If the concern is about the "trivial submission" rule, I cannot imagine a reasonable person being able to produce these in just a few minutes, animated or not. There is no risk of that.
These strike me as sort of shadow-demon cryptid Pokemon creatures. Intriguing.
BTW, after long consideration I ended up with the LPCERT or LPC-CERT tag (Liberated Pixel Cup Certified). This expresses that it's based on LPC, but also that the submission follows a stricter set or rules/guidelines which guarantees compatibility. What do you think?
I can see the importance of the implications there. I think "Cert" or "Certified" implies endorsement by the original LPC contest organizers. It makes sense to certify any additions to this fork against the set of rules being outlined, but you don't want to imply that something isn't truly LPC without following these guidelines. It would be correct to say something isn't truly belonging to this fork of the LPC if it doesn't follow the rules of this guide, but otherwise it would appear as if we're saying there is only one set of LPC assets, and (currently) most of the LPC content doesn't even satisfy the conditions of its "own" certification, not even the original base assets.
How do you feel about using the tag "LPC-Revised" since much of the certification rules are to be influenced by ElizaWy's titular submssion "[LPC Revised] Character Basics!"? ... Or even "LPC-RCert" or some derivation thereof to indicate this is certification for the "R" or "Revised" fork, specifically?
First draft awaiting your reviews!
Looking good! For the https://bztsrc.gitlab.io/lpc-cert/#licensing section, I recommend adding some (further) clarification about when licenses are requried when content is not made from scratch. The licensing page says there is no mandatory license, which is true, but that is only the case when the asset is not being derived from some other LPC asset. Since a vast majority of new LPC assets are derived from former LPC assets, I worry this could confuse people into thinking they need not use CC-BY (SA) for their derivatives when basing them off of CC-BY (SA) content. This is actually one of the more common licensing issues I see. The warning at the bottom addresses exactly this, and it's good; I am recommending further clarifying what constitutes a derivative of other work.
Re: animations: I think it should specify humanoid character animations. Most of the monster animations don't apply, nor would animations like water or a door opening.
Not sure that is what you're looking for, but I can tell you that scraping the site could get your IP blocked if it has a detremental effect on site performance, so if you do that, do it with caution.
I think the best would be if only a moderator could add such a tag after a through validation process, but that would result in an extremely huge workload for the moderators.
It's actually easier than you think. Any newly created tags (so created by simply adding them on a submission) are breifly reviewed. If they're effectively nonsense or don't contribute to helping people search for assets, they are deleted. Examples include "My cool game", "this sux but its free", "Art" (everything is art here), "Music" (we have searchable categories. no need to clutter it with category tags), "CC0" or "Public Domain" (again, we have license categories already) So long as I know why a new tag like "LPC-SX" or whatever is added, I make sure it isn't marked as pointless. If other people start adding random tags like "LPC-454885" with no real comformity, they'll get cleaned up.
sorry for the joke I did not want to offend you in any way.
Oh, pah! You can ignore my Klingon yelling. I assumed you meant that as a light-hearted joke and my response was intended in the same spirit. I wasn't offended at all, just joking back. :)
because providing the full list would equal to providing the final specification, wouldn't it?
Surely not. If someone asks you what a book is about, you don't recite the entire book to them, do you? A full list of things you want included doesn't need to include the full details of each item on that list. That being said, your specific examples all make sense and are starting to form a more complete picture. Thanks.
If you're lucky, then you can find this image buried deep down in the forum,
That animation guide is indeed buried in the forum, but what does that guide show that the animation base character guide in the LPC style guide not show? I'm NOT saying "you don't need that other guide", I am trying to understand the gaps that need to be filled.
all the things that the current style guide lacks.
The things it lacks include the complete works of Shakespear, the French Declaration of Independence, and my dog. For wanting to make the specification more specific, the end of this sentence is ironically vague. I want to know what else you feel the current guide lacks. However, I agree with all your suggestions preceeding it. :)
I'm after a new tag, to mark collections that fulfill the requirements of a more strict LPC specification
Oh, ok. That makes sense.
It looks like you're not a sci-fi person, and you haven't heard of Star Trek :-)
CHOLEGH! I know every episode by heart! but "NG" is not ubiquitously applied to situations like this to warrant recognition. For example, if I said FRoA #208, you wouldn't just know what that is without context, hahahah! Regardless, I'd recommend something that implies a different standard, not a new version of the old standard. LPC-S1 or something.
Going off of the original LPC style guide, what sort of additions would be made? I realize expected perspective, angle of light, drop shadows, palette, and animations were mentioned, but those are already mentioned in the LPC style guide. I assume you're saying it is missing more specifics of those features, yes?
what does LPC-NG stand for? Liberated Pixel Cup N____? G____?
There cannot be restrictions imposed on what others are allowed to do with LPC assets under any fork. You may encourage buy-in and agreement to follow a stricter set of guidelines, though. You can create a ("yet another") curated collection of LPC assets and only admit the content that meets certain specifictaions as well, but you wouldn't be able to stop anyone from making derivatives that don't follow those specifications and you wouldn't be able to stop such derivatives from being widely adopted if the community happened to prefer them. This is a bit of the XKCD Standards conundrum:
I don't understand how a LPC-specific license would help the issues outlined. CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY, and GPL (the most common licenses for LPC content) already allow you to copy-paste a list of all-LPC-contributors-ever* for attribution. The Universal character generator already does this under the terms of these licenses; you can either attribute every contributor who has added to the generator's content, or just the specific contributors who made the components of the character you've made. How would a new license allow you to credit authors more easily?
