Need some rules with teeth regarding "variants", etc

[Caydr]

IMO there should be well-placed guidelines/warnings about using an existing mod's name. Discussion of said mods shouldn't be allowed until they've changed their name.

IMO things like simple mutators aren't a problem because it means you download the original work and won't be confused as to what you're playing. By simple mutator, I mean something that changes game rules, modifies unit stats, adds game modes, etc. An example OK name might be "Kernel Panic Rebalance Mutator", with appropriate documentation alongside to make it clear what original Kernel Panic version is required and where it can be downloaded.

However, if someone was to make "Kernel Panic 2.0" or "Kernel Panic Advanced" and it is not a simple mutator but a WW2 flight simulator, this would be unacceptable, no? Or even if it was a mutator which used Kernel Panic files, the fact is, Zwzsg might at some point in the future want to actually use the name Kernel Panic 2.0 or Kernel Panic Advanced.

Reputable affiliated sites like Spring Info, Spring Files, etc, would probably want to enact similar rules. If the resources are available, some names could be blacklisted for uploading, except from certain individuals.

But once they change their name to something nicely unrelated, no problem obviously. I have no problem with fan-made mutators as long as they are clearly marked as being unofficial. If you download any old AA version you'll find I even included documentation on how to make mutators.

You all probably know I'm talking from experience due to the hundred and one unofficial AA spinoffs. That's not my concern anymore, but in the future I may be in a similar situation. Even mods that are "dead" should not have development "resumed" unless it's by the original developer. Just pick a new name - it did BA no harm.

All of this is my opinion, biased by my own experiences. Does anyone have anything to add on the subject?

[Das Bruce]

Doesn't this come under licensing?

[Gota]

What specific mod/mutator is bothering you...Its hard to make actual guidelines or rules about this.
Think it is easier to just address each case individually.
You can make guidelines but they will be very vague and you'd have to address weird stuff anyway so you wont be saving much time for yourself.

[TheFatController]

Personally I would not approve of "Balanced Annihilation <anything>", I'd be more permissive with names along the lines of "<something/BA something> (BA7.12)" provided it wasn't attempting to mislead players.

On the topic of "Advanced BA", that was used with permission (I believe I even suggested that name :p).

[Pxtl]

So your position is that it should be mutator-name-first and it should be clear that it's a mutator? IE:

Pxtl's Navy Remix Mutator - Balanced Annihilation
is good

Balanced Annihilation Pxtl's Navy Remix
is bad.

[Caydr]

I think Pxtl is on the right track. What's most important in my view is that unofficial things aren't listed together with official things, for the purpose of keeping things like Kernel Panic, Balanced Annihilation, PURE, Star Wars, 1944, and such separate from their derivatives.

I'm not going after any specific problem mod/mutator/game at the moment, I'm trying to think in advance, remembering the lessons of the past.

Damn, I should be like a... wordsmith or something.

[AF]

If people followed the game and mod tags to the letter we wouldnt have this problem and variants, mods, and games would all form a nice heirarchy/tree

[Caydr]

If all the main modders follow the rules, it doesn't mean the offshoot modders will necessarily do so - especially the ones that tend to make things like "Absolute Annihilation 4.0".

[SinbadEV]

The only possible enforcement is on the filesites... so bug the guys who run them directly.

[SwiftSpear]

The current ability of spring moderation to do anything resembling content control is similar to the ability of an exterminator to kill ants using only a hammer.

At least unless something magnificently changed while I was gone.

[KDR_11k]

However, if someone was to make "Kernel Panic 2.0"

Just for the record, KP is way past 2.0. I believe 2.0 was when Division Zero was rolled into the main branch.

[SeanHeron]

I've never seen this be a problem except with ripoffs of (to put it bluntly) TA ripoffs.

[zwzsg]

However, if someone was to make "Kernel Panic 2.0"

Just for the record, KP is way past 2.0. I believe 2.0 was when Division Zero was rolled into the main branch.

Yeah, I released Kernel Panic 4.0 yesterday. Kernel Panic 2.0 is 3 years old. Then version number ain't nothing but a number.

Also, Kernel Panic is a bad exemple because of its extremely permissive license.

And did you notice how 3.7 turned a KP into an alien shooter -like?

I've never seen this be a problem except with ripoffs of (to put it bluntly) TA ripoffs.

And wouln't it be hypocritical to attempt to enforce branding rights to what's essentially a theft of copyrighted material?

And for the original mods, you should obviously read the mod license, and check with the original author if it's okay with him (preferably both).

Related link: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homestead ... esteading/