Cyan's Updated Forum Policies

[Robert The Rebuilder]

Twelve hours ago, RAWA posted Cyan's latest forum polices on the MOUL forums. It does allow discussion of MOULa "hacks" (i.e. modification and age creation) - which makes their Open Source Myst Online section no longer a violation of their own policies. However, it forbids the discussion of URU:CC hacks, which is the only way currently to test ages produced by the MOULa plugin (after using Drizzle). Plus, one cannot post links to other forums (like ours) that discuss URU:CC hacks, making it difficult to guide newcomers to our site or announcing new worlds that we've created.

What are your thoughts about the new rules?

[Egon]

It's surprise me to this day, that people responsible for such great, and though provoking games as Myst and River (which I love), are capable of such stupidly (and it's not the first time).

[andylegate]

That section is a problem. I just posted in our Shout Box over on the GoMa forum about it.

While opening up a branch for discussion, Cyan then turned around and shot themselves in the foot.

As you pointed out, the only way to test anything, even built with the Max Plugin, has to be with Uru:CC/POTS right now. So basically it's like being asked to wait until a tester server is made available, or the source code for MOUL:a is out so that private servers can be used, etc, etc, etc.

As you rightly point out: any links to either the GoW, or the GoMa for that mater are technically a no-no now......

[Branan]

Cyan really does not think things through sometimes :/

[diafero]

Wait, so we may say "Go there to download Cyan's plugin", and if someone asks "and how can I link to the age exported" we are not even allowed to tell them to go here?!? Wtf, this is even more confusing than before. Everything I wrote here still holds true:

So them wanting online ages without allowing offline ages is like... like wanting to build a house without getting your hands dirty (now it'd be easier to express myself in my native language but I hope you get the point). It's like saying: "Yes, we want what you age builders can produce, but we don't want to see how you got there". The path that got us here was and is "dirty" (as in, hacks, reverse engineering, EULA violation, whatever), and covering and hiding this away is not a nice gesture (to be modest - one might also call it a slap into our faces).
I'm not really willing to "work together" (if you can even use that term) with Cyan under these conditions.

This confirms my attitude not to log in to these forums anymore. However I'd be interested how those brave souls doing this job will reply to questions about fan-made ages.

[Tweek]

Hi, Tweek.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

The way the policies are currently written they could be pointed to the GoW forums generically, but not to specific posts that break our forum policies. It seems like a reasonable middle ground that allows for the people to get to the information that they're looking for without our implied endorsement of activities that compromise our other products.

Thanks!

RAWA

[D'nial]

Oh, good! Now we can be open and honest about making the pub memorial imager say silly things! That's a relief.

[andylegate]

Hi, Tweek.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

The way the policies are currently written they could be pointed to the GoW forums generically, but not to specific posts that break our forum policies. It seems like a reasonable middle ground that allows for the people to get to the information that they're looking for without our implied endorsement of activities that compromise our other products.

Thanks!

RAWA

Wait, wait, wait.......

That makes NO sense, whatsoever. None.

If a person posts over at the MOUL forum right now, with this policy, and simply asks: "How can I load up Fan Made Ages in my copy of Uru:CC that I purchased?", if someone replies "Ah, well everything you need to know about how to do that is at this LINK right here." and posts a link to just the GoW Wiki......that's a violation of the policy:

HACKING any other Cyan product - Discussions of or links to or the presenting of reverse engineering or exploits of any Cyan game (MO:UL and its variants expressly excepted) are not allowed. This includes tools used for the modifying of or distributing of copyrighted materials such as game executables, game data and game code.

Emphasis mine.
The GoW Wiki (and this forum....and the GoMa forum), will not only tell you HOW to modify things in Uru:CC, but provides the links to the tools that are needed to place a fan created Age into Uru:CC.

So while someone may not be allowed to post specific instructions on how to use let's say, the OfflineKI or Drizzle, by providing a link to the GoW or GoMa, they are violating this part of the policy:

LINKS - Linking to webpages that break these forum policies for the purposes of getting around the forum policies is not allowed.

While someone may not be trying to INTENTIONALLY get around the forum policies, it is still grounds for any mod over there to delete the posts or thread.

So how is this a "reasonable middle ground that allows for the people to get to the information that they're looking for" ? It's not middle ground at ALL. It's VERY cut, clear and dry.

But I digress (or I just passed gas...not sure which it was, happened so fast....).......

Sooooooooo.......Dustin, Hoikas, Paradox, et al, what are the chances of taking MOUL:a and making a conversion mod that will allow you to run it as a stand alone game on someone's computer (no online, simply running it stand alone, so that it will run without connecting to the server). The new policy, as I read it at the moment, seems to find that doing something like that would be perfectly acceptable..........As a mater of fact, if you read RAWA's note to Tweek.......This part of the new forum policy actually seems to ENDORSE us doing that!:

HACKING MO:UL - As the plugins and code are released for MO:UL, discussions about the plugins and code are allowed for the purposes of learning and improving MO:UL, its variants (e.g., MORE, MO:ULagain, MO:UL Open Source), its plugins and its program code. The fine line here is if the discussion compromises Cyan's other products (e.g., Uru: Complete Chronicles, Hex Isle, MQO), which is not allowed (see below).

Heh, then when exporting from Max, you wouldn't have to convert it with Drizzle........but we'd need a Drizzle that could also convert from CC/POTS to MOUL for those that are using Blender and the GoW plugin.

Anyways....I'm off to get some other work done....

[D'nial]

Is it possible that Ubisoft is partially responsible for this? They could still hold rights for Uru CC for all we know.

[Jamey]

Is it possible that Ubisoft is partially responsible for this? They could still hold rights for Uru CC for all we know.

Very likely.