In light of Martell announcing that he is going to take down his RP map, it brings up another important issue, that of how much power a mapmaker should have.
Martell is taking down his map because his ban list is not being respected. The children who played his map would go to moderators because they think that their bans were "unfair" or "unjust" and the moderators would then step in and threaten Martell.
This is a disgusting abuse of moderator's powers. Moderators are here to enforce the AtWar basic rules so that AtWar can be a safe environment and free from spam and trolls. They are not here to regulate mapmakers. Mapmakers are the people who keep this game running, as without their maps, far less people would play AtWar. It is the hard work and creativity of the mapmakers that makes this game special. Moderators stepping in and regulating does not make the game any safer or better, it only causes mapmakers to close down their maps, feel bullied by "big government", and sometimes even flee from the game as the outcome of their hard work is not worth the effort.
Mapmakers should be able to ban people from their maps for whatever reason they want. If the mapmaker is truly abusing his power on banning people, the market will take its course, and the map will not be played as often as there are either too many bans or people do not think highly of the mapmaker. It is not like the maps made are the only ones available, all of them are easily substituted with another map of similar value. If you really think your ban was unjustified, go play another, similar map. The people bitching about being banned from Martell's map can easily go to Tempted's map. If they are banned from both, then my assumption would be that they truly deserved it.
Also, my map is my work and my property. Forcing me to allow people to use my map who I don't want is forcing me to work hard on creating these maps for certain people who I did not voluntarily agree to work for or suffer consequences, which is essentially slavery. You cannot force me to allow people to use my property.
Mapmakers, it's time to stand up for yourselves.
[EDITED BY CTHULHU]: Martell's thread has been deleted by Martell
Nice one... I thought the original argument was almost over!
Oh come on, I'm being serious here... I just wanted to know
Ahhh, I'm just messing with you. I'm pretty curious to see his response as well.
Good question. I have a pretty devoted base of followers, They consistently ask me to make changes or add things to my maps they they want or think would be cool. A lot of the time its just because they can't make maps themselves and want me to do it for them.
Map makers should get paid for their maps and contribution to an other boring game without all these interesting well made map then if they decide to sell the maps to aw aw will be able to do as they please with the maps.
problem solved ty yw and if i dont see u good morning afternoon good evening and good night.
we do not need to get paid, i make maps and scenarios out of pure enjoyment and make maps that I myself would play, but that being said, I have little motivation to edit maps and create scenarios when I am surrounded by moderators who focus only on controlling the community rather than coinciding with it.
I am simply stating that the maps you make are not 100% in your possession alone, rather it is shared with the site. That site is represented by mods so they so have authority in dictating the process of banning a member from the maps.
It has already been establish that map makers own the maps at a 100% until Ivan and Amok decide to take them away from us(but they are not):
Think about it like DLC, you can't play the DLC without the basegame, If you buy access to the basegame then you may have access to the DLC.
- I own the DLC
- Ivan and Amok own the basegame
My analogy did not involve a profit. I think you're assuming a bit too much when you purchased your game options for $20. Nowhere did it say that you gained full rights to your maps. Or that it became your property. You assumed that. Do you think Ivan and Amok would sell out their work for $20 a person, that enables them to make their own maps and have full rights and control over that map? That's a bit silly. Especially considering that there was no written statement saying so. It's not like you brought a stock and obtained a piece of at war.
Map makers should get paid for their maps and contribution to an other boring game without all these interesting well made map then if they decide to sell the maps to aw aw will be able to do as they please with the maps.
problem solved ty yw and if i dont see u good morning afternoon good evening and good night.
we do not need to get paid, i make maps and scenarios out of pure enjoyment and make maps that I myself would play, but that being said, I have little motivation to edit maps and create scenarios when I am surrounded by moderators who focus only on controlling the community rather than coinciding with it.
Map makers should get paid for their maps and contribution to an other boring game without all these interesting well made map then if they decide to sell the maps to aw aw will be able to do as they please with the maps.
problem solved ty yw and if i dont see u good morning afternoon good evening and good night.
we do not need to get paid, i make maps and scenarios out of pure enjoyment and make maps that I myself would play, but that being said, I have little motivation to edit maps and create scenarios when I am surrounded by moderators who focus only on controlling the community rather than coinciding with it.
