Abandoned Mods

[TechAngel85]

Please stop telling SynthetikHD that he's wrong, unethical, etc, etc. You claim he would be forcing his views on the author with his proposed actions...are you not doing the same to him by telling him your way is the right way and that he is wrong or unethical? That is your view; not his. You have the right to disagree and present your counter argument. You do not have the right to tell him what is right or wrong for him. He has to live with the consequences of his own actions just like all of us.

 

So, you and I have our own views on ethics and morals from our culture, society, and upbringing. He has his which happen to be different (regardless or law, ToS, or not). If you can't convey your opinions and views without being directly negative towards him, then simply refrain from posting. Use Mono, GP, and my own replies as examples.

 

I have reset SynthetikHD's Rep Points the best I could. I don't feel it is right for users to be down-voted for expressing their opinions which may or may not differs from others or the norm. Misuse of the Rep System is punishable on STEP so don't misuse it. One down-vote on the initial post is enough. This isn't Reddit.

[MonoAccipiter]

I reject the notion that scientists weren't every bit as possessive as they are now. AFAIK money has existed for a long time and you don't just sit around doing math all day and not have any bills. Leonardo Da Vinci was one of the biggest military contractors of his day. He designed all kinds of fantastical contraptions of death and destruction and only sold them to military. He didn't publish his weapon designs and share them with everyone. He wanted money, just like scientists do now. As a scientist I'm offended at the notion that my idols weren't every bit as self-centered and egocentric as I am. Publish or perish. 

Leonardo da Vinci was a renaissance artist/scientist. The renaissance is very much the beginning of this idea, where it was not at all uncommon for an artist to have benefactors (patrons). Both Michelangelo and da Vinci has those, as mercantilism gave rise to a new form of valuing art (most due to the fact that the new bourgeois class wanted to express their wealth through having portraits or works of art commissioned by highly respected artists). So yes, as long as we had a money-centric culture, the advent of such attitudes have been fairly rapid. As such, da Vinci becomes an exception both because he was an artist and because he lived in Italy which was the prime example of mercantilism in its heyday. Simply pointing out that he did not publish his weapon designs to share them with anyone also does not tell the whole story. In fact, he did not publish most of his findings in many fields, and as such they made no direct contribution to the development of any of them. Of course there are scientists that cared much for the fame and fortune side of things, but there are plenty of examples of people who did not, especially in philosophy which is a subject that has a tendency to visit this topic with the question: "should I feel that way?". Jean Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize in Literature for example, and yes he did later ask if that also meant he had to forfeit the money, but that is very much the idea of it. While the system (especially the modern system) would like you to want money, it does not mean you have to let that define you. In any case, yes, this is going very far OT.

 

@GP: That is very much what I argued for in other words, my earlier posts make a very clear distinction between the argument for how I would want the system to be, and whether or not you should respect it in the current state (to which I clearly answered yes as I have shown throughout my work). I do pretty much agree with this.

 

@zilav: Do you mean the "essence"? I do not feel that it is a perfect example of the conversation as a whole, there are very distinctly different arguments being presented here.

 

@TechAngel: See what I said to GP. I agree with this pretty much wholeheartedly.

 

@kryptopyr: Using the words giants in referring to the difference between people usually makes it easy to read more into it. The quote is first and foremost about humbleness in achievement (i.e. he could never have achieved what he did without his idols who came before him). Fun fact about Newton: Latter findings tend to point towards him caring more about his research into alchemy than his achievements in mathematics and physics. By alchemy I mean looking for the Philosopher's Stone and attempting to transmute other materials into gold et cetera. The point about public domain is good. Nothing to add to that, really.

 

I do think you guys should be less harsh on Synthetik though. Giving people the scolding look for reading into the motivations of modders kinda loses its point when you start bombastically declaring that he is ethically wrong. The argument that his view does not right his stance goes both ways, and is why I have tried to approach this through conversation instead of simply declaring that it is one way. A fallacious argument does not make an erroneous conclusion and vice versa. I might not have the full understanding of the subject, and I am sorry if that did not show through my posts, but that is partly why I return to respond to all the answers, so as to move closer to a better understanding of the matter at hand. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[kryptopyr]

I am pointing him towards laws and Terms of Service agreements.  These are objective, factual matters, and not subjective positions. 

 

I see no reason to coddle people who are blatantly supporting piracy and illegal actions.  Please note that I have not called him names or personally insulted him.  However, right and wrong can be objectively defined in this case.  I have tried my best to politely and respectfully point this out without shying away from the truth of the matter. 

 

Stealing is a crime; it is not an opinion.  

 

I find it very troubling that STEP does not see this distinction.  We are not debating the merits of a texture or mesh here.  We are talking about theft and piracy.

 

Frankly, it is not the mod pirates that are doing the most harm to mod authors and the modding community.  If the handful of pirates received the proper outraged response for their actions, then they would be forced to slink off to their own lonely corners of the internet.  It is the much larger body of mod users, who aren't actively stealing the mods but who are expressing their support for the pirates, that are giving these criminals strength.  And it is that larger group that is currently doing far more harm to the community.

