Mplayer Map Filename Convention

[Shrike_Z]

I never claimed I knew you. Your behaviour implies it. I actually thought you were a very nice and thoughtful guy considering your posts in POLWAR and other forums.

Noone was showing disrespect for mapmakers, I have the highest respect for them. How can you say, without knowing anything about how we run our server and how we handle things (except our tyrannical approach with the naming convention...) that we stomp on their rights without any respect?
The highest sign of respect is that their maps are on the server....

[Sefe]

I never claimed I knew you. Your behaviour implies it. I actually thought you were a very nice and thoughtful guy considering your posts in POLWAR and other forums.

You mean I stop being the person I am as soon as I have a different opinion and dare to express it?

Noone was showing disrespect for mapmakers, I have the highest respect for them. How can you say, without knowing anything about how we run our server and how we handle things (except our tyrannical approach with the naming convention...) that we stomp on their rights without any respect?
The highest sign of respect is that their maps are on the server....

It's not about you. You're asking the map makers before you rename their mission. That's a sign of respect. A sign of disrespect is to do what you want with other one's property. That's what annoys me. Some people think they can do whatever they want with what doesn't belong to them.

Just go back to my first post. I've made a suggestion how to change the convention. I wasn't suggesting to change it all over. I was suggesting to add two sentences. I did this because I was trying to help. The key to acceptance of the convention is to give it a foundation that respects all sides and doesn't simply ignore a side because the other side is too lazy to do the few hours of work that comes with it. Every map maker has invested more work in his missions than the work involved in contacting the mission makers. Is it so unfair to ask the server admins to do that little extra work?

Two sentences. No big thing I thought. But the reaction was simply ignorance and arrogance. That people were trying to teach me the law was a sign if this arrogance. That's why the discussion was focussing at law at a point. But it was never really about law. It was about the attitude that people are showing. It's about the basic question how we treat each other in the community. Do we want that some dozen people define what's good for the community and ignore the rights of others doing that or do we want a fair consideration of the rights and interests of everyone.

I see the interests of the server admins. I never said anything against the convention except that it doesn't concern me (as long as you don't tread on my interests). Sure, make your convention. Hell I'm even supporting you. Ask me if you can change mission names and I won't say 'no'. But I want to be asked and I want to keep track about the names that are used. I never said anything else. Am I asking for too much? You may think it's "spießig" but I think I deserve to be asked.

And sorry, I can't see anything that keeps the server admins from asking except their lazyness. Just imagine the mission makers were that lazy and you'd have no missions to host.

[Shrike_Z]

You mean I stop being the person I am as soon as I have a different opinion and dare to express it?

My intention is not to judge you nor anybody else. So I will cut it here.

The key to acceptance of the convention is to give it a foundation that respects all sides and doesn't simply ignore a side...

I am pretty damn sure Terox never meant to ignore anybody. I know him for some time now, he is one of the most considerate and "democratic/diplomatic" guys I've met in the OFP community.
 He felt that everything had been said end everybody who had an opinion had voiced it. The naming/copyright problem could've been adressed on the first page of the discussion a long time ago, if people weren't just dropping by to have a laugh at the server admins efforts like Chris seemed to do.

because the other side is too lazy to do the few hours of work that comes with it. Every map maker has invested more work in his missions than the work involved in contacting the mission makers. Is it so unfair to ask the server admins to do that little extra work

Calling server owners lazy is a punch in the face. Sorry to put it like this. You should know better then everybody else how much work is involved in creating and adminning a site/server for public access and keep it running properly.
Little extra work? Lol, maybe for me because I only host maps from5 or 6 mapmakers. I dont want to even think about me having to mail 50+ mission makers. After I found out who they are anyway...

And calling this debate beurocratical reveals the attitude which pisses off so many map makers. Without them, you could dump all your servers

This was in an earlier post Sefe.
What kind of attitude is that? In my opinion the relationship between map-/addon makers and server owners is symbiotic,  at least for multiplayer.
Who do you make your maps for? For yourself or for the players?
Who do we run our servers for? For our personal glory? Because we have too much money? Or because we want to push the success and popularity of this great game?
We both contribute in our own way, don't try to make me feel like a leeching bastard!  :'(

Am I asking for too much? You may think it's "spießig" but I think I deserve to be asked.

