The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom (do not create new DRM threads below)

[Pdqport]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

hmmm,

how does his a** taste, pdg?

like chocolate. how does Jim Rose's taste, Zak?

 

[Pdqport]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Btw, I want to thank Saddletank and the rest of you fanboys for bringing it to pass that the SES DRM thread is now permanently stickied to the top of the forum. Well played boys

 

[saddletank]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

This thread is for DRM discussion, not for being rude to people.

Please talk about DRM. Again, if there is rudeness here, or even sarcasm and snidey comments from either side, infractions will be awarded and bans may ensue if you get hit with enough infractions.

Play nice now, please.

GAMESQUAD MODERATOR

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

This thread is for DRM discussion, not for being rude to people.

Please talk about DRM. Again, if there is rudeness here, or even sarcasm and snidey comments from either side, infractions will be awarded and bans may ensue if you get hit with enough infractions.

Play nice now, please.

GAMESQUAD MODERATOR

Well.

**** you, Saddletank.

 

[saddletank]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Oh it happened allright. So if we report posts that goes to you? Obviously it's quite useless if it goes to Saddletank.

I wish to clarify that no, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. Redwolf, you were not involved, you do not know the facts, and your posts above are continuing to stir the pot, as well as the more serious issue of spreading untruths. The edited post was discussed by me on the moderators forum.

One post was edited and the poster was immediately sent an explanatory PM. The only editing was the changing of the thread/post title (it was the first post in a new thread) which was inaccurate and misleading. Additionally it was intended to be deliberately disruptive and the user involved received an infraction for doing that.

Please title your new threads accurately and with some relevance so members on the forum can have a fair idea what the thread will contain.

Thanks

GAMESQUAD MODERATOR

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Not sure what you are talking about. I've seen it and even quoted the whole thing in a reply. Of course now that the threads have been meshed up all that structure is gone.

 

[Pdqport]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

This thread is for DRM discussion, not for being rude to people.

Please talk about DRM. Again, if there is rudeness here, or even sarcasm and snidey comments from either side, infractions will be awarded and bans may ensue if you get hit with enough infractions.

Play nice now, please.

GAMESQUAD MODERATOR

Saddletank, considering that your stated position is that DRM discussions have no place in this forum, it would probably be best if you let one of the other volunteer mods handle this particular thread.

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

I cannot believe that this kind of person gets to moderate a forum. No other volunteers, eh?

 

[Dr Zaius]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Hey, everyone just chill for a second...

[chilling]

I'm reminding everyone, including the mods, to re-read the guidelines posted in the first post of this thread. Go ahead and use this thread to have your say about the DRM issue in here. Everyone in here was warned up front that the discussion on this subject has been and is likely to continue to be passionate and, at times, more than a bit nasty. Nothing that the admins or mods can do is likely to be able to change that. The intent here is not to promote nasty behavior or even to encourage discussion on DRM, but to give people a place to speak freely about this controversial issue while helping to ensure the rest of the forum can go on in peace and not be overrun with DRM rants.

So use the thread and have your say. But that doesn't mean you can go absolutely batshit crazy in here and start hurling racial slurs or bashing people with the worst attacks you can dream up, so don't take it that far because there are limits. The mods are mostly going to stay out of this debate, but that doesn't mean you have free rein to flame the volunteer mods. Even if you disagree with their decisions -- and they're just as human as the rest of us -- they still deserve your respect. I've told the mods to more or less let this one thread take its course, but in return leave the volunteer mods alone and treat them with the respect they deserve. Fair warning.

Now please take the discussion back to DRM or move on to another thread. If you have moderation issues to discuss, take it up with the mods in private. This isn't the place.

Thank you for your cooperation, citizens.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

I'll throw in my two cents. I've commented in a couple of the DRM threads in the past because intellectual property is a concern of mine. I am generally in favour of copyright and the protection of IP. I'm a published author. I like the notion of controls, within reasonable limits. I also like the freedom of owning what I purchase. The digital rights management (DRM) issue is a thorny one. I do not like the idea of buying a piece of software and knowing that in many years, the possibility exists that I won't be able to access it because the rights management resides on someone else's server.

There are obviously compromises to be made, and individual choices to be made by the consumer.

I think it is fair for consumers to be allowed to express their views on where the line should be drawn; to Don's credit, he's seen the merit in that with regards to this forum. I can see saddletank's point of view as well - stating the same objections over and over really doesn't accomplish much.

I'm starting to see less and less the merits of redwolf etc.'s arguments if they have descended to name-calling.

It's an important issue, in my opinion, given the number of other arenas in which we see DRM, IP and related issues discussed - music is the big one these days - but decisions in one area will ultimately spill over into the next.

And yes, despite what some of the SES fans may say, there really is a dissuasive effect on seeing that an intrusive or poorly designed DRM system exists. Not among hardcore naval warfare fans, but among those who might be considering getting feet wet, like me. We all know those who really want the game will bite the bullet no matter what. It is the softer sales that you stand to lose the most ground on. They're probably not reading the forum regularly in any event - but they will very much be exploring things like features and DRM issues are becoming more prominent.

