AB40k Maintainers

I was wondering if ayone was looking at/planning on adding this to the data files?

http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/200 ... e-v20.html

The BoLS Community lists are looking at being added, however they are not a priority and get completed as time permits.

Howdy fellas.

Why did you add these for commercial gain files to the AB files?

Have you gone off the deep end?

=|

Who's commerically gaining???

Homer

Stelek, I've removed your post as it breaks one of the site rules, possibly two. See (1) and (9) here: modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=850

Personally I think you're comparing apples and oranges though - Army Roster was forced to close and change because, IIRC, they were charging directly for storage of army rosters. This is quite different to the BoLS lists, which are free PDFs and are used by many players and BoLS are not charging visitors to access these. While ad supported sites are a possible issue with GW, I feel that it's up to GW to contact us if they want these removed at which point we would, AFAIK, respect that request.

If you want to discuss this, then do so - but please respect the rules we have in place.

Oh man whatever.

Don't get shut down because your ego is too *** big.

Now delete this because I said a bad word.

No wonder nobody comes here, you're the same as when I left.

There's an old saying that you've obviously never heard...

"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

Now if you want to act like an adult and follow the forum rules instead of being a condescending jerk who thinks he's talking to a bunch of second graders we can continue this discussion. If not, then we'll continue and pay you no heed. Nobody likes being treated like a child yet if you insist on treating us as such we'll have no choice but to treat you as you're treating us. While we appreciate your concern for the datafiles, your serious lack of tact is doing more harm than good.

Remove the BOLS files from the main data files so GW doesn't ban hammer the project like they have every other project that even remotely borders on IP violation or taking money from GW.

Both of which you are doing.

Saying this:

"Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended."

Does not give you a legal leg to stand on.

GW will not ask you to remove the files, they'll ask you to stop work on the project because legally you opened the door to litigation in the US by infringing their copyright.

Tens of thousands of gamers depend on you guys not giving GW any opening to bring down the AB files, and you gave them one.

Don't think so? Talk to a copyright lawyer before you include commercial property in your volunteer work. You can claim BOLS doesn't make money off of their work, but they do.

Apply some common sense.

And you won't be 'treated like a child', I guess.

All it takes is one cease and desist and the game is up.

Shoot the messenger, I don't care.

You should have thought this through beforehand.

At the top of each of these minidexes lies this wonderful IP infringement:

"Copyright © Bell of Lost Souls, 2008. All Rights Reserved."

You can't copyright what isn't yours! AB maintainers endorses the theft of GW IP by including those files within their volunteer work.

Crosses the legal line in the US, which is the ONLY thing that's been protecting you from GW.

They know it, Lone Wolf knows it, why don't you?

Fair use does not apply to commercial endeavours, which BOLS is.

"There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. "

Gee. I'm the bad guy because of my potty mouth.

Please stop breaking the law, and I'll stop being a potty mouth on your little wee forum, k?

So as I understand what you are saying, the issue is that the BoLS files are copyrighted works by BoLS. Looking at the back page of one of the mini-dexes, the Genestealer one for example, there is a large block of text at the bottom stating that a laundry list of items are all GW property.

How is this different from say Privateer Press releasing a module for Dungeons and Dragons?

Homer

There is a simple way to solve this. Remove the BOLS files as they are "extra", "fan based", whatever you want to call them and not "offical" by any count and create a seperate file you can download for them.

The reason I suggest this is why:
1) Some people don't care to have this fan based stuff crammed into their AB. I enjoy reading BOLS articles, but I don't want AB putting junk in their datafiles that is filling my PC with junk. You should give people the option to download it as a seperate file instead of forcing people to. Yea, you could edit the files, but some of us don't have the time or skill to do this. Just create another file simply like Mordheim, etc...then BOLS can run wild with their fans that actually care to download them.

2) Aside from a VERY small population, nobody will ever use these files.

3) Confuses new players thinking these are offical lists, even if they are say otherwise and are marked as so.


I think that three very good reasons to remove the BOLS files and create a seperate file for those that care to have it and reload a new version removing BOLS items. I've heard others complain about this but are unaware of this site or bother to come here to complain as people are lazy.

