other_ip_topics

[torpid gull]

And asking people to donate feels awful. I refuse. It's the same principal as incentivizing.

[abstract crest]

No reason to feel awful, every few months I post a message for all the current games servers I run on my discord asking for donations. Every now and again I get one. Simple message: "The end of the month is upon us, the server bills are due so if you'd like to help cover the server bills then donations are very much appreciated on paypal to ..."

Nothing in exchange, no special treatment and no worries if they don't

[woeful inlet]

is there a text copy of the various licenses somewhere that I can use for source distribution? the HTML pages cannot be trivially copied to retain formatting.

[torpid gull]

I could probably extract it for you, if you’d like.

If you drop the link here

[woeful inlet]

lol I tried using claude to just convert the page to markdown, it went alright but did not transfer all of the text. trying to do alert($('.article').text()) on the page too but that doesn't handle lists.

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license-nd

[crimson garden]

For APL-ND specifically I made my own nicely formatted one

https://github.com/DartsArmaMods/AimForTheBushes/blob/main/LICENSE.md

[woeful inlet]

Thank you, exactly what I needed

[woeful inlet]

I do appreciate the effort, but I need a plain text file like the one Dart shared above that makes it easy to read in a code repository. This is a nice conversion though, what did you use?

[torpid gull]

https://obsidian.md

[woeful inlet]

crazy, didn't realize obsidian could do that

[torpid gull]

There you go friend

Hopefully others find it useful and accessible.

Might be missing like 1 or two newlines but that's it.

[icy linden]

Why do you want to redistribute a license that's built into the tools? It's a dropdown box

I guess for a repo?

[vagrant saffron]

theoretically you are not forced to distribute via workshop, people can just download the zip from a repo or a standalone website.

writing „published under APL-XX, of which full text you can google” isn’t really binding in those cases.

[icy linden]

Yeah

I forgot mod files can be present outside of the workshop

[vagrant saffron]

aaand even if you only distribute via workshop, you still want to have some sort of license on the source code (if it’s a public repo)

[normal hill]

Hey Soul - I have a reoccurring issue that delves into RHS - it causes a fatal crash on our server consistently and is very unpredictable when it appears or not time frame ranges from 2 minutes to 10 hours. - I dont know if you guys are aware of this crash or not - but id rather have it out there on your radar

11.04 2025 22:13:28
Unhandled exception

Program: /home/container/ArmaReforgerServer
Reason: Unknown

Class: 'SCR_WeaponAttachmentSuppressorAttributes'
Function: 'ApplyModifiers'
Stack trace:
scripts/Game/Inventory/SCR_WeaponAttachmentSuppressorAttributes.c:43 Function ApplyModifiers
scripts/Game/Weapon/SCR_WeaponStatsManagerComponent.c:18 Function OnWeaponAttachedAttachment
scripts/Game/GameMode/Loadout/RHS_M_PlayerArsenalLoadout.c:46 Function OnLoadoutSpawned
scripts/Game/GameMode/SCR_BaseGameMode.c:1293 Function OnPlayerSpawnFinalize_S
scripts/Game/GameMode/SCR_GameModeCampaign.c:1301 Function OnPlayerSpawnFinalize_S
scripts/Game/GameMode/Respawn/SCR_RespawnSystemComponent.c:357 Function OnPlayerSpawnFinalize_S
scripts/Game/Respawn/RequestHandling/Base/SCR_SpawnHandlerComponent.c:160 Function FinalizeRequest_S
scripts/Game/Respawn/RequestHandling/Base/SCR_SpawnRequestComponent.c:459 Function FinalizeRequest_S
scripts/Game/Respawn/RequestHandling/Base/SCR_SpawnRequestComponent.c:421 Function AwaitFinalization_S
scripts/Game/game.c:924 Function OnUpdate

Runtime mode
CLI params:

[vast stump]

this is not a channel for bug reporting thanks

use RHS bug tracker

[rugged prawn]

As goat said, use our github to report the issue and we will take a look at it

[normal hill]

Already made. after I posted this i looked through the website and made a Github report.

Thanks for your time!

[marble seal]

So, @stuck mortar you were saying that this guy "jic" had done something similar to my case?

Report to [e-mail]

[cyan geyser]

Just want to clear this up, we can obvascate code right? Elan does it and BI Devs work on Elan, so I imagine they are doing it right

[abstract crest]

Obfuscation has not been prohibited yet, but there is some suggestion that it may be in the future #enfusion_generic message

For Reforger at least

[wet narwhal]

@junior rover Ask here if you are still interested in porting a EA games map over to arma reforger.

[junior rover]

I mean yeah, I was looking into it. The problem with current reforger maps is that they arent designed for smaller (relatively) game modes so i figured I’d replicate a successful map

@wet narwhal

[coral juniper]

There are no BI devs on Elan Life dev team.

And if they were, what devs do on their free time does not represent values or stance of the company or project.

[cyan geyser]

Ahh, I see the wording was different than I remembered. I thought at first he was saying that BI Devs had worked on that life mod.

But he was in fact saying, in general authors of life mods now work on reforger

[coral juniper]

Arkensor made EveronLife for example

I've seen many people confuse that with ELAN Life many times

[cyan geyser]

Yeah I think the misconception floats around that they were once, one in the same

[coral juniper]

Anyway, Obfuscation for AR will be prohibited later on. For many technical issues. So don't bank on it

[cyan geyser]

Will there be a future system to protect proprietary scripts?

[coral juniper]

I am playing with the idea of serverside mods, but right now it is just playing with that

We do not really aim for this kind of modding, it's not the platform we aim for.
We want in general for it to be that everything uploaded to workshop to be able to be inspected.

If you do not want that, then don't use our services and not use the workshop.

Only thing we might provide is the server side mods.

[cyan geyser]

I think server side mods is fair

[normal pond]

Aren't server side mods already a thing?
Or am I able to only side load mods from local folder?

[normal pond]

Yeah, life servers competing for players because they are gonna charge 300$ for a custom vehicle will surely be happy about this. (Even when it's fully against monetisation guidelines, they do it anyway)

[normal pond]

Back to server side.

Yes, that needs to be a thing. Especially for mods like OCAP that will exist in the future

[coral juniper]

They are not a thing, only thing is the dynamic script module thing.

[abstract crest]

That functionality would be very much appreciated 🙂

[cyan geyser]

Generalizing Life Servers is woefully ignorant, considering one of the largest servers on Reforger, has and will continue to be a life server and has made 0 IP violations.

In fact, the only IP violations I’ve seen thus far haven’t even been life servers.

[coral juniper]

Obfuscation is not an IP violation

You can get banned for other reasons.

Selling mods, is not always an IP rights violation as well.

It's an EULA and ToU violation sure

[abstract crest]

Good to hear, in ARMA 3 they were pretty much the biggest violators, and in fact the BI Monetization policies were brought in as a direct result of the actions of some in the Life community...

[cyan geyser]

Yeah, I do not believe any reforger life servers have been, or currently do this. However, if you view RHS Blacklist, plenty of traditional servers have been

[normal pond]

That's my A3 experience talking.
Reforger currently probably has a different situation, but once the predatory servers start moving over...

I know of "communities" that have been doing it for years now. Mods external through a3sync/google drive, just get new server when it gets banned/get around the BE block.

When I say, that life servers are the "scum" (Grahame will definitely show up now, scum mentioned), I mean it.
There are PvP events that "compete" for players by offering custom stuff that is obfuscated and unavailable for other events. But they are still free for actual attendees

[abstract crest]

Grahame had already shown up cause Life was mentioned 🙂

[cyan geyser]

A3 and AR enforcement are two different beast, as someone leading a life project currently we have absolutely been doing everything by the book. We have saved links to every building, prop pack, sound effect we use.

Links, receipts, I even post assets in here that I think may look sus on marketplaces

[normal pond]

And that's good.
But the general life server doesn't do that
Again, especially on A3

[abstract crest]

To be fair there were some Life communities and projects doing the right thing in ARMA 3. They were just the minority

[cyan geyser]

The truth is, BI will always view life servers as an issue generally (just from stigma), so will the community. So we are being extra careful

The intent is to change that perception through doing it correctly

[abstract crest]

As I say, without the actions of the Lifers the BI server monetization policies may never have been introduced.

[coral juniper]

There is no bias

It's either you broke rules or not

that is it

[abstract crest]

And CUP and RHS no-monetization policies were initially aimed at preventing Life servers from using them...

[coral juniper]

If you are doing everything properly, then there is no point on you fighting about it

[cyan geyser]

Yeah, the future is now and I really think the stigma can be changed by showing it done correctly.

[coral juniper]

If you are doing nothing wrong then nothing to worry about

[cyan geyser]

Nobody is fighting?

We’re just discussing on the history of it and how to make it better

[coral juniper]

Probably language barrier, I meant no point on discussing it.

[cyan geyser]

Understandable, it’s just constructive conversation

I find it beneficial to have constructive conversations so people can understand each other and clear up misconceptions

[abstract crest]

At least we did get the CUP #350 meme from them though 🤣

[cyan geyser]

That is such a devious thing for that random person to do 🤣🤣

Bro that is hilarious

Thank god we don’t have outside mods

[icy linden]

But it is allowed right?

[dark tulip]

It won't be soon™️ (which means in a couple of years by BI standards)
#other_ip_topics message

[icy linden]

I feel like I've already seen this 5 times

In the past 2 years

[abstract crest]

I mean, historically obfuscation has been an indicator of ripped content. Personally would have no problem with banning it, but I very much do want server side only mods

[meager fractal]

oh so it's time to make it forbidden today then! 😄

[icy linden]

Maybe not immediately but... 2 years?

[meager fractal]

that would make it four years

like, soon™²

[vast stump]

are we establishing soon™️ = 2 years

[jolly jewel]

DarkGru actually was never banned or was told we were violating any of that but that’s a whole different story

[near swallow]

That’s a story I’d like to hear

Dm me with it please I don’t wanna get any clutter or anything in here

[cyan geyser]

Yeah, I was just saying in general. Nothing against DarkGru or anyone on the Blacklist because thats between RHS and those accused

[jolly jewel]

how would that work or be enforced? I remember the one group claiming they were gonna start there own workshop thing but idk how that went in the end

[abstract crest]

Server side mods are for keeping stuff like custom AI scripts, etc private. Not for assets in game, since for that you need the mod on the client and server

[normal pond]

I more wonder how you would decide if a mod is obfuscated.
Half the mods on the a3 workshop look obfuscated even though they aren't, becasue people just aren't software devs with degrees and do this as a hobby.
Now account for reforger being way more harder for a "casual" modder and you got tons of non obfuscated but still looking like it mods.

Ofc that I am talking about the actual code, not about funny stuff like creating a negative size entry in pbo and then abusing engine treating file sizes as signed int, because why not (and third party tools treating them properly and crashing )

[minor cove]

There should be an optional setting on mod upload to "encrypt" the mod, BI can look into it easily in case of copyright violations etc, but everyone else cannot easily rip stuff.
If people want to share their open source stuff, there is no barrier, but people who want to protect their work have a good solution.

[abstract crest]

Maybe like in ARMA 3 now, BI will offer encryption to trusted modders. Encrypted p3ds were offered to A3 modders recently

[icy linden]

I don't know about a3 but it's very clear with enfusion scripting

[abstract crest]

Don't know, I mean Enscript looks obfuscated... I mean it has a .c file suffix but it doesn't look like legit C to me 🤷 😉

I worked 35 years in UNIX and I absolutely despise their stealing of the .c suffix

[meager fractal]

for the record, I tried to change that

[fiery egret]

Would you mind trying again, harder this time?

[abstract crest]

I love that the response when asked was that it was too hard to change now... a file suffix... How spaghettified is the Enfusion code compared to RV then?

A file suffix for the scripting language... for an engine that uses legit .c files...

[meager fractal]

wat

no I think it was mostly because other game engines do so (and also because "not worth the trouble", sure)

[meager fractal]

they won't give me Edita's keys :(

[crimson garden]

Are they like gas station keys, just hanging somewhere?

I'm sure no one would notice if all of their scripts stopped working and got an error saying to rename them to .enf

[abstract crest]

Nothing to do with Enfusion being a 'new" engine and not just a bit of lipstick on Black Element's Enforce engine then?

[abstract crest]

Yeah, can't do it now but if, as the lore goes, Enfusion was a new engine made internally from 2015 then they could presumably have made a better choice of suffix, a couple of years before enscript was added to DZSA

Anyway, those of us that move to Enfusion for ARMA 4 will probably be mass renaming to something like .enf to work in the editor/IDE of our choice and then renaming them back to .c for use in a mod...

[icy linden]

It's obvious when they obfuscate because function names and variable names are randomized, like, basic stuff

[coral juniper]

Anything that comes out as abuse, or exploiting will fall into that category

Its pretty obvious when something is obfuscation vs bad code

[coral juniper]

Its not that. Its the other processes working on that. Countless build processes, CI, tools, plugins, etc etc

Changing all that does not equalize what you gain from changing the extension

It makes it seem useless change

Engine wise is just changing it in certain places

A lot of developers have their own versions as well, not to mention modders as well

The extra support and annoyance people wise and work disruption for that makes it baseless request

So... its too late 😅

[coral juniper]

Things in world editor break for people/modders, with clear red message and verbose and yet they fail to read it

[inland sphinx]

I don't think there's much to enforce there.
It would probably be like the script modules already there, just easier to use

What do you think would need to be enforced here?

