News: 11 March 2016 - Forum Rules

Author Topic: Site: Revised RHDN Policy  (Read 71134 times)

Near

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
    • A farewell message
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #80 on: October 02, 2008, 07:22:10 pm »
Quote
Basically it always includes "You can't sue us if you use the services" to avoid frivolous legal battles.

And those clauses are almost always rejected by the courts.

Example:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080831104451947

Quote
"Courts, not arbitrators, decide the validity of arbitration agreements," the court wrote ... "Courts will not be easily deceived by attempts to unilaterally strip away consumer protections and remedies by efforts to cloak the waiver of important rights under an arbitration clause."


FranMichaels

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • romhack?
    • View Profile
    • Pears for your heirs
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #81 on: October 02, 2008, 07:31:14 pm »
Here's the reason I have a problem with the new policy. If I submit my work under said policy, I have absolutely no right to request that my material be removed. If Nightcrawler suddenly decides to start running porn ads and charging people $5/month to use the site, my material would be contributing to his immoral (IMO) profiteering and I would have no right to complain. Do I believe something like this will actually occur? No. But I won't put myself in a position of potential helplessness.

Ah, I completely understand this. I recently read an article about how Cloud computing is a trap, and it follows this reasoning. You've given your data to someone else, and you have no choice but to trust 'em.
With patches and such, it's not so severe as credit card info, or personal info, but still...

As a mostly user (I have one rom hack on here, and posted under a pseudonym I don't use anymore and submitted some screencaps for utils... heh). My perspective is simply: a romhacking archive where content can just disappear, isn't much of an archive then :( (romhacking depository?)

Would those who have objections based on what "might be" feel more at ease with a social contract?

Here is an example from debian
http://www.debian.org/social_contract

and gentoo
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml

Not an advertisement for the distros themselves (Ubuntu user...) one document is under SPI and the other under CC licensing. Perhaps it would be a good base for romhacking.net to make one.

This place already has my trust though. I like the way things are done here, much more open than any romhacking site I've ever been to.
It's all in the mind, ya know.

Nightcrawler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5792
    • View Profile
    • Nightcrawler's Translation Corporation
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #82 on: October 02, 2008, 07:40:15 pm »
I don't see the difference. If the "Internets" has it, why shouldn't RHDN have it? That's kind of my entire point.

That's up to the person submitting the work. Consider Gamefaqs. They have a policy IIRC for unconditional removal by the author/creator of the material posted there. The law agrees with the person submitting said work to remove it at their discretion. That's the problem that's being argued around here.

GameFAQs is owned by CNET, runs advertisements, makes money, and has paid employees...

RHDN is owned by a single person, makes no money, runs no advertisement, and has limited people who work for free.

If we had all that, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. ;)
TransCorp - Over 20 years of community dedication.
Dual Orb 2, Wozz, Emerald Dragon, Tenshi No Uta, Glory of Heracles IV SFC/SNES Translations

Deathlike2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #83 on: October 02, 2008, 08:04:40 pm »
I don't see the difference. If the "Internets" has it, why shouldn't RHDN have it? That's kind of my entire point.

That's up to the person submitting the work. Consider Gamefaqs. They have a policy IIRC for unconditional removal by the author/creator of the material posted there. The law agrees with the person submitting said work to remove it at their discretion. That's the problem that's being argued around here.

GameFAQs is owned by CNET, runs advertisements, makes money, and has paid employees...

RHDN is owned by a single person, makes no money, runs no advertisement, and has limited people who work for free.

If we had all that, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. ;)

You know, I wasn't really thinking too hard about my comparison to be nitpicked at.

Anyways, there is one thing worth pointing out.. submitted FAQs can't be removed if they are used to win their contribution contests...
FF4 Research Continues
Working on the next Yet To Be Named FF4 "Hardtype" Hack

InVerse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #84 on: October 02, 2008, 08:52:54 pm »
Quote
I recall someone else years ago linking me to the text of some treaty that the U.S. had signed which specifically stated that translations of software that were intended to increase usability were legal.
Pics Links or it didn't happen :P

I'm going to spend some time this weekend looking for it. I'm really hoping that said link was sent to me via IRC instead of AIM and that I happen to have logs of said conversation stuck away on some random CD somewhere. Whatever it was, and I'm positive that I'm not imagining it, it made enough sense that we contemplated contacting a lawyer to obtain a professional opinion on the matter.

