/me agrees with devilesk[NUB]
Theres more to women than just their bodies.

Right, and I have neither the resources nor the inclination to duplicate your database. I'm just looking to establish a storage space for the maps that what you just said would exclude, i.e. high-quality edited versions of "do not edit"-flagged maps and the like.

I overall support the policy, but the manner of your post... I guess it seems very high-handed and saying "you're all stupid and wrong but we're going to be nice to you little kids to stop you from crying". I wish you could be less insulting..

As long as SEN supports the freedom of the author, I guess I'll be content.

i lol'd.

but srsly, if she never said no or stop then yes she actually does want to make love to you.


go gettem tiger

Aww. Just had to take some credit didn't you?

This is quite possibly the most vague rule ever made. What the hell does that even mean .. "unless the topic is ...". What do you think this topic is?! "Actions of some people"?! That can apply to anyone about anything. You're basically saying "Only the admins can allow what they want." Of course, this is perfectly reasonable, but if you're going for that, fucking say it.

You should take some logic classes because the two do not follow at all. Here's another bullshit argument: The invisible pink unicorn exists. By your logic, then, I am made of cheese (which is possible...) because the previous logic is "just so stupid". Honestly, you have no goddamn idea what the hell you're even talking about.

Let's assume this is the case. You still fail simply because you obviously cannot read, or understand, the arguments presented to you. Can you explain Espeono's analogy ("Either way it is not the sort of belief that successful nations like the United States are based on.")? Or how about my arguments ("Now, let's go back to what's really important. Should SEN host VB programs? Answer: no. So stop arguing.")?

So then what do we have? An obvious attempt to provoke a debate that is totally worthless (this was my argument). So really, the fault here lies in you for starting something that would obviously get no where except cause much spam and hatred in a barely functioning society. Thanks for screwing over something that was just brought back from death.

What facts? That OSMAP exists? Oh wow, some big fact. Everyone knows. Not everyone cares. The only reason that I can think of that would possibly make you start something like this here is because you want OSMAP to gain publicity. If you can give me another legitimate reason, go ahead. I'll acknowledge that I was wrong and you were right if I cannot refute it.

Also, what's with this "we" crap? Who is "we"? You? You and IP? You and the community? Not you?!

Yeah, it's a good thing the Confederates won the civil war. Unity sucks.

Nice choice of words. "Corruption" instead of "Lock" and "Learning" instead of "Steal" or, since that argument is so horrible, "making a million copies of the same damn map despite the fact that they all suck and are rigged in some way." Once again, good job on the word choice; and of course, secretly deceiving most of the people here who cannot decipher it.

If I gave you a hug, would you stop caring about this "leaving your maps open please" bullshit? I mean, I did give you something back for all you've done. Wait, wait. What if I donate some money? Then can I lock my maps whenever I want and prevent people from editing them no matter how crappy it is?! Yes?! Thanks!

Does IP know that if he agrees to this, he will be supporting opening maps even though it was protected for a reason? It doesn't even matter if it was a shitty reason; the fact that it's locked means the author intended it to be locked. If I locked my bike somewhere and went away, does that give someone (besides the police for legal reasons...) the right to take the bike away? Well, in your mind, yes. But for the rest of us, we would acknowledge that there is a lock there and, therefore, we should not take it.

Now you're probably thinking maps are not bikes. Yeah, but you're the one who conceded the argument "time is money"; since time is spent on a map, it is worth money, by your (not mine) logic. Now you're probably (or should be) thinking that authors have to be around to "protect their investment" so my argument is wrong. Once again, not true as I could leave a bike locked for years and years and come back get it anytime I want. How unlikely this event is is irrelevant; the fact that this can happen makes it a valid argument.

Based on what has been discussed prior to this post, it shows that you don't actually care about what has been said so any discussions from here on do not actually matter as you will be implementing these policy changes regardless. Thanks for showing you care!

You guys are worse than congress, GET SOMETHING DONE GOD DAMNIT!

Nub policy. If you're gonna censor one you gotta censor the other, unless your policy is going to be like WE SUPPORT PROTECTION and not unprotection. In that case, it is even worse. As I said before a neutral stance would be the best. Either allow free discussion of both or allow neither of them. That should please everyone, or at least have everyone displeased with it. Then nothing more would need to be argued.

Anyway, I don't see myself ever having to advertise or show someone a link to any program. In case I do have to inform someone of where to download OSMAP or something else, I can just be like DOOD I WILL PM YOU THE LINK TO OSMAP K? And that will still be within the policy rules.

That's something like what I was dying to post, but I thought it unwise to use all the words..