 

I will likely never mod another Bethesda game again due to such widespread public expressions of support for pirates and disrespect for mod authors.  I went into modding feeling great about sharing my creations.  Now, I feel assaulted by the very community I thought I was helping.  It's hard to find an analogy to accurately portray just how awful and depressed I feel about all of this (not this thread in particular, but the general situation within the modding scene). 

 

The people who are encouraging the piracy and supporting these criminals are a direct part of the problem.  Stating that you don't think it is wrong to steal mods and disregard mod authors wishes is the same as stating that it's okay to disobey the law.  You can't make statements supporting theft and claim that you aren't part of the problem.

[Neovalen]

An interesting related article was just posted by Dark0ne over on Nexus.

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12815/?

[TechAngel85]

Stealing is a crime; it is not an opinion.

 

I find it very troubling that STEP does not see this distinction.  We are not debating the merits of a texture or mesh here.  We are talking about theft and piracy.

The distinction is made and anyone who has been around STEP for a period of time knows our stance on the subject. There is no "coddling" being done. Only moderation and what I am addressing is the direct attacks towards Synth's views and/or proposed question. He has a right to his views and you have a right to yours. He's has not called out directly saying that anyone's views are wrong and unethical (unless I missed something). Please give him the same respect in return.

 

If in doubt about the tone of your post, pause, grab a hot cocoa, a coffee, a beer, a glass of wine or a shot of tequila (for those legal aged members). Then come back and preview your post, read it, and ask yourself: "Is this offensive or needlessly provoking?". If the answer is anything but "of course not!", then please don't post it.

 

Also, Synth's original question and views were asked and expressed in a "what if" matter and he even went on to later say:

...Also, this is a hypothetical situation...

Granted he could have stated that earlier to prevent some harsh replies, but even after the post you guys just keep hounding on as if he's stated that he plans to do it. I've read this entire topic as a hypothetical and not as if he's actually planning on doing it or I would have shut the topic down a long time ago. I suggest everyone take a breather, lighten up a bit, and have a good debate; else I'll be forced to lock this topic.

[MonoAccipiter]

I see no reason to coddle people who are blatantly supporting piracy and illegal actions.  Please note that I have not called him names or personally insulted him.  However, right and wrong can be objectively defined in this case.  I have tried my best to politely and respectfully point this out without shying away from the truth of the matter. 

 

Stealing is a crime; it is not an opinion.  

 

I find it very troubling that STEP does not see this distinction.  We are not debating the merits of a texture or mesh here.  We are talking about theft and piracy.

How does STEP not see this distinction? Firstly, the opinion of me, or of other posters in this thread does not dictate the general attitude of the community in anyway. Secondly, even if that were the case, there has been overwhelming advocacy for theft being ethically wrong. This comes from me and from several others. Thirdly, we have made a very clear distinction between arguing for open modding and arguing for forcing that opinion on anyone else, the majority of arguments presented have resented the act of disrespecting a mod author's wishes. Synthetik has just helped explore the theme by presenting a hypothetical situation he thought would show the weakness of such a stance, whether or not we agree with him (which most have not) does not really come across as relevant to his right of putting forward his own stance. Equating the act of not advocating for a strict parlor view on the modding scene to lending support to people who commit theft is a major false dichotomy. Free speech is an integral part of any debate, and there are degrees to every stance. For example civil disobedience is per definition not obeying the law, but I would argue that does not make it objectively unethical. 

 

Tech makes an excellent point on how Synth has not called out anyone for being wrong and unethical in any of his posts, so I would encourage you to practice the same doctrine of respect you are advocating in this case as well. Whether you or I think something is objectively ethical is frankly irrelevant to deciding how we should treat people who disagree with us, that is an entirely different debate. I wholly agree with the fact that stealing is a crime, and in fact most of your opinions, but do note that very few here have argued that it is not, and in terms of the open modding stance, we would rather want it so that there was no need for such a thing as stealing - given that mods were already being shared willingly. I think the argument that Synth presented hypothetically in any case (correct me if I am wrong here) was rather that it should not be defined as stealing and hence not a crime.

 

I want to stress that I mean no disrespect with any of my opinions and hope I have not given off that odor. I only lean on philosophy because I think it can help us define words needed to properly reach at all these feelings (such as Wittgenstein said reading would do for a person).

 

Cheers, and listen to Tech's good advice. He is a wise chap.

Edited June 17, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[moho25]

@TechAngel85 -- But SynthetikHD *is* both legally and ethically wrong. Wishing something were different, doesn't change how it actually is. Opinions about the facts don't change what the facts are. Take any college-level course on ethics and copyright law and it's very clear what the ethics and legality of this situation is, which is exactly why people are downvoting. And, no disrespect intended by pointing this out, but isn't removing downvotes suppressing the opinions of the voters on this issue? Forum voting systems are in place exactly for this type of situation -- for the community to show agreement or disagreement with the words of others. Those words will often be opinions.