How is listing units from a BoLS PDF any different from listing them from a GW publication? They are both GW IP after all, and if BoLS are violating GW copyright then so are the AB40k files (and you should know this better than most with your history with AB). As AB40k itself does not raise money from GW IP I can't see how it's any different with or without the BoLS lists included. If GW feel differently and ask us to remove them (which means they'll have sent a C&D to BoLS too), then we can do so easily.

Stelek, do you have any official later from GW stating that AB40k are fully authorised to produce the files for AB? Do you have anything from them stating that they require the BoLS lists to not be included? You ask for the members of this site to produce a document that will show your worries are unfounded, yet you don't provide anything supporting them either. GW have felt it unnecessary to close down the AB40k project so far; I know there have been occasions where it might have happened, but since then the maintainers have kept releases delayed to loose guidelines that were agreed - I certainly haven't seen anything requiring that only official GW publications are included in the files, do you have such a document you can scan and post?

Also the BoLS lists are also not "commercial property". BoLS receive no funding from the creation or distribution of the lists. While they indirectly receive money from the ads on the site, this does not make the lists "commercial property". The AB40k site is funded directly by myself and others out of our own pockets, and the files generate no revenue either. There is also no exchange of monies between AB40k and BoLS for inclusion of the lists - they are done entirely as a voluntary effort by the maintainers involved.

If find the tone of your posts odd too - you seem to feel that you have some sort of right to demand that these changes are made. What makes you, a single person who has not been involved in the AB40k files for many years, think that you can just start making demands and have us cow down to you? If you want to actually help to push the project forward and make useful contributions then please do so, but if all you're going to do is post rants then please find another forum to vent on.

Styx wrote:filling my PC with junk.

Do you really consider 200kB as "filling"? The files account for less than 4% of the total AB40k data folder, and if you consider 200kB as "filling" then your PC is on the verge of serious failure. And in the end you can always just use ABCreator and remove the BoLS lists yourself if you really must have that 200kB of disk space - but of course, you're happy to use the files others have spent a lot of time working on yet won't take the few minutes it would take (plus a little time to read the ABCreator docs to figure out how to do it) to make this change yourself.

Splitting the BoLS lists out to their own files could be done, but would need to be self contained to prevent changes to the 40k files from breaking them. This would increase their size substantially due to all the duplication that would be required. It might also mean that it takes longer to make changes to the 40k files - after all, if the maintainer wants to work on the BoLS lists and ends up having to work around changes they make to the 40k files which would also cause issues with the BoLS lists, that means they'll be spending less time on working on the 40k files. Is that what you want?

Styx wrote:2) Aside from a VERY small population, nobody will ever use these files.

Do you have figures to back this up? Do you have anything to show that these lists would be used by fewer people than anything else in the AB40k files? Based on my own gaming groups, I know of more than 30% who have use one or more of these lists in the past 6 months - and I know of only 8% who have used the Dark Eldar list. Should we remove the Dark Eldar because according to my unsubstantiated statistics that a very small population uses them?

Giving more choice is surely the better solution here, and as the files are very closely related it makes sense to include them. They wouldn't have been included if at least one of the maintainers hadn't wanted to put them in; remember, the maintainers are also gamers, not some contracted developers with no contact with the game working to a nameless specification, and I think they have a good idea of what will and won't be used.

You know what, I have no plans to use the BoLS lists yet, but I don't mind them being in there. There's likely a lot of people in the same boat too - after all, a person is more likely to post saying they're unhappy and not post when they have nothing to complain about. I wonder what the outcome would be if we organised a poll across all the large 40k forums and collated the results - I'd be willing to put money on the "remove them" faction being in the minority (assuming of course that the voters were posting of their own volition and no "side" in the poll pushed like-minded players to vote who otherwise would not have in order to skew the results). Of course the poll results would probably cause yet more friction - for instance, if it was in the favour of keeping the lists then the nay-sayers would shout about how the results must be wrong (and probably accuse BoLS staff of underhandedness).

Styx wrote:3) Confuses new players thinking these are offical lists, even if they are say otherwise and are marked as so.

If they are confused about this, then removing them won't make any difference - they'll likely not be able to figure out how to open AB, let alone create a roster. Do you really think your gaming peers are that stupid?

