Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Does "unprotection" mean that no protection is applied in the first place? If not, should there be a "no protection in the first place ('open-source') option on the poll?

OSMAP supposedly meant something about Open Source MAPping. IE, never applying protection in the first place.
The name of OSMAP.exe is deceptive.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Does "protection" mean that existing protection should be respected?

Well, thats for you to decide and let us know your opinion about.[/quote]
Unfortunately, people can't post to tell you their opinion without picking an option. They might pick the wrong one. How do they know which option correctly explains their stance?

Quote

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Does "protection" mean that all maps should be protected for no good reason?

Once again,

Quote

...thats for you to decide and let us know your opinion about.

See above.

Quote

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

What if you feel that unprotection can be justified in extreme cases? For example, an old map is rendered unplayable by now disallowed text characters in the title and the creator is not around to update the map.

Some said before that unprotecting a map that was protected by its creator would be "disrespectful"... You decide.

A third time, what option in the poll "correctly" explains this view?

Why do people protect their maps? Two words: Recognition preservation. To elaborate, I’ll break down an impromptu "Phases of a Creator."

Phase 1: Newbie. Must rely on others to improve, such as through tutorials, inspecting and tinkering with the work of others, and interacting with a community of other creators.

Phase 2: Initiate. Familiarizes self with the necessary tools. Produces experiments, simple playables, and tests with friends, solo, or releases to said community for feedback. Desires advice and acceptance.

Phase 3a: Dreamer. Contemplates an elaborate, epic project that far exceeds current abilities or available free time. When overwhelmed and realizing the folly, project is suspended.

Phase 3b: Pragmatist. Expands on experiments, taking care to gradually build upon complexity with each project in parallel with skill development and familiarity.

Phase 3: The Dreamer will desire crafting one large project composed of many facets, hoping to learn each facet as the project commences without understanding how difficult or time-consuming each will be beforehand or how all parts should properly integrate together. The Pragmatist will build each facet individually as its own project, facilitating more in-depth learning that can be applied toward grander projects down the road.

Phase 4a: Creator. Completes and releases fully playable projects. Although the main motivation often stated is "for fun", the sheer amount of work that goes into a detailed project always tends to generates an innate yearning for recognition. Many want to make a name for themselves in said community, as a social reward for completing their rite of passage (phases 1-3).

Phase 4b: Innovator. Breaks the status quo by pioneering new techniques and approaches. May release work as isolated experiments like an advanced Pragmatist, or incorporate them into a comprehensive project like a Creator. Naturally desires recognition for accomplishments and paradigm shifts.

Phase 4: Both Creator and Innovator have an understandable fear of plagiarism from lower phases, as such copying hurts the uniqueness and integrity of their projects, and can distort or outright obfuscate their due recognition. They may cope in one of two ways:

Phase 5a: Squirrel. If you don’t hide your nuts, someone will take your nuts. Granted, they can still dig them up, but at least they’ll have to work to get them. Squirrels seek to alleviate their anxiety through protection, which although not foolproof, it will at least confuse the youngest phases and prevent the most n00bish of plagiarism.

Phase 5b: Teacher. As the concern for social standing subsides, both with the immediate community and one’s overall legacy, either because it has been earned to a satisfactory level or the need is satiated in another manner, the Teacher finds themselves comfortable giving their work to all for the betterment of the community as a whole. Or, they may realize recognition is also achievable through this avenue of open source. They may furthermore appreciate that if it were not for other Teachers they wouldn’t be where they are now, and are thus paying it forward.

Phase 5: As with all phases, a person can fit into more than one category. It is possible to be a Squirrel-Teacher by releasing tutorial maps but still protecting personal projects.

Phase 6: Guru. Every list needs an ultimate rank. This is the de facto person to ask virtually anything in their related field. They are masters of their craft, like an Innovator-Teacher whose sum is greater than its parts. Everyone knows their name, and like titans their movements shake the very foundation of the community. Spooky.

=oD

I agree with moose. You are just lumping both sides into a monochrome perspective, when there is really a sort of grey scale. Like I agree with open-source, but I also agree with the benifits of protection. Lumping my vote into "unprotection" doesn't give an accurate view of my complete thoughts. Unless you do take one side, it is innacurate.
Also, what about those who are neutral and don't much care either way? Perhaps "If it is protected, oh well; otherwise, I may tinker a bit."

