Cyan's Updated Forum Policies

[kaelisebonrai]

Yes, it has the ubi logo because they just released the exact same files. However, gog.com's store page doesn't mention ubi. =P

EDIT: sorry my previous post was not exactly clear. by "release" I'm primarily referring to the store page, with developer and publisher information. =)

[Aloys]

(...)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 for that one Tweek.
As always it's a matter of diverging interests.
As much as many people (me included) may dislike it, Cyan's stance on this is (and has always been) very clear: they will not publicly endorse hacking of Uru:CC. MOULa is ok; CC is not.
Of course we currently need Uru:CC to test Ages and so on, but this is our position, and that differs from with their official position which is: we provide tools for MOULa and this is what we will endorse and approve; what you do beside that is not under Cyan's official umbrella and cannot be talked about in details on our forums.These are the MystOnline forums...
This is a fine line to walk for Cyan, but it makes sense. Individuals among Cyan people may (and do) recognize and appreciate the offline work we do, but Cyan's official interests on these forums lie with MOULa; not Uru:CC.
Like it or don't, that's how it is. And it is in everyone's best interest to go with Cyan on this; openly conflicting is not gonna help anyone.
Now the question of how the forum rules are written and applied is different. But at least Cyan's overall position is clear.

If on the MOUL forums all we can do is point people in the general direction of the GoW then it is our job to make sure that when coming here they can easily find all needed informations. And that is done with a good site and proper 'Newcomers' sticky topics in the forums.. Hey, guess what, it just so happens that we have a new site in the works!

[andylegate]

That's what hit me when I was re-reading the forum rules over there when making my post.

If you look at it, they are saying: "It's okay to hack/modify MOUL:a"

It would be great to have a "Offline" version of MOUL:a for testing things being made in Max right now (it would help the Sub World issue for sure). But then we'd need a way to convert the GoW Plugin export from CC/POTS to MOUL format, and I don't know if Dustin's Drizzle can be made to do that (I mean, it would make sense if you can go from MOUL to CC, you could reverse that, but then I'm not a programmer.....).

Or a GoW Plugin that ports directly to MOUL format. But then that's a lot of work, with most people doing it in their spare time. I understand, it could be a long ways down the road.

[Ranting Thespian]

(...)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 for that one Tweek.
As always it's a matter of diverging interests.
As much as many people (me included) may dislike it, Cyan's stance on this is (and has always been) very clear: they will not publicly endorse hacking of Uru:CC. MOULa is ok; CC is not.
Of course we currently need Uru:CC to test Ages and so on, but this is our position, and that differs from with their official position which is: we provide tools for MOULa and this is what we will endorse and approve; what you do beside that is not under Cyan's official umbrella and cannot be talked about in details on our forums.These are the MystOnline forums...
This is a fine line to walk for Cyan, but it makes sense. Individuals among Cyan people may (and do) recognize and appreciate the offline work we do, but Cyan's official interests on these forums lie with MOULa; not Uru:CC.
Like it or don't, that's how it is. And it is in everyone's best interest to go with Cyan on this; openly conflicting is not gonna help anyone.
Now the question of how the forum rules are written and applied is different. But at least Cyan's overall position is clear.

If on the MOUL forums all we can do is point people in the general direction of the GoW then it is our job to make sure that when coming here they can easily find all needed informations. And that is done with a good site and proper 'Newcomers' sticky topics in the forums.. Hey, guess what, it just so happens that we have a new site in the works!

Now THIS I agree with

I am sure Rand and company really don't care personally what we do with URU:CC (and like Aloys said, they probably appreciate it!), but for legal reasons they can't say that on their official sites and boards.

Also, I believe the more negative we get, the longer and harder the road to Open Source will be.

[Aloys]

lol Show Spoiler

I think we should just avoid those on the Cyan forums.

[kaelisebonrai]

Here's a small (and appearantly permissably sized, even) signature image. =)

http://guildofartisans.org/moulagain/GoMR-small.png



EDIT: I was wondering when people were going to notice that =P

[andylegate]

^
|
|-----------

[Deledrius]

Here's a small (and appearantly permissably sized, even) signature image. =)

EDIT: I was wondering when people were going to notice that =P

I love it!

[kaelisebonrai]

Glad you like it, and thanks again for the source svg. (this is based on the GoW Ki-Poster used in MOULagain) =D

[Jadawin12]

That's really great!

I want to make a new sig now saying:


I AM A MEMBER OF THE GUILD OF WRITERS... i may or may not be a member of

And as Aloys said it is perfect timing we can have our pretty new IC forum for Cyan and the newbies, and our vampire lair for all our dasterdly deeds