Gemerl

Soniku11 said:
I never said bad acts must be gone unpunished just because they werent done with bad intentions.

In fact, i did the opposite, stating that people who do it with good intentions must not have punishments as severe as people who do it with bad intentions.
Click to expand...
And I never said you did say that. What's your point?
 
Xtreme_Gear said:
And I never said you did say that. What's your point?
Click to expand...
Exactly, what is YOUR point? youre only remarking something i already said.

Bad things must not be gone unpunished, indepently on what the intentions were.
And the severity of said punishment should go according on the context behind said act.
Was it done to preserve the mod? Did you do it to claim authority over it? Have you done it because you wanted to fix issues?.

All cases must be treated like individual cases, as it should, yet not forgetting that, in these specific cases of " "taking" stuff that you did not created that required permission, using them without having asked the creator beforehand." you're still technically breaking the rules.

If you take stuff without permission, that requires permission to modify, its wise to keep that file for yourself, for personal use.
 
Xtreme_Gear said:
"The word "take" is quite ambiguous." Yes, but I gave context. You didn't. Therefore it isn't ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have given a context. But from the context you have given, one can also derive quite different intensional and extensional definitions, so I ask you to clarify what you mean. Otherwise, your interlocutors will have to guess what you meant, and there is a great risk of "guessing incorrectly".
 
Xntimodern said:
Yes, you have given a context. But from the context you have given, one can also derive quite different intensional and extensional definitions, so I ask you to clarify what you mean. Otherwise, your interlocutors will have to guess what you meant, and there is a great risk of "guessing incorrectly".
Click to expand...
Others can create other definitions, but it would be incorrect. It would be like changing the definition of right to wrong. As if that would matter.
 
Soniku11 said:
Exactly, what is YOUR point? youre only remarking something i already said.

Bad things must not be gone unpunished, indepently on what the intentions were.
And the severity of said punishment should go according on the context behind said act.
Was it done to preserve the mod? Did you do it to claim authority over it? Have you done it because you wanted to fix issues?.

All cases must be treated like individual cases, as it should, yet not forgetting that, in these specific cases of " "taking" stuff that you did not created that required permission, using them without having asked the creator beforehand." you're still technically breaking the rules.

If you take stuff without permission, that requires permission to modify, its wise to keep that file for yourself, for personal use.
Click to expand...
No, what is your point. Not mine. I asked you. "Was it done to preserve the mod?" No one knows. "Did you do it to claim authority over it?" Again. no one knows. "Have you done it because you wanted to fix issues?." Once more, no one knows. You're basically trying to make a point out of nothing. We don't know his intentions. All we know is that he's planning to release the mod. Since he never asked for permission and stole sprites, I think it is justified to at least give him a warning.
 
Xtreme_Gear said:
Others can create other definitions, but it would be incorrect. It would be like changing the definition of right to wrong. As if that would matter.
Click to expand...
Of course, these definitions may be "wrong" in the sense that they refer to other properties and denotata than you do. The "problem" is that you do not describe the properties and do not indicate the denotatum clearly enough. You need to be more specific, otherwise you may not be understood. And looking at your manner of communication, I would venture to assume that if I interpret your words "incorrectly", I will receive a caustic comment from you, and I would like to avoid this. Therefore, I ask you to clarify.
 
Can we stop this and let this piece of shit thread die already?
 
For crying out loud, this whole thread is no different than the Message Board. Any of you who argue are behaving like children.
Just lock this thread already and live your life.
 
Xtreme_Gear said:
The whole point is that he didn't even ask. Why do people make things difficult?
Click to expand...
The MB policies you're trying to enforce here not only violate GPL-license but also break forum rule #2 regarding proliferation of political and/or religious content, therefore he has no obligation to follow them here. Not only that, those very policies also break MB's rules about proliferation of political content. The only thing he is obligated to do is credit the original author of the assets he is going to use.

Furthermore, your argument leans heavily on consequentalist ethics, which is also a big part of the very ideological views you have that violate rule #2.
 
Xtreme_Gear said:
No, what is your point. Not mine. I asked you. "Was it done to preserve the mod?" No one knows. "Did you do it to claim authority over it?" Again. no one knows. "Have you done it because you wanted to fix issues?." Once more, no one knows. You're basically trying to make a point out of nothing. We don't know his intentions. All we know is that he's planning to release the mod. Since he never asked for permission and stole sprites, I think it is justified to at least give him a warning.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to achieve by arguing so defensively against me? im just trying to remind us to not treat everyone like they did a capital sin over just taking a mod that wasnt theirs, as not everyone does it for the same reasons.

Some people place everyone on the same bag, and thats not good, so thats why im remarking the fact that every case is different, and you have to ask the portlegger first the "why" they did this, and if theyre aware that whatever they took wasnt theirs.
 
Xntimodern said:
Aren't you interested in understanding the meanings of words?
Click to expand...
i mean, wasnt this supposed to be a thread about the progress on a Character Mod someone is making? showcasing the current progress and stuff already done to it.

I have no idea when or why it degenerated onto a long ass argument about the all so abused "Reusability" topic, which never seems to die.
 
Soniku11 said:
i mean, wasnt this supposed to be a thread about the progress on a Character Mod someone is making? showcasing the current progress and stuff already done to it.

I have no idea when or why it degenerated onto a long ass argument about the all so abused "Reusability" topic, which never seems to die.
Click to expand...
it all started on page 2 when he stole sonicsez's sprite, which he didn't give permission. (and many other arts too)
 
I am using Emerl sprite to make them to Gemerl sprite and I promise I will give credit to Sonicsez's when I am done making Gemerl mod.
 
infinite, i suggest you to use sonic battle sprites, and label sprites as ALAR instead, so you save time.
im not on his side but dude the people insulting him are very mad at him
 
So, uh.. apparently as the spriter himself said, he wants these sprites to be gone too, and as people already said, use official sprites for Gemerl, or make your own instead.

1745371490900



This is his Discord username as proof as it was really the creator himself.

1745371618939
 
and THAT is exactly why stolen art is frowned upon in both this community and the MB.

i don’t want to be involved in this argument, so i’m just going to say that art stealing should NEVER BE ACCEPTABLE IN ANY KIND. (unless its for ports ofc :D)
 
Nitrillion500 said:
and THAT is exactly why stolen art is frowned upon in both this community and the MB.

i don’t want to be involved in this argument, so i’m just going to say that art stealing should NEVER BE ACCEPTABLE IN ANY KIND. (unless its for ports ofc :D)
Click to expand...
There is also such a wonderful thing as "addon patches", but not everyone knows how to create them. Although this idea was rejected on MB, declaring patches "theft", but it would take a lot of effort to shift semantics to call it "theft", even in a figurative sense. It's something like "figurative meaning from figurative meaning", lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top