[inland sphinx]

Nah that doesn't really work. People will break the encryption and offer decryption tools. It will delay it a bit, but overall be a waste of time.

Giving it only to very few people, and making it hard to break would probably delay it further, but it'll always just delay the inevitable

[tepid lion]

@signal cape you need to debadge your Lada

I’d advise this as car companies aren’t usually fond of their logos in games

Plus it’s their copyright

[minor cove]

True but it would stop probably 95% of the people. That's already enough for most people, like obfuscation now in arma 3.

[icy linden]

License/terms of service is a better way than encryption, because people will decrypt anyway, they will reverse engineer anyway

[minor cove]

But only a fraction of the people who otherwise rip easily accessible stuff will do that if encrypted, because of more barriers (tools are paid, services are paid, or it's just too complicated for them etc).
Could even make "AI" reporting systems, that handles remaining suspected violations automatically.

• Person sends in code/config/model etc and "AI" checks if it was ripped/re-uploaded etc.

[icy linden]

On the other hand, people that respect other creators won't infringe on their rights or licenses

Those that don't respect other creators have no place in this ecosystem in the first place

[abstract crest]

Car thieves have no place in society, we have police and courts to find and deal with them but car thieves still exist. Same for rippers 😉

And we have an increasing range of tech in cars to make it more difficult to steal them

[icy linden]

Unfortunate truth

[normal pond]

People will just start dumping video memory and get the models that way

There's no defending against it

[dark tulip]

And that's why we have manual cars with gear sticks 🤣
Only works in the US though, so the rest of the world is screwed anyway.

Unfortunately, no matter the rules/laws and how much BI helps, it's near impossible for modders to get into a legal process for something "small" like a 3d model, texture, script or even a full mod.
Not to mention that laws are different in different countries, so what might be illegal for you might be completely normal for someone else (like in Russia and China).

[autumn brook]

are we allowed to unbinarize p3d's for examples so long as they are not distributed and are only used for learning? also if yes, what tools can unbinarize p3d's?

[austere hare]

Pretty sure the EULA says you are not allowed to unbinarize .p3ds (although may not mention them directly).
A3 samples have un binaries .p3ds for learning. Plus you can try just asking about what you need to learn in the mod makers channel.
If you show you’re trying your best to learn and have done research but got stuck, you’ll probably find a lot of very helpful people there. I’ve been helped out a ton over the years but remember people are helping because they are nice folk. There is no obligation to!

[autumn brook]

yeah just dont want to be one of those people that asks for a step by step tutorial im trying to setup a robotic arm similar to the ED-1E ugv and cant find much on samples

[vast stump]

No

Model.cfg Animations work all the same way and the examples list all the basics you can use.

Related questions can be asked at #arma3_animation or #arma3_model

Step by step tutorials don't really exist of specific things like this.

[autumn brook]

yeah i know just figured out i could reverse engineer it a bit if allowed thanks for the answer though goat

[blazing epoch]

Is it permissible to crowdfund buying assets? Like if my server hosts a crowdfund to buy a gun 3D model or something that we then release as a normal mod that's not an issue, correct? I would assume not but I figured I'd ask first

[icy linden]

I think it's fine

[humble ravine]

I think this has been discussed previously... It's still classed as receiving funds on the premise of in-game content, so not allowed

#other_ip_topics message

A lot of posts on this topic there. I think there was a more recent discussion too

[blazing epoch]

Okay so if you receive a donation that you're going to use to create more content you're not allowed to state what that money is going towards? That seems kind of arbitrary

[humble ravine]

Idk. I'm just basing that statement off of the discussion I linked

[blazing epoch]

I understand the "nothing in return"/"no transactional interaction" part but I just don't think this falls anywhere near that, that being said I want to confirm with a BI employee or someone who is familiar with the precedent on this specific topic.

[hardy bone]

If I remember right, it the setting a "goal" that would turn a donation into payment, whether this "goal" is for everyone to access freely or for one user doesn't change much.
It's the difference between:
"Help us fund our servers by donating here" and "Our servers cost $x to run, help us by donating here. This month donation $y/$x"

Link to previous messages by Arkensor and MarioE:
#other_ip_topics message

[blazing epoch]

So it's literally about the phrasing

So we can ask for donations, have people donate, put that money towards buying assets/models, but if we tell people that we're spending that money on server upkeep or buying new models, that is then a violation?

Cause like, we wanna follow the rules, that's why I'm asking. It's not really a big deal either way, I just really want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly because it's very nonsensical if this is the case

I guess you could say I'm also confused because several large servers have done this, so I'm guessing their they accidentally violated that rule or there's some disconnect somewhere, I don't want to be dismissive but I'm hoping a BI employee or someone who handled those topics specifically could chime in

[icy linden]

When the money is donated to you then you can do whatever you want with it, since it's not payment

I see no issue with buying models using dono money

But, I'm not a lawyer, so you could talk to one if you need legal advice

[prime pollen]

If a donation has a reward it’s a sale.

U can take a dono to buy a model as long as the model isn’t restricted to one person.
Example: gaming community gets donation, they use donation to buy model and make a mod with it, as long as you are not restricting the use of that mod to one person it’s ok.
People can donate and have you make something for everyone.

As long as you are not getting paid to use any tools Bohemia owns, it should be fine.

You cannot take a ‘donation’ to make somebody a mod.

[vast stump]

donations are given in good faith but do not tie you to do anything

[blazing epoch]

Yeah this is my logic and somehow people are seemingly not understanding what I'm asking and giving me replies that make it seem like they didn't read my post

[blazing epoch]

Yeah I understand all that as I explained in my initial post, I said the mod would be a normal mod and not some sort of request. I'm literally just asking if we are able to post "Hey if you donate this is what we are aiming to buy with the money so we can turn it into a mod and release it for everyone", it's not a tit for tat just transparency of what we intend on doing

Regardless, I think I have my answer here, which is the obvious "yeah just don't make a private mod for someone or engage in tit for tat" which is more or less what my understanding is

[vast stump]

"so we can turn it into mod" part you cant say I think

[normal pond]

look, ask people to donate to obtain models - fine
just don't tell them you're gonna make a arma mod with it it's not like they won't know, but legal

[hardy bone]

Yes, because the phrasing can engage you in doing something, which turn the transaction into a sale and not a donation.
Like it's been said by others, a donation wouldn't tie you to do/make/provide something.

[blazing epoch]

Okay so like I said then, we can do that we just can't literally say that we intend to do that?

Like, we have to obfuscate the fact that we are using the money to buy models

[vast stump]

its just not promising anything specific in return of the money

you dont have to buy the models with the donations either

you can buy pizza if you want

the donation is give to you to support you, but not for soemthing specific

[blazing epoch]

It's not nor intended to be a premise of "pay us to do this" moreso "we intend on buying this 3D model with donations, this is how much we need for that" not unlike a gofundme or something. We do not intend to give people who donate something in exchange, the intent is to be transparent on how we use those donations. Regardless it seems that there's not much of a consensus on this and I'm getting very inconsistent answers so this seems sort of like a can of worms

[stray rover]

As HorribleGoat told you a donation has nothing attached to it. What you are intending to do is clearly not a donation, but asking for funding a 3D model.

[vast stump]

as long as its not arma related that is fine too Id suppose.

but when you ask for donation for 3d model so it gets put into mod it becomes Arma related

[stray rover]

Yeah, just wanted to point out again, as the word "dontation" gets so often misused around here.

[blazing epoch]

That's a much better and more clear way of explaining it I'd say, people here try and give you answers in the form of riddles and a bunch of people without any form of authority come in and it's like talking with two trolls where one always tells the truth and one always lies.

I'd definitely mention the main reason I wanted to clarify here is because other groups had done the same thing for Reforger in the past, so I wanted to see if that was actually allowed or not. I had a hard time believing they'd break the rules so I wanted to make sure I was super clear on what I meant, turns out they likely did but that's another topic that I won't get into

On the real though - how much of this comes down to semantics? Could you have a donation page with a "goal" where it shows that you've received enough in donations to buy an asset as long as you don't mention that it's for arma? Or is the fact that there is a goal for anything, even for example pizza, problematic?

To be clear that's the crux of what I'm trying to understand

I definitely would like a BI employee to chime in because the implications of the ruling that Goat and Kex explained would mean that several high profile mods/server groups have broken TOS. When discussing this with the group I'm with we had some doubts on whether this is actually allowed or not, hence why I'm asking. Some people cited other groups doing the same thing as precedent and that's why I'm confused on this

[vast stump]

Mario will likely reply when hes back from easter vacation.

however I would like you to not call people trolls here

that does not help your case

[blazing epoch]

I'm not calling people trolls, it's a reference to a fable

there's a literal two headed troll that tells riddles and trying to discern what is accurate and what is not is the challenge

I got no dog in this race, I'm fine with whatever the verdict is, I just want to make sure I understand

[vast stump]

sure sure. just not polite to compare people who try to help with such a fable troll

[blazing epoch]

It's less the troll part and more the contradictory information part and the irony of being put in the same position, but I apologize to the people who feel they might have been compared to such a mythical beast

I do appreciate the information people have tried to convey thus far, and I don't want it to seem like I'm saying "I don't believe you" or that I'm "Unhappy with the answer" I just really want to make sure cause that verdict would have a lot of implications

[stray rover]

It essentially comes down to this: #ip_rights_violations message

[blazing epoch]

Not sure I'm following, I've decided this is too much of a sensitive topic for my group to try and implement such a plan. If you're implying that I'm trying to find some way around the rules in a way that is exploitive of them then you have my intentions misread. As I've said, several large server groups and modders (who are not me nor my group!) have done this form of fundraising in the past. If what you are saying is accurate about it being against the rules that would implicate a lot of people in breaking BI TOS, that's why I'm following up with this.

[dark tulip]

Best solution is to send a DM to Mario explaining what and how you plan to do this, and when he's back from vacation I'm sure he'll run it by the legal team and answer you.

[icy linden]

Unless the answer has a lawyer's signature it's worth just as much as any other in this channel

[dark tulip]

* signed by a lawyer

[icy linden]

There we go, now I hold you liable

[simple blade]

We're trying to avoid being "the annoying guy in DMs" as well as have this communicated in public for everyone's benefit, rather than "here's what he said when I asked", but if that's the prescribed method then that's how we'll handle it.

[dark tulip]

If someone is not happy with the answers here, and expects a BI employee to check this (and other) channels every 5 minutes, and then complains no answer is given... Then I suggest to send a DM, especially if information can't be shared in public from the beginning.

Obviously, sending DM's to the green guys/gals just for every stupid question is a no-go, but there are cases were it makes perfect sense and I think that the above is one.

[simple blade]

It's not a complaint, merely an explanation of rationale. As I said, if that's the prescribed method, that's how we'll do it, we just want to make sure we're with the TOS rather than deciding to do now and ask forgiveness later.

[celest sundial]

I believe I explained pooling money to make purchases for your own community or workshop in general not even a week ago. please scroll up a bit in the 2 ip channels and have a look. the tl;dr was that it is allowed as long as there is no purchase happening for the players. aka you donate towards the pool, the money might be purpose bound, but anyone who did not participate gets to equally benefit at the same time. Then its a-ok
If this is about something else please summarize it shortly and I will give you and answers. There is a lot to catch up on over the long easter holiday

[simple blade]

Essentially so long as the donation is not a paywall, that's within TOS?

[celest sundial]

Donations are not against the TOS as they are volunatry contributions WITHOUT counter reward. A benefit that may come out of donations like better server hardware or additional content benefits all players equally, no problem. So this specific case you describe is ok. Anything else always depends on the details so its not easy to generalize. Please read the IP rights biki page and recent FAQ post on the dev hub if you need to know more

[simple blade]

In regards to what we're looking at, all players will have access, thank you for the clarification

[vast stump]

What was asked I think was that can it be said the donation pool goes towards buying a model for a mod, or towards developing a mod. Or should it be more neutral in that.

how much does the wording in that matter?

[celest sundial]

The wording of his chat does not matter, what does is what they do in the end and who recieves the money pooled for what. If if it is some 3d artist selling their models on a site or they hire them to make an FBX model, that is fine. If they spend any amount on someone using our tools to do the importing against payment its not.

[fiery egret]

Tbh I think there still are confusion points here, as your words in the message here #other_ip_topics message seem to be contradicted by Mario in the very next message (unless I'm reading it wrong).

You said

You can absolutely pool together money to purchase something for the community, but it must be available to any member at the same time
And then he said
You can't for example, limit work on a mod explicitly under a budget being reached in Patreon or whatever.

One potentially common scenario that I can imagine would be mod makers stating something along the lines of

1. We're too broke to buy this model so donate us money so that we can afford to do so.
2. We're too broke to afford paying for the server so donate us money so we can keep it running

Assuming they are saying the truth and that any purchase would then be done in a legal manner and compliant with all EULAs, licences, etc... (as that's a different issue), that means that "they are pooling money to purchase something that would then be available to any member", so that would make it OK, according to what you've said.

On the other hand, that would also mean that if they don't get that money, they will not be able to work on improving the mod (no model to work with) or won't be able to pay for the server and will have to shut it down. As a result, this could be understood as "limit work on a mod explicitly under a budget being reached" (not a voluntary limit, but a limit nonetheless), which would make it not OK, according to what Mario said.