>1 map
>10 plays
>speaks for all of mapmakers
Lol.
actually i have several maps over 60 plays but i either deleted them or hid them bc they sucked, I am also the main collaborator on tunder's rome map (which has like 140 plays), and if you really judge skill and voice on number of plays why isnt tempted in charge? oh wait plays do not define a map maker, ask anyone who has seen my work, I can make borders and quality maps (so good that Aetius even copied my map to get more plays)
Nope, not really ...and dont underestimate the power of assumptions, they are the part of silent agreements. And this one is in map makers favor, because they have the full authority to do with the map as they please and even the advertising says "create your own maps" ...not "create maps for atWar".
Again ...give map makers voting power when it comes to appeals and banns. Thats one reasonable compromise in my opinion.
My analogy did not involve a profit. I think you're assuming a bit too much when you purchased your game options for $20. Nowhere did it say that you gained full rights to your maps. Or that it became your property. You assumed that. Do you think Ivan and Amok would sell out their work for $20 a person, that enables them to make their own maps and have full rights and control over that map? That's a bit silly. Especially considering that there was no written statement saying so. It's not like you brought a stock and obtained a piece of at war.
sorry, but this is no longer a matter of discussion, it has already been establish that map makers own the maps. (Mods confirmed)
Can I abuse my children/pets? I cannot, even though they are mine. Mapmakers do not have unlimited authority, as you are limited by rule ONE
Your analogy is irrelevant because maps are not living things
And as International said, you cannot build a skyscraper on your property either.
first of all:
1.- this is not about me not being allowed to make maps, because i can. Since maps are already made, your analogy is irrelevant.
2.- i never sign up any contract that says that i don't have total control of my map.
so plz stop with analogies, they are irrelevant and pointless.
you have no argument or any valid point, so plz stop posting your worthless opinion,
Cant even laugh at this analogies from how dumb and out of place they are ...is the scyscraper analogy now actually saying, AW is our property and the skyscraper is the map
...and seriously is this a 2015 thing now ...last year was everyone shouting "add hominem" at everything, guess the time of the analogies has come.
Good question. I have a pretty devoted base of followers, They consistently ask me to make changes or add things to my maps they they want or think would be cool. A lot of the time its just because they can't make maps themselves and want me to do it for them.
But... those aren't actual demands... are they? It sounds more like if they were suggesting new details to me. Is it annoying? XD
----
Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you.
We're all people.
Good question. I have a pretty devoted base of followers, They consistently ask me to make changes or add things to my maps they they want or think would be cool. A lot of the time its just because they can't make maps themselves and want me to do it for them.
But... those aren't actual demands... are they? It sounds more like if they were suggesting new details to me. Is it annoying? XD
Some are genuine suggestions, and I really value those; indeed my process enters around them. But you would be surprised how many people say what I SHOULD do, and how what I've done is wrong. I get lots of PR's and messages asking me to make them maps that they want and that I have no interest in. They should go make their own map.
Cant even laugh at this analogies from how dumb and out of place they are ...is the scyscraper analogy now actually saying, AW is our property and the skyscraper is the map
...and seriously is this a 2015 thing now ...last year was everyone shouting "add hominem" at everything, guess the time of the analogies has come.
The skyscraper analogy was intended for one and only one purpose: a simple demonstration, using a precedent (skyscrapers), that ownership of something does not entitle the owner to full control of that thing.
That was the only purpose, and I do not endorse any additional interpretation of that analogy.
And yes... interesting observation, there. I guess people calling each other names during arguments tend to result in cries of "ad hominem"? Hmm...
Can I abuse my children/pets? I cannot, even though they are mine. Mapmakers do not have unlimited authority, as you are limited by rule ONE
Your analogy is irrelevant because maps are not living things
And as International said, you cannot build a skyscraper on your property either.
first of all:
1.- this is not about me not being allowed to make maps, because i can. Since maps are already made, your analogy is irrelevant.
2.- i never sign up any contract that says that i don't have total control of my map.
so plz stop with analogies, they are irrelevant and pointless.
you have no argument or any valid point, so plz stop posting your worthless opinion,
You didn't sign any contract at all, except 1. Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules, or that materially increases the expense or difficulty of staff in maintaining the game for the enjoyment of all its users is not permitted.
If you ban players for personal reasons you interfere their ability to enjoy a game even when they are in accordance with the rules of AW and the map
The skyscraper analogy was intended for one and only one purpose: a simple demonstration, using a precedent (skyscrapers), that ownership of something does not entitle the owner to full control of that thing.
And i told you before that there are different categories of ownership, possession etc. and different levels of power on your ownership. So you cant give me a comparison that isnt in the same category.
You didn't sign any contract at all, except 1. Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules
If that was so ...map makers would be forbiden from deleting or unpublishing their maps which isnt the case.
