Here is fine. You can also click the "Report Spam" button next to the submission and post a comment on it briefly indicating what the issue is. Or PM one of the admins, like myself. Condsidering you haven't actually reported the submission in your post I gather you want to do it privately?
The only submission you have visited recently has only one external link, and it does not appear to be compromized in any way.
Ad farm. They like to clone/redirect sites with lots of traffic and insert ads and trash in all the links to generate revenue off of people who end up on page 5 of google searches.
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
"...it doesn't consider the in-depth consequences..."
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
A parable: A young troubled teenaged girl is struggling with the vigors of life. Her parents and teachers, a bit overbearing but well-meaning, send her to a therapist. She hesitates to share how she feels with the therapist, because she has suffered undue consequences for sharing with others before. They all were "acting in her best interest", they worked for the greater good. Their actions weren't bad or wrong neccessarily, but the consequences were never-the-less undesireable to the young woman.
The therapist assures her that anything she says is kept in confidence and no one else will hear about the conversation. She opens up and shares her feelings of self harm and other dark things.
The parents and teachers come to the therapist and ask what she talked about. "I can't tell you; it is priveleged information." They insist that the therapist has an obligation to share what was discussed if it could prevent the young woman from harming herself! If they don't know how she feels, how can they help her!?
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
I wonder if this is a case of "right about the problem, wrong about the solution".
The issue is that dying as much as you have is incredibly punishing due to the XP pentalty.
Is reducing the XP penalty the right solution, though? What is causing all the dying? I am guessing that simply excercising additional caution is not a viable solution, right? Are there any mechanics of the game that would allow you to survive those same circumstances better? healing? defensive play? If those are not viable because the game demands you defeat an unrealistically difficult set of enemies before gaining access to such features, then that is where the solution should be adjusted; make those features accesable at a lower initial threshold. If not, then the solution may be to enhance methods of staying alive instead of reducing the penalty for dying. Yes, no, yes?
EDIT: sorry, just noticed your follow-up response where you suggested many of the same alternatives.
It would be pretty funny to use thier content (sans the trademarked stuff). If people are going to twist WMC's open requirement so they can advertise their products, they deserve to have others twist their intent to use the product in competing projects.
However, the question I was answering was not if it would ok to use that stuff in our own projects. There is a difference between what we are all willing to use in our projects versus what is permitted on OGA. For instance, the new Pixabay license permits anyone to use any of the assets in their own projects, enthusiastically so, but it does not allow redistribution on asset sharing sites. We are legally and ethically allowed to use them in our projects, but OGA is not a game project, it is an asset redistribution site.
In the same way, I suppose you could use those assets from WB or BroForce legally, but OGA has always had a policy of not hosting art that the artist doesn't wish to be hosted here, even if it is legally permitted for us to do so. This isn't a case of a powerful corporation frightening OGA into obedience despite what the licensing says. This specific scenario has been brought up before (see my link in bullet point #3) and the conclusion was that, legal or not, if it isn't obvious the asset owner wants us to share it, we wont. BroForce was basically saying "well, that wasn't our intent, but I guess it's legal so what can we do?" and Clint Bellanger was very clear that was not sufficient to host it here and was not worth risking bad blood with artists.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: OGA values the good will of artists more than it values the ability to technically use the assets legally.
It's weird and kind of sketchy, and wikipedia does not verify licensing as thoroughly as you may think... or at least not as swiftly as you may think. That being said, yes you should be able to trust the license listed on Wikipedia.
The license pertains to copyright, but does grant usage over trademarks. Just because it's CC-BY doesn't mean you're allowed to use any rendition of a trademarked character or trademarked content. It's no different than fan art.
Here is fine. You can also click the "Report Spam" button next to the submission and post a comment on it briefly indicating what the issue is. Or PM one of the admins, like myself. Condsidering you haven't actually reported the submission in your post I gather you want to do it privately?
The only submission you have visited recently has only one external link, and it does not appear to be compromized in any way.
Ad farm. They like to clone/redirect sites with lots of traffic and insert ads and trash in all the links to generate revenue off of people who end up on page 5 of google searches.
This is the correct forum: the question is in regards to the FLARE engine's behavior to a custom script.
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
I wonder if this is a case of "right about the problem, wrong about the solution".
The issue is that dying as much as you have is incredibly punishing due to the XP pentalty.
Is reducing the XP penalty the right solution, though? What is causing all the dying? I am guessing that simply excercising additional caution is not a viable solution, right? Are there any mechanics of the game that would allow you to survive those same circumstances better? healing? defensive play? If those are not viable because the game demands you defeat an unrealistically difficult set of enemies before gaining access to such features, then that is where the solution should be adjusted; make those features accesable at a lower initial threshold. If not, then the solution may be to enhance methods of staying alive instead of reducing the penalty for dying. Yes, no, yes?
EDIT: sorry, just noticed your follow-up response where you suggested many of the same alternatives.
ooh, spooky!
are... are you not playing it in the video?
It would be pretty funny to use thier content (sans the trademarked stuff). If people are going to twist WMC's open requirement so they can advertise their products, they deserve to have others twist their intent to use the product in competing projects.
However, the question I was answering was not if it would ok to use that stuff in our own projects. There is a difference between what we are all willing to use in our projects versus what is permitted on OGA. For instance, the new Pixabay license permits anyone to use any of the assets in their own projects, enthusiastically so, but it does not allow redistribution on asset sharing sites. We are legally and ethically allowed to use them in our projects, but OGA is not a game project, it is an asset redistribution site.
In the same way, I suppose you could use those assets from WB or BroForce legally, but OGA has always had a policy of not hosting art that the artist doesn't wish to be hosted here, even if it is legally permitted for us to do so. This isn't a case of a powerful corporation frightening OGA into obedience despite what the licensing says. This specific scenario has been brought up before (see my link in bullet point #3) and the conclusion was that, legal or not, if it isn't obvious the asset owner wants us to share it, we wont. BroForce was basically saying "well, that wasn't our intent, but I guess it's legal so what can we do?" and Clint Bellanger was very clear that was not sufficient to host it here and was not worth risking bad blood with artists.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: OGA values the good will of artists more than it values the ability to technically use the assets legally.
Yeah, I guess that's true... but:
TL;DR: Best not post that kind of stuff to OGA. It could be legal, but still questionable, and hardly received well here.
Got it. What categories should we have for the curated collection of collections?
"hotpots"? explain this word!
Pages