rules: scripting.  There are ways of rotating, re-scaling, and even re-coloring the associated FSH files of S3D models to consistent settings this way (the Reader's scripting system, various extant libraries for modifying DBPF files), though it is not for the faint of heart. 

Distributing such a script to perform these operations, while referring to the original as a dependency, is technically within the current rules, since there is no third-party re-distribution of the actual original files themselves in the process.  The item that is being distributed is a script.  Whether or not the result of such a script-produced "remix" of a BAT is useful or violative in nature is another matter entirely at that point, and there's also the question of whether or not the effort involved exceeds the effort to produce a new piece of content that is tailor-made to the intended purpose.

-Tarkus

[Tyberius06 12,267]

@blunder

15 hours ago, blunder said:

Quote

The goal is to shape other's creations to match with our visions.

No. This (disrespectfully) makes their work all about your vision, and it most certainly is not. If their work is good enough to be used by you in your own vision, then use it. If it's not, and you can't find something that is, it is time to make your own.

 

Now, this is ridiculous!  How do you mean no? Of course this is the goal. How else could be? When you relot something, you want to put your imput, your vision onto the lot, otherwise you wouldn't relot in the first place. But my above sentence is also true with the general city building. How you place a building, what do you put next to it. It's never about the original creator's vision, because how do you know what was the creator vision when one made a building? It's not disrespectful at all. When I relot @mattb325's great multi-purpose station models and put them next to each other on ONE lot with other buildings, it's of course following my vision, how I imagine my game. And I share these lots with others. How could be this disrespectful? They made a building, that's their vision, how I use that in my cities on my lots is entirely my vision of course. The building still represents their vision. What are you talking about? 

15 hours ago, blunder said:

if someone has a vision of something they want in their city, but can't find a model (building or prop) that meets their needs or is "good enough," the solution is not to go tweaking someone else's model, no matter how small the adjustment might seem.

You are wrong. So far it hasn't been a question and still not a question at all, whether I can modify a model or not. I can do that and I am allowed to that however I want and however I'm able to. This is the current community policy, so your statement above attacking a really basic right of the end user, and honestly you can not control what ones do with a model, specially if that modfication has never been released or showcased. And the solotion is not just learn BAT etc...  you can learn how to use other available tools. 
Current discussion is about whether a modified and re-IID'd copy of a part of a model (s3d files in a dat) can be shared with the community without asking permission from the author, spceially if that author is no longer active at all.

15 hours ago, blunder said:

Relotting is taking someone else's individual pieces of art and incorporating them into a larger canvas. Using someone else's original model shows respect for the quality of their work.

It's not about quality most of the cases. Repositioning/de-offseting/offseting and rotating a model most of the time is never about quality. There isn't a question about the model quality, how it looks like, what its dimensions are. It's about how else or how other comfortable way you can use that model to achive more variety or extra options. So how could I be disrespectfull with a creator if I like ones model and would like to gain more option for its usage without essentailly changing that how that model looks like (shape, dimensions/size,  textures). What I brought examples how and why I modified those models/props did I ever criticized the quality of the model? NOPE. If they were not "good enough" I wouldn't use them at the first place, why I modified them to gain extra options. With the rotation of parisian buildings I gained +4 buildings for each side (left/right), which could appear in my cities as a part of a building family.
And I'm so disrespectfull, that basicly I brought up this whole 3 page long discussion in its original topic to ask/seek guidance ( @mattb325, @Cyclone Boom or @CorinaMarie can confirm that), because there are many different oppinion in this matter. 

Anyway... 

[mattb325 28,891]

23 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

Now, this is ridiculous!  How do you mean no? Of course this is the goal. How else could be? When you relot something, you want to put your imput, your vision onto the lot, otherwise you wouldn't relot in the first place.

It is one thing to be believe passionately in something and argue for it with equal passion, but it is another entirely to resort to ridiculing any opposing views (smiling llama emoticon aside). Your team-mate did it with me (using the exact same word in fact), and it is a path that I don't think is wise to follow him down, but of course, it is your choice.