It would be good to have an explicit answer for this exact situation as, again, I think this is what people here are asking about from time to time, and are then given conflicting answers, depending on how their question is interpreted.

[celest sundial]

What mario is talking about is taking mod development hostage and only updating it with fixes or content if people "donated" to the mod. Sure someone might not be interested in continung the mod otherwise and may do so if he has x patereon subscribers, but if they actively tell people "unless somebody pays, I am not doing anything" we do not allow it at the moment.

If a community runs out of money and says "unless we get donations we shut down" its totally legitimate, that is what donations are for. The essential point is that members who did not donate must be equally be able to continue to play if others footed the bill

If one person decides to donate to a mod and it is updated, then everyone gets the updated content, then it was a donation. We would in fact encourage server owners to donate to mods that make their servers work and players to donate what they can afford to a server they are regulary playing on. But If anyone uses this pressure and then selectively only allows those "to stay" who donated, its just not a thing right now.

This topic is subject to change as we slowly but surely introduce montization rules to make mod creation and server hosting sustainable (and just that, not sales focussed), but for now thats kinda where it sits. It is common sense.

[abstract crest]

to make mod creation and server hosting sustainable ... man, how have we managed for the last 10 years?

[celest sundial]

Well DayZ and Arma 3 allowed montization, without them the amount of community servers would be a tiny fraction and the game would have never gotten as big in the first place. Reforger simply did not add them yet

[abstract crest]

Yeah, but you're not talking of just applying the same rules are you?

[celest sundial]

We are improving them with lessons learned over the past years.

[abstract crest]

Well, we shall see what we shall see when they are public...

PS: is ARMA 2 also gonna get server monetization at the same time as Reforger?

[dark tulip]

I've been in a lot of communities, and they all had their own servers, and none of them had to apply for the montization list as they only asked for donations from members (which was never enough to keep a server running).
So I really doubt that the montization program benefitted aynone, other than making it more confusion on what was and wasn't allowed in specific cases.

[abstract crest]

Yep, the program is more noted for its violations than successes at this point

[minor cove]

Works for many communities, i know and knew a few that run/ran it only with donations and was in a team that ran it the same way.
Not everyone can pay 120€ a month for a dedicated server out of his own pocket.

[abstract crest]

If you can't afford a dedi without external support then don't run a game server...

[celest sundial]

It works for milsim communities often, but something like KOTH or wasteland servers become expensive to run if you have multiple of them per region.

[jolly jewel]

Currently some of the biggest servers on reforger rely on help to keep up WCS gets there servers for free or else they probably wouldnt have 15-20 of them. DarkGru relied on donations to help run at times 9-10 servers. and im sure the other people can only do it so long. The problem is its an argument as long as time there just needs to be options for server owners to provide servers without taking out a second mortgage.

and this is especially if theres players waiting to play and wanting too. I had to cap my servers because we simply can not afford to keep dishing out over a thousand for dedi boxes that can run several servers monthly. Its great for the community but for us that have to pay for them unfortunately there's limits.

[vast stump]

you are not obliged to run more servers than what you can afford to though. it is fine to do less if thats the limit

[jolly jewel]

well yea thats the point i made by saying i had to cap it because it was becoming unrealistic

[minor cove]

Poor people also wanna take part in society, that's a stupid thing to say.

[vast stump]

one does that in the limits of ones means.

[abstract crest]

I'm relatively poor yet I have an ARMA 3 server that has been constantly online on a dedi since September 2015 (at about $100/month)... I have never monetized it... However, that is my choice to spend money on the game I love rather than spending that money on other things. So I have little sympathy tbh...

[minor cove]

Some people have the means in knowledge and time to run a servers, and the community has the means for the servers costs.
I don't really see a problem with that.

[icy linden]

Yeah but WCS raises like 583 billion dollars with donations every week so it's def possible

[abstract crest]

If the community really has the desire then they can donate...

Many of the biggest Reforger servers won't be able to monetize anyway, even when it is allowed...

[minor cove]

I have 450€ a month to live after paying rent and shit, 100€ would mean no food for the last week of the month.
That's relatively poor 😛

[abstract crest]

Then find a good server and donate to support it...

Become friends with the owner, help develop it if you can...

I have friends who help me out for free, either as admins, helping dev POIs, etc.

[minor cove]

I stopped playing/running servers 2 years ago, not my issue, i see the issue from the admin/dev side.

[jolly jewel]

100 is lauaghable for a reforger dedi. Most rented servers are more than that. i wouldn't be crying if it was $100 a month i suppose

[jolly jewel]

yea the owner thats a streamer has alot of streamer friends so definitely easier to get good publicity on it. a good recipe forsure

[abstract crest]

Aren't most of their servers unable to monetize even if BI allow it?

[near swallow]

I don’t think the servers themselves are being monetised I think the streamers are just donating money

[abstract crest]

They aren't being monetized, but don't most of them use RHS? That forbids use on monetized servers even if they are approved by BI

[near swallow]

Yes I do believe monetisation of servers that use rhs is prohibited by their eula

Or something

[icy linden]

WCS have the RHS logo on their stuff so I doubt that would have happened if it was breaking eula

[shell scaffold]

“for free” 🤣

[near swallow]

You gonna prove him wrong?

[shell scaffold]

you actually think 18 reforger instances across the globe are provided for free?

at literally no cost?

[near swallow]

Well they could be

[shell scaffold]

nothing in this world is truly free my naïve friend

[vast stump]

anyway

not really the place to discuss such

[jolly jewel]

I mean i guess there word vs yours lmao

[blazing epoch]

Thank you for the clarification, that makes sense to me and I appreciate the response 🫡

[shell scaffold]

if you did maybe 5 seconds of research in their discord instead of blurting out arbitrary and senseless statements you would find out you are wrong. 🤷

[vast stump]

@shell scaffold @jolly jewel no need to continue further

I guess I have to be more clear from now on and always mention the people who need to take heed of the guidance.

[vast stump]

Unnecessary

[gaunt oracle]

👋 Hey guys, unfortunately I'm dealing with another content thief. 😸 This time they reverse-engineered my map, modified and are using it on a pay to play DayZ server. They're saying that that they got the source files from some third party, there was no read me file included so they can basically do whatever they want.

They have also uploaded it to DayZ launcher.

They've even posted photos of themelves "working" on the map on their fan page. 😸

What is the best way to deal with this issue?

[hardy bone]

Talk to the server provider or ISP for a DMCA?

[gaunt oracle]

I forgot to mention that the mod is private on DayZ Launcher so I don't have a link to include in the DMCA.

All I have is this picture from their page.

[minor cove]

If it's a RuSSian hoster, they don't care about any laws.....

[hardy bone]

True

[abstract crest]

Not having a readme included implies no license for them to do anything. But anyway, it's Taviana which is well known to be APL licensed, i.e. ARMA only. Does the DayZ webcrawler maybe help with hidden mods?

I thought that the ARMA one could find private mods???

[gaunt oracle]

I tried explaining that to them but they just kept playing stupid. 😸

I'll check out the DayZ Webcrawler and see. I don't know much about this stuff because I don't really play DayZ. I'm waiting for ArmA 4. 😳

[abstract crest]

Yeah, I uninstalled DayZ a while ago

[meager fractal]

@frigid pendant here

[prime pollen]

Icebreakr made that map

[abstract crest]

No, Martin made that map lol...

That map is Taviana

[zenith turret]

Martin is the taviana origins owner?

[abstract crest]

Yeah

[zenith turret]

oh shoot..

@gaunt oracle ill help u remake that map for reforger... one of my all time favorite maps

also been working on something similar to origins....

the most fun i ever had on arma was on that map

[gaunt oracle]

Thanks for the offer, but we bears are solitary by nature. We'll see what ArmA 4 is like, and perhaps then I'll get back into making some addons. 😉

[zenith turret]

Bears and Gators can be friends ;), ill dm you a preview of the map ive made for reforger

[pliant oracle]

a start of a beautiful friendship in modding community, a rare sight to find nowadays

[gaunt oracle]

Considering that I'm a fat bear and alligators have the strongest bite force of all creatures, we can only be long-distance friends. 😟

[prime pollen]

Hehe woooops my bad

[fluid garnet]

Quick question
Is this allowed on a custom EULA for a mod in Reforger?
https://gyazo.com/2774d833188340b93564fa55b733233c

[dark tulip]

Custom licenses are completely fine, as long as it doesn't conflict with the Arma TOS/EULA.

[fluid garnet]

I know custom licenses are fine, but I was wondering about that specific clause and if it clashes with arma's

[celest sundial]

While I see no grounds for it being against compliance clause of workshop ToS, as explained in our recent ip rights FAQ (see dev hub website) this is hardly enforceable. But on a personal level I think I can understand why they do it and it should be respected. Exception would be if said permission to host is tied to payment, then please let us know and the mod would be removed.

[fluid garnet]

I'm down to respect it, I have no issue with it, especially because they mention it is while they are developing it further
I was just curious

Good to know

[vagrant saffron]

there should be a vanilla solution to help with this, especially since you’re actively restricting measures to enforce it (custom DRMs)

[dark tulip]

The license is the general solution, and is a "legal" document.

BI is not a legal company, and only has to follow the law when it applies to them (eg. illegal mod on workshop), and not handling usage by clients and servers.

[vagrant saffron]

no, it's a dead law, I can just as well write in my EULA that the sky is green and users acknowledge that I'm the pope. I have no means to detect that someone on another continent is running my mods without my permissions, nor any real way to take action. moreover if they live in 3rd world countries that don't really care about IP rights.

you're right that BI only has to follow the law that applies to them. it doesn't even have to support modding at all. but flipping the coin, we don't have to buy the products, work on the mods and so on. such statements don't go anywhere constructively.

it has nothing to do with being a legal company, I'm not saying BI should go legally after violators. but only BI has the technical means to help. for example let mod authors define server whitelists/blacklists for running the mods on the workshop. nowhere near bulletproof and still can be worked around, but it's a start.

again, if you're tying our hands with custom DRMs, at least supply some alternate solution in exchange. otherwise it's unfair, because BI is a multi-million company and can enforce it's rights - and we are not.

[vast stump]

people used to make mods for others to use. no to lock them up into sinlge servers "to be the best server"

[vagrant saffron]

people also used to ignore any and all IP matters years ago in modding scenes. and personally I liked that wild west situation more than the current state of publisher-controlled modding communities

[meager fractal]

ok 🤷‍♂️

[dark tulip]

Problem is that the serious modders are leaving due to this wild west... Resulting in less mods and less quality...

So I'm happy that BI is at least providing some support to fight it.

[rugged prawn]

aaa thats a bit like saying "dont put password on your server so that everyone can play on it" a bit no?

[vagrant saffron]

it doesn't make sense. the wild west was the initial state decades ago, it is not now. so how come it's the reason the serious modders are leaving, and there are less mods and less quality?

[pliant oracle]

people stealing other people's assets and mods, causing the original author to quit during the wildest time

[vagrant saffron]

but you can argue against that stance in the same way - people used to do assets and mods for others to use, not for ego trips about who the author is. in those wild times authors weren't losing their minds about attribution so much. it was fun to make stuff and see others enjoying it.

or maybe those who cared about it so much just refrained from doing anything. still I wouldn't say there were less mods and of lesser quality

[dark tulip]

Decades ago people respected each other's work and didn't steal/rip/whatever...

Nowadays people think it's easy money to randomly grab stuff from others, put their name on it and call it the day.

[icy linden]

I think it was same ages ago. There is just easier access now so more opportunities for people to do it.

[vagrant saffron]

oh no, they did it and it was much more prevalent. for the context, I mean early 2000s to early 2010s. there were beefs and dramas, but nobody really cared about that so much.

and I think this was also because there was no money involved. maybe except for US and paypal, there weren't even any means to securely transfer money, especially internationally, so there couldn't be money involved even if both parties wanted to.

[meager fractal]

there were beefs and dramas
nullifying your point of "people used to do assets and mods for others to use, not for ego trips about who the author is" 😛

Wheaton's Law as usual - if someone makes something for free for the community, don't steal it, relabel it and make money off of it - that's just a dick move

[vagrant saffron]

point for you, I chuckled on this remark, but my point was: there were dramas, but nobody cared. neighborhood watch didn't go after someone because they retextured someone else's vehicle.

[meager fractal]

I definitely believe the monetisation brought it upon the modding scene yes

I mean, at this scale

[vagrant saffron]

100% percent agree, making money off of someone else's work is scummy and should be punished into oblivion. but unless there is money involved, I make stuff for free and fun, and you modify my stuff for free and fun, there is no crime and no victim. and I believe monetization, and professionalization of the modding scene broke that attitude

and my whole point is - current state is partly wild west, partly not. I can't grab any texture and modify it, because that is enforced. but I can break any modder EULA and they can't do whack about it. it shouldn't go both ways

and I understand that enforcing IP rights on workshop is a must, because BI is legally responsible for this as a publisher. but it doesn't mean it can't also help modders in executing their rights via their platform, not involving legal actions

[mossy yarrow]

Modding goes into a bad direction in general. There are people who sell ripped content via patreon, ask for money to import ripped stuff and so on...

Not actually on Arma but for GTA5

[vast stump]

I guess that should not even be called modding.

[mossy yarrow]

Agree

[silent yarrow]

Hey guys, I'm planning on working with some freelancers to develop custom assets to my mod, is there any legal document or contract template I'd need signed to transfer ownership and do a proper IP assignment?

