UPDATED 14/06/18 - *** Rules for User Made Mods and Edits of PDS games ***

[Castellon]

So uhh... We're supposed to host the files on publicly accessible file sharing sites - But they aren't allowed to be public? Following that logic, the second rule can never be possible since there is no such thing as a publicly available, exclusive access site.

You can search any file hosting website - even the ones that use "private links". Even Dropbox can be publicly crawled.

People that are trying to construe the rules as invalid do like to bring this up.
However I think it is pretty clear, and people without an agenda, have no problem understand it.

You can host your files on a publicly accessible site without the general public having access unless they know where to look. As long as you only tell them where to look here or on Steam Hub you are all good. Now what is confusing about that. Obviously you are not responsible if some random person happens to randomly find the files on that site. Now if you go on other sites and give direct links to your files then you are breaking our rules and cannot advertise your mod on this site, Seams reasonable to me, I am sorry you do not find it so.

 

[Castellon]

what does this mean? So some of modders are Primus inter pares?

Grandfathering is when you want to make changes to the way things are done, and rather than take away things people are doing you simply say going forward no new instances of that thing will be allowed for anyone. Eventually that thing will not exist since there are no new ones. Grandfathered ones are the ones that existed before the rule was codified.

Think of an apartment complex, they decide they no longer want to allow pets, Do they say everyone that owns a pet now must give them up, or is the better course to allow existing ones to live and just make a rule about acquiring new ones. As time goes on there will be fewer and fewer pets in the building until eventually there will be no pets in the building as the existing ones live out their natural lives. Is this temporary situation unfair to the residence that did not have a pet and now cannot have one, Somewhat, but would the greater injustice not be to make the other tenants give away their pets.
In either case the end result is no pets in the building.

 

[Castellon]

For the rule to be fair, no new versions or any updates to the mods hosted ModDB (or other sites) should be allowed. Newest version of AGoT on moddb is from 11.06.14. Your post that lists the rules is 13.08.2013. That is ten months.

Rule does not say you cannot have your existing pet groomed, just says you cannot get a new one.

 

[Meneth]

Rule does not say you cannot have your existing pet groomed, just says you cannot get a new one.

Uploading new versions of a mod to ModDB after the rules came into effect must surely be considered a new instance?
If not, the talk about it dying a natural death is nonsense. AGoT is unlikely to stop development until Crusader Kings 3 comes out.

 

[Castellon]

The copyright rules is more for our protection in case we develop something and it happens to be similar to something some one once put in something they did here. It is not so we can steal your work and claim it as our own.

 

[Castellon]

Uploading new versions of a mod to ModDB after the rules came into effect must surely be considered a new instance?
If not, the talk about it dying a natural death is nonsense. AGoT is unlikely to stop development until Crusader Kings 3 comes out.

As long as it is called the same name and is for the same game ie CKII in this case then yes they could keep being grandfathered you are correct.
The natural death comes when other games replace it, are you still worried about eu1 mods that may have there own forums?

 

[Castellon]

Precisely. Either admit that AGoT has some special privileges and be done with it or please treat everyone equally.

I think I have been very upfront with them "having special priveleges" ie they are grandfathered, but they are not unique, a lot of pre EUIV mods are, EUIV mods are the only ones that the rules were codified for before launch, therefore none of them have any exemptions, and the same will apply for all future games.

 

[Meneth]

As long as it is called the same name and is for the same game ie CKII in this case then yes they could keep being grandfathered you are correct.
The natural death comes when other games replace it, are you still worried about eu1 mods that may have there own forums?

So because they decided to enter a grey area before the rules were properly codified, they're now allowed to actively continue indefinitely with actions that now clearly break the rules?
ModDB is still linked on this forum from the OPs of at least two major mods, which is in clear violation of the current rules.
I don't like the current rules, but I truly wish you'd enforce them in a fair way.

 

[Castellon]

Pretty sure I mentioned that "for the same game" applies ie CK2 Mods only apply to CK2" Mod X for CK2 does not equal Mod X for CK3 for example (And no that is not a CK3 announcement)

 

[Castellon]

@Korbah I am sorry you feel that way, obviously we feel differently about what the benefits are. Also note you are free to host wherever you want including ModDb if you do not plan to Advertise your mod here or the workshop.
I would think you should be able to find a free hosting site, there are many out there.
What I am hearing is that your mod is too large to be hosted on the workshop, and you are paying for hosting. I am looking at how we might be able to host user mods with the new forum software, perhaps that would alleviate the issue.
Your point about the article pointing to the ModDB page instead of here kind of makes my point for me, we want them pointing here.

@EOOQE That is the first time someone asked us to be like EA.

And I don't know why you think this is an anti-pirate initiative, A stated you are free to host the mod where ever you want. It is only anti-pirate in the most round about way, in that if you want to fully participate you would need to join this forum, we do not deceive ourselves that this in anyway prohibits a pirate from playing a mod on our game.

 

[Meneth]

@EOOQE That is the first time someone asked us to be like EA.

Now that's twisting words. EOOQE is essentially saying you should be ashamed to be more restrictive when it comes to (an aspect of) modding than even EA.

And I don't know why you think this is an anti-pirate initiative, A stated you are free to host the mod where ever you want. It is only anti-pirate in the most round about way, in that if you want to fully participate you would need to join this forum, we do not deceive ourselves that this in anyway prohibits a pirate from playing a mod on our game.

Then what purpose does it serve?