Styx wrote:I think that three very good reasons to remove the BOLS files and create a seperate file for those that care to have it and reload a new version removing BOLS items. I've heard others complain about this but are unaware of this site or bother to come here to complain as people are lazy.

If you can provide details about those people who have complained I'll be happy to compile a list, and also a list of people who have been happy with the inclusion of the files. That way we can try to pull together an unbiased comparison based in fact rather than second/third hand anecdotal remarks. I guess the lazy ones are also too lazy to bother editing their own files ...

Seeing as how the BoLS lists are clearly marked as such, and have to be selected outside of the codex lists in order to create a roster, how hard is it to just not select that option? Nothing in AB forces players to select that option, and it's not highlighted or treated in any special way over the standard codex rosters. Nobody is putting a gun to the head of these users and telling them create a BoLS roster.

If you feel the tone of my post is blunt and confrontational, that's exactly what it is. What next, someone demanding that the files be reverted to the pre-FAQ stats/options because they feel that not everyone knows about the FAQs and that it might confuse them when their rosters don't match the codex? Or that there should be options to switch between codex printings because not everyone has the latest version?

At the end of the day the files are the work of a team of volunteers. If they want to include community driven lists then surely that should be their choice, shouldn't it? I know I'd get annoyed if people kept telling me to remove things that I wanted to include, possibly to the point of just quitting working on the files full stop. Do you want the AB40k files to stall and have no further work done on them, or have bugs fixed less frequently?

That's my ranting over for now. But I get the feeling there'll be shills turning up soon posting more anti-BoLS rants, it's a shame that a few have to start causing friction because they think they've got some sort of right to make demands of the volunteers here ... maybe if you annoy me enough I'll just shut the site down completely (by the way, that last bit is SARCASM, the team here are a great bunch and I'm happy to do what little I can to SUPPORT them).

Well, where I live, nobody uses the BOLS files, we have a very large population of gamers where I live. I've heard of plenty of comments about the update asking what is this BOLS stuff doing there. Many people just don't care or bother to go to the effort to comment on it here, like a majority of people they just don't care or too busy....you could even make a voting option on a forum like BOLS and other sites like Bolter and Chainsword, etc, take votes on the subject if you want #s again.

What I am just giving as a suggestion to create a seperate file for those that care about it. Those that could care less, don't....perhaps if you want to know statistics...then create the seperate file, then track how many update AB (regular legal codexes) and BOLS fandex. That can be tracked and would give you clear cut #s that your asking for. Sorry, I work in IT also, when you say....

"Splitting the BoLS lists out to their own files could be done, but would need to be self contained to prevent changes to the 40k files from breaking them. This would increase their size substantially due to all the duplication that would be required. It might also mean that it takes longer to make changes to the 40k files - after all, if the maintainer wants to work on the BoLS lists and ends up having to work around changes they make to the 40k files which would also cause issues with the BoLS lists, that means they'll be spending less time on working on the 40k files. Is that what you want? "

These are excuses to me, I cannot imagine aside from some specific codexes that it would cause that much havok or force that much workaround. Have you considered a simpler solution, keep the current version, rename it as a fanfic BOLS file version (after all it is already done, it would be nothing more than renaming a file) and remove the BOLS keeping the offical codexes and save that as seperate file, the only real work is the clean up of the BOLS file removal from the core version. If the two are mirrored updates would be a snap between the two once it is final, I think your making it sound worse than what it could be.

Also, what happens when GW publishes a codex that totally scraps a BOLS codex? So, now we face a delay in updating while waiting for BOLS files to be amended? If you ask me, that is putting more work on yourself even adding them in the first place. Mind you not that I am saying that is bad, but just food for thought.

Even just putting the BOLS files in a seperate option like how you select a game system...for example you download the Necromunda game, ok, now I can swap between 40k and Necromunda, why not give that option. I'm not saying it won't be work, it may take time, but would it be worth it? I think to many it would be.

I'm not attacking you or the other coders. if it comes off as so then either I didn't make myself clear or it was misunderstood. The volunteers that work this project are appreciated. I am giving nothing more than a suggestion, trying to give some appeal to ideas why...if you feel you have to defend them, be sarcastic, whatever..fine...but that isn't the way to treat a community member. We're both hobby people, we enjoy a game and share a passion for a game...we should be treating one another with some merit of respect....

