Talk:3DS Honeybee Hive (Skipper93653)

Request to remove v1.0 from Wiimm's CT-Archive

@Wiimm v1.0 contains stolen content from my own version of the track which I never authorized to use. Please remove it from the Custom Track Archive.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 15:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

v1.0 isn't even in Wiimms archive (yet). But I think Wiimm will add it anyways - the wiki page states what parts were taken from your track so it is not "stealing" it is building upon freely available content. -- Leseratte (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It was, but he already deleted it. Also, the rules apply to updates of the same version of the track, not new versions, read the Published Works Policy. If this was not true, I could take any CT right now, modify a texture and release it as my own version of that CT. Why do you think we removed Quick Course but not track updates without the confirmation of the author?
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 21:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The published works policy uses the term "content", not "track". And "content" includes "objects". Nobody asked Nintendo for "permission" for using the itembox model in their CTs either ...

And about that "edit war" thing - I always find it interesting when someone claims "edit war" that the added content gets removed prior to discussion. Why wasn't your removal of that update already starting an "edit war"? Why can't an edit stay put until it is discussed? -- Leseratte (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see here...

If you are editing another author's work, first contact the author of the original content. → Did he edit my work? No, he copied and pasted it. Did he contact me? No, someone else contacted me.

If he officially allows you to edit his work, do so and release it as update. → Did I allow him to edit my work? No, I denied it to the person that contacted me. Did he release it as a update of my version? No, he released it as a update of his version.

If the author claims he will do an update himself, give him a reasonable amount of time to do so. → Did I claim I will do an update myself? No, my version was already released and is not subordinate to his version. Did he give me a reasonable amount of time to do so? No, even if he updated my track instead, not even a day passed after he posted an update of his version reusing the assets from mine.

If the author disagrees with your edit, you can still edit the content and post it as an update → Did I disagree with the edit? Not in this context, as it was not an edit of my version. Did he edit my content and posted it as an update? No, again, he updated his version.

you must leave a download link to the last official version of the original creator on the page, too. → Did he leave a download link to the last official version of my version? No, because he wasn't updating my version. That's the whole point of this part of the Published Works Policy.

And now I ask you again: if this was not true, anyone could modify (or as you say build upon freely available content) from any other track made by someone else without their permission and release it as their own version, right? In your sight of view, this is perfectly acceptable, so I am just reusing assets and not breaking any rules, even if I'm not respecting other authors. Well, that's not how it works. One thing that we should clarify is that respect comes over most of these rules. Is it stated as a rule? It isn't, in fact. But if we just rely on what the rules specifically say, then you can't deny the points I gave against that rule from the Published Works Policy, and it's not my opinion, it's the fact that he didn't update my version of his track. Let's put it in a different perspective: the main purpose of a Wiki is to allow users to submit data freely (which favors your point of being able to reuse any assets), but it also has the purpose of creating a community. Without respect, there's no community, and with different interpretations of nearly inscrutable rules like these I can confirm that the sense of community is being lost as well. To start with, Skipper released his version not even a day after I released mine, in a rushed manner to raise the competence in favour of his version. I can tell it's rushed because he didn't even bother to check in game if the honey effect worked, in fact, it's not even into the KMP. The Stingbies are there, though. He also blamed me in the Trivia section because apparently it's my fault that I managed to fix my version that day, coincidentally, so I'm the culprit even after he grabbed files that he was supposedly told not to use. Now, if you say that I never denied him to use my files, well, in that case he never asked me directly. Someone else (whom I'm protecting their identity), acted as an intermediary between Skipper and me to ask for permission of using these files, and I denied to them, so in theory, I denied the usage of these files to Skipper, and even if the intermediary never gave the response back to Skipper, then we can consider that he never asked me.

About your point of view of the policy, let's see what would happen if we allowed anyone to reuse any asset for their own version of their track, shall we? I could pick a track such as 3DS Rosalina's Ice World (MysterE99 & Skipper93653), and fix a few things such as the LOD bias of the textures, to match the values from Mario Kart 7, and change the penguin models to the ones from Mario Kart 7 as well (which I already did a long time ago for another purpose). Here I'm doing everything right as you please: I'm building upon freely available content to create my own version of the track. It's not fair because the KMP and KCL files are directly copied and pasted from one version to another you say? Well, the policy never specifies which kind of assets can be reused, so it does not matter. Even if I just changed one single pixel of a texture and released it as my own version, that's perfectly fine according to your points, isn't it? If it isn't, just tell me where it exactly says that you can't do that on the policy, which you're solely relying on. May we have a little more of common sense in this wiki, please? Thanks.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate this kind of discussion and do not really want to waste any more time with it. That's why I just briefly skimmed this discussion. Nevertheless, I want to clarify my point of view without going directly into the discussion:

• From the beginning (2010), I strongly support the freedom that everyone can use everything. That is the only way the community works. On top of that, on many things, at most Nintendo can claim ownership rights.
• Without the openness and mutual help we would not have achieved so much. This applies to tracks, software and knowledge. That's how I hated the secrecy of Torran. If many people had behaved like Torran, the community would have been broken. Nevertheless, one should pay attention to certain things alone from netiquette. The most important are communication, inquiries and credits (honoring the performance of others). And also waiting for the takeover of objects belongs to the Netiquette.
• Skipper93653 was very brazen. He neither asked nor waited for some time. He has not even mentioned that Atlas is the author of the bees. That may be legal under the wiki rules, but it's just rude. So I can fully understand the hassles of Atlas.
• I put Skipper93653's Arena in private mode. Therefore, the track is not visible to the public. But I want to change that in a reasonable time.

And so I stand on both sides at the same time!

-- Wiimm (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am fully on Atlas's side.

• The Wiki states that you can update stuff from other people.
• The Wiki does not state that you can take content from other people and put them in your own port.
• Skipper took stuff from Atlas's version and updated his own version with Atlas's files only one day later.
• It would be like Torran taking my GCN Mushroom City port and putting his name on it and posting it as his versions update.

Tock (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wiimm Skipper actually credited me for the bee object, but I never got contacted by him for that, and same with the honey effect. Now that I checked his files again, it seems like he took them from Honeybee Hideout, specially since I needed to slightly modify the BREFF and BREFT for the effect to work on Wii on my version of 3DSHH, which was after I shared the old files for Honeybee Hideout. Nevertheless, neither the author of that track nor Skipper contacted me about it, a third person did, and I denied to them —Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled at this, Tock saying it was basically taking x track and posted it as y track's update which is complete hyperbole as it was only 2 things whereas everything else is 100% mine (aside from the arena being a port of course), the reason why the honey effect doesn't work was a stupid mistake of mine and my own as I tested it many times and overlooked it and also entirely irrelevant to the case as it was not rushed in opposition to Atlas' point, I had everything ready (including the objects) from around 2 days before but I wanted permission of the bee and honey effect because the arena wasn't publicly available yet so I asked somebody to ask Atlas for me who was initially the author of Honeybee Hideout but he didn't as he said he asked somebody else for them but also extended his point further by saying 'I’ve seen him get like that before. It was one of the reasons why I was afraid to ask him about getting the objects from his port of Honeybee Hive' so I asked the person who the author told to get the object (who did not reply with Atlas' answer oh and also why did Atlas deny me specifically) because of his track record of unreliable Discord replies from my experience but when I wake up the next morning on the 7th, I see Atlas' version was released so my train of thought was that he heard of my update, fixed his up and released it (modifying KMP and fixing Wii crash does not take 6 months looking at your experience with creating this type of stuff) which also made me think releasing the the update today was fine as the content was publicly available and I did make sure I credited Atlas for it, I saw absolutely nothing was wrong with this. Atlas' actions heavily remind me of Wexos, being way to overprotective and overreacting over things like this (but Wexos' actions were not towards me so I don't have first hand experience with it but I do now through you). I would like to bring back my update to the wiki and make it publicly available on the CT archive because all of this is a bunch of nonsense. -Skipper93653 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the reason I denied permission for you to use my stuff was because I was fixing my version that day, so I told them it would be unnecessary to give you the files if my version was going to be released. Secondly, it is clear that you don't understand the hard work I needed to go through to get these objects to work, just so you come by and steal them for your own version. Do you call that being overprotective and overreacting over things like this? Either make your own stuff or respect other authors, to start with. If I never gave you permission to use my stuff, deal with it and don't use it. That being said, I won't let you use the objects at all now. Your point of view is the same as Leseratte's, so I ask you the same thing: would it be okay if I take your version of 3DS Rosalina's Ice World, change a few things and release it as my own version? You wouldn't like that, would you? Also, don't bring Wexos here as he does not have anything to do with this, he quit the MKWii modding community a long time ago because of the toxicity of threads like these, sheesh.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 19:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between taking one's version of a track, changing a few things and re-releasing it; and taking one single object out of a whole track. The first thing would be allowed as a track update on the original track's page, the second is just the same thing everyone has always been doing for ages - or did you ask for Nintendos permission prior to using their item boxes and other objects which thes spent? I can understand that you are annoyed that someone used your stuff in another version just a short time after you released it (and that definitely wasn't a nice move); but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't be allowed to do that. -- Leseratte (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atlas and @Skipper93653

Is it possible to shake hands and to try to get a gentlemen agreement about usage, waiting time and credits?

-- Wiimm (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want all of this to happen at all so yeah, I can credit him like I did originally. -Skipper93653 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)