[normal pond]

even on arma... life servers getting paid good money to import ripped gta v vehicles

[vast stump]

You would need to consult a lawyer for such.

[willow crane]

You need to look into a "Deed of rights transfer" template. 😉

[mossy yarrow]

Jesus...

[abstract crest]

Just Lifers being Lifers...

[rich quarry]

Marioe, I would like to get advice on tos compliant drm. Lets say i have content mod, that adds vehicle. I would like prevent some players use that vehicle, since they talk shit about my mod attempts. What DRM mechanism you can suggest, as a lead of IP team? Namely:

1 How it should behave when blacklisted player attempts to interact with vehicle?
2 where blacklist should be stored?

[frigid bay]

Quick question: Am I allowed to use custom DRM systems such as:

a) Encrypting models until a player joins the server?

b) Storing all entity positions server-side and placing entities in the correct positions when a player joins?

c) Basic local code encryption (e.g., making variables unreadable, etc.)?

I already have these systems up and running. However, I know there was a major discussion about this, and I heard it might be prohibited.

[frigid bay]

Joining only my server*

[inland sphinx]

Which game?
I wonder how you'd want to do a, because the engine can't do that.
b, not sure what you mean by that. How would that be a DRM measure?
c, not on reforger workshop, obfuscation is forbidden because it could hide malicious code

[minor cove]

Could you still just do that?

• Mod requires functions XYZ to work, function XYZ is only on the server and gets transmitted to client (Not sure if this also works for Reforger).
  Not really malicious so guess it would be ok?

[inland sphinx]

you cannot transfer code on reforger

[frigid bay]

Arma Reforger / Enfusion
a) Well encrypt is bad wording. It’s more of a, the model is split up in different parts, etc. And are only „put together by the server“ sending the missing Information to the client.

b) When a client downloads our mod and tries to run our Scenario / Map, it will be empty (only the terrain and a few entities remain) Everything else is being send by the server to the client. This way the client would have to rebuild the whole map with the „obfuscated“ models.

c) Hmh… alright… So things like a=b, etc. Wouldnt be allowed…

[inland sphinx]

Well your a/b sounds fine to me. I don't know what Mario thinks about it.
If your clientside mod, requires server side information to work, and without it just gives you an emtpy map. That's fine.
It cannot break the game and cannot have malicious code in it. Yours sounds like neither is the case.

[minor cove]

"you cannot transfer code on reforger"
Hope this changes for Arma 4 😆
"Serverside client code" is a must against cheaters and thieves

[frigid bay]

Well the models / prefabs are also unusable. Like the client will see all of them. But when placing they are invisible 99% of the time

[inland sphinx]

serverside code is a thing, but transferring functions to clients is not

[frigid bay]

But than It’s fine for me. Losing a little Performance for the client, but I take that instead of other servers using my mod lol

[meager bolt]

isn’t intentionally causing performance loss malicious 😭

[frigid bay]

Not in that way i guess. It’s not like I want it, because it only applies when joining my server. But this way my stuff is protected

[meager bolt]

If you don’t want it then don’t do it? You could let people use your assets on other servers and be like every other normal mod, you don’t have to make a blacklist script just bc u don’t like people, its silly

[copper crescent]

Just incredibly overcomplicated and a waste of your time to simply have to dance on the legality of said feature

[frigid bay]

Nope, not doing that. It has not only the reason for forbidding other servers / users to use it. But also preventing that players can just see the whole map.

Also we are talking about 5%-10% performance loss. For that I know that it’s very unlikely if someone can rip any assets from it. And if someone can I can easily DMCA Claim it.

[copper crescent]

Simply playing with your ability to upload at all without the clarification or permission from BI, and seeing the current climate of what just happened. I’d say that directly impacts the playability of the game for another player; which in turn is a violation of the EULA.

[frigid bay]

Its already done, takes not that much of time to script it. But i was unsure if its allowed

[meager bolt]

5-10% is still a bad intentional performance loss no matter what your reasoning is 😭

[copper crescent]

Well don’t post it then 😂 cause you’ll get a ban

It’s not allowed

[frigid bay]

.

[copper crescent]

I keep seeing is “x” okay, is this that or the third allowed? Email BI if you want directly clarification on the EULA and what is and isn’t allowed: your only going to get conflicting answers here from people who “understand” the EULA to the best of their reasonable reading level

[frigid bay]

Mhm, maybe i will do it. But for now I will just use it. If it’s not allowed, it‘s 5min of work to remove it

[copper crescent]

that is a stupid risk to take over a ban, they won't warn you in the instance of malicious code.

Wait for your answer and don't jeopradize your ability to mod on this game.

It will be a immediate lifetime ban, if brought to the violations team.

Wait for your answer, and then post it once given clarification.

directly from the man who runs the workshop IP side of things.

[frigid bay]

Point a) btw. Doesn‘t have any Performance loss, only point b)

Instead of just using a single model for a vest, i split it up in like 30 with some deformation. Only the server has the correct data to put Everything together. Users can try it manually, but it will look bad or will just take 20h for a single Model

[copper crescent]

I will once again echo as you talk to a brick wall

have a wonderful rest of your day

[frigid bay]

And we are not Talking about a script that will cause performance loss or contains malicious code.

[vast stump]

I would consider it from point of view of worksop moderation and that kind of system might be used to hide ripped/stolen assets.

Which might not be looked kindly at.

The advice to wait for BI response is good and makes less work for both parties.

[rich quarry]

@coral juniper

[rich quarry]

anybody will be able to.. just open your mod in workbench.

[rich quarry]

suspicion means nothing. only fact of having ripped assets. to me it sounds like quite complex and legal system atm

if prohibited player launches this mod - he will see nothing..and thats quite literally what mario said is required as DRM.

no performance loss, no mod either. if allowed player launches the mod - he sees the contents. and it takes some hit on performance,as i understood. almost as if loading soemthing needs more resources than not loading something.

i mean, yeah, just make your mod not requre any ram or gpu resources, otherwise you impacting performance and gonn get banned

[vast stump]

I guess don't block Mario with it

And try hide stuff

[frigid bay]

You can open it, but map is empty since no object has been placed / spawned yet.
Only the server gives you the information which is not saved on the client.

And the models are not like one piece, but they need to be put together.
So like 1 model has 30 pieces cuting up that model.

[frigid bay]

Every mod requires Ram and GPU resources.
Else you could say every mod needs to be banned because it's not optimized and uses 150k verts for one gun.
Eventho 50k would be more than enough. But a lot of people are just unexpirienced or just buy assets which are not game ready.

My resources are very optimized, since everything is made by my team / people I pay.
It's just, that my mod would make more draw calls then usually.

But most other mods use 10x the amount of draw calls.

And if option a is also not allowed, then the persistence mod from arkensor is breaking TOS from Arma, because it's build up on the exact same system lol.

[rich quarry]

arkensor is excluded from tos i thnk

he is literally bi dev

thereferoe eula does not really apply to him in usual way

[frigid bay]

If you don't know it, then don't answer something that is wrong lol

a) His mod was even released before he was in the BI team.
b) Everyone has to follow BI TOS lol. There is no "oh he is a bi dev, he has not to follow the rules".

Also not only his mod does it... There are multiple ones.
For example the mod which spawns loot in the world.

[coral juniper]

Guids are not prohibited on by itself. Names and storing that on a metric server on the other hand is (Given that real names could be there).

There is no framework set in place for modders and collection of data from their side, so anything that would be a privacy concern is moderated

Usage of the data is a factor as well

And BI employees can also get banned 😅

BI devs doing things on their free time falls into the same as normal users

Only exception to rules and what not are our own official mods

[abstract crest]

Honest question, if you region lock (somehow) a server to the US do the GDPR-based rules still apply?

[minor cove]

Shouldn't that be a legitimate interest, as long the rest is GDPR conform.
You can store this info (Nicknames, GUID etc)

Inform the player on his first session about it with accept button.

When i read about what is really needed, i don't think a single game does obey all rules.

• Access - User can request what data you hold about them.
• Rectification - Must allow correction of incorrect data.
• Erasure ("Right to be Forgotten"): Must delete data if the user requests and no legal reason prevents it.

Also with this rules, cheaters could force Anti-cheat providers to delete their info (Global ban etc) ?!
Nvm, they can't. As server admin you can also use the same reasoning to store this data then i guess.
If the anti-cheat provider is storing ban records or identifiers to prevent repeat cheating, they can often legally justify keeping that data under:

• Legitimate interest (e.g., keeping their platform fair and secure)
• Network security and fraud prevention (Recital 49)
• You can still ask what data they hold and request access (Article 15), but: They do not have to delete your ban or cheat flag if they can justify keeping it for the platform’s protection.

https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/recital-49-GDPR.htm

[abstract crest]

And GDPR rules have no enforcement in the United States... so long as everyone is in the US

Relating to that storing data, I have ten years of stored logs for my ARMA 3 server including Steam GUIDs and every chat message 😉

Helpful when someone comes back five years later and asks for a ban to be removed... 🤷

[minor cove]

I only have the 4k entry strong ban list left from running servers.
We used Battlemetrics back then to handle/store all the information.

[abstract crest]

I rely on server bans, infiSTAR's global ban list and BattlEye's ban list

[covert bear]

weak sauce 😄

[abstract crest]

Is that BI's for officials?

[covert bear]

no

[abstract crest]

Oof... only banned 90 people in 10 years (server used to be very active, 40 players on regularly), but then as I say, infiSTAR global bans kept a lot away

[rich quarry]

i dont remember edetails, but do remember that infistar did some very false bans and tehre was no recovery from that. it was like 5 years ago? since then, i have no respect for infistar

[rich quarry]

i would like you to answer to my question

[coral juniper]

I already told you that it cant mess with the game functioning, just disable your mod features and that is it.
We wont endorse any sort of DRM any way. As long as it does not cripple the game, or make your mod mess with their own features in a way that it deteriorates the game in a way that is different than if your mod was not there in such case then it will be okay.

[rich quarry]

any examples of eula-compliant DRM behaviour?
content - Car mod to be precise

[coral juniper]

For servers for example. Despawn the car as soon as it spawns for example. (As long as it is your own custom car and not just an addition to an existing one). Also tell the server in a non flooding manner why the car despawned.

For client, just do not allow them to drive it or such.

Also tell them why

[rich quarry]

I am more interested when car laready spawned by normal player, they sit in it and then nongrata person decides to enter

aha.

"seems you lost your keys to this vehicle"

[coral juniper]

The issue is usually both intent and behavior

[rich quarry]

Another question.
How and where would one store identifying information about such players?

[coral juniper]

For example, a car lock mod does not get treated the as the intent is diferent

But a DRM locking the car is different due to intent

If you want to always be safe, always make the intent clear.

Anyway if there is room for confusion, or there was a mistake. If you get banned then you can appeal. Non appeals are for when there is no doubt.

@rich quarry does that answer your question?

[rich quarry]

Partially. I get that i should inform player if he is restricted from content, stating reason. that is understandable

[rich quarry]

but this part

Wont they be able to just.. override drm part?

e.g. i make CarMod

[meager fractal]

yes, a mod is always overridable.

[rich quarry]

they make "CarModUnlocker" mod, where they simply override theroretical .txt file with banned arma IDs \ Steam IDs in it with empty one, thus completely bypassing drm.

[meager fractal]

modded bool CanPlayerDrive() { return true; }

[rich quarry]

i am not a programmer in any way, so that line doesnt tell me anything

but colors sure are pretty

[coral juniper]

This is why the idea to provide filter of allowed or disallowed servers on workshop was proposed. To remove headaches from our side and players/modders side.

[rich quarry]

...so like disallowedServers..txt inside mod, that will get scanned and then server will refuse load mod if it finds itself in it?

[coral juniper]

Idk. I just brought it up to the table a while ago for possible future.

No work being done on that regard yet. There are higher priorities that we are handling like server monetization.

[minor cove]

Option to either choose whitelist or blacklist doesn't sound to bad 🤔

[coral juniper]

It would definitely avoid unfortunate cases like the recent one

Also reduce possibility of such DRMs to keep spreading.

[rich quarry]

im pretty sure it will spread

unless there will be official mechanisms

so there is no need for selfmade DRM

hopefully what will come with monetization changes

if they will ever appear

[coral juniper]

That is what i meant

[shell scaffold]

that "unfourtunate" situation could've also been avoided if bad actors running servers were also punished beforehand IMO.

[coral juniper]

If we provide what i mention, it highly reduces the likelyhood

[coral juniper]

I know, unfortunately server banning is not something in my area. But i agree.

[silent yarrow]

Thanks for the help, sorry the late reply. Busy week here

[willow crane]

No problem.

[cosmic herald]

Regarding The Content does not contain anything that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory, libelous, or racially, sexually, religiously, or otherwise objectionable or offensive or anything that contains nudity, excessive violence, or offensive subject matter or that contains a link to such content., I’m assuming that this includes having any of the AXIS powers - including but not limited to early-mid 20th century Germany? I’m interested in working on mods for this time frame, but don’t want to do anything that will get me banned from the workshop.

To my understanding, it's possible to do this by removing all references to any sort of "symbols" for lack of a better term that these armies used during those times.

But as for a map, is it over the top to add run down camps that you would have seen during this time, where horrible things would've been done? I presume that this might go too far... I guess my question is how close to ww2 can I get without it being construed as offensive to any group of people?