 
If you're so concerned about us ignoring the critical reasoning portion of our policy, why aren't you concerned about us ignoring any policy we had? Why do we have to follow any policy at all? We could choose to ignore you regardless of policy if you have that line of thinking. But we don't because we run the site with good faith efforts. I don't see how what policy we have makes any difference if you don't trust we'll follow it...

I think my entire point has been that you're not required to follow any policy, which is why I feel obligated to do everything possible to protect my legal rights. Submitting files to the site under the new policy would be doing exactly the opposite of that, so I choose not to do it. (And in case anyone is confused on the matter, I've never once stated that I was going to request that my files be removed or that I would refuse to allow future releases to be hosted here, I simply said that I would not be submitting them myself.)

to calling it "copywrite".

Thank you for pointing that out in a way that was actually highly relevant to your post. I avoided doing so because I couldn't come up with a way to do it that wasn't trolling. By doing so, you gain back nearly all of the points you lost due to my disappointment at not mentioning Godwin's Law when relevant!

RetroProf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2008, 03:47:55 am »
Late to the topic (and maybe slightly off topic), but why were Nightwolve's translation patches removed? I'm thinking of Ys IV here on PCE. I went to his site.... and it's a political blog now? And he started ranting about people not paying him for his translations. I'm sure I probably just misunderstood the whole thing, but it was rather odd.

Anyway, I eventually had to dload a prepatched copy of the game. I find it very odd that anyone would want to withold their work from the community/world.

Is RHDN's mission to collate information on everything related to romhacking and translations, globally? I only ask because browsing forums, it seems that the MSX community (which I love btw), seem to be off in a world of their own, doing interesting stuff, but not making much hoo har about it beyond their own smaller forums. I'm not hugely into it enough to post about stuff, but it seems that not everyone is aware of what RHDN does.

Spinner 8

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Pink Pretty Princess
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #86 on: October 03, 2008, 04:06:55 am »
Late to the topic (and maybe slightly off topic), but why were Nightwolve's translation patches removed? I'm thinking of Ys IV here on PCE. I went to his site.... and it's a political blog now? And he started ranting about people not paying him for his translations. I'm sure I probably just misunderstood the whole thing, but it was rather odd.

Anyway, I eventually had to dload a prepatched copy of the game. I find it very odd that anyone would want to withold their work from the community/world.

Is RHDN's mission to collate information on everything related to romhacking and translations, globally? I only ask because browsing forums, it seems that the MSX community (which I love btw), seem to be off in a world of their own, doing interesting stuff, but not making much hoo har about it beyond their own smaller forums. I'm not hugely into it enough to post about stuff, but it seems that not everyone is aware of what RHDN does.

Quoted for when you write an article about this later and delete your post.

Now that I've had some time to think, I'm not really sure what point I was trying to make. It's very clear that this site caters pretty exclusively to the hackers and translators themselves (hence the "community site" atmosphere that everyone stresses pretty heavily). So, my argument doesn't make much sense for a website like this. RHDN basically bends over backwards to make everyone happy and avoid "drama", accessibility be damned. That's cool.

I'm more thinking of a hypothetical website that caters more to the end-user, a website that's there for that dude who just wants to play some damn games, and this website would have all patches, by everyone, for everyone, no matter what. In that case, the "if it's on the internet, it may as well be here" rule is pretty applicable.

Because really, it's the internet, and people who want complete control of their property do not really get along well with the internet. If you give out your Ys beta to a bunch of people saying "hey don't give this out" and then you're shocked to discover that someone gave it out, well, that sucks, but it happens. I'm not saying that patches like that should be supported here, but I'm not saying it's a valid reason to call all your fans scum and quit forever either. I'm just saying that whoever wants to put your patch on their site, can, and there's probably no legal ground available to you whatsoever. And if that's the case, then why not have everything on one easily accessible website? :D

Anyways, I'm just having fun with my completely hypothetical and non-applicable argument over here.

