This is hilarious.

I believed some people from as old as 2010 would come to have already understood the Vault's policy on uploaded hacks by now.

The KC-MM staff's decisions always value what is best for the whole mass of players who use the Vault hacks on their hacked Brawl. Just think about it just a little - and without your own interest in sight - and you'll see.



Understand.

The hacks you made, when in private and for your own use, and never released, are technically yours. Even though they pretty much aren't because of the resources used. Anyways, no biggie here. Moving on.

The hacks you made and didn't public release, but were released by someone else, are meant to stay out because they leaked. Imagine that a certain hack was made and was only up for one day. For the sake of the community, that hack should remain avaliable forever, for anyone who might want it, and any time the want it. So, person Y simply reuploads it and says "The creator of this isn't me, but actually X". Person Y doesn't gain anything from that, after all, we don't allow people to profit from Vauly submissions. Instead, the community gains with it, because a hack that would have been avaliable for a short period and mostly unavaliable becomes a permanent hack avaliable for whoever wants it.

The hacks you made and publically released are public. No biggie here either.



So I don't see what the problem is.



However, when reading all this stuff, the worst thing is the double standard on what is theft and what isn't.

Forgive me if I am wrong in understanding you but you seem to be arguing that leaking is okay ('leaks are meant to stay out' which I take you to mean 'remain on the  site') regardless of the circumstances.

If that is your point, I have to say that while it is true that, at least in short term, the community at large will benefit from the leak, in long term one can only venture how many will actually bother to create or publish anything. You could say that creators will have no problem with this but I imagine many of them will disagree.

Surely I misunderstood you because breeding insecurity and fear of theft (for a lack of a better word) cannot be the guiding principles of your rules, can they?

I am just a political philosophy phd who has been lurking here for some years now, and even though my modding skill is nothing compared to others, I have become somewhat attached  to the site and the modding community. Thus, seeing as it also looks like a topic within my knowledge,  I feel like saying my own two cents on the matter.

To start with, as it seems, this is an ethical issue (it has to do with the manner we  interact with one another, this case - the site admins on the one hand and the creators of various mods on the other). And as others have word it already, it has to do with common courtesy and what that is.

On the one side  the admins seem to be saying that as long as the submitter mentions the creators name, he may do whatever he likes. In other words, the gesture of collaborating the name of the creator is enough of a courtesy towards the creators. On the other side, many creators and people (plebs like myself), seem to argue that courtesy means more than just a mention of the creators name (how much more exactly will probably differ from person to person).

Personally I can see the point of the admins to try to make sure that every mod has a place on the site. Perhaps my liberal views make me see the reasoning behind it since it seems like a measure against personal biases factoring in which mod should be allowed on the site and which should not. However, contrary to the case of freedom of speech, I don't think such method should be applied to something like an art gallery for example, or in this case modding community, since it can suffocate the creators.

It is true that in some cases an effective 'free-for-all' (which is what the status quo of the site seems to be) can be of help, for instance in reviving a forgotten/lost mod that was abandoned by its creator. Someone finds it on a forum and posts it on BV with the creator's name. No harm done and the  community gained some content. But in other cases it can demotivate the creators from making anything because, let's say, others might find a leak of their content and publish it before the creator actually finishes it the way he thinks. Arguably, the creator lost his drive for finishing his work and the community gained a semi-finished modification from someone who will probably stop publishing anything else (because let's not forget none is paying him for it).

Perhaps it would be a better tactic by the admins of the site to be more flexible in their thinking and rules. Not all cases are the same and the rules should reflect that. Ensuring the creators' consent (wherever possible) can provide a safety net for the creators by letting them know that they can work on their art without worrying about leaks and whatnot. Such rules can nurture the modding community instead of slowly suffocating it.

Anyway, providing (perhaps) a bit of clarity and my own opinion is the only way I can think of helping.