Should banned user mods/maps/etc be deleted from these boards?

[Romtos]

It would be nice if the OP didn't add rationales behind "yes" "no" and "abstain". Using just the yes/no/abstain options gives a false impression that the options cover all possibilities, which is not the case. I voted "no", but that doesn't mean I think shrapnel games should own all posted content.

[DrPraetorious]

Well, Frank Trollman went through and systematically removed a bunch of his stuff. He would have used a "nuke all my posts" button, if one existed, but probably wouldn't have actually made a request to the admins.

It is of course *legally* the case that Shrapnel owns anything we post here - or, at least, that they own a license to continue serving it, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that they *should*: many forums with exactly the same legal boilerplate allow users to delete their posts if they wish, and I think it is better to allow someone who leaves to delete their posts if they wish to do so. There are all sorts of reasons for this, very few of which have anything to do with wishing to "hurt shrapnel."

Originally Posted by thejeff

Isn't this point largely moot? Have any of the banned mod authors requested their work be removed? I don't recall seeing complaints about that on the other forum.

There are games advertised on both forums. Most of the mods are available on llamaserver anyway.

The forums are a sales tool, but they are free. Game sales are where the revenue comes from. If the banned users actually wanted to hurt Shrapnel, then continuing to make mods to improve the game seems counter-productive, whether those mods appear on these forums or not.

[Peacekeeper]

or just host mods on storage sites like CBM does instead of attaching them to posts here. Then the authors can remove them at will and leave a dead link.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

I think this was semi-decided back when in 2004 when another banned person went thru and deleted as many of his own programs and posts as he could find. Thats when the 30-minute edit window was reinstated, and the backups of uploaded items. The poster no longer gets those choices. Anything put on a companys server is considered to be their property.

This doesn't hold up in court actually. At least in the US, terms of service agreements are often thrown out as non-binding, especially when they conflict with other established rights. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that a creator's implicit copyright to work he creates trumps any boilerplate terms of service agreement. The only way to relinquish copyright in the US is to specifically agree to do so for a work.

So just because you clicked 'yes' to 5 pages of legal gobbledegook doesn't mean those 5 pages trump other legal considerations.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

This doesn't hold up in court actually. At least in the US, terms of service agreements are often thrown out as non-binding, especially when they conflict with other established rights. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that a creator's implicit copyright to work he creates trumps any boilerplate terms of service agreement. The only way to relinquish copyright in the US is to specifically agree to do so for a work.

So just because you clicked 'yes' to 5 pages of legal gobbledegook doesn't mean those 5 pages trump other legal considerations.

Which instantly renders forums, blogs and much of the internet unusable,
since I just violated your copyright by copying your post into mine.

Discussions, archives, etc, all break if some of the content can be removed/changed at whim. Should you be able to delete not only your posts, but any posts that quote them, paraphrase them etc? All of which could be considered derivative works.

Any challenges to the boilerplate would likely apply to making use of the content in another form. If Shrapnel wanted to package up a bunch of mods and sell them, that would be a problem. Requiring them to delete content you've already allowed them to publish on the site is more like trying to require everyone who has a copy of your book to destroy it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually Squirrelloid you are correct up to a point. Clicking doesnt make it happen. No warning or disclaimer or agreement can change the law.

However, the law has already made some decisions. Its always changing but there have been plenty of cases. Mostly involving things like what a worker puts on a company computer but they hold. The other factor is the concept of "public posting" which allows a person to retain authorship, but not ownership. They can no longer control what is publicly posted. (latest cases involving google might make some changes soon but not much)

Ive worked sysadmin for a law firm while new topics of internet law was being hammered out. Its definitely still an area where please and thank you is far more effective than trying to quote law. If someone were to request it, then it might happen.

But I agree with others that its a moot point. I dont think either side of this is considering any deletions.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by DrPraetorious

Well, Frank Trollman went through and systematically removed a bunch of his stuff. He would have used a "nuke all my posts" button, if one existed, but probably wouldn't have actually made a request to the admins.

It is of course *legally* the case that Shrapnel owns anything we post here - or, at least, that they own a license to continue serving it, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that they *should*: many forums with exactly the same legal boilerplate allow users to delete their posts if they wish, and I think it is better to allow someone who leaves to delete their posts if they wish to do so. There are all sorts of reasons for this, very few of which have anything to do with wishing to "hurt shrapnel."

Since the OP was complaining about Shrapnel profiting from their past contributions, my main point was that the profit comes from sales of the game not the forums. Since many of the banned users have continued to make mods, they are still actively contributing to that profit as much as they ever were.

I don't really feel like rereading the flame wars from when they were banned, but I really don't remember anyone from that particular lot of banned users complaining about their mods still being available here. There's plenty of complaining about Shrapnel on the other site, but I don't recall much about that. Which would make this whole thread kind of pointless.

[ExHeretic]

Here is my two cents on the matter... I do not give a **** what the law says about things... I do care for what is the right thing to do... If the law tells me to do something that my moral code does not accept i wont do it but i will take the punishment that law reguires for me... whitout law there is jungles law... The stronges one is always right... So we do need laws...

For the vote... I really hate it when people put words in my mouth so i refuse to vote... I do think that people do have the right for stuff they have made... So if the maker of the stuffs in guestion wants them removed then they should be removed... If the one talking about the stuff is not the one who made it this whole conversation is pretty much irrelevant...

To comment the stuff behind all of this hate... i think that permanent ban is the forums version of death sentence... Death sentence does not give second chances. Nothing good comes from denieng the chance to rethink deciosions and actions. I mean that after all we all are just humans and we all make mistakes. Remember that eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. There should always be room for forgiving...

This whole post is actually pretty good example off stuff which could make for bad judgements... I just came home from pretty wet pre x-mas party and im guite drunk now =P So tomorrow when im sober i might read this post and think what the heck i was thinking when i wrote this So if i would get banned for writing this ( or more likely writing post whit this many typos in it ) would it be right? Or would it really increase the harmony of the forums?

[TheConway]

Something tells me there's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kPU...eature=related

[S.R. Krol]

The poll is a tad inflammatory, eh? Consider the last option in the poll. Compared to most forums the banhammer rarely comes out. In eleven years I'm betting we could count on one and a half hands how many folks had to be banned (not talking about spammers of course), and definitely not because of voting in a poll.

The first two options are also problematic. Shrapnel doesn't profit from the mods, the community does. When someone purchases Dom3 they purchase the vanilla game. It's up to them to discover and use the mods. Likewise I don't think anyone from Shrapnel has ever said, "Ha! You fools, by uploading your maps you've played right into our hands. We own them now!" so the "rationale" behind voting "No" is way off the mark.

Gotta say sorta surprised to see the situation rear up again.