Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
Using someone's art when they have licensed it openly, but do not wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openly (or at all), but do wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openlty, and do not wish me to use it: I beleive this is unethical. Namely:
I would rather judge unethical anyone preventing even his own art to be used in any way, I would gladly reuse even proprietary assets against the will of their author
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as somone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
No, the admins cannot make the full offline copy available. There are serious privacy implications with doing so. Separating the sensitive data from the public data takes time, effort, and money. We don't have enough of those right now. The same things you don't have right now.
The hypocrisy is not in you asking for the backup. The hypocrisy is in you being given solutions, and the reasons we can't do an alternative to those solutions, and then saying our excuses are invalid when they are the very same excuses you have.
As stated above, you already have access to the content offline. Use those.
...Someone said the reason the admins do not want to make offline backups...
Someone, yes, but not the admins. However, the Admins did state above the reasons for not (yet) making an offiline backup available to you.
...the AI already scraped and continue to scrape the site....
Yes, just as Glitchart said; use that as an offline backup. The work is already done.
...the admins have no excuses for not making offline backups.
You have been presented with several solutions for making your own offline backup, and yet:
"...I am a little busy these days and hopfully in the future I can find a way..." (excuse) "...I am a little bit busy right now working on the debian dvd..." (excuse) "...I will not get a chance to work on a web scraper for your site right now..." (excuse) "...Don't have the cash at the moment for that..." (excuse) "...I am a little busy these days and hopfully in the future I can find a way..." (excuse)
This is not to say your excuses are invalid- they are all good reasons you cannot do this now- but it is a bit hypocritical to then say "Admins have no excuse" for similar reasons.
And, finally, as stated above, we DO have a complete offline backup already. It just hasn't been made available to you. Rest assured it is available to trusted people who can make it available if something happens to OGA. If this is not an acceptable response, then the answer to the question "Is it possible to have a offline version of this site like wikipedia does?" will change from "possibly?" to "No."
@blue_prawn: who is targeting you? Chat-GPT?
Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Not only is lpc.opengameart.org still active, it still mirrors all the latest content. Look:
Yay!
Let me know when you're streaming.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as somone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
I agree. Though I'm uncertain of a better phrasing. Perhaps "disrespectful" or "rude" over "unethical". Even that doesn't quite sound right.
Well, I guess you have your answer then:
Q: Is it possible to have a offline version of this site like wikipedia does?
A: No.
No, the admins cannot make the full offline copy available. There are serious privacy implications with doing so. Separating the sensitive data from the public data takes time, effort, and money. We don't have enough of those right now. The same things you don't have right now.
The hypocrisy is not in you asking for the backup. The hypocrisy is in you being given solutions, and the reasons we can't do an alternative to those solutions, and then saying our excuses are invalid when they are the very same excuses you have.
As stated above, you already have access to the content offline. Use those.
Someone, yes, but not the admins. However, the Admins did state above the reasons for not (yet) making an offiline backup available to you.
Yes, just as Glitchart said; use that as an offline backup. The work is already done.
You have been presented with several solutions for making your own offline backup, and yet:
This is not to say your excuses are invalid- they are all good reasons you cannot do this now- but it is a bit hypocritical to then say "Admins have no excuse" for similar reasons.
And, finally, as stated above, we DO have a complete offline backup already. It just hasn't been made available to you. Rest assured it is available to trusted people who can make it available if something happens to OGA. If this is not an acceptable response, then the answer to the question "Is it possible to have a offline version of this site like wikipedia does?" will change from "possibly?" to "No."
Pages