Lilinda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4538
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #87 on: October 03, 2008, 04:13:50 am »
Ok, NO MORE NIGHTWOLVE/YS BETA LEAK TALK.

Sorry for the caps, but this always leads to big trouble. If you want to discuss it, PM people.

I don't know the exact specifics of what went down, exactly, so would someone mind PMing Szczepaniak and explaining what happened?
Retired moderator/staff member as of July 14th 2016

tc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Lum Fan
    • View Profile
    • Eon Blog
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2008, 06:41:00 am »
Well, I did manage to find it thanks to Google. That's one seriously rare translation patch! :o

Kitsune Sniper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3503
  • Complaining about mods == trolling, whee
    • View Profile
    • Foxhack.net
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2008, 09:45:15 am »
Quoted for when you write an article about this later and delete your post.

Now that I've had some time to think, I'm not really sure what point I was trying to make. It's very clear that this site caters pretty exclusively to the hackers and translators themselves (hence the "community site" atmosphere that everyone stresses pretty heavily). So, my argument doesn't make much sense for a website like this. RHDN basically bends over backwards to make everyone happy and avoid "drama", accessibility be damned. That's cool.

I'm more thinking of a hypothetical website that caters more to the end-user, a website that's there for that dude who just wants to play some damn games, and this website would have all patches, by everyone, for everyone, no matter what. In that case, the "if it's on the internet, it may as well be here" rule is pretty applicable.

Because really, it's the internet, and people who want complete control of their property do not really get along well with the internet. If you give out your Ys beta to a bunch of people saying "hey don't give this out" and then you're shocked to discover that someone gave it out, well, that sucks, but it happens. I'm not saying that patches like that should be supported here, but I'm not saying it's a valid reason to call all your fans scum and quit forever either. I'm just saying that whoever wants to put your patch on their site, can, and there's probably no legal ground available to you whatsoever. And if that's the case, then why not have everything on one easily accessible website? :D

Anyways, I'm just having fun with my completely hypothetical and non-applicable argument over here.

Your proposal thing is reminding me way too much of Mugen warehouses. And THAT never worked out very well for anyone involved. Just saying.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 01:29:05 pm by Kitsune Sniper »
For any further project updates, please visit my website. I do not wish to belong to a site where a user has no voice.

Nightcrawler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5792
    • View Profile
    • Nightcrawler's Translation Corporation
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #90 on: October 03, 2008, 11:29:52 am »
I think my entire point has been that you're not required to follow any policy, which is why I feel obligated to do everything possible to protect my legal rights. Submitting files to the site under the new policy would be doing exactly the opposite of that, so I choose not to do it. (And in case anyone is confused on the matter, I've never once stated that I was going to request that my files be removed or that I would refuse to allow future releases to be hosted here, I simply said that I would not be submitting them myself.)

And we want to do everything possible to prevent wasted time, effort, and resources for us and the site and ensure the users who come here get the service they want which is an archive and non volatile files and information they can trust will be here tomorrow. As has already been discussed, it's a three party ordeal. You need to hit middle ground. You can't have it 100% your way. We're clearly willing to bend, hell we were bending all the way over previously. I'm sure the end users are certainly willing to bend respecting REASONABLE author's wishes that don't directly attack them. But you are somehow not willing to give an inch.

It's impossible to reach a compromising conclusion unless all parties involved are willing to give. You're willing to give nothing. I view willingness to compromise as a show of respect for the other party's position.

We have six other proposed solutions now and you're not willing to consider any nor propose any others. What more is there to say?
TransCorp - Over 20 years of community dedication.
Dual Orb 2, Wozz, Emerald Dragon, Tenshi No Uta, Glory of Heracles IV SFC/SNES Translations

RetroProf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #91 on: October 03, 2008, 01:44:15 pm »
Quoted for when you write an article about this later and delete your post.

I can't tell whether you're playfully joshing me, or whether you're actually quite angry at me having deleted that stuff. PM'd you a longer response.