Quote from Akar

You guys are worse than congress, GET SOMETHING DONE GOD DAMNIT!

Welcome to politics. Honestly, though, I think we're moving faster than Congress

Quote

or at least have everyone displeased with it.

more like that. It's not only pointless, but stupid too, to remove both protection and unprotection.

Quote

Anyway, I don't see myself ever having to advertise or show someone a link to any program. In case I do have to inform someone of where to download OSMAP or something else, I can just be like DOOD I WILL PM YOU THE LINK TO OSMAP K? And that will still be within the policy rules.

There's a reason SEN doesn't conform to a letter-by-letter interpretation of the rules..


Cheeze's bike analogy is less eloquent than Shmidley's, but they both are good ones.

Yea, because they're lazy.

Also, if you're going to have a 7 page debate over a policy that won't be enforced, what's the point? I demand whatever kind of policy is put into place it at least be enforced for the sake of not having this long argument in vain.

That must be it.

Politics are just a process of making clumsy compromises. Compromises are used when people don't want to agree with one another. People don't agree when they think they're right or don't want someone else to be right. And they do that when they think they can get away with it.

We've pushed this debate enough now to clearly outline what it is we can and can't get away with. We could simply ignore the heated opinions and cut to the simple facts now to make a decision.

Errrm, Yoshi (or IP, though I'm pretty sure it was Yoshi) made a post a few pages ago. I think the decision has been made, though I could be delirious.

This Post

Hmm. Must have missed that post. Well I guess the politics are justifiable behind that, but technically it doesn't matter now to try to put a stop to it. Except to the people still sensitized over it (which I guess is the only remaining problem with this issue in and of itself).

I think just accepting reality would set a better example than a political compromise, though. Unless any new developments turn up with regards to protection/unprotection, I'd prefer settlement on the issue over another compromise.

I donno, maybe its because of crap you say like:
Honestly I'm sick of this fear and indecision you like to spread. It's not what you say its how you say it. You make unprotection sound like its as bad the holocaust.

It's... NOT? O.O

I'm no less stating facts than you are, and probably more so. A pro-protection programs, anti-unprotection programs stance allows map authors to choose whether to make their maps open source or not.

What does protection do? Corrupts the chk so that staredit cannot read it and starcraft can. This is not something that can be twisted or debated, thats what it really does (if you need to, you can ask clokr, lw or si about this, they'll tell you the same thing). Can you learn anything from a protected map? Nope.

I could be saying stuff like "Do you have the moral rights to prohibit people from having fun with a game they legitimately purchased?" or "do you have the moral right to police the way people play the game and dictate how they decide to spend THEIR time and THEIR enjoyment?"

Anything can sound good or bad depending on how you twist the words.

I never disputed that you were telling the truth (you, naturally, have been), but so have I been telling the truth.

Protection gives mappers the freedom to choose whether their maps are open to the public or not.

That's a fact.

People could say that the freedom for one person is limiting the freedom of many other potential people who want to learn or edit, so your "freedom" argument is invalid.

I'll level with you. We're going nowhere with bickering. I have this notorious habit of letting people do stupid things and get to me. It doesn't happen often and its with very specific things.

Before I used to be very pro-protection. then I changed when I saw potential. If you recall that huge OSmap flame war that went on when LW revealed himself as the osmap creator, me and you went pretty much back and forth. You did exactly what you're doing now, which is blowing up the issue and making it seem like unprotection supporters are unethical spawns of hell and LW is their leader. Then with your whole "locking the topic and getting the last word in so nobody else can" stuff which was your habit for closing debates.

Looking back, if someone tried to tell me something about open mapping instead of twisting the issue, I probably would of agreed with that and I wouldn't of shifted myself so strongly on the unprotection side, but once again, you and some other people got to me, and I'm the kind of guy who fixes problems and "does something about it". I wanted to get back in the map making scene and since at the time I felt so strongly about unprotection I wanted to try to make a flagship site about that. It was a mistake. I realized later that I once again, let somebody get to me, and tried to change the site's policy to something more along the lines of open mapping.

Me swtiching sites is yet another example of people getting to me. I wasn't getting much support financially or technically from the two co-founders and they got used to me doing everything, as a result latova was delayed again and I decided to come back to the original site where I made my original entry into the community in doing what I like doing, Staredit Network. It doesn't make me happy that I now look at Maplantis and I actually see MA and (mainly) LW being productive, because that implies that they were able to help me, just not willing.

Yeah, you do

I think we can agree that we want SEN to support open mapping, but not unprotection programs, yes? Like I said before, I pretty much support the policy you outlined. I have, you know, been swayed to believe in the virtues of not using protection