04-09-2005 05:34									#1
	Signatures, Stigmasures! Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by BillyBud Possible signature convention: Perhaps a signature that appears in the bottom right corner of a graphic would indicate the original artist's name. Then ALL subsequent signatures of artists who modify the original version would appear in a clockwise fashion around the graphic. So over time everyone would know that the sig that appears in the top right corner of the graphic would indicate the author who made the last known modification of the original unit.

quote: Originally posted by The ANZAC Maybe we could move this to another thread so we are not cluttering up the graphics threads? I remember people aren't too happy when they see more words than units

Since I agree with these sentiments, I thought I'd start a new poll. Hopefully this poll is formatted right.

1. I like BillyBud's idea of a hierarchy of signatures
   
2. Only credit the most significant contribution
   
3. Only credit the latest contribution
   
4. Get some perspective! This is a game with icons in the public domain! Who needs signatures?
   
5. Who thought of this poll? Why didn't he give an option to do _____?
   
6. What's an icon?
   
7. All icons should look like bananas!
   

	04-09-2005 14:11									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Would be too much work to go over all th graphics files and move the signatures around. I used to have a "system" where I simply added a "+" sign infront of those signatures that modified an existing graphic.
Much more convinient as not everyone puts their original signature in the same corner in the first place.
(and sometimes there won't be enough room on all sides of the unit otherwise)

It's not as exact, you won't be able to tell in which order people modified the image, but does it really need to be? By now everyone knows eachother in this miniscule community anyway.

Last edited by Henrik on 04-09-2005 at 21:53

	04-09-2005 14:23									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I use to leave the initial signatures on the unit if I dared to mod them. Usually the original unit designer is easy recognised anyway (e.g. Nemo or Fairline) - as Henrik pointed that out above.

In the example below you see that mercenary from the 14th century, without any doubt recogniseable a unit by Fairline, I simply modded it a bit (colours, weapon, etc.) - which is also the reason why I put my sig onto it: This unit was something else before I played with it.

(On a sidenote I am with Henrik on that issue if this would be really necessary since we know each other here anyways ...)

Comments?

Attachment: condottiere #1.png
This has been downloaded 114 time(s).

	04-09-2005 14:48									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Tend to agree with both Henrik and JP. A new system now won't take account of all the existing graphics and to be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you modify a graphic put your sig on it but leave the originator's. If you make it unrecognisable, delete the originators sig. Not that tricky is it?

As for making a distinction between an originator's sig and a modifier's through placement or stars or whatever, who's bothered? As JP said, most people here know where the original came from.

Now get back to making EA2 and stop worrying about this inconsequential nonsense!

	04-09-2005 16:58									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I always put my signature in the lower right corner. I've done this for about seven years now, and I have no intention of changing that. I always give mention to that in my readme files, and we've all been very happy with that. If I modify another unit, I usually leave the original signature on it, unless I've modified it beyond recognition (though I've abandoned that policy recently; now I always leave on the original signature). If the original signature is in the lower right corner, I put mine in the lower left corner. An example is attached.

Attachment: example.gif
This has been downloaded 107 time(s).

	04-09-2005 17:03									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The sig of the originator, and the sig of the editor...

Keep it simple, and keep it real!

	04-09-2005 17:09									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Henrik By now everyone knows eachother in this miniscule community anyway.

Who is this guy and what's he doing with my birthday?

Trivial issue or not, I'm hoping that this poll will keep the recurring signature wars out of the gfx listings. Clearly, it's neither desirable nor possible to enforce rules about posts, but perhaps we can agee on a balance between giving credit and being practical.

Having some loose convention could avoid the periodic cycles I've seen: poster #1 is admonished for 'breaking the signature rules', and then the admonisher gets embarrassed and/or lambasted for being trivial. These cycles are awkward and at best leaves people looking down at their virtual feet and shuffling sand. If any consensus comes out of this, it'd be nice to point to a single thread as a reference.

quote: Originally posted by fairline Now get back to making EA2...

Just finished designing a fun Egypt <-> Sudan <-> Hejaz intermap movement scheme for the Egyptian Army. Works pretty well, but elsewhere my stumpy wannabe Englishmen are having a hard time on those ramshackle Bolshevik trains! You really should avoid disclosing those moments of weakness when you get excited about revamping gfx!

Stefan, your convention seems consistent with BillyBud's idea, nichts? Or should we apply the KISS principle as curtsibling suggests? Fairline, you used to use Nemo gfx as a starting point. If someone edits one of those, whose signature(s) should appear?

	04-09-2005 20:45									#8
	Support Apolyton

quote: Stefan, your convention seems consistent with BillyBud's idea, nichts?

No idea. I haven't been following this.

	04-09-2005 21:02									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

it seems that the option "All signatures should look like bananas!" is in the lead,
now seriously, i usually put my sig wherever it will fit, and i tend to reduce the size of my sig for a lot of unit modifications, mainly beacause my full sig is a hugely overbloated thing,

	04-09-2005 21:06									#10
	Remove this text

Henrik and Jim Panse seem to have it right on target with my sentiments.

	05-09-2005 00:59									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

My primary request is that the original author of a unit, any unit, is known at all times. So it must it include a sig somewhere. I'm asking because if you need to contact the orginal author it can be quite hard if you don't know who made the original in the first place*.

So, always include some form of identification, be that as a tag, name, email or in a readme that's included with the files.


*Where a Civ2/ToT original and derivative begins is another question. Any views on this?

	05-09-2005 01:07									#12
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling The sig of the originator, and the sig of the editor... Keep it simple, and keep it real!

Originator and editor, got it.

Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

	05-09-2005 01:12									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK Originator and editor, got it. Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

That's when it gets ridiculous.