Anyway, I retired from games journalism nearly 2 years ago.  :D
And damn, am I glad. Never been so happy. I've now got double the pay for half the work. Games journos are paid nearly as little as people who translation patches.

tcaudilllg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2008, 05:33:19 pm »
I think my entire point has been that you're not required to follow any policy, which is why I feel obligated to do everything possible to protect my legal rights. Submitting files to the site under the new policy would be doing exactly the opposite of that, so I choose not to do it. (And in case anyone is confused on the matter, I've never once stated that I was going to request that my files be removed or that I would refuse to allow future releases to be hosted here, I simply said that I would not be submitting them myself.)

And we want to do everything possible to prevent wasted time, effort, and resources for us and the site and ensure the users who come here get the service they want which is an archive and non volatile files and information they can trust will be here tomorrow. As has already been discussed, it's a three party ordeal. You need to hit middle ground. You can't have it 100% your way. We're clearly willing to bend, hell we were bending all the way over previously. I'm sure the end users are certainly willing to bend respecting REASONABLE author's wishes that don't directly attack them. But you are somehow not willing to give an inch.

It's impossible to reach a compromising conclusion unless all parties involved are willing to give. You're willing to give nothing. I view willingness to compromise as a show of respect for the other party's position.

We have six other proposed solutions now and you're not willing to consider any nor propose any others. What more is there to say?

In my experience people, like InVerse, who make such claims cannot be budged from their positions. Think of the wikipede on Wikipedia who prunes articles looking for various points which may be controversial from some conceivable standpoint, and builds up a reputation for "edits" doing only such work. If you try to contest the point, then they edit war you. My point is that he knows its unreasonable without your telling him, and to tell him, like you are, that he is being unreasonable just seems to him like an echo of his own conscience. He's good enough already at suppressing that, so whatever you say shouldn't make a difference. He does seem to be attempting to put himself into a position, conceivably, of power. (this I can gather from his industry contacts). I don't really have anything to say about that, but it does stand to reason that his goal will be to persuade you of his viewpoint from here forward, or alternatively he'll just leave. But I think the reason he's trying to elevate his "power" is so that he can be more convincing. He's already made the claim that the site exists soley because of him. I just don't think you should make your decision based on his opinion alone. I've had a lot of experience with these people, they are a minority, and they have no real influence save what you allow them to have in your own mind.

Lilinda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4538
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #93 on: October 03, 2008, 05:46:12 pm »
Don't flame Inverse.
Retired moderator/staff member as of July 14th 2016

tcaudilllg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #94 on: October 03, 2008, 06:15:14 pm »
I wasn't flaming, just stating an experienced opinion. I genuinely believe that inVerse is unconducive to compromise as a factor of his nature. My point is that if inVerse is the lone voice of opposition then whatever RHDN staff conclude should not be relented upon for his sake. I believe a poll is the best solution because it will let the (rational) majority determine the situation.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 06:21:36 pm by tcaudilllg »

Disch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2814
  • NES Junkie
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #95 on: October 03, 2008, 06:20:29 pm »
He's already made the claim that the site exists soley because of him.

I call BS.  When did he say that?

Closest I can think you mean is that he said the site exists solely because of ROM hackers (though, really, he never even said that).  You're twisting his words way too much.

Anyway -- I agree with Nightcrawler.  Potential solutions are on the table -- if InVerse is unhappy with the current situation, rather than simply stating why he is unhappy he should try to provide a possible solution.  It's easy to complain that things are broken -- it's much harder to try and fix them.

tcaudilllg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #96 on: October 03, 2008, 06:32:42 pm »
Page 4, middle:
Quote from: inVerse
Hell, my documents are the only thing of any value on this site. I don't think I've ever gotten a comment about one of my translations outside of the immediate release but I was surprised at how many people brought up old documents after I returned to this site.

And I don't entirely ignore the legal rights of the original owners, though I won't claim to always do so. However, I was the one who obtained permission from Galoob to legally release the Game Genie ROM (I had nothing to do with dumping it, simply got permission for it to be distributed on ZD) and I'm currently in negotiation with ADV's legal department to obtain the legal right to reprint several translation related articles from PiQ magazine on this site. (I've already obtained permission from two of the authors, though they sold all rights to the magazine, so from a legal standpoint, ADV has to grant permission.) I'm also once again attempting to obtain legal rights to Crystalis.