[humble ravine]

I would think that depicting swastikas, even in a historical context wouldn't be allowed. Too much potential for abuse.

As for depicting concentration camps, which I think is what you're eluding to, would also be a bit of a fine line. There's plenty of battlefields though for WW2, do you really need to use that as a setpiece?

[frosty oar]

I think you would do best from avoiding that in general, plenty of other things you could do

[cosmic herald]

Yea wasn’t planning on depicting those haha thank you. And I’ll probably stick to just your common iconic battlefields instead.

[cosmic herald]

Not sure about this. I think avoiding any reference to the AXIS powers is good enough. Not including their faction name, removing all patches from clothing that I model, etc. Kinda just like a fictional world at that point while still exploring that part of history.

[meager fractal]

you know, it's not "axis = all nazis" and "allied = all angels"
the Spearhead 1944 CDLC depicts the Wehrmacht, one could also depict Italy, USSR etc
where the tricky part is would be to depict known terrorist groups, known warcrimers, now-forbidden ideologies, etc

nowhere do I say this is a guideline, but it is a good general rule of thumb

[cosmic herald]

I gotcha thanks for the response Lou. Will do.

[sour ember]

if anyone knows about non-royalty free music ?

I guess there's nothing we can do, right?

[meager fractal]

what do you mean? do you want free (royalty-free) music or paid (w/ royalties) music?

[sour ember]

paid music

[meager fractal]

you can ask for permission, as usual

[sour ember]

Okay, and if he asks us to pay for the rights monthly, is that okay?

[pliant oracle]

Kevin McLeod comes to mind

i may type the wrong name.. will check later after i awake

[meager fractal]

well, if you can afford it, it is totally possible to pay? I don't get your question
given it is for a community release (I assume), it is better to pay a one-time fee

[sour ember]

So I can make a mod with paid music, publish it and I won’t have any problem on the part of bohemia as long as I pay for the rights of the music?

[covert bear]

As long as the artists license allows it, yes
but be sure to clearly read the license terms since there isn't really a way to prevent people from extracting the music, that might change things license wise

[coral juniper]

There are licenses, for example very common on 3D assets where they explicitly only allow you to distribute in a product the worked asset under the condition that said asset is an in-house proprietary format that is not open or easily accessible to users of your product. In Enfusion we do not have a propietary audio file format so it could be an issue.

[sour ember]

Thanks !

[mossy yarrow]

So i cant make Factions called Al Quaida, Taliban etc ?

How did some Mods got away with it ?

[meager fractal]

according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups, they are not (anymore?) in the big list
but it is true that it is a heavily touchy subject
I assume also because it's "farther" from Europe the human bias makes it that we players tend to check less

[mossy yarrow]

So safe way would be to just call them insurgents but can their look be inspired by the real ones ?

[meager fractal]

I don't think that's any issue yes

[mossy yarrow]

Alright

[blazing epoch]

Do you guys just go by EU designation? There's a lot of contradictory designations on the list otherwise

[meager fractal]

there is no public official guideline regarding that. however, we definitely take care of the blatant terrorism/warcrime promotion when we encounter it

[abstract crest]

Can I report Laws of War DLC for facilitating in game war crimes? 😜

[meager fractal]

nobody disses LoW on my watch!!1!

[abstract crest]

Never dissed it 😉

[tepid lion]

🇨🇦

[light hazel]

As I asked on the other channel and after reading this, I imagine then that something like bomb vests even if fictitious, comes in as offensive subject matter perhaps, no?

Just to remove them and avoid problems, since my focus is to bring back the insurgents from Arma 2, not to represent anything real and much less offensive

[coral juniper]

Depends on how it is used in the mod

It's like guns, by themselves they are neutral. Usage changes the meaning

[coral juniper]

Main issue in this case was the portrayal of a real life group.

[subtle spade]

Soo like if the mod makers make it to not be used in a offensive way but people do use it that way will that get the mod taken down

[coral juniper]

workshop bans are based on the direct mod content. Not on player's usage

Players get banned then if they go into that

Same for servers

[subtle spade]

Ok making sure thank you also glad to see ya it’s been a long time

[light hazel]

For now I have one that is literally a normal vest with a timer like the vanilla charges, I had in mind to add some by “collision” of a bullet in it. If there is no problem with this use, I'll keep it since after all is a fictitious group, but if it's a problem I'll make an update removing it and that's it, no problems ^^

[dark radish]

They only get away with it until they don't any more

[rancid stone]

so the only real life groups we can portray are the us army and ussr? o.O

[abstract crest]

Good reason to stay with ARMA 3 😉

Especially if they are going to ban private servers and players on them for "inappropriate" use of mods

[fathom yarrow]

rules for you not for me <:^)

[abstract crest]

Not for me, I play ARMA 3 😛

[coral juniper]

It's more regarding the behavior of players in game, unrelated to mods.

[abstract crest]

Ah, then sorry. I misread that in the context of the thread of chat 👍

I ban players myself for general douchiness

[abstract crest]

But it didn't seem that you were talking about players bringing out of game stuff into comms, etc, but just doing what might need to be done in a realistic Antistasi campaign

[coral juniper]

What they do in the game, not only comms is bannable and has been banned before

Like drawing certain symbols, derogatory terms, etc with supplies, map markers, etc

Or certain game behavior (Even RP)

After all, there is a code of conduct that they agreed on on the game eula and service

[coral juniper]

I replied with examples hours ago but the discord server timed me out as well 😅

[blazing epoch]

you're talking about like, banning players from the game over that? I think that's a pretty normal rule, but how does that even work? Like if some guy breaks one of these rules, spamming slurs or drawing a swastika or whatever, how do you even report that? And realistically what's that process look like in terms of likeliness of action being taken?

[prime pollen]

How is this enforced?

[meager fractal]

one BI employee behind every player

[coral juniper]

Explained here
https://reforger.armaplatform.com/eula

[coral juniper]

On the player menu

[abstract crest]

Hmm, the EULA does not mention anything about portraying unpleasant real world groups, or acting like them though, which again, seemed to be lumped in here as a prohibition...

[coral juniper]

There is the EULA, and there is the administrative rules.
Certain rules are there in order to mantain some peace or avoid rights issues.

General issue with the real world groups is that most often people do not have permission to use the names and identity on the game, others are due to behavior sanity, others are for problematics, etc

[coral juniper]

EULA also points to the services ToU which states that at any reason or for no reason at all we can remove your usage of the systems we provide.

Which is used for the administrative rules which are only taken into effect when something quite bad happens.

You do not get banned just because we did not like something

That Taliban mod was banned on itself, but the user was not banned.

You won't see specific rules being pointed out and explained as they have to be kept generic enough for people to not try to bypass it.

In general, most of the issues are the same as in any other platform and most of the time are behavioral issues.

Just use common sense with the behavioral ones. Would you do/perform what you do or say in game in real life in a full public place?. No?, then most likely to get you in trouble.

If you are going to use something from real life that links directly to a real life group or brand, then you must be sure you have rights to do so for the purposes of the game, player content and mod. Otherwise not allowed.

In case of ToU, it explicitly disallows any linkage for those things if not allowed. Which can be done through a group.

Basically, if you are going to touch a sensitive topic then you open yourself to fall into these things. If you want to always be on the green then avoid such things.

[abstract crest]

I did wonder though about that Taliban mod given that that group are not on the EU or US designated terror group lists?

[coral juniper]

It's the same thing for brands in the game, for example if I recall RHS got explicit permission from the owner of a clothing/equipment company in order to use in game.

That links to a real life group/brand, but it is allowed as explicit proper permission was given

[icy linden]

Hello mr taliban can I use your brand name in my arma reforger mod

[coral juniper]

@abstract crest Anyway these kind of bans regarding groups/brands are generally appealable, either by showing proof or removing the tricky/offending content. If behavior is repeated twice then after that it is account ban due to behavioral issue.

The mod ban message people receive like in this case usually also mention that they can remove offending content.

[real cliff]

uumm hello, mr german man, I know it's 1941 but can I use your symbols and tanks in my arma mod?

🙏

[rancid stone]

There goes my Taliban vs ussr invasion scenario. I thought I'd be fine since it actually happened in the time period of the game, but I guess that's not allowed? 🤦‍♂️

[exotic nova]

Can you not use ww2 german tanks?

[coral juniper]

Just make it fictitious, that is the whole issue.

[humble ravine]

Surely you could just call them the Mujahideen, since that's a blanket term and not an organisation

Plus it's a bit weird to use such an anachronism assuming you're setting it in the 79-89 conflict?

[blazing epoch]

I am also curious if using the Mujahideen would be an acceptable move since they don't exist anymore

[rancid stone]

Probably best to just call them something like guerillas or insurgents. And yeah I meant mujahideen, I didn't mean to call them the Taliban, oops lol!

[humble ravine]

Mujahideen isn't a group, it would be like calling the Vietcong the 'Guerillas'

Only instance I could see BI not allowing that as a name would be the religious connection 🤷‍♂️

[blazing epoch]

That's not exactly correct but I'm not gonna argue historical semantics here, it should be fine and it a better fit for a 1980's campaign regardless

[humble ravine]

It's just a plural of 'mujahid'. Which is someone engaged in jihad.

Whilst semantical I think it would be good to hear as well from BI if such a term would be problematic

[blazing epoch]

I'm familiar with the linguistics of the word, I study the period for work. I don't know what point you're getting at/trying to add aside from being pedantic here, of course BI would have to weigh in.

[humble ravine]

Your reply seemed to imply that my understanding of it being a blanket term and not a defined group (which would be against the EULA) was wrong, that's the only reason I mentioned it

I didn't mean to come off as being pedantic, but the implementation of the rules when it comes to groups does seem, well, pedantic

[blazing epoch]

Yeah I guess, but it just seems more about historical musings, I don't think for this whole point with bohemia the Mujahideen being a centralized group matters much so much as the movement that existed no longer being a direct 1 to 1 of what exists currently, that's my main point

[humble ravine]

Yeah okay -- I see your point. Fair enough.

[blazing epoch]

Regardless of whether it was centralized or a "movement" is the thing, since they don't really engage in that line of thinking when it comes to extremist ideologies such as fascism or ethno-nationalism

[vagrant saffron]

so talibans vs ussr is bad, but ussr in the base game is ok? did BI get a permission from russian federation (which is the legal successor to ussr)?

[old jay]

https://tenor.com/view/the-chosen-jesus-point-look-up-smiling-gif-18032168

[dark tulip]

NOTE: this is NOT a legal answer, or from BI in any way

I did a quick ChatGPT (I know) and asked about the use of terrorism in games, which gave some interesting results.

• Most countries allow video games to depict terrorism in a fictional context like the Arma-verse with US/EU vs USSR/China/Middle East/etc, and fall under "freedom of expression".

• Games that promote real-world terrorist groups, use official symbols, or act as propaganda are often banned or prosecuted, which can be seen in several mods (and are currently flagged/banned on the Reforger Workshop) by containing swastikas, ISIS flags, Z-symbols, etc.

And the most interesting one:

• Major platforms and storefronts (Steam, PlayStation, Xbox) enforce content policies prohibiting games ..., even though we know that Valve/Steam doesn't really care about anything, MS and Sony seem to be a lot stricter and therfor BI has to be a lot stricter in enforcing it on their workshop.

source: https://chatgpt.com/share/682b71cb-1164-8008-9b04-29286a9cda55

So even if BI "allowed" in for previous games (by not actively enforcing it), as it was hosted on external platforms, it doesn't mean the same rules apply for Reforger and future games if BI also needs to take in account external factors like Playstation and Xbox usage.

Of course BI could choose to allow everything and disallow specific content on consoles, but that would default the purpose of being fully cross-platform.

So my guess is that BI is trying to follow the rules of Sony/Microsoft on their workshop, which is extremely unclear for anyone outside of the legal department of BI.

[abstract crest]

Think the console mod support is a big part of it, but probably the fact that the Steam Workshop is US-based for disputes and the BI Workshop is EU-based plays a part too

[dark tulip]

The fact that Valve doesn't care about copyright and trademarks, unless lawyers are involved (as DMCA's don't work), says enough about their enforcement...

[abstract crest]

Like the cannabis mod that got DZSA temporarily removed from the Steam store in Australia, but was available on Steam everywhere else

[near swallow]

100% European laws and regulations will affect stuff

[abstract crest]

For ARMA 3 DMCAs work, and if there are issues often BI will help themselves to get an issue dealt with

The DMCA process itself is flawed, especially the fact that it requires a small modder to pass their full personal info to the ripper

That ain't Valve's fault though

And as regards this current topic of conversation regarding mods (which is nothing to do with ripping or IP violations), let's not get all sentimental about BI here. Either they have to enforce this stuff because of consoles or they are covering their arses. I mean, despite what's said here, there are still 3.5 pages of mods matching a search for "Taliban" lol. Could have been the flag, that is banned in Germany, Russia, China and Austria

[cunning zinc]

https://tenor.com/view/gohine-hohino-no-hohineee-gohineee-gif-17792172174678204487

[neon axle]

@coral juniper So, about the bomb vest, will our mod get taken down if we have one in it? It is just a vest with C4 attached to it, but I want to be sure.

[humble ravine]

It has already been confirmed to be a non-issue

What matters more is the context around it, i.e. don't have a faction named ISIS or Al-Qaeda using them

#other_ip_topics message

[neon axle]

nope, just Takistan, thank you!