Your wide interpretation of that rule is therefore invalid ...furthermore since in that case you could consider PRIVATE games limitation of other players enjoyment, you could consider RANKED games limitation of other players enjoyment ...
You didn't sign any contract at all, except 1. Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules
If that was so ...map makers would be forbiden from deleting or unpublishing their maps which isnt the case.
Your wide interpretation of that rule is therefore invalid ...furthermore since in that case you could consider PRIVATE games limitation of other players enjoyment, you could consider RANKED games limitation of other players enjoyment ...
Wrecked.
If the rule disallowed deleting, priv and ranked games they would not exist and deleting would be impossible.
You didn't sign any contract at all, except 1. Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules
If that was so ...map makers would be forbiden from deleting or unpublishing their maps which isnt the case.
Your wide interpretation of that rule is therefore invalid ...furthermore since in that case you could consider PRIVATE games limitation of other players enjoyment, you could consider RANKED games limitation of other players enjoyment ...
Wrecked.
If the rule disallowed deleting, priv and ranked games they would not exist and deleting would be impossible.
And where does it say in the rules, that we can't ban people? Lol are you mentally retarded? Or just autistic? Are you the type of autistic kid that gets upset when he gets out of his routine?
Your analogies are irrelevant and incomparable, your posts lack any logic and reason.
Allowing us to delete a map but not blocking specific people from it its like saying you are allowed to kill people but you are not allowed to slap them.
Only a autistic person wont get how silly your analogies are.
Again ...give map makers voting power when it comes to appeals and banns. Thats one reasonable compromise in my opinion.
still would lead to corruption, just make it so that no other people can unban someone (mods or a council or whatever) because in the end the map maker will never be happy if other people (who probably aren't always supportive of every map maker) make decisions on who they can ban.
still would lead to corruption, just make it so that no other people can unban someone (mods or a council or whatever) because in the end the map maker will never be happy if other people (who probably aren't always supportive of every map maker) make decisions on who they can ban.
Decision who they can ban or who they cant ban should then not be the power of mods, map makers or anyone since everyone is corruptible.
Then who you can ban or not should be in the power of rules ...since you all couldnt agree on the color of the sky, does rules should be made by amok and ivan on who's game you publish your maps.
Enforcer of this rules doe, ones who decide about the appeals should be the map makers and the mods combined team because obviously someone who isn't bound to any rules or has an opposing force in a situation where they both control each other is bound to be corruptible and a power cocky son of a bitch.
...just turned neutral because of your "in the end map makers will never be happy" sentence ...i can see that's the truth
Thats the way governing works ...everyone gets to be controlled by someone and everyone is controlled by rules. Situation now is that no one can control the mods ...what you guys want is that no one can control the map makers.
You didn't sign any contract at all, except 1. Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules
If that was so ...map makers would be forbiden from deleting or unpublishing their maps which isnt the case.
Your wide interpretation of that rule is therefore invalid ...furthermore since in that case you could consider PRIVATE games limitation of other players enjoyment, you could consider RANKED games limitation of other players enjoyment ...
Wrecked.
If the rule disallowed deleting, priv and ranked games they would not exist and deleting would be impossible.
And where does it say in the rules, that we can't ban people? Lol are you mentally retarded? Or just autistic? Are you the type of autistic kid that gets upset when he gets out of his routine?
Your analogies are irrelevant and incomparable, your posts lack any logic and reason.
Allowing us to delete a map but not blocking specific people from it its like saying you are allowed to kill people but you are not allowed to slap them.
Only a autistic person wont get how silly your analogies are.
It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.
still would lead to corruption, just make it so that no other people can unban someone (mods or a council or whatever) because in the end the map maker will never be happy if other people (who probably aren't always supportive of every map maker) make decisions on who they can ban.
Decision who they can ban or who they cant ban should then not be the power of mods, map makers or anyone since everyone is corruptible.
Then who you can ban or not should be in the power of rules ...since you all couldnt agree on the color of the sky, does rules should be made by amok and ivan on who's game you publish your maps.
Enforcer of this rules doe, ones who decide about the appeals should be the map makers and the mods combined team because obviously someone who isn't bound to any rules or has an opposing force in a situation where they both control each other is bound to be corruptible and a power cocky son of a bitch.
...just turned neutral because of your "in the end map makers will never be happy" sentence ...i can see that's the truth
Thats the way governing works ...everyone gets to be controlled by someone and everyone is controlled by rules. Situation now is that no one can control the mods ...what you guys want is that no one can control the map makers.
Control each other, bound by rules.
Sorry if I am wrong, but are you saying that mapmakers and mods should team up?
It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.
where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.