I agree with you, Disch, that inVerse should offer his own fair solution. But I'll bet he doesn't. He could prove me wrong, but I'm not counting on it because I've seen this thing before, and experienced too many disappointments.

Near

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
    • A farewell message
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #97 on: October 03, 2008, 06:46:50 pm »
Quote
Hell, my documents are the only thing of any value on this site.

Context, people. He was obviously meaning to say that his documents were the only thing of value belonging to him on this site.

I don't think there's anyone out there with enough vanity to think that his contributions alone are the only thing of value at RHDN as a whole.


InVerse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #98 on: October 03, 2008, 07:59:03 pm »
And we want to do everything possible to prevent wasted time, effort, and resources for us and the site and ensure the users who come here get the service they want which is an archive and non volatile files and information they can trust will be here tomorrow.

As I've stated before, you and I have completely opposite ways of looking at pretty much everything. I believe I'm a fairly open-minded guy. I can generally understand both sides of an issue. That doesn't mean that I AGREE with both sides or that I don't think that one side or the other is populated by complete fucking morons (speaking in general terms, not directing it at this particular issue at all.) but at least I can understand why those morons believe what they do. For instance, I fully understand the beliefs of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, I can see where their points of view come from. (And if they managed to double fatality each other, I'd donate my X-Box 360 to Toys for Tots to thank whatever God I didn't realize existed was responsible for it.)

But when it comes to you, I am at a complete loss. That's why any time I bring up an issue or ask a question, I generally fail to follow up. I flat out don't get it. Even something as simple as computer code. I look at someone who codes something in a different way from myself and at least I understand their reasoning, even if I disagree with it. But the few times I've tried to discuss the coding of this site with you, I'm left so dumbfounded that I can't even respond. That's not to say you're wrong, I just don't get it.

And if I can't fathom your reasoning on something as relatively concrete as code, there's no hope when it comes to abstract concepts.


Quote
We have six other proposed solutions now and you're not willing to consider any nor propose any others. What more is there to say?

Okay, here's what I propose. Keep the new policy and those of us who disagree with it simply won't submit our work ourselves. I hadn't bothered considering or proposing other solutions because I figured that would work just fine.


Don't flame Inverse.

But if you do, please spell my name right! The V isn't capitalized purely for stylized reasons!


Quote
Hell, my documents are the only thing of any value on this site.

Context, people. He was obviously meaning to say that his documents were the only thing of value belonging to him on this site.

Exactly. I was beginning to freak out for a second there, because I *did* make a comment about being the reason this site exists, but said comment only exists in a text file on my hard drive and is made in an extremely tongue-in-cheek fashion in what will basically be a combination comedy release/brief history lesson. I thought for a second that one of you fuckers hacked my computer and released the source code to Nesticle!


Neil

  • Submission Reviewer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
  • Circuit Rider
    • View Profile
Re: Site: Revised RHDN Policy
« Reply #99 on: October 03, 2008, 08:01:25 pm »
Can we all take a step back and talk about the issue at hand rather than nitpicking? Nightcrawler requested feedback into alternatives that take everyone's wishes into consideration. Rather than picking on InVerse, can we discuss those?

Quote
1. A leniency period (to be determined) for unconditional removal after which the new policy stands -Deathlike2
2. Full user controlled deletion. Users can delete any work submitted at any time themselves. -Disch
3. Complete unconditional deletion for any reason at any time must stand. -InVerse
4. Allow unconditional deletion for any reason EXCEPT explicitly spelled out invalid reasons (yet to be written out) based on the aforementioned problematic reasons in the first post of this topic.
5. Allow unconditional deletion for ONLY reasons explicitly spelled out as valid reasons (yet to be written out) based on the aforementioned problematic reasons in the first post of this topic.
6. All deletion request must go to community vote to determine reasoning validation and approval! This would be interesting.
7. Keep things as they are proposed currently.