[frozen bramble]

Tried to look this topic up but didn't find anything.

Would Ai music in a mod be considered commercial use?

[humble ravine]

I doubt it would be commercial use, but you may want to check if that license/distribution terms of that AI music generator permit you to share it, and any obligations you may have with crediting

[frozen bramble]

I didn't think it would be either. But ya I wanted to get a answer on this side and I contacted the service to get their side as well. Thank you😁

[humble ravine]

For instance, with Udio, you may wish to check clauses 1.2, 6.3 and 6.4 https://www.udio.com/terms-of-service

[tepid lion]

AI music technically can’t exactly be copyrighted legally there’s a whole thing with that right now

It’s considered public domain

The day ai gets its own copyright is the day human intellect goes out the window

[dark tulip]

Depends on the license of the tools and models used, and if the model used copyrighted materials.

So it's far from public domain...

[tepid lion]

Unfortunate humanity has come to this

Really shows how bad it’s gonna get sooner or later for rights and protections

[humble ravine]

It is still in their terms of service and I would think best practice to respect that

[tepid lion]

agreed but ethically this is wrong theres another time for this convo lets keep this clean away from politics

[copper crescent]

Hey there, sorry to bother. Not really an IP topic but not sure where to address this.

After the 1.3 update, I had a mod that was effected and essentially re-wrote it from scratch as I could not access the other mod via the workshop. I now have the working counterpart up on the Workshop; but my original mod made prior to 1.3 is still on the workshop page and no longer works at all. Is there anyone I can reach out to that would go ahead and remove the older GUID? I can provide all the info needed. Just don't want players getting mixed up and downloading the broken and higher rated mod.

(I can't access the mod on my computer any longer, it does not show in my tools.)

[vast stump]

@coral juniper maybe you can assist with this? 👆

[copper crescent]

For Mario say he does get a chance to assist:

Old mod that needs to be removed from the workshop is - https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/62DB16F7E5239F9C-NoMoreGMVoting

[stray rover]

You can just make a dummy mod with the old GUID. Just copy the addon.gproj of another mod, edit it with a text editor and replace the GUID. Then open this project in the workbench.

[jolly jewel]

Hey get a ticket I’m still waiting for a response lmao

https://tenor.com/view/waiting-line-ticket-movie-queue-gif-13139083

[frozen bramble]

I do want to say tho thank you for for more views on this. I want to do something like the mod "modest ai radio" jut want to make sure I ca do it with out making issues.

[harsh goblet]

Hi, I would like to know about purchasing models: when doing so, are there any general rules of thumb to check if the model is an illegal copy? I would like to buy some assets, but do not want to risk paying for stolen stuff.

[vast stump]

There isnt really any clear indication unfortunately. People who sell such things rarely put in the description "model taken from X".

Creator/Seller reputation is one thing, show of previous work/portfolio can be indication of legit maker

you can ask around the community if anyone else has experience of someones work

you can crossfreference on interwebs if same model appears somewhere else

[icy linden]

Well:

1. high quality models are rarely cheap
2. if it's a vehicle try to search something like "merkava tank war thunder 3d model" and there is a high chance it'll pop up somewhere looking exactly like the sold model
3. sites like cgtrader will refund you if you present evidence that the model is ripped should you find out after the fact

[harsh goblet]

Was looking at Fab so far, might start looking into CGTrader too then, thanks!

[icy linden]

TurboSquid and ArtStation also

[hot wolf]

I don’t understand how this could be an issue as this entire game would be an issue depicting US and Russian forces. Both are real groups

[lapis radish]

I think the difference is that those are nations, not groups like a terrorist organisation

[kind mica]

One is a recognised nation and not a proscribed terrorist organisation with all the accompanying laws against membership, glorifying, supporting etc... and the Soviet Union is a former political entity that no longer legally exists or is recognised internationally.

[rancid stone]

But most mods modernize the ussr faction, turning them into something that actually does exist.

Either way "portrayal of a real life group" seems pretty vague

[lapis radish]

Yeah, but they would still be a country/nation. I think that's the difference

[kind mica]

Those are mods created by modders and not BI and the official game. Also modern successor to the USSR is Russia, again a recognised country, despite sanctions against it due to the war in Ukraine.

[meager fractal]

also just for info, Workshop rules can be different from BI rules
I mean, BI is monetising its games after all 🙃

[rancid stone]

Yes I know that. It is also a real life group. Makes me think of how some modders use nd license and choose to go after some groups and leave others alone. The dealers choice license lol

[graceful galleon]

Arma 2 and Arma 3 = other IP

[hot wolf]

QQ: If I purchase 3D assets and have them imported into ArmA Workshop using my own mod. As long as I am licensed by the creator of the 3D assets, I can have them in my mod right?

[vast stump]

Assuming the 3D asset you bought is legit and not taken from somewhere else like some other game or resold work of some other author then yes it should be fine.
Unfortunately there are still risks unless the seller/author is highly reputable (even then risk exists but is quite minimal)

[hot wolf]

For example something from TurboSquid should in theory be legit?

Key word is theory

[vast stump]

in theory and should

[covert bear]

please also read the license itself, some licenses require you to protect the model with some kind of unreversible operation, iirc reforger doesnt support doing that. but yes purchased assets are completely fine in theory

[vast stump]

in practice people sell ripped warthunder models and such in those market places for example

so critical eye is needed when you evaluate what you buy

[hot wolf]

Gotcha. That makes sense. I will take a look. Looking at spending money on an asset but dont wanna be burned.

[solid briar]

question i know wolfs building got banned and im just wanting to know if its staying banned or not cause we got alot of maps we need to rework if thats the case and its not coming back

[hot wolf]

By Critical Eye are you talking about someone who knows what they are looking at or an actual service?

[solid briar]

keep getting different answers

[vast stump]

just buyer needs to be aware

as you are ultimately responsible for what you upload into the workshop

[hot wolf]

Understood. I appreciate the feedback.

[autumn brook]

he means that you should inspect a model you buy, ie if you buy a model that is a high quality tank or other thing for a low price you should google it and see if its in other games and looks extremly similar ie scratches or very small details line up

[vast stump]

theres no information on that. may need to give it a day or two to resolve itself

[solid briar]

ty

[inland sphinx]

There is no easy solution.
What can work, but is alot of effort. Is to assume that it must be ripped, and then go and try to find the source.
For vehicles, find other games that have that kind of vehicle, and compare it closely.

Stuff like this
#ip_rights_violations message
#ip_rights_violations message

Its further complicated by the fact that there are also people who rip a model, then edit it to obscure that its ripped, for example remodel some parts on it.
Its still a ripped model underneath, but can be hard to spot

[normal pond]

Let's be honest, neither does A3. Nor any other game

[inland sphinx]

I think reforgers model format counts as that.

[dreamy haven]

Can models bought from fab be used in enfusion?

[covert bear]

Read the above messages

[dreamy haven]

The message you said "please also read the license itself, some licenses require you to protect the model with some kind of unreversible operation, iirc reforger doesnt support doing that. but yes purchased assets are completely fine in theory"

Aight

[vast stump]

starting point is to check you the store and product and what kind of license it is sold with

it varies a lot

so there is no blanket answer other than mayhapsyesorno

and if it still is ripped from somehere then it cant be used

as such things slip into Fab too

[dreamy haven]

Most of them come with standard licence, but its a bit hard to find where exactly is standard licence mentioned in fab-eula

https://www.fab.com/eula

[vast stump]

at the top

[covert bear]

the top is the TLDR the rest is the entire license

[vast stump]

👆

[dreamy haven]

So let me get this straight,

You may not:

Resell or redistribute the asset for free on a standalone basis or allow others to do the same

Does puting them in a mod means that its redistributed free or what?

[minor cove]

It's weirdly worded indeed.

because technically that's redistributing

[covert bear]

the TLDR isn't the entire license. the full license provides more context

c. Distributing Other Projects. Subject to any applicable restrictions in Section 6 (Content Use Restrictions), you may Distribute a Project that incorporates Content as an included dependency to end users. When you make such a Distribution, you may, however, only authorize end users to make use of Content solely as incorporated in the Project in object code and you must restrict end users from extracting or otherwise using Content outside of the Project.
You may use third parties to market and Distribute a Project on your behalf in accordance with this Agreement. This means, for example, you may Distribute software applications (such as video games) that include Content to the general public, whether directly by you or through a distributor or publisher. You and your end users may also (i) use the Content as incorporated into the Project in promotional materials featuring the Project, and (ii) to develop systems to protect against prohibited content or activity.

[dreamy haven]

Im sorry for dumb question but what in short this mean

[minor cove]

You can't even do that
"in object code and you must restrict end users from extracting" xD

[dreamy haven]

Im not that educated on that 😂

[vast stump]

basically it means by any normal means like how you would put the original FBX in there that can be opened up straight

there rules dont take into account ripping/stealing tools

[covert bear]

not legal advice:
You should be just fine including those assets in your mod, I do believe dedmen is right with saying reforgers pak files count as restricted

[vast stump]

same disclaimer and I agree

[dreamy haven]

So lets say i make a mod with something i buy, and then no one is allowed to reupload them as their mods or incorporate into their mods?

Only as dependency

[minor cove]

That's the case even without bought assets, you need permit from original author to re-upload (On Steam workshop at least).

[dawn canopy]

Maybe a bit of a stupid question regarding models:

I have a few generator models I've ported from sketchfab to my mod (CC:BY) license but would like to trim them out of my mod and just use Arma's readily available generator assets, however some are Contact DLC or APEX DLC if I were to use them in the mod would people that don't own the DLC be able to use them?

I'm obviously not editing anything, just need some assets for the objects for my mod all three of the ported models together make up roughly 7Mb of my assets component...

Thanks! 🍵

[vast stump]

you would path them to use the vanilla models

not copy the models

[dawn canopy]

Yeah, that's what I meant, just the model reference bit ^*

[vast stump]

if you need new classes

as to dlc requirement I think you just need to test that

[dawn canopy]

Yeah no you're right, I can just use the regular vanilla objects, reference their class names and go from there, not sure how I overlooked this ...

Main bit was the DLC stuff, you guys have a welder in Helicopters DLC I can use for maintenance stuff, I'll test it out for peeps without DLC if not, they can buy the DLC

[dawn canopy]

Thanks for the quick response 🙏

[inland sphinx]

Everyone hsa the apex assets, not a problem

Contact is fine if they are in the "Enoch" part of it. Everyoneone also has that

[zenith turret]

so US forces and russian forces are ok, but any other forces are not?

the word 'group' needs more definition

all nations on the planet are groups

[abstract crest]

Taliban specifically are not a proscribed terrorist group in the EU or US. But the flag that was in the mod is illegal in Germany, Austria, Russia and China

[vast stump]

it would be nice if this conversation would be done in less "hostile" way of trying to pick apart everything someone says.
Everyone not from BI directly (and even some of them due to different departments/responsibility areas) can only speculate

[zenith turret]

it would be nice to have things in such detail that we dont NEED to speculate

make sense?

[abstract crest]

Might break EU privacy laws to reveal to anyone other than the modder?

[zenith turret]

the kingdom used to see the original americans as terrorists, but now we are a country

and same thing for taliban

[abstract crest]

Don't think Taliban were ever on the proscribed lists... they were an insurgency (and former government)

[vast stump]

sure but the needles hostility does not help the cause

[zenith turret]

making terms and rules as clear as possible will probably alleviate all the questions on this discord about the rules and terms.....

[abstract crest]

Until Reforger it sure seemed like the rules and terms were pretty clear

[zenith turret]

u might want to look up the definition of hostility

[covert bear]

I believe most of these questions were answered by mario before
#other_ip_topics message

[zenith turret]

do you guys have permission from the US armed forces to use names and ranks on reforger?

[abstract crest]

Now these channels are full of butthurt people because their favourite mod was banned (and none of them seem to care whether the creator of their favourite mod was actually doing the right thing)

[abstract crest]

You win the prize for stupidest question on the Internet today

[vast stump]

@zenith turret man time to sleep

this is not going well right now

[zenith turret]

im asking questions and making statements.

[vast stump]

please stop for now then and wait for answers

you complicate things with all the chatter

[hot wolf]

They don’t need it

[meager fractal]

ye but let's not keep going on that matter for now

[zealous ore]

#ip_rights_violations message
@lime belfry he is no longer part of the arma’s modding community, so no

[lime belfry]

But is he still part of RHS itself ?

[near swallow]

As in their private discord?

I’ve not seen anything that indicates he’s been removed from there

[zealous ore]

the so no part already answered that for you, didn’t it?

[near swallow]

No he’s not part of rhs anymore

[zealous ore]

sorry what?

[lime belfry]

Nah because having him still part of RHS means he can still work on stuff and no one will know aint it because there was multiple thing that stated that he wasnt removed from RHS ans some people didnt care about it

[near swallow]

From what I’ve seen/ read from vergy it indicates ram is still in the private rhs discord

I’ve not seen/ read anything that tells me otherwise

Sorry for any confusion

[trim peak]

No no I do not know if he is or not. I did not say that.

[near swallow]

Yea I’m gonna drop this I’m getting confused

My bad

[trim peak]

My knowledge and what I’d like to believe is that he he not associated with RHS at all.

Anything else is just speculation at this point.

[zealous ore]

conspiracy theory much?