 

[Meneth]

Actually no. That won't happen as long as participation in these forums is limited to owners of the game. That's exactly what Korbah is talking about - potential new customers can't participate in the forums, so the magz and news sites HAVE to direct them elsewhere. And so those magazines and news sites make the right call to do what's best and easiest for THEIR customers...

As an example, The Winter King mod for CKII will probably never get any real news coverage since there's nothing for a site to link to.
If it were allowed to have a ModDB page though, news coverage would be a possibility. But as it currently stands it simply won't happen, because basically no news site will link to a paywall.
(I'd use HIP as an example instead, but since it is a overhaul mod rather than a new scenario it isn't likely to get coverage regardless of having a ModDB page or not)

 

[Castellon]

The reality is that if major mods are pushed off the main Paradox forums, it is highly likely that the community will set up their own forum infrastructure completely outside of Paradox's control. This forum would not be able to verify that people own the game, and thus people whom have pirated will be able to gain full access to these forums. On top of this, it is highly unlikely that people will be able to dedicate their full time to both forums, and thus people will likely leave the paradox forum to be active in this theoretical forum.

Is a community schism really what Paradox wants?

.

Is that not exactly what you are asking for? Be able to have your own forums and host on sites open to all?
On the other hand I am trying to keep the community in one place.

I have already said many times you can go out on your own and do what you want as long as you then do not want to use our channels as well.
When you use our channels we have certain expectations about content, quality and distribution.

Steam has games exclusive to them (if you want to play EUIV you need to do so by joining steam), did this make everyone else leave steam and start their own services, or stop buying games through steam? not being sarcastic here really interested in this discussion.
Also the EA comment was very much Tongue and cheek.

 

[Castellon]

As an example, The Winter King mod for CKII will probably never get any real news coverage since there's nothing for a site to link to.
If it were allowed to have a ModDB page though, news coverage would be a possibility. But as it currently stands it simply won't happen, because basically no news site will link to a paywall.
(I'd use HIP as an example instead, but since it is a overhaul mod rather than a new scenario it isn't likely to get coverage regardless of having a ModDB page or not)

I saw a ModDb page I was referred to for and EUIV mod that I found to be within the rules.
It was basically just an ad for the mod, and linked to the Workshop download, Now I would have preferred a link to the thread or forum for the mod here but it is not required, as Workshop is a valid place.

 

[Castellon]

I understand this rule is to protect PDS from claims of mod creators when they use similar complaints in games, which is perfectly understandable and I fully agree with the need to have a rule like this. Yet the scope defined here is so broad that it also concerns not strictly game stuff, like composed music, art or user interface improvements. I propose that the rule is clarified. Why not allow a hybrid-like license that restricts use of such material by any party other than PDS?

The problem is in having our legal department sign off on every disclaimer and Copyright claim, and do so every time a new version of the mod is published.

 

[Castellon]

And now you sound exactly like you OWN every mod that is posted here !
Or what on earth have your legal department to do with my Mod for example ?
Because you think you are responsible for every content of every Mod ? What is simply not true because (what ? 99%) the Mods are not hosted on your Server.

I Am afraid you are wrong, we are responsible under law for everything on our site, given reasonable time frames to take it down.
But that is a different issue from legal documents like a copyright notice, which very much affects us and our rights to protect our IP, I think any reasonable person can see that much.

 

[Castellon]

Why would an outside entity post a link to a thread on these forums, when said outsider is only allowed to participate by actually buying a game?

I'm not at all attacking your reasoning for requiring game registration, and I understand it, but you can't have a closed forum and then expect it to be used by people outside it.

Why would you be interested in a mod for a game you do not own, other than maybe to know it exists and the basics, which you would have gotten from the page or article that referred you to this site.

 

[Castellon]

Sorry , but just LOL ! *dont be mad at me now*:happy:
But this makes clear that you never had asked a legal department about your rules , otherwise you would (or your lawyer had made EU-LAW-conform rules) know that there is big difference between Surface Links and Deep Links in EU LAW.

We have in fact done so, and I did not mentioned surface or deep links, The distinction I made was between copyright notices and content on our site.

 

[Castellon]

Just reposting this in case it was missed :ninja:
A publicly accessible site along the lines of something like the Nexus, where each mod has a page with the download and some information which is publicly viewable, but where the download itself is "greyed out" unless you're logged in with an appropriate game for the mod to me sounds like a good idea (tied in to the user database for the forums?). The rules would be complied with; only users on these forums with the legitimate game will be able to actually obtain the mod, but users who don't yet have the game will be able to view screenshots and information about said mods. It would serve to advertise the mods to gain public attention, and encourage sales of the games they are linked to to actually access them.

Not missed, and interesting idea, being honest I do not see it happening short term at least, I will keep the idea in mind for future planing though. Just thinking I may be able to do something similar at least, as I am trying to get wiki style abilities built into the new forum as well. (these should not be considered as promised though as it is still very much not feature locked.) In addition implementing existing features are of higher priority for launch time obviously.

 

[Castellon]

I have uploaded my mod on mediafire.com and on Steam Workshop. And previously have asked (earlier in this thread, see link below) whether it is ok to post the link to the mediafire download on Steam Workshop. I was told that it is not ok. But that is not how interpret your statement above (underlined by me): what is the difference? Many thanks for answering.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-Edits-***&p=17059907&viewfull=1#post17059907

The difference is that anyone has access to it on the steamwork shop, without going through the workshop or the forums.
The rule is it has to be dl direct from the work shop or by hosted site where the link is only made known in the user mod section of this site.