In the text that you have quoted, Blunder is referring to altering and re-releasing the models themselves. He has made clear the distinction between altering other's model files to fir your vision and arranging those model files on a lot.

However, to me, it is this...

15 hours ago, blunder said:

(....) they're someone's art (....)

...these three words...more than anything else on these three long, text-filled pages....they are so important, powerful and succinct, and, blunder, I can't thankyou enough for saying them.

[rsc204 21,866]

52 minutes ago, mattb325 said:

Your team-mate did it with me (using the exact same word in fact), and it is a path that I don't think is wise to follow him down, but of course, it is your choice.

I did not ridicule you or your views Matt, I said the example you used to make it was ridiculous, as in no one is realistically going to do any of the things you showed. I stand by that statement.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

@mattb325

1 hour ago, mattb325 said:

In the text that you have quoted, Blunder is referring to altering and re-releasing the models themselves.

No he was not refering to that. I said that the goal/aim is to shape other's creations to match with our visions, which is true since every city is different and unique and represent the visions of the city-builder at first place and not the creator's of the models what were used in that city, and this applies to the LOTs and Re-LOTs as well. And I was talking about relotting and made a relation between relotting and small adjustments with s3d files. While he said, that it is not the goal, because in this case I would be disrespectfull with the original creator. Now this is a funny statement on his end. 
And I can not repeat enough time, that I/we do not do that technically. The original model is intact and never been re-released. The taken and re-IID'd copies of the s3d files are not equal with the whole model itself. You are refering to the artistic integrity in every cases. If I release the modified prop examplars based on the taken and re-IID'd copies of the s3d files, and I say those are "easter eggs", use only them in your plugin folder if you would follow the necessary steps, and I would write a detailed tutorial how the donwloader can alter on the donwloader end the dependency files (or copies of them) to match with the IID's what I used to make the props work, I would possibly go against/and the end user who use my tutorial as well, the artisctic integrity of the vision of the original creator, but I would be allowed to do that without asking permission from the creator... Is that correct? So I don't provide the copied s3d files, but give any tools to the users to make them by themselves.
So basicly we are at the same point, the enduser and I are still changing the original vision of the creator to my vision, but instead of me releasing the modified copies, the end user will modify the files based on my tutorial, to ensure the work of my props in my way, which are based on the alteration of the original vision. And according to the current policy this is allowed to be done without asking permission from the original creator... 
Now this is purelly double-U, teeee, effff
So why we can not let the modified s3d files to be released in the first place?

This is still a game, a hobby, not a life and death issue, but we are argueing on this material like it was a life and death issue, which is funny... in a very bizarre way.
 

[RRetail 7,912]

The back and forth is giving me a headache. Can't we all come to some sort of compromise like the one @Cyclone Boom proposed? I mentioned my other hobby with photography and Flickr. This proposal is what Flickr does in regards to how others can use the photos uploaded there.

I get that people have a right to protect their stuff, but wouldn't this proposal solve the issue? I'd rather see this thread moving toward ironing out the questionable areas such as about how no longer active people's stuff can be used. 

This topic feels like we're literally repeating arguments.

[Propfam 2,307]

I think we should split custom content (yes, including maps etc) usage into 2 use: private and public. You can modify the content without permissions privately, but you can't (re)distribute to the public both original and modified ones without permissions the author or the representative (usually site staff). You can also (re)distribute the content with credits to the authors. But, there are fair uses. For instance, I can post the modified CAM for research in attachment, but I can't post it to the STEX without credits because exchanges can bring profit (or advantages or whatever) to the poster (credits, downloads etc). Archiving is also allowed, but it's recommended to ask the reps and other parties to make sure the content doesn't conflict with other contents. It's happened to 

 with

I hope this reply will defuse the tension. My licensing is just a framework, you can modify the license as an author. Sorry for my words. Be friendly to anyone. Thanks.