	05-09-2005 01:59									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK Originator and editor, got it. Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

Then, you fix yourself a stiff drink!

	05-09-2005 02:13									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK Originator and editor, got it. Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

i don't think there is enough space in a unit slot to handle all the sigs, unless the unit is 2x2 pixels,
i can see it now,"i took the triangle and turned it into a square that was originally a circle!"

	05-09-2005 02:47									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Here's an example from my own experience. I made a US 105 howitzer for a Vietnam scenario I was working on. I started with a Soviet 122 gun made by Nemo and just started modifying it. While elements of the original unit can still be seen, it is a brand new unit. It didn't even occur to me that I should put Nemo's sig on it. Still doesn't.

Attachment: artysigs.png
This has been downloaded 84 time(s).

	05-09-2005 02:47									#17
	Remove this text

I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to why this has become such a serious issue on the forum. Have there been instances where posters were taking credit for work that wasn't they're own? Did unit creators start demanding they receive more credit for original works?

I'm just really curious what started this debate and why the sudden demand for change with unit signatures. Also, how can any of the above mentioned proposals be enforced? I mean as HT pointed out to me once before, making too many rules can really hamper creativity and turn a friendly forum into an unfriendly place.

	05-09-2005 03:29									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, if you're looking for someone to blame, it's probably me. My observation is that there is overkill regarding adding sigs of anyone who might have contributed to the production of a piece of unit art.

I think it's confusing to have multiple sigs on a unit, and it's far from standard practice. Some people don't do this, others do. I think it would be a good idea to work out some common ground. I agree we don't need a bunch of rules, if for no other reason than we have no authority to make any.

	05-09-2005 04:13									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

but what amount of similarity should be seen as resulting in the new unit being unmistacable dependant on an older one? Would using an arm from an older unit be enough, or should a significant part of the unit (eg at least 20%) be the same as an older one? - or its outline to be the same etc etc etc

	05-09-2005 04:38									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think some people are worrying far to much about acknowledgment of bits and pieces. An arm? 20%? This is all public domain material.

Here's another example. I did simple conversion of Alex the Magnificent's Turkish infantry to my Baltic Infantry. I used both in Red October. I only put my own intitials on the Baltic unit - I consider it a new unit.

Did Alex care? Not in the least. He sent me some additional units of his own to use in the scenario after I sent him a beta copy of RO. BTW, Alex was the most jealous of all of his work - he even tried to charge for it at one point.

Attachment: infsigs.png
This has been downloaded 77 time(s).

	05-09-2005 10:25									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sarsstock I mean as HT pointed out to me once before, making too many rules can really hamper creativity and turn a friendly forum into an unfriendly place.

Yep, and I still stand by it. Etiquette is a great thing but rules suck. Why don't we just stop this nonsense? We're all friends here.

	05-09-2005 11:09									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I vote including the sigs of everyone who's made a significant contribution to the current graphic.

While we could nominate the number of pixels you need to have changed before your modification is 'significant' I think that common sense should do the trick

Incidently, when I download graphics I generally save them so that their 'final' artist's name is part of the file name - perhaps this could be a convention as well? (I certainly appreciate those artists who do it for me!)

quote: Originally posted by techumseh BTW, Alex was the most jealous of all of his work - he even tried to charge for it at one point.

...not to mention that he edited his .bmp and .gif files so they couldn't be opened with graphics editors!

	05-09-2005 11:31									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OK, if people think it's a tempest in a teapot, I'm cool with it. But what's the great fear of controversy on this forum? Do people really think if you have a vigorous debate the whole thing will fall apart? Actually, postings go up!

As for me, if I make a significant modification to an existing unit, I'll put my own sig on it, and that's all. I'll continue to view three and four sigs on a unit as just silly. And when I think something is dumb, I'll say so.

	05-09-2005 11:32									#24
	Got spare money?

No, we're just afraid that people will get pissed off at eachother or just turned off to the forum because people aren't creating - but debating. Hey that rhymed. Call me Al Sharpton...

	05-09-2005 11:39									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

No, you sound more like Jesse Jackson.

Don't assume that if people get pissed off, they will drop away. If this forum has a problem, it's that it's too boring. Everyone is WAY too nice.

Last edited by techumseh on 05-09-2005 at 11:46

	05-09-2005 11:55									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Everyone is WAY too nice.

Is that a bad thing?

	05-09-2005 12:08									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yes. There's a difference between personal attacks and taking on issues, or constructive criticism. If someone makes a mistake on scenario, or a unit or something, people don't say so, they just don't comment. I'm as guilty as the next guy (or the other gender).

Last edited by techumseh on 05-09-2005 at 12:22

	05-09-2005 12:42									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I remember Alex used to make unit files uneditable, so that no one else could use his units
(i thought that i posted that already? :hmm: )

	05-09-2005 14:46									#29
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Here's an example from my own experience. I made a US 105 howitzer for a Vietnam scenario I was working on. I started with a Soviet 122 gun made by Nemo and just started modifying it. While elements of the original unit can still be seen, it is a brand new unit. It didn't even occur to me that I should put Nemo's sig on it. Still doesn't.

Perhaps Nemo's unit could be seen as the inspirational idea that led to your edit-unit?

I would have kept the Nemo sig, and added my own.

	05-09-2005 14:52									#30
	Remove this text

I think common sense and honesty should be the currency.

If you only change the paintwork of a tank or the helmet of a infantry -
Then I do not think an editor can be credited with any real work...

On the other hand......
If you slave for 6 hours, creating changes that render the unit unrecognisable -

Then, by all means, a sig should be added.
But the originator should still retain his sig.

That is my policy - I consider anything else un-gentlemanly...