It's not WHAT you're asking. It's WHEN and HOW you brought up what you thought was problematic. You and your fellas could have done that a long time ago.
And it's the mood of your first reply to Terox' post. I remember when I read your reply the 1st time I was thinking "wow this guy seems to have had a really bad day".
It was not a suggestion how to improve the naming convention and the approach to it, it was just offended ranting.

Ok, I hate argueing, I am a softie and try to be a peaceful guy. I hope we can get this on the road considering and satisfying all opinions involved. It would be sad if not because from a server owner point of view a clusterf*ck of all kinds of different mapnames  on the server would be impossible to handle.

Peace

[nwo]

This discussion is kind of sad...

The mapname convention is going on for over 3 month (many ppl putting time and energy into it) in the official boards, some mappers (Hi Chris ) say they looked into it and had a good laugh, Terox said he announced the discussion here, but all of a sudden, after it's done, every missionmaker claims to "never have heard of that discussion" and to have been "left out" when they never bothered to give input before.

Missionnames have been changed all the time, but when server admins want to do not to suit THEIR whims (i for one couldn't care less what other servers call their maps i only play on my own server) but to make life easier for the players on those servers the mission makers go crazy, threaten legal actions and try to order the server owners to delete the maps from their servers.

IF it is really illegal (at least in some countries) to rename the missions then the consequence is clear: most missions will have to be deleted from the servers, many servers will shut down. Or the admins will get servers in countries where renaming is legal.

The fact is: the ADMINS made compromises, they chose not to rename the missions as THEY saw fit for THEIR server but after some convention which does NOT help THEM but the PLAYERS playing on those servers. And all of a sudden they get threatened by the missionmakers which knew of and tolerated mission renaming for nearly 2 years. Oh, and btw: some d/l sites do rename the mission, how do i know the REAL name of a mission when i don't get it from the mapper himself? Can i only run it on windows servers? Cause i have to change it to lowercase on my linux server. Maybe you should sue BIS cause they force linux admins to use "tolower"?!?

One could nearly get the impressions the mission makers don't want their missions to be played at all or only by an "elite ofpec crowd". If renaming missions is really ruled illegal in court i will shut down my server. And i think many more admins will do the same. I spent my time and my money for that server. If i only get to choose between an unmanagable server and a server empty of maps i can as well shut it down.

Maybe people should all sit back and think what they really want... do you mission makers want your missions to be played at all? Is the FILENAME (which most player don't really see at all during gameplay) so important that you would rather deny all big servers the right to rename your missions to keep the server managable? Do you think all the PLAYERS that download your missions do NOT rename them? Frankly, i know of no one that doesn't, after some hundreds maps it's not possible to find specific ones otherwise. If not changing the filename is more important to you than the mission actually being played by a big audience and if Sefe's claim about changing the filename being a copyright infringement then the consequence is clear: i would have to delete ALL missions not made by our own mission makers from the server. I would have to, cause i don't know what the original name of most missions is, many sites and mission makers are gone for good and even if i download it somewhere i can't be sure of the filename cause EVERYONE could have changed it before it got to THAT site. If that's the kind of climate you prefer in the "community"...

I just got into this forum because of a link in the official board and i must say that this "community" has made a really sad first impression on me
It sounds to me like: "We knew about your silly discussion but we did not bother to contribute any input. But this is MY map so i can dictate you how to run your server and make your admin life miserable and you are only allowed to play it on Saturdays at 8pm or else i sue the shit out of you, you fucking stupid admin. Pay your server, play our maps as we see fit and shut up"
Well, that was a little exaggerated

[Chris Death]

some mappers (Hi Chris ) say they looked into it and had a good laugh

@nwo - Seems you did only read half of the post, where
i wrote that.

I did not mean to have had a laugh about the idea, but about
how far it has gone this time (for the reason that such
discussions already have been going on earlier and never
came to an end). Also i added there that this was not meant
hostile, instead it was meant sarcastic way.

And the reason why i did not give my input there is:

As i already said - i don't care about the filename convention
when i give my missions my choosen name.
You have to accept that because it's my free decision how i
name my maps.