 

 

@SynthetikHD -- By your own explanation, your opinion amounts to: "I disagree with the modder's wishes/the concept of closed modding, and since no punishment is enforceable, I should be able to do what I want."

 

I'm not going to beat this horse to death, so I'll keep this short. This attitude is, frankly, appalling. It is *exactly* what many modders fear. It's the same argument that promotes piracy. This entire situation comes down to one thing: respect. An attitude like this is entirely disrespectful to the mod author. It's also several other things I'm not going to say, as I don't want this post to come off as a personal attack. The statement above prioritizes the user's desire above the content creator's wishes, and make no mistake, every mod uploaded to Nexus or any other credible site has permissions attached. Not to mention, any unique work created by any individual is de facto copyrighted -- at least in the U.S, and I'm pretty sure in the U.K., as well.

[JUNKdeLUXE]

I'd just say this.. if no one ever questioned our way of life, rules, ethics, morals etc. we as a species would never evolve.

Is SynthetikHD's views antiquated or is he ahead of his time? is he right or is he wrong? The answers to these are not found in some book of laws and copyright, but they are found within yourselves. If your views on the world don't match up to how the rest of the world regard itself, then strive for change. The first step is debate and discussions.

 

For me.. I'd love it if the Cathedral view was the only way. This doesn't mean only in terms of mods but in terms of way of life. But stuff like money and power plays in to this and thus we are far from achieving this. If giving - instead of taking (power, money etc) - was what all humans yearned for, the world would be a very different place.

[moho25]

@TechAngel85 -- FYI, looks like I cross-posted with you. I had been typing my reply off/on for about 30 minutes without reloading the page.

[JUNKdeLUXE]

Wishing something were different, doesn't change how it actually is. Opinions about the facts don't change what the facts are. 

 

Not entirely correct.. if enough wish it (and back it up with action) then yes, it WILL change (unless we're talking about laws of nature etc).

[moho25]

Not entirely correct.. if enough wish it (and back it up with action) then yes, it WILL change (unless we're talking about laws of nature etc).

I'm not talking about the future; I'm talking about what the current situation actually *is*.

[MonoAccipiter]

Why should any argument be hamstringed by the what the current situation actually is? Ethics is a field of philosophy because what the current majority defines as "ethically right" does not necessarily dictate what actually is ethically right. Synth only presented a hypothetical situation to showcase the weakness of the stance he was arguing against, hence we can only assume his argument was made for a future change, not to say that things were different today (whereof I agree in terms of the legality, but no in terms of the ethics as that is not as easily defined objectively). In that case, does not the current legality of things become essentially trivial? JUNKdeLUXE is right in saying that we would have moved nowhere if people did not question the commonly accepted moral of their current situation. Aristotle thought it was completely right for some people to be slaves, because they had a slave nature and as such could never amount to anything else themselves, something that was commonly accepted in many civilizations throughout the ancient world, but in the end was abolished. Just because we consider ourselves modern, does not mean we stand at the pinnacle of everything.

[DoubleYou]

I am of the opinion that Copyright and Intellectual Property are ideas that have been pushed down our throats by companies who merely want to squeeze as much money from said ideas as possible. For instance, copyright was created so that the government could gain money from said works while securing their own free copy of that work in its library! That being said, I do think it wrong to employ or distribute such works without the creator's express permission. This is also why I am anti-copyright, since it in many cases robs the creator of full distribution rights to their own works, especially when muddied in the complicated schemes of labels and studios in their dubious contracts! Many works are made illegal to obtain in other countries, almost assuredly always against the artist's wills, simply because of these contracts! Instead, I much prefer works being subject to human-readable written aggreements distributed with the work by the author, if only people would agree to abide by these agreements. Open up the ability to make money off the works across country borders!

 

In essence, I believe that Copyright steals creators' works. So I think copyright is ethically wrong, and I would look forward to its abolition.

 

That all being said, this does not give you the right to piracy! I obey current laws, even if I disagree with the cop that I was driving too fast.

 

I very much prefer the concepts put forth by the Creative Commons.

[z929669]

I agree with Tech & Mono (not that it matters ethically that I agree or not ... but I guess it matters in terms of moderating behavior on these forums ;) ).
 
Everyone is allowed an opinion. I don't think opinions qualify as being ethical or unethical ... this would seem applicable only to actions.
 
BUT ... it does approach a breach of ethics if a well-known or influential personality states a particular opinion that corresponds to actions that would be unethical. I don't see Synth's posts as anything more than potentially agreeable/disagreeable.

 

@krypto

STEP advocates respect an adherence to copyright (EDIT: but DY makes a valid point about copyright 'abuse' in some cases maybe)... and we also advocate open modding. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you know. And by letting Synth express his/her opinions, STEP is not advocating for them either way.

[TechAngel85]

And, no disrespect intended by pointing this out, but isn't removing downvotes suppressing the opinions of the voters on this issue?

No, we never intended the Rep system to work as such and it's mainly received negative feedback. Voiced opinions are better than a simple push of a button. We'll be changing how some of this works. I'll post an announcement topic explaining the changes once they are implemented, unless Z does it first.