1. he cannot work on reforger anymore
2. he has no intention to spend his free time on modding arma games
3. we actually have the same bi developers that handle workshop bans on our own discord (amongst a lot of other people)
4. none of that concers any of you, in regards to legit questions

[lime belfry]

You getting really defensive about it tells otherwise but ill drop it .

[zealous ore]

1. vergy couldn’t know anyways.
2. we do not post our private internal things on reddit for drama purposes unlike other people

[trim peak]

Ouuu that’s a shot at me 🤣

[zealous ore]

i’m not defensive, i am on point. I already answered the same question several times now

[trim peak]

I’m just open and transparent with the community. If I am part of a group and I see said group is not holding the same standards for themselves as they do everyone else then I’ll make it known. If there is one thing I try not to be is a hypocrite. I do not regret any of it. If it happened again I’d do it all over again.

[vast stump]

thats fine. just dont incite drama here

[trim peak]

Dude, did you not see his 2. He literally just started it himself. Correct your fellow moderator. Not me.

[vast stump]

Im referering to the first offtopical response in the violations channel and why we are now here

[near swallow]

Was there not a jab made too?

Fair

[prime pollen]

Are there any other examples of someone that got banned, not getting all of the content removed?

[zealous ore]

nope, there was not

[trim peak]

Fair, but moderate your fellow moderators also.

[prime pollen]

Because up until ram I’ve seen people get EVERYTHING they made removed after a ban

[near swallow]

I interpreted ‘unlike other people’ as something that could be considered bait

[pale jungle]

I got a warning for reacting with a Clown face from said MOD in the past but he is fine to react with a laughing face?

Hmmmm double standards

[prime pollen]

Ram is the only modder it seems that didn’t get 100% of his content removed from being banned

[zealous ore]

that’s your own interpretation. bait for?

[near swallow]

a reaction from vergy I’m guessing
I’ll drop this now anyway

[zealous ore]

yes

[prime pollen]

Who

[zealous ore]

depends on the type of ban. All mods published by said person are removed.
when it comes to ip infringements, all other ip infringing assets are also removed

[trim peak]

He can not say who, he can just say yes or no and everyone needs to believe it.

[lime belfry]

So breaking TOS the way ram did isnt enough to get all his stuff bannend .. seems totally fair

But i seen people get full bannend for way less

[vast stump]

@lime belfry youll have to contact BI for that. They do not have any obligation to explain this to you though

[prime pollen]

Same

[zealous ore]

you should read the #rules - emoji that are inflammatory in nature (clown middle finger etc) are treated like personal attacks

[vast stump]

they might if you ask right way though

[zealous ore]

all his published mods were removed

[prime pollen]

U know that is hilarious right? -People taking an emoji as an attack

[lime belfry]

But still he worked on multiple mods that are still in use as you states yourself a bit ago

[zealous ore]

i have not invented the rules of this discord server

[zealous ore]

indeed

[prime pollen]

But you are in charge of how you interpret things like emojis

[lime belfry]

So that called double standards

[zealous ore]

none of the code he wrote is breaking the TOS or EULA, with the exception of the code that got hom permabanned

[lime belfry]

He as a modder broke TOS and got bannend for it that should mean ALL his work

[zealous ore]

nope, it has happened before with Elan for instance.

[prime pollen]

Bruh what

[vast stump]

I invite you to cease now since you are not contributing anything to the discussion but completely try to derail it

[prime pollen]

So then why did the liberty guy and his buddies get all of their mods banned

[vast stump]

last time you were muted for basically this same thing

[prime pollen]

Even tho it was only one or two that broke the rules

[prime pollen]

You being offended doesn’t always mean someone is breaking a rule

[vast stump]

if you want to discuss server rules you can post at #discord_server or make a ticket at #discord_tickets

[pale jungle]

Quick Look up looks like you broke your own rule which you enforce just wanted some more context but I’ll leave it now as I’m not contributing to the conversation 👍

[trim peak]

I’m offended. Who do I contact?

[prime pollen]

This ain’t the first time u are trying to shut down a conversation by trying to promote a narrative that isn’t true

[vast stump]

you can continue if you keep on topic.

[pale jungle]

Yeah my bad I’ll stop

[vast stump]

Id hope you dont continue next time

[prime pollen]

Every time I get close to the point I’m trying to make, u try to silence me

[zealous ore]

1. the user was banned, the mod could have been re-uploaded by a 3rd party just fine if that 3rd party actually own the ip rights for the content. it seems it wasn’t the case

[vast stump]

try to get to the point without going way off the path

[prime pollen]

So with ram u guys used pin point precision and with liberty u used a blanket

[vast stump]

we are not "u guys" we just moderate the discord

[zealous ore]

not sure what you mean by that?

[vast stump]

if you want to know why BI do things youll need to contact BI

[prime pollen]

So why are you responding to this topic if u are just a mod

[vast stump]

probably by email

[prime pollen]

I’ll wait for someone with actual answers

[vast stump]

you do understand that with all the rambling probably nobody will see the questions.

so if you want answers youll have to ask specific questions from right contact points

[prime pollen]

I shouldn’t have to justify my question

[vast stump]

sure, but you have to present it through channel where it reaches someone who can answers

channel not referring to disocrd channel

but a mean of contact

[zealous ore]

i’m still not sure what the question is

[vast stump]

But also BI is not obligated to explain themselves to you so I dont know what you realistically might expect

[zealous ore]

when a permaban happens, all associated mods published by that account (or accounts) are removed, and access to workbench is restricted. Which is the same for everyone that was ever permabanned, including ram

[prime pollen]

Are you guys familiar with the expression: “giving someone the run-around”?

That’s what u guys are doing

[zealous ore]

On the same topic, monetization of bi tools is what got multiple people from various groups permabanned for creating/ facilitating selling of mods

including but not limited to aforementioned people

[prime pollen]

So what ram did isn’t as bad as that?

What are you saying

[vast stump]

this is what happened to him too

[prime pollen]

So why does he still have content on the ws in other peoples mods

[zealous ore]

i am not the one comparing things

[vast stump]

I guess because he didnt publish those they were not part of the removal of his accounts published mods

[zealous ore]

he doesn’t have content btw

[prime pollen]

20 mods

Define content

If code isn’t content than what is it

I’m gonna say this so you are aware, every single modder I know looks at the ram situation as you guys playing favorites

Because not all of his content is gone

[vast stump]

you are refering to BI or us the discord moderators ?

as "you guys"

[zealous ore]

for the same reason no one else content was removed from mods that were not connected to the account that was banned, unless these other mods / accounts were breaching the tos or the eula

[zealous ore]

you don’t know all that many then

[zealous ore]

read my previous reply

[prime pollen]

I said something that is true, the optics of the situation isn’t the in the favor of bi

[vast stump]

why?

has someone been treated differently?

[prime pollen]

I explained why scroll up

[vast stump]

and if yes, how?

[prime pollen]

Who has the authority to admit that bi is playing favorites

[vast stump]

dont know, has not come up before

[zealous ore]

i already explained that mods that are infringing the tos or eula are removed.
There are cases where after fixing the part(s) that are under infringement these are allowed back on the workshop.
There are cases where that is not possible anymore, because it was done on purpose, not by negligence. In that case the infringing mod is removed (that only one) and due to permanent banning of the user, all mods associated with that account are also removed

what is eluding up until this point?

[prime pollen]

All mods but not all content ?

[zealous ore]

the removal of all mods published with the account is a side effect of the account removal

[prime pollen]

Mods associated, define this please

Does that mean mods they contribute to?

[zealous ore]

edited for context

published

[abstract crest]

Or was no other no removed because it had his code content because that would require RHS to be removed. After yesterday's events where a mod was reinstated because it is popular, it is a valid question...

[exotic nova]

Would using DayzSA models and terrian data that is not licensed under any data pack breach tos or eula?

[vast stump]

you are asking wrong people

[abstract crest]

Both, violates DZSA, Reforger and Reforger Workshop EULA's and TOS in the case of the latter

[prime pollen]

Can u go get the right people please?

[vast stump]

no

not my job either

[zealous ore]

no, mods where person A publishes mod X and person B is contributors are not affected, unless mod X is infringing the rules, but it doesn’t have an immediate effect on mentioned mod X

[prime pollen]

So I could go have the liberty guys come work on my mods and it’s ok?

I could have ram come work on my mod and it’s ok?

As long as I’m the publisher and not them

[zealous ore]

they are unable to do so due their accounts being banned

[prime pollen]

Their original accounts*

[zealous ore]

no, also mentioned mod was not reinstated because it was populat btw

[prime pollen]

This all sounds like a giant loophole to protect a popular group

[zealous ore]

?

[prime pollen]

Well am I right in saying nothing is stopping them from making a new account?

[zealous ore]

i have explained to you what happens when a user is removed
a. all mods published from that account are removed
b. the account cannot access the tools anymore

[prime pollen]

So say ram makes a new account can he contribute to my mod?

What prevents a banned user from making a new account and publishing mods?

[stray rover]

Or was no other no removed because it had his code content because that would require RHS to be removed
Let's be honest, independent of which collaborative mod we talk about, such line of thinking is dangerous especially for open source projects that anyone can contribute to. While we can peer review the content contributors add, we have no way to control what shady stuff they do in their personal mods.

[zealous ore]

that is up for BI to answer, if anyone would wanna do that for you

[zealous ore]

you sound like a conspiracy theorist

[prime pollen]

I feel like that’s an insult, Goat can u mute this guy?

[zealous ore]

yeah it does

[zealous ore]

you are being deliberately confrontational…you will be provided with vacay

[prime pollen]

U called me a conspiracy theorist and then called me confrontational. Make it make sense

Am I not allowed to respond to an insult?

[zealous ore]

read what i wrote. I said you sound like

it wasn’t meant to be an insult

i have already answered your questions and concerns

[prime pollen]

Sure thing bud

[zealous ore]

🤣. now if you want the answer bi provides, feel free to contact legal at bistudio dot net bud

thanks for your participation, was unfortunately mildly entertaining

[hazy sphinx]

So why was it reinstated? (note I don't think it was reinstated because it was popular, I just have no idea why it was reinstated and I feel like I've followed all of BI's statements on the matter pretty closely)

[zealous ore]

BI would have to answer that for you

[exotic nova]

my only guess is that he has permission from bi to use them or bought a license

[abstract crest]

He didn't when he violated EULA/TOS

[zealous ore]

BI does not sell licenses

[quick wigeon]

As far as I could tell, BI decided they may have been hasty with the original ban, and it is currently under internal review
(Assuming you mean Wolf's mod, and not old stuff about Ram and RHS)

[tepid lion]

So could I just reasonably ask the question everyone is getting at straight to the point and professionally. That way we just have an open statement because I see what is being asked.

So…

*When a player violates the WorkShop ToS/Rules they have a example of punishments depending on severity, for example their mod could be banned that may have violated these conditions, or if severe enough removal of Enfusion tools permission for use/physical use.

However in this case what is being asked is if a player is banned from enfusion tools their mods are also banned. However here’s the point.

Example:

1. Hi I am Steve I chose to violate the ToS by uploading a malicious mod they causes players to crash over and over, so I lost my privileges and now I and my mods are banned because of this.

2. I am Joe I chose to do what Steve did except I’m a major contributor to a studio making mods for this game title however whilst I received the same punishment as Steve only my personal mods are banned and not my contributed mod. Although my effort in that project mod makes up a huge majority of it to say I own a portion of the effort, my content within will not be removed because it’s been uploaded under a different workshop name/account.

3. I am Henry I did what Steve did but I’m going to avoid bans based on what Joe did so I will contribute to that project because it’s under a different name and my work is protected and will not be removed there.*

Example number 2 is the technical loop hole because that players content within the mod itself could be well within its own mod for whatever function or purpose it servers such as let’s say a car. If I made a car for the project mod then that car won’t be removed but all my other cars on the workshop will.

What’s being got at is under an entity your work is protected and shouldn’t be. Especially not from someone whose purpose and enjoyment was creating the scripts “they” were.

I.e (PS-Telemetry)

And another thing is that if that player is a part of that group. Why are they protected under the group name and not as their own entity within. They should have the same liability and responsibility. If anyone was banned for malicious content 1. It’s a federal offence. 2. That group as a whole would usually be banned. But in this recent example this wasn’t the case.

To follow up on what was stated by @trim peak to speak in his defence, yes there seems to be special privilege under this situation due to the fact of relation with Bohemia interactive within That studio. And as we’ve seen in the past we’ve watched entire groups go down for less. So where’s the difference. Yes the content is good yes they have a community standard but what is justice if not served correctly.

And this is what everyone has been arguing and saying and we need a solid answer of why this is fair in comparison to what’s happened in the past. Because there’s been no EULA or ToS updates to change this matter or effect punishments. This is the same guideline we have all followed.

We all would very like a representative from BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE to make a statement on this not an answer from moderation not a thought or opinion from anyone other then the Legal Department and Mod Curation Team. (MarioE or Arkensor)

Because how are we to be held to a standard and set of principles if others are not subject to the same punishment as we are.

[pliant oracle]

it's still morning, wait for a bit

not to mention tomorrow is a religious day

[tepid lion]

And to add a comment. Professionally as a “Organization” there was no sympathy from the quoted “Organization” or apology. Instead within they defended the actions of the individual themselves and chose to not make any community statement. And on top of that they allowed the individual to still remain within the “Organization”.

I hope all of this is understood to some degree of what we’ve been trying to get at.