Also as i already said above that i would allow others to
rename my maps, as long as i would be asked for that, so
what's the problem here then?

@Joltan - sorry for quoting you for what Terox said  

And for the server name example, i know and already said
that it's not exactly the same but in general it is.
It doesn't matter, wether this is possible or not, i just thought
to give an example to the filename changing. So i was in
the meaning, if it comes to server names it might bring
us into the same way of thinking (as server owners are
talking about changing filenames here).

For the explanation that maps uploaded to your server
will be renamed - that's ok, but only in the case somebody
who uploads a mission to your server is able to accept that
or not. In case of maps uploaded by the staff of the server
it's still an open question.

quick summary:

As long as you (server admins, staff, owners) do not touch
my rights (changing filenames with my permission) i will
not have anything against the filename convention.
If i would upload a map to a server, where i would have
to accept the fact that it will be renamed, it's up to me to
decide, wether i will upload it or not.

If any map of mine will be renamed without permission
it's the wrong way - and then  my Fox-Terrier enters the
scene  ;D

~S~ CD

[Chris Death]

Ah yes, forgot some things:

The following quotes are taken from the thread linked below
at BIS forum, where the map-makers are invited to post
a request for not to get their maps renamed  

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard301/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e428fe23e0fffff;act=ST;f=2;t=26817

Joltan sayz:

Read the thread at OFPEC and have a good laugh...

Very serious comment, which is not really a constructive
invitation for a participant from the actual thread here.

Terox sayz:

So i have created this thread, to allow them to post the names of these maps here

We're allowed to post there? - thank you very much  :-\

Odd, i was expecting those that took part in the ongoing ofpec discussion to have posted their map names by now,  its obviously not that important to them

No Terox - it's your job to ask, not the map-maker's job.
Why do you want to carry a discussion from one forum over
to another one? - "hmm we can't win here, let's take the
battle over to our area"

:note - don't see it as a battle, just see it as a request for
respect

Point is: ask for permission - get permission/or not - do what
you were permitted to do ==> very easy to understand i think.

Just wondering how anybody could prove who's map is who's anyway

See it that way: if it wasn't you, who made the map, it must
have been somebody else then.

So if i made the statement,
"All the maps that have no contact name or author name are mine and you can do with them as you like"

Would this stop the babble!

You don't really believe this, do you?

Have they decided on tea or coffee yet?

THEY have already decided and you are invited to read
here in this thread how THEY did.

~S~ CD

[Sefe]

The mapname convention is going on for over 3 month (many ppl putting time and energy into it) in the official boards, some mappers (Hi Chris ) say they looked into it and had a good laugh, Terox said he announced the discussion here, but all of a sudden, after it's done, every missionmaker claims to "never have heard of that discussion" and to have been "left out" when they never bothered to give input before.

Just because someone hasn't taken part in a discussion doesn't mean that you can step on his rights. And I kindly refuse to justify myself for not taking part in your discussion. It indeed is your discussion, not mine. If you leave my interests alone you can continue it for three years. But tread on my rights and you'll get a reaction, simple as that.

I'm asking myself where we would be if you'd just followed my suggestion istead if reacting with a wave of ignorance. In the time you spent on attack the missionmakers you could have:

1. Selected some volunteers who ask the mission makers for their permission.
2. Had all server admins who follow the convention send in a list of missions that need to be renamed.
3. Had those volunteers sending a template e-mail to all mission makers in question.
4. Had a positive reaction from most of them.
5. Would have a reliable list of missions you could use without pissing anyone off.
6. Would know which missions can stay on the server and which ones have to be taken down or remain unchanged.

But instead of that, you decided to stay on your concrete point of view and poison the atmosphere by flaming us (we've been called silly, we've been called beurocrats and sseagle's post was really a high point). We would be much further now if you'd just opened up a little bit for our concerns. You still think two sentences that won't even change the core of our convention - the naming system - are too much.

I haven't read what's written in the official forums about this discussion and I don't feel like doing it now. But if there's written that the thread is a good laugh, then you should start laughing about yourselves. Because with a little bit more understanding for our concerns we would not talk, we would already see some action. Isn't that what Terox wants the most? You could already have a list of missions where you are allowed to change the names. And, you may like it or not, there will be no way around such a list. You're just blocking your own progress. You want a broad acceptance for your convention? Then start and earn that acceptance. Because you have to earn it, you simply can't force it.