*Such a list is always growing. There could not be a static place to copy the attribution from. It would have to be dynamic and curated to include new authors as they contribute content.
If the concern is about the "trivial submission" rule, I cannot imagine a reasonable person being able to produce these in just a few minutes, animated or not. There is no risk of that.
These strike me as sort of shadow-demon cryptid Pokemon creatures. Intriguing.
certainly usable. Especially submitted as the whole set.
I can see the importance of the implications there. I think "Cert" or "Certified" implies endorsement by the original LPC contest organizers. It makes sense to certify any additions to this fork against the set of rules being outlined, but you don't want to imply that something isn't truly LPC without following these guidelines. It would be correct to say something isn't truly belonging to this fork of the LPC if it doesn't follow the rules of this guide, but otherwise it would appear as if we're saying there is only one set of LPC assets, and (currently) most of the LPC content doesn't even satisfy the conditions of its "own" certification, not even the original base assets.
How do you feel about using the tag "LPC-Revised" since much of the certification rules are to be influenced by ElizaWy's titular submssion "[LPC Revised] Character Basics!"? ... Or even "LPC-RCert" or some derivation thereof to indicate this is certification for the "R" or "Revised" fork, specifically?
Looking good! For the https://bztsrc.gitlab.io/lpc-cert/#licensing section, I recommend adding some (further) clarification about when licenses are requried when content is not made from scratch. The licensing page says there is no mandatory license, which is true, but that is only the case when the asset is not being derived from some other LPC asset. Since a vast majority of new LPC assets are derived from former LPC assets, I worry this could confuse people into thinking they need not use CC-BY (SA) for their derivatives when basing them off of CC-BY (SA) content. This is actually one of the more common licensing issues I see. The warning at the bottom addresses exactly this, and it's good; I am recommending further clarifying what constitutes a derivative of other work.
Re: animations: I think it should specify humanoid character animations. Most of the monster animations don't apply, nor would animations like water or a door opening.
There's this: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/a-material-ui-based-opengameart-webcl...
Not sure that is what you're looking for, but I can tell you that scraping the site could get your IP blocked if it has a detremental effect on site performance, so if you do that, do it with caution.
See also https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/curated-lpc-collection-project
P.S.
It's actually easier than you think. Any newly created tags (so created by simply adding them on a submission) are breifly reviewed. If they're effectively nonsense or don't contribute to helping people search for assets, they are deleted. Examples include "My cool game", "this sux but its free", "Art" (everything is art here), "Music" (we have searchable categories. no need to clutter it with category tags), "CC0" or "Public Domain" (again, we have license categories already) So long as I know why a new tag like "LPC-SX" or whatever is added, I make sure it isn't marked as pointless. If other people start adding random tags like "LPC-454885" with no real comformity, they'll get cleaned up.
Oh, pah! You can ignore my Klingon yelling. I assumed you meant that as a light-hearted joke and my response was intended in the same spirit. I wasn't offended at all, just joking back. :)
Surely not. If someone asks you what a book is about, you don't recite the entire book to them, do you? A full list of things you want included doesn't need to include the full details of each item on that list. That being said, your specific examples all make sense and are starting to form a more complete picture. Thanks.
That animation guide is indeed buried in the forum, but what does that guide show that the animation base character guide in the LPC style guide not show? I'm NOT saying "you don't need that other guide", I am trying to understand the gaps that need to be filled.
The things it lacks include the complete works of Shakespear, the French Declaration of Independence, and my dog. For wanting to make the specification more specific, the end of this sentence is ironically vague. I want to know what else you feel the current guide lacks. However, I agree with all your suggestions preceeding it. :)
Oh, ok. That makes sense.
CHOLEGH! I know every episode by heart! but "NG" is not ubiquitously applied to situations like this to warrant recognition. For example, if I said FRoA #208, you wouldn't just know what that is without context, hahahah! Regardless, I'd recommend something that implies a different standard, not a new version of the old standard. LPC-S1 or something.
Thanks. That answers my questions. :)
Going off of the original LPC style guide, what sort of additions would be made? I realize expected perspective, angle of light, drop shadows, palette, and animations were mentioned, but those are already mentioned in the LPC style guide. I assume you're saying it is missing more specifics of those features, yes?
what does LPC-NG stand for? Liberated Pixel Cup N____? G____?
There cannot be restrictions imposed on what others are allowed to do with LPC assets under any fork. You may encourage buy-in and agreement to follow a stricter set of guidelines, though. You can create a ("yet another") curated collection of LPC assets and only admit the content that meets certain specifictaions as well, but you wouldn't be able to stop anyone from making derivatives that don't follow those specifications and you wouldn't be able to stop such derivatives from being widely adopted if the community happened to prefer them. This is a bit of the XKCD Standards conundrum:
I don't understand how a LPC-specific license would help the issues outlined. CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY, and GPL (the most common licenses for LPC content) already allow you to copy-paste a list of all-LPC-contributors-ever* for attribution. The Universal character generator already does this under the terms of these licenses; you can either attribute every contributor who has added to the generator's content, or just the specific contributors who made the components of the character you've made. How would a new license allow you to credit authors more easily?
*Such a list is always growing. There could not be a static place to copy the attribution from. It would have to be dynamic and curated to include new authors as they contribute content.
Pages