|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 14, 2011 14:04:59 GMT -5
Necromancers are all about hoardes of shitty undead. When a magicy-type tries to make a monster that's actually decent, it inevitably turns on them. Clearly, you haven't seen a DDO Pale Master in action.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 14, 2011 14:05:36 GMT -5
I don't know the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 14, 2011 14:08:20 GMT -5
Hahaha, just go down to any shard on there (cept maybe the German one, its a fuckin ghost town most of the time) and ask if any nice mid-to-high level Pale Master could give a newbie a demonstration as to their hard-won abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 14, 2011 14:36:13 GMT -5
...Fuck are you doing, speaking in Tongues?
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 17, 2011 17:37:48 GMT -5
OK, since I've been officially warned for not posting an entire article I think rule 1 needs to be more specific.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 17, 2011 17:55:58 GMT -5
It talks about breaking the law and violating copyright. This is more than just not being allowed to post an entire article, it means you must also attribute the article to the originating source, which can include just a like to where you found it. There's a reason I stated specifically that it was because of plagiarism.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 17, 2011 18:00:40 GMT -5
It talks about breaking the law and violating copyright. This is more than just not being allowed to post an entire article, it means you must also attribute the article to the originating source, which can include just a like to where you found it. There's a reason I stated specifically that it was because of plagiarism. Well if posting a link to source is a rule it should be in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 17, 2011 18:10:27 GMT -5
It is in the rule, as part of "Don't Break The Law." Plagiarism is breaking the law, and plagiarism is when you post or otherwise present something in such a fashion that you are either claiming, or it is inferred that you are claiming, ownership of the material. In the case of articles it relates to not saying where it's from, who wrote it, or providing a link to the original story. Not all of those have to be done, but there has to be some way to demonstrate you are not claiming it as your own. This is basic communications skills taught in grade school, so I'm surprised you appear to not understand it. No one else has had problems with the rules regarding that, and they are more clear than they used be, so again, I really don't see why you didn't already understand when I explained that it violated the rule because plagiarism is breaking the law.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 17, 2011 18:16:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 17, 2011 18:47:36 GMT -5
Alright, I will grant that plagiarism itself isn't breaking the law. However, there is also generally a fine line between plagiarism and copyright infringement. You are correct (as I've double checked) that it is not because of attribution, but copyright is pretty vague on how much can be copied for fair use, and should a copyright holder take umbrage over their work being reproduced on the site without attribution they can actually have a decent case for infringement. Being that such a situation is not good for maintaining a forum and that it does skirt the edge of legality, and considering that there are the common practices used across the internet in how to quote from articles, it is always best to err on the side of caution and require those few extra seconds for a user to cite their source rather than get either the administrator and/or poster in legal trouble.
In short, I can see why you have objection to it being a breaking of the "Do Not Break The Law" rule, however if it doesn't fall under that one then it certainly falls under "Don't Be A Dick."
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 17, 2011 18:57:42 GMT -5
OK, Oriet. As I mentioned I will post links next time. Adding "Don't violate the Doctrine of Moral Rights." to the Don't Be A Dick rule would at least let people know what morality is being imposed on them. Which is one of the things Fundamentalists do when quoting Leviticus 20:13, sort of ironic. edit PS, there is no fine line between plagiarism and copyright infringement. There are no laws which equate one with the other. Putting a © at the bottom of a website does not make copying and pasting illegal on this planet. I'd like to see the actual copyright they hold if they can fax it to me. Since there is no legal precedent or law which equates plagiarism with copyright infringement, everything copied and pasted is fair use. I fully understand that, but it's also unfair to summarily ban people for being free to do what is legal in a free country. The last thing I want to do is cause this forum legal problems, from my understanding of law either something is legal or it is not, there is no skirting the edge.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 17, 2011 20:20:25 GMT -5
Copyright is held by anyone who produces a work on a physical medium, which includes electronic storage such as CDs and hard drives. They do not have to register it anywhere or even put the © symbol on it for it to be copyrighted. Thus, if a person who creates a work on a physical medium expresses that they do not want it copied, then it is illegal to copy or otherwise reproduce that work outside of fair use or express permission. This fact showed up frequently when I did a quick Google search on copyright and plagiarism, so I'm sure it turned up for you as well. That is, assuming you didn't just use Wikipedia, which is prone to have occasional errors especially on frequently visited general pages (as opposed to more esoteric pages that deal with very specific points, such as are found when looking up higher level biochemistry and the like), which is why it's always good to double check your sources. Copyright is also left up to the person (or entity) that holds it to enforce it, which is part of why it is vastly easier for corporations to maintain their copyrights than it is for small businesses or private entrepreneurs. There is also the fact that how much can be copied from something is incredibly vague in the laws, which I already covered, one would have to look at case law for similar situations in order to get an idea what constitutes fair use and what exceeds it. Different copyright holders also hold different opinions how how to enforce their copyrighted material and just how much they feel is fair use or not, which when combined with varying case law from a vague law does blur the line between fair use and plagiarism. If you try to look things up in law you are right in that plagiarism won't show up as a term much, but instead such cases, when actually tried, would be covered under copyright. Now, as for putting the "Doctrine of Moral Rights" into the rules would actually have issues. From the link the book costs $150, which is not something we want prospective members to have to then buy in order to understand how they should follow the rules. There is also the issue of different moralities held on the forum which such a source could cause major conflict with, and users could (and would) pose very convincing arguments against it. The Rules™ here are mostly to protect the site and its users from legal trouble and to facilitate rational discussion, not dictate a codified set of moral standards. Oh, and if you want to bitch about personal rights and freedoms keep in mind that forums are not the street; they are held, operated, and run by a single individual (who most often has others help them with the latter tasks) to be run as they please, and as such crying "but I have the right to free speech!" doesn't fly when it breaks their rules (or pisses them off if they don't have, or bother to use, codified rules) as you can only use their forum with their permission.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Zone on Nov 17, 2011 20:45:32 GMT -5
I haven't even cited the 1st Amendment. I know every forum is it's own dictatorial microcosm.
And since the first rule here is no less vague than the vague laws that are being vaguely broken I'll be vague and not comment further vaguely.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 17, 2011 20:51:49 GMT -5
that...makes no sense
ironbite-none..whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 17, 2011 21:04:40 GMT -5
I haven't even cited the 1st Amendment. I know every forum is it's own dictatorial microcosm. And since the first rule here are no less vague than the vague laws that are being vaguely broken I'll be vague and not comment further vaguely. You know that suggestion in the quote box inside the quote box there? Won't work. Wanna know why? Not everything people post from a source has an online (or accessible online) source. As such posting things like what publication it was in works just as well. As for the rest of that post, nice passive-aggressive argumentation there.
|
|