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

OSMAP supposedly meant something about Open Source MAPping. IE, never applying protection in the first place.
The name of OSMAP.exe is deceptive.

Well, in some ways. If you think about it, it makes maps open source, I guess. I didn't create it...

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

What if you feel that unprotection can be justified in extreme cases? For example, an old map is rendered unplayable by now disallowed text characters in the title and the creator is not around to update the map.

Some said before that unprotecting a map that was protected by its creator would be "disrespectful"... You decide.[/quote]
A third time, what is the "correct" option to choose in the poll?[/quote]

If you feel that ALL maps should never be protected in any stage of its creation (starting/testing/release/final) then vote for Unprotected.

If you feel thatl ALL maps should be protected to fend off noobs, or whatever reason you can think off, then vote for Protected.

Wait, didn't you have to vote to post a reply? >_>

Quote from O)FaRTy1billion[MM]

I agree with moose. You are just lumping both sides into a monochrome perspective, when there is really a sort of grey scale. Like I agree with open-source, but I also agree with the benifits of protection. Lumping my vote into "unprotection" doesn't give an accurate view of my complete thoughts. Unless you do take one side, it is innacurate.
Also, what about those who are neutral and don't much care either way? Perhaps "If it is protected, oh well; otherwise, I may tinker a bit."

I like black and white. I hate when theres room for the neutral(s) to vote. If you don't have a say in the matter, then don't vote. The way I think of it is, you either are 100% one way or 100% the other, you can't have the best of both worlds.

I protect my maps for the purpose of preventing a majority of unbalanced versions from surfacing. They can still be learned from by unprotecting them, but generally you end up with less crappy versions where people just rig the minerals or add extra Uber units. Protection "weeds out" those who are unfit for editing. (Mostly.)

Edit: Oh wow this has probably been said a million times in this thread. I just clicked on Bronto's link in the shoutbox and hadn't voted yet so didn't know there was already 6 pages of discussion. My bad.

Quote from Brontobyte

If you feel that ALL maps should never be protected in any stage of its creation (starting/testing/release/final) then vote for Unprotected.

If you feel thatl ALL maps should be protected to fend off noobs, or whatever reason you can think off, then vote for Protected.

Wait, didn't you have to vote to post a reply? >_>

What if you don't feel that ALL should be anything?

And yes, you did.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Does "unprotection" mean that no protection is applied in the first place? If not, should there be a "no protection in the first place ('open-source') option on the poll?

OSMAP supposedly meant something about Open Source MAPping. IE, never applying protection in the first place.
The name of OSMAP.exe is deceptive.

I've heard that before:
Protection vs Unprotection Discussion

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

From now on, I'm deleting all the distracting "stop arguing" posts. You've been warned.

Quote from Protogod

but you endorse the use and cencept of it quite publically. Its been stated that you will either disallow both OSMAP and protection, or you will allow OSMAP. Either way, people who steal maps get a free ride.

Do you understand what this means? OSMAP (not the .exe) = Open Source Mapping. A concept. IE, if I WANT to release my map without protection and I WANT other people to edit it, you don't have a right to stop me from doing that just as I don't have a right to edit your locked maps. That is what I seek to allow. Ignore the name confusion that OSMAP.exe created.

Quote from LegacyWeapon

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

From now on, I'm deleting all the distracting "stop arguing" posts. You've been warned.

Quote from Protogod

but you endorse the use and cencept of it quite publically. Its been stated that you will either disallow both OSMAP and protection, or you will allow OSMAP. Either way, people who steal maps get a free ride.

Do you understand what this means? OSMAP (not the .exe) = Open Source Mapping. A concept. IE, if I WANT to release my map without protection and I WANT other people to edit it, you don't have a right to stop me from doing that just as I don't have a right to edit your locked maps. That is what I seek to allow. Ignore the name confusion that OSMAP.exe created.

The acronym OSMAP was stated to be "Open Source MApping Project".

Quote from Sauceover

can an OSMAP guy tell me exactly what OSMAP has given us that we haven't had before?

it's not knowledge - we already have/have always had the best technical mapmakers here(note: i'm saying technical, not 'best,' because OSMAP isn't going to teach you shit about how to find out what people like and how to implement it into a map)

Some people were mindlessly protecting their maps, and now they no longer do.

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

Quote

yes...but what is the protection 'harming'?

what you said wasn't much different that saying people are mindlessly using waits in their maps and they shouldn't be allowed to....which really isn't saying much

Good point.

