|
|
 |
« Reply #3720 on: June 22, 2012, 08:50:37 PM » |
|
There needs to be a definite rule in the rule thread/section that specifically says "This is what you can/can't do in regards to hack packs on the Vault". It might help clear up some confusion that newer users have.
I've already suggested this a few times.. -__-
But, seeing as you are more respected than I am here, people will listen to you, and we can actually get this done. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3721 on: June 22, 2012, 08:53:35 PM » |
|
You know what we need? There needs to be a definite rule in the rule thread/section that specifically says "This is what you can/can't do in regards to hack packs on the Vault". It might help clear up some confusion that newer users have.
I agree we need some sort of list and guidelines to submitting to the vault. I feel like the rules thread isn't specific enough. May I also suggest a time stamp on reports? This can be useful for many things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skype: ASF1nk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3723 on: June 23, 2012, 11:39:11 AM » |
|
Well, it's not like there aren't already 30+ ports of Shadow over other characters. I don't see why there can't be another one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3724 on: June 23, 2012, 01:25:07 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3726 on: June 23, 2012, 01:38:47 PM » |
|
He uploaded it again?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3727 on: June 23, 2012, 01:42:53 PM » |
|
He uploaded it again? And it got deleted once again. I even downloaded it and compared it to the one on the Vault to see if he changed it at all. It was the EXACT SAME, except it came with an REL file for Shadow Moses. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3728 on: June 23, 2012, 01:45:09 PM » |
|
...
This is the third time he uploaded it and this is the third time we have to delete it...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3729 on: June 23, 2012, 02:11:52 PM » |
|
Back on topic let's get that list started...
1. No Plagiarism (needs a more concrete definition)
2. No Packs (except if it's all your own work)
3. No submitting images (some people submit images for other people to replace in the file)
4. No CSPs (use the CSP feature)
5. ????
etc. etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skype: ASF1nk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3730 on: June 23, 2012, 02:36:53 PM » |
|
1. No Plagiarism (needs a more concrete definition) It's easy to say that, but can you "concretely" define plagiarism in this situation? Are only exact copies considered plagiarism? Or are minor edits included? If so, at what point is an edit no longer "minor"? The "I know it when I see it" approach is probably better here. I mean, if you guys can agree on a concrete definition of plagiarism, fine. Great, even. We can use that. But I'm not expecting it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 02:39:18 PM by Vyse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3731 on: June 23, 2012, 02:52:26 PM » |
|
It's easy to say that, but can you "concretely" define plagiarism in this situation? Are only exact copies considered plagiarism? Or are minor edits included? If so, at what point is an edit no longer "minor"?
I'm of the belief that minor edits should be allowed. If we were to have a concrete definition, I'd say that plagiarism would be exact copies of existing hacks, like the thing I just deleted. Debating about edits being "not enough" would be a nightmare to deal with and everyone would have their own opinion on how much needs to be edited for it to not be plagiarism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3732 on: June 23, 2012, 02:55:50 PM » |
|
My definition on plagiarism is taking someone elses work and not crediting them for using their work. Wouldn't that work? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 03:15:42 PM by Segtendo »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3733 on: June 23, 2012, 04:37:35 PM » |
|
I think the current definition of plagiarism in the rules is good, but we should add that using someones works without permission and credit is also considered plagiarism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skype: ASF1nk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3734 on: June 23, 2012, 05:13:32 PM » |
|
My definition on plagiarism is taking someone elses work and not crediting them for using their work. Wouldn't that work? I have no say in this, but this sounds just fine to me. I would also like to bring up what Vyse said before: Derivative works are not subject to deletion.
Once you put a hack out there, people have just as much of a right to mod it as they do to mod the original Brawl files. It's not a question of "permission." It is ridiculous to complain about "permission" when we've been editing Nintendo's work for years and are now, with model importing, taking the work of other companies, e.g. Capcom -- all without permission. And they actually have copyrights.
Lack of permission is not what you should be interested in and is not grounds for deletion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