 

[Hertston]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Could somebody please clarify if the 'DRM thread of doom' is also supposed to include anything related to StormPowered? The two seem to have been lumped together, but are really totally seperate issues. The monstrosity that was the previous SES DRM is now gone, so further discussion seems rather redundant now. StormPowered, however, brings new issues that are more related to functionality and 'fitness for purpose' (or otherwise) than any matter of principle; assuming that at least the majority have no problem with DRM per se and the form provided via Steam/GG/Impulse etc, in particular.

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

I don't understand the question. The rule obviously is that if Saddletank doesn't like it it goes in here.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

I don't understand the question. The rule obviously is that if Saddletank doesn't like it it goes in here.

My interpretation of it is that Saddletank was tired of people acting disruptively on his forum. My guess is he came to the conclusion to consolidate all the discussion in one thread which would be less disruptive for everyone else trying to discuss the main topic of the forum.

I stand to be corrected if I've gotten that substantially wrong. The best evidence you could present in support of your case would be to not act in a disruptive manner. I would include namecalling, false arguments, hysteria, repetitive hostility and paranoia among my definition of "disruptive".

 

[Pdqport]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

My interpretation of it is that Saddletank was tired of people acting disruptively on his forum. My guess is he came to the conclusion to consolidate all the discussion in one thread which would be less disruptive for everyone else trying to discuss the main topic of the forum.

I stand to be corrected if I've gotten that substantially wrong. The best evidence you could present in support of your case would be to not act in a disruptive manner. I would include namecalling, false arguments, hysteria, repetitive hostility and paranoia among my definition of "disruptive".

It would be to your credit if you took some time to understand the situation before you start interpreting it. Saddletank wanted to end all discussion of DRM in this forum. It was Don that decided to consolidate the discussion and stickie it to the top of the forum.

Please spend some time reading the thread to get an understanding of how things reached the point they are at now. It isn't the job of anyone involved in this thread to present evidence to you now that you have arrived on the scene to pass judgement on what is "disruptive".

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

It would be to your credit if you took some time to understand the situation before you start interpreting it. Saddletank wanted to end all discussion of DRM in this forum. It was Don that decided to consolidate the discussion and stickie it to the top of the forum.

Please spend some time reading the thread to get an understanding of how things reached the point they are at now. It isn't the job of anyone involved in this thread to present evidence to you now that you have arrived on the scene to pass judgement on what is "disruptive".

On the contrary, I've read all the relevant threads in great detail and with great interest, for the reasons cited above. I simply don't subscribe to your sense of persecution. Once you resorted to disruptive and disrespectful behavior towards the mods - sorry, but you lost any sympathy from me. Telling the moderators to F off does nothing to win me over to your "cause", nor does spamming the forum with multiple threads. That's just childish.

Now, if you have done your due diligence, you will see that I have posted in those same discussions you are now telling me I should review. And, in fact, in support of your position. More's the pity.

 

[Pdqport]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

On the contrary, I've read all the relevant threads in great detail and with great interest, for the reasons cited above. I simply don't subscribe to your sense of persecution. Once you resorted to disruptive and disrespectful behavior towards the mods - sorry, but you lost any sympathy from me. Telling the moderators to F off does nothing to win me over to your "cause", nor does spamming the forum with multiple threads. That's just childish.

Now, if you have done your due diligence, you will see that I have posted in those same discussions you are now telling me I should review. And, in fact, in support of your position. More's the pity.

Please show me where I told the mods to F off. Please show me where I started multiple threads to spam the forum. I am not trying to win your sympathy or convince you of a cause. You coming in at this late hour to chide about what you see as disrepectful or disruptive adds nothing relevant to the conversation.

If you'd like to actually discuss DRM, I'd be interested. However your condescension bores me and is probably better suited to your usual haunting of the ASL forum.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Please show me where I told the mods to F off.

Please show me where I said it was you. Scroll up to see the inspired comments of your fellow crusader.

You coming in at this late hour to chide about what you see as disrepectful or disruptive adds nothing relevant to the conversation.

As I pointed out, I've been monitoring and taking part in these discussions for some time; due diligence on your part would have revealed that.

If you'd like to actually discuss DRM, I'd be interested.

Your due diligence will find my comments on DRM; I don't think you'll have to scroll back too far.

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Hey, credit where credit is due. I reserve the right to tell Saddletank that he is the spineless jackass he is.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Hey, credit where credit is due. I reserve the right to tell Saddletank that he is the spineless jackass he is.

Posting here is a privilege, not a right, but I don't disagree that you do have a right to an opinion.

I'm just not sure what it is you hope to achieve by being hostile? At worst you convince people to side with him based on emotion rather than facts. Seems out of character for someone of your intelligence and tactical ability.

 

[Redwolf]

Re: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Maybe, but I'm not going to name a pig by another name just because Don was too lazy to check whether it's a pig.