The bottom line is people that download these files are a customer of sorts. Not sure if you've ever worked in customer service, but it doesn't hurt to look and listen every once in awhile. Is it fair to shove BOLS files to someone when they update AB and they don't want them? Not even giving them an option, just "we're doing it this way and we don't give a damm what anything thinks or says?"

You and other's may have issues against Stelek about whatever, I could care less about feuds or difference of opinons. I'm not his friend, aside from reading a few of his comments every now and then for entertainment and to perhaps find some nugget of good idea every now and then like any other site that talks about 40k. Some I agree with other times, I disagree with. What I do care about is a quaility of product, very much like I am sure you do as does the others that visit the site to update their software. I am someone that just bothered to take time, offer feedback and a suggestion. I'm sorry if you have taken that as an attack or lumped it into issues with someone else.

On a last note, I enjoy reading the BOLS site, sometimes I like what they post, sometimes I don't. It was fun to read the dexes but to be honest, I am never going to use them, there are others like me. While not all of them are going to pour onto the net and say this. One voice can be the words of many it has once been said...

Just perhaps consider it with an open mind? Consider the community.

Styx, thank you for a mature and well thought out post. You put your points across very well, and I can see some merit - my other reply was deliberately diametrically opposed to try and show the other side of the argument.

As to the possible futue issues of separating the lists, this is something that the maintainers are discussing. It may well be that it will happen, but not because of demands and implied threats. As Ghaz put it so well, the best way to try to bring about change is not to stomp around acting as if the world owes you everything, asking in a clear, mature, well worded and readable form gets you much further in most cases.

I do work in customer service (I'm actually the IT dept - just me ) in a company with a multi-million pound turnover, over 1.2 million products sourced from multiple distributors, and over 300k customers (including most, if not all, of the largest companies in the UK) on it's books, which involves both handling internal support issues and dealing with technical customer issues (many of our customers are MCSE, CCNA and similar levels of IT certification) that the main customer service dept don't have the resources to deal with. I've had plenty of experience of what happens when changes are made to fit around a minority of customers - more than once I've had to reverses changes to our web site and ordering processes because another employee has changed something due to a demand in an email, only to find that later that same day we'd already had more than 6x as many complaints about that same thing. In the past 3 months I've had to tell 2 customers who wanted us to accept PayPal that it isn't going to happen - it's a lot of work for just 2 requests, and while a lot more would use if it was available the extra transaction costs would force us to raise the prices of our products at retail which doesn't make good business sense.

My work also gives me relevance to the issues Stelek raised. On at least 14 occassions in the past 12 months, had to mediate between publishers, distributors, and authors of books (both printed and digital) in issues of copyright and distribution rights disputes. I'm by no means fully conversed in copyright law, but I do have enough experience (over 14 years involved at various levels in book publishing, wholesale distribution, and retail) to spot likely false claims. I've also got colleagues in legal departments I can chat to if needed, but in order to do it properly I'd need a very good reason as it will cost a considerable amount of money (which would have to come out of my own pocket). I'm also a director of a GW trade retail account (with 2 physical stores and 1 online), and I'm not going to allow issues with the AB40k site jeopardise that relationship either.

As to BoLS itself, I have nothing to gain personally by having their lists included in the AB files - quite the opposite, in fact. I run my own "community" site (forums, galleries, news) along with the above mentioned indy retailer store. In that respect, I should really be pushing for the BoLS lists to be removed - but I'll admit that I do pop in once or twice a month as it's often easier to read than some of the other large sites like Dakka and Warseer where there's often a lot of junk to trawl through to find the really interesting topics, and the lists and datasheets are very well thought out and fill gaps that GW has left open during it's streamlining processes.

Hopefully the above personal background, rather than make me look I've got an over-inflated ego, will show that I am more than capable of helping the AB40k team work to keep their tentative relationship with GW. And I'm not the only one on the team - the other members are all very capable of dealing with matters appropriately, and most of them have a lot more personal experience than I do of dealing with GW.

Thanks, I think in the end the seperate files would just keep things in a happy medium.

Here comes another question, say another group or site comes up with their own faxdex, would they get the same chance to publish thier work like BOLS? Say someone makes thier own Squat Dex, etc? I am asking this as this could come up as a bridge for you in the future to have to cross.