Quote

Do you understand what this means? OSMAP (not the .exe) = Open Source Mapping. A concept. IE, if I WANT to release my map without protection and I WANT other people to edit it, you don't have a right to stop me from doing that just as I don't have a right to edit your locked maps.

That is just stupid

Can we agree

'OSMAP' means the unprotecting program OSMAP.exe
'open source mapping' means endorsing and encouraging map makers to release their maps without protection

ex: I support open source mapping, but I strongly dislike OSMAP.

otherwise it's just damn confusing.

And there's more.

Dear Brontobyte:
Yes, you had to vote before you could interact with this thread, yet I agree with Farty that the voting options are too black and white. Usually I wouldn't vote if none of the options represent my views, but in this case I had no choice.

Quote from O)FaRTy1billion[MM]

And yes, you did.

I meant this because the neutral people would have to vote one way or the other to even see what we are discussing.

Quote from (U)devilesk

To the pro OSMAP supporters stop whining because the program isn't supported at SEN. You can still open source without it, and anyone with any real motivation for getting the program can easily find a source, just not here.

To the pro protection noobs, you're just dumb because you think your maps need to be protected. The very very small amount of maps that a very very small amount of you make suck and aren't worthy of being stolen.

As I said before, the best stance is to not care. Real mapmakers do whatever they want with whatever they want.

Someday I might just steal maps out of spite just to because you worry so much about it, and you'll never know it's me. If I was dedicated enough I could elaborately set it up so that I could frame someone else. Even doctor some screenshots, get a group of random people to support the fake evidence, and have someone else present it so I have no connection to it at all. I've already shared such an idea with Moose.

Quote from (U)devilesk

Quote from Esponeo

Very, very true. Devilesk actually makes maps. They may never get played public because of how bad they are, but he does make actual maps unlike virtually everyone else here.

Shmidley will never admit my maps are being played publicly, but at least he acknowledges I actually made maps.

Quote from Esponeo

That said, Devilesk's supposed support of OSMAP is a load of bullshit. He protects his maps because he is, in his own words, afraid of people stealing them.

I've always supported OSMAP.exe, but I was never really into open source mapping. I mainly just aligned myself on that side and just agreed to everything LW preached about. LW and I would joke around about how I protected some of my maps while discussing open source.

I protect most of my better maps, because they are actually played and various people have actually threatened me with the intent to steal them. Of course protection is really useless against the determined map stealer. However, it's a nice deterrent for the average battle.net noob who decides to open the map in an editor. I've said all of this at one point or another, so it shouldn't be news to anyone important.

However, this doesn't take away from the argument that for the majority of mapmakers protection serves no purpose at all. You can't protect a map you don't even finish or release publicly!

And also don't ignore that I've already made a statement before towards the open source side about how they should stop complaining about OSMAP not being hosted. So don't think I'm against protection. I'm against all of you making a big issue out of this when you don't actually have a reason to.

If you're going to be supporting open source mapping, actually make some maps that are unprotected. If you're going to be supporting protection, actually make some maps that are protected. All around I'm seeing nothing being made, yet all these people argue about it.

Quote

I'm not new... I have been on Maplantis and SEN, together for almost 1 year now. I don't think that qualifies as new.

I meant new to the argument.

Quote

No, you're just spamming. I've already shown and provided links to the numerous protection debates that have occurred.

Saying no doesn't invalidate anything.

Quote

You first.

I'm not telling you to stop posting by my argument, but yours. I win!

Unprotection refers to unprotecting a map. However, that and open source mapping overlap in arguments a lot.

Protection vs Unprotection Summary

Ok, so far I have gathered that more people side with Unprotection in the polls. Many of the Protectionists however have proven good points about "disrespecting the wishes of the map makers". but all in all, if someone wants something bad enough, there going to get it.

That summary says that you agree with us that unprotection should be 'outlawed' but it's a fact of life. Correct?

Quote from Brontobyte

Protection vs Unprotection Summary

Ok, so far I have gathered that more people side with Unprotection in the polls. Many of the Protectionists however have proven good points about "disrespecting the wishes of the map makers". but all in all, if someone wants something bad enough, there going to get it.

Of course they are. They have the tools available. I can shoot you or steal your stuff. That doesn't mean that I should, that I have no alternatives, or that it's right. When was the debate about can and can't?

RISE! RISE I SAY!