[Sefe]

Calling server owners lazy is a punch in the face. Sorry to put it like this.

As server admins you have the choice. No-one has forced you to run a server. But when you don't ask the mission makers, you don't leave them a choice. That's a punch in their face. If I punched in your face, I apologize. But you started punching (not you personally but the server admins). So, unlike you I can claim to have acted in self defence. ;D

[eisa01]

calm down sefe, its just missions for gods sake! dont tear teroxs works apart because of some stupid "legal" issues. like anyone gonna sue someone if they rename theyre map. now get this thing done so i wont have to dl a new HALO version everytime i play  :-\

[Noon416]

Okay people,

This argument is literally going nowhere, as even though a solution has been supplied FOUR times already, people refuse to acknowledge it... (with the exception of Joltan, who's posting is the basis of the suggestions I gave).

So rather than let people continue the pointless abuse of several valid standpoints, I'm going to lock down this thread, and re-post the suggested solutions that can end this "discussion".

The following suggestions, if actioned, will very quickly, efficently and simply address and alleviate the concerns of ALL involved in this discussion, and allow the Convention to be safely and happily adopted by all concerned (including server admins)


Suggestion 1, by Sefe ... "Simply add the following single sentence" ...

3) It is the admins responsibility to modify map names on his server. The admin has to seek the explicit permission of the author to change the mission name. If the permission is not explicitly given (which includes the case that the author doesn't react to the request), the mission name may not be modified.

Suggestion 2, by Noon416 ...

Joltan, you stated in reference to the server he assists with:
"It has always been our policy that everyone submitting a mission would know that we have to rename them - be it the mission maker or whoever. And we never accept a mission if we can't."

BINGO!!

This is the point we've been trying to make, and I'm surprised it was so easily missed.

In my examples where I compared the OFPEC TAG system with the Convention, that was the point I was clarifying.

Put simply, if the Convention can have that single sentence added (or one to that effect), you wouldn't have had to have gone through this entire "discussion" to have people accept the convention in the spirit it was intended.

Hopefully, with this revelation and simple resolution, we can all resolve and put this discussion to bed.  

Suggestion 2, by Noon416 ... REITERATED BECAUSE PEOPLE MISSED IT, LIKE THEY HAVE DONE AGAIN ...

Did you all just not see what I posted?

Either read my last post, or see the summary below...

1. Joltan posted that
Quote:"It has always been our policy that everyone submitting a mission would know that we have to rename them - be it the mission maker or whoever. And we never accept a mission if we can't."

2. This means that we have a solution to this whole argument, a solution that has been there from the start.

THE SOLUTION TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION

Add a sentence to the Convention, that states "Servers have to make acknowledgement of this Convention a pre-condition for submission". Then you just have to make adhering to the convention a pre-requisite for submitting a mission to your server.

Just like OFPEC's successful TAG system.

For feck's sake people, don't trash three months of hard work for the sake of your ego.
The solution is staring you in the face...

To which Joltan replied (in acceptance) ...

Thank god finally someone read that.

Our messages must have crossed - as I read your previous post only now, long after I posted my response.  I only entered this thread after Sefe started with his legal stuff, acting like he was in court, fighting for the life of his client. I tried to explain how we handle stuff, and I never said, no we will not ask for permission - I rather explained that we are not always able to and therefore request anyone submitting a mission to accept our naming scheme.

I hope this is settled now, and we can return to talk with each other as normal people without further resorting to insults and arrogant behaviour (yes, that includes myself - sorry, but I can be short tempered, too).

And yet again, the solution to this whole "discussion" was overlooked by others ...

So I'm locking this down simply because people are turning this into a "Lets Bash Sefe" thread, rather than seeing and using the solutions presented (including Sefe's).


So once again (for the fifth time!):

THE SOLUTION TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION

Add a sentence to the Convention, that states "Servers have to make acknowledgement of this Convention a pre-condition for submission". Then you just have to make adhering to the convention a pre-requisite for submitting a mission to your server.[/b][/size]

Surprisingly easy, isn't it...

*Topic Locked*