Because in the end. A large majority of us do not want this for each other. We’re supposed to be working together as a community following the same path as one another and prepare for Arma 4. We are paving the road for the future of Arma and a new generation of modders or even individuals futures as a whole. A lot of us have been hired by Bohemia interactive and it’s amazing to see what we can all achieve from a video game to a lifetime career, but this constant fighting, or trying to seek answers is always what we get. The modding community on reforger is growing hostile and toxic and it’s a shame to see.

A lot of what is causing this is the backlash that’s being pushed in here because of the injustice causing everyone to attack each other for everything and anything because those who pursue others actions or defend another’s will always clash opinions which breakout in fights.

[coral juniper]

It's simple.
1.- Account gets banned.
2.- Mods under the account get banned.
3.- Further new contributions indirectly or directly from the modder get banned.

It seems it needs to be stated, that NEW (N.E.W (NEW as in FUTURE things to be created)) is added on the 3rd one

Otherwise, in certain cases we would have to ban the majority of the workshop.

@tepid lion

Also, because people seem to confuse things

This is administrative rule. It does not have to do with IP rights or laws

The whole idea of this rule, is to avoid the user from continuing to work on mods. As it is a ban on the person, not the singular account.

This way we avoid ban evasion in a manner that is actually manageable

[teal pecan]

Because how are we to be held to a standard and set of principles if others are not subject to the same punishment as we are.

Whilst I am not involved with any decision-making in regards of workshop and punishment, I would like to give food for thought and in general my five cents.

Please keep in mind that, when we for example look at the laws of most civilized countries, the laws in themselves are 'rulebooks' of what is and is not legal.
Those 'rulebooks' may potentially contain certain ranges of punishments which could/should be applied if a certain law is broken, but unless it's small nonsense like tickets for illegal parking, which are defined on purpose to for example make the work of the policing easier.
In general, when somebody allegedly broke a rule/law, the way forward is to first determine if/what happened and then based on that information, a decision on a suitable punishment is made which takes all information into account.
This can be done by a judge, a jury, or by whatever other system exists.

Important here:
Punishments are basically never exactly comparable as also offences are never exactly comparable. And there are always other information taken into account as well, like for example prior, smaller offences.

[coral juniper]

You seem to be missing some context on the Lobby Mod and such

That mod was initially published by another modder, on which the banned user was a contributor.
Said mod was reuploaded by the banned user with the malicious content.

That is why the group itself was not banned.

There is no favoritism, no differences in how others get treated. Otherwise RHS would have been allowed to keep the group member that's done a huge part of work within RHS.

Main issue, which is the surface level that you see is people coming here to complain without any knowledge of what is actually happening while things are being processed.

And due to this confusing everyone.

The issues/reasonings of a banned mod and such is only relevant to the direct parties, not you unless you are the banned group/user.

Unless me or dwarden tell you about something, then whatever else another moderator here or a BI developer says is not official and could very well be wrong on what is happening.

The mod from yesterday is in process, it's never been said that it is on the green.

The reasons that we do not instantly tell why some mod was banned, delisted or being targeted is that there is a period where things might have been misinterpreted, and us stating something that might be even not fully correct damages the user

In many other cases there are also privacy concerns

This is also why certain bans take some time to perform. Everything has to be confirmed without a doubt.

In general DMCAs are usually the ones that are ban first then resolution later.

If that is what people are being worried about.

And in this case, false DMCA has legal consequences

Everything else gets researched before a ban happens, so when a ban happens then there is always a reason. And even then we are always open to be reached out due to the possibility of oversight in there. And in such cases it is always better to just deal with it with the author in order to not damage reputation that could have just been a mistake.

[inland sphinx]

Defending against false claims == must mean the false claims are true.

Is that how your world works?

[inland sphinx]

They get their own uploads removed.
But there is really no way to tell what they contributed in other people's mods.
It could go all the way down to them posting a example snippet on discord and someone putting that into their mod.
Impossible to find or ban, because essentially only the mod author knows where it's from.
Maybe someone "stole" some code written by Ram and and put it into their mod. Only the person who took it knows about it, so how is BI or anyone else gonna handle that? They can't.

I'm sure there are quite a few cases, but noone gets to know about it.

[inland sphinx]

Difference between finding something funny, and making fun of someone.

[inland sphinx]

That is your assumption. Don't write it like it's proven truth. Fact is you don't know.

[inland sphinx]

He's just following the agreed standard. He is supposed to warn for it, but has the option of just deleting and ignoring it if he thinks its not relevant or too minor.
Stop making assumptions and writing them as if they were proven truths.

[inland sphinx]

Youre making it sound as if ram burned the whole world and came out unscathed.
He lowered the fps for a couple players.
Ram violated the workshop rules, Liberty did way more, not all of which you even know about. You cannot set these equal, you are again making assumptions.

[inland sphinx]

This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

[inland sphinx]

Oh pufu was faster

[coral juniper]

Arkensor is not part of the modding team itself btw (He is a programmer for Arma).
You can think of him as honorary member that helps with some things and is generally kept in the loop. But sometimes he is missing certain information specially when it comes to some ongoing processes for a ban or such.
In general if you want some proper information just ping me.

In case of IP issues, Arkensor can also help as he's worked on these areas too.

[zealous ore]

Professionally as a “Organization” there was no sympathy from the quoted “Organization” or apology.
apology? lol what? what for? entitlement?

Instead within they defended the actions of the individual themselves
false

chose to not make any community statement.
We never actually make statements or public announcements of any sorts, why would we do that for things that have nothing to do with us as an Organization?

And on top of that they allowed the individual to still remain within the “Organization”.
also false, as previously said the individual has already been perbanned by BI, the mods removed and his access to workshop and modding tools limited.

[coral juniper]

Saying this as Arkensor is not responsible for anything in this regard, so do not unnecessarily hold him responsible for anything. He has no responsability to answer anything.

[sinful echo]

Thank you for putting it plainly, I’ve been waiting to understand why RHS was like this and you pulled through

[jolly jewel]

No offense and I hate liberty, but your right the guy putting stuff into your system to purposely slow it down and such is way worse then a guy breaking rules.

I’m not really sure who would tell you a rule breaker is worse than a guy putting crap onto your system that makes it run worse. Even then what’s stopping him from just making an alt and doing it again anyway or anything. And no doubt contributing to the same group to groups.

At the end of the day though it is what it is.

[near swallow]

I’m guessing there’s measures put in place to prevent him from avoiding the ban

[zenith turret]

have sony or microsoft been made aware that its possible to put malicious code inside a mod of arma reforger?

[inland sphinx]

It isn't though is it?
What do you mean?

[zenith turret]

so what ram did isnt possible to happen again?

code that targets specific users.

[inland sphinx]

What is your definition of malicious?
The game having low fps? Thats not inherently malicious.
You can do the same by being a amateur and putting a very unoptimized model in

[zenith turret]

my definition of malicious is whatever ram got banned for

[inland sphinx]

A admin list for a servers administration mod is "code that targets specific users"

[zenith turret]

can we get back to my question

instead of deflecting

[inland sphinx]

What ram did can be done again.
I don't think sony or microsoft were made aware, nor do I think they care that someone can make a mod that performs badly.

Nor do I think would they need to care. Because stuff like that violates the workshop rules anyway.
Thus sony/microsoft can assume that such things won't exist anyway, and if they do the game developer would take care of it, which they did.

[zenith turret]

assuming something doesnt exist when it can exist isnt what i call security

[inland sphinx]

"Someone made a mod that violated the agreed on rules and it wasn't banned" could be a problem to them.
"Someone made a mod that violated the rules and got banned for it" is not.

[covert bear]

There is no breach of "security" and there is no vulnerability or exploit
the code simply reduced framerate when a certain condition was met

[zenith turret]

my point is, it being possible in the first place, is a security risk

[inland sphinx]

By that logic, every mod that makes some "mistake" that ends up crashing the game, is a security risk too?
Because its "possible" to do the same intentionally too?

[zenith turret]

no but its a detriment to the experience of using the console

they care alot about that part

[covert bear]

so now we go from "security" to "detrimental to usage"
ur fishing for something that isn't there, the mod was taken care of as soon as BI was made aware there was a TOS breach

we'll not be entertaining this any further

[inland sphinx]

I don't know how to explain in any better way to you that what you're saying doesn't make sense

[zenith turret]

it makes sense you guys are just deflecting again

[teal pecan]

Negative, Gator.
You not understanding the point which is being made doesn't automatically mean that people are deflecting.

[zenith turret]

so, are you guys doing any pentesting to make sure a mod cant screw up a console?

[dark tulip]

The code in question was not allowed according to the EULA, however in no way a security issue for end-users and therefor not "mallicious".

So there was/is no security risk which needs to be escalated to MS/Sony or any user of Reforger.

[dark tulip]

AFAIK it's impossible to run any code outside of the engine, and/or patched the moment it gets known

[teal pecan]

No system is ever 100% safe.
Measures are in place and actions have been and overall are being taken to maintain and increase the security of our systems.
That's all I say.

[coral juniper]

It was sandboxed enough to allow us to have full modding in PS5

That should tell you something.

Anyway irrelevant to this channel.

[coral juniper]

It is not a security risk, but a stability one.

Only way to remove the endless ways of doing what he did in terms of output is to either remove scripting or make every mod be checked line by line before them being available

Over all updates, every version, etc

The ban has a severity for a reason

Because it is absolutely not wanted, for the sake of the game and community.

Its quick to spot them, even when people attempt to obfuscate it.

[tepid lion]

A. An Apology on the behalf of a major contributor who effected the community as a whole in a very malicious directed manner. Which yes coming from a group who is well known would have been much appreciated by those affected.

B. Wrong. I have screen shots and I have conversations as a whole that can attest to that.

C. Refer to A

D. Wrong. He was allowed to remain under RHS until me and very were in this very channel discussing the fact. He was still working actively on the project.

[tepid lion]

There are plenty more insistent messages that point fingers towards his actions and his intent not the others.

I’m not saying you’re wrong but this may be an investigative oversight.

To create a mod to enforce an EULA by harming a players device or altering gameplay, as well as collecting user data is beyond forgivable.

[trim peak]

This is also why I went public. His “friends” supported his actions.

these “friends” also part of RHS and continue to be part.

[tepid lion]

This isn’t going to be covered up with lies. I’ve seen enough to know that’s what we’re being fed.

[jolly jewel]

I mean at the end of the day reality is some of them work for BI. RHS will be protected regardless of what we say or see and they won’t do anything they don’t want too.

It’s just the reality of Arma. I don’t loose sleep over it and it’s just is what it is type of deal

They don’t have to make a statement if they don’t want too

[meager fractal]

oh my gosh… RHS ITSELF IS NOT AT FAULT HERE AND NEVER HAD MALWARE IN ITS PACKAGES, I don't know how clear it has to be made
since RHS never made public statements, RHS doesn't have to make one to fix a previous one because RHS never said anything as it is not concerned

[tepid lion]

So their primary programmer is responsible and they claim 0 accountability for it being uploaded to their git

Makes sense

[prime pollen]

I think the main point here is: liberty did something bannable and his entire team got their mods banned.

Ram does something bannable and his team is unaffected

[tepid lion]

This.

[pliant oracle]

Ram not the project lead of RHS

[prime pollen]

Neither was liberty.

[coral juniper]

Read what I said before, no discussion here made things change

He was in process of being fully banned while all the discourse happened

As I said before, these things get discussed here as truth while the process is ongoing

Further misleading people to believe what not.

[prime pollen]

Blanket vs precision

[trim peak]

But but those lines of code are detrimental to a lot of cool things that keep Reforger popular. They can not get them to remove it.

[coral juniper]

This has nothing to do

Otherwise again, RAM case would have been different.

[zealous ore]

a. doesn’t make much sense does it? It does no affect the group, so why would get involved to begin with? it was solved, as it should have between BI and Ram. If he wanted to apologize he could well do just that, or not.
b. lol
c. refer to a
d. sorry what? permaban = no more tools. what does under RHS even means?

[coral juniper]

Developers working with modders hold no effect, you are talking like if the company were 10 people in a garage

[meager fractal]

do you have the commit please?

[coral juniper]

Even a BI developer himself could be banned from workshop, or the game even.

Hopefully it never comes to that but that is also a thing, they are not exempt. Their own personal colleagues are not exempt.

[trim peak]

I was a part of RHS for 2.5 years. I seen first hand some favouritism. So if some BI dev wants to tell me there are 0 then they can kick rocks 🤣

[coral juniper]

The entire team was on it

That is why they got banned

And the mods were under the entire team

Very different case

[prime pollen]

How did you prove that tho

[coral juniper]

Only specific users in that team that were not found to be colluding directly were not banned.

And that is why you still see those.

[coral juniper]

Research of no concern for you.

It's internal

[prime pollen]

But rhs voted to keep ram

[zealous ore]

we don’t use git for RHS, we use SVN

[coral juniper]

But RHS did not work on the mod as a team that had the code

[prime pollen]

Define collusion if keeping a offending member apart of the team isn’t collusion

[tepid lion]

Whatever you want to declare your contributive repository as I said git as an example everyone would know

[coral juniper]

There is none in modding department, do not take also actions of other devs as company's

[tepid lion]

No but it was uploaded to the repository for RHS

[coral juniper]

Like for example a dev pushing for a fix or api on behalf

[zealous ore]

what was uploaded to RHS repository?