More Power to Mapmakers

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 07:56

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 07:05

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 06:23

#rekt

corekt
From the very beginning!

So you support map makers proposal?

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 18:59

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

According to who? Mods?

Why do we need to prove it to mods? What level of proof is needed? What do they have anything to do with our maps?

Általa írva Aetius, 15.01.2015 at 19:12

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 18:59

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

According to who? Mods?

Why do we need to prove it to mods? What level of proof is needed? What do they have anything to do with our maps?

Just read the pages above.

Általa írva Goblin, 15.01.2015 at 11:32

Általa írva Quantum027, 15.01.2015 at 11:14

still would lead to corruption, just make it so that no other people can unban someone (mods or a council or whatever) because in the end the map maker will never be happy if other people (who probably aren't always supportive of every map maker) make decisions on who they can ban.

Decision who they can ban or who they cant ban should then not be the power of mods, map makers or anyone since everyone is corruptible.

Then who you can ban or not should be in the power of rules ...since you all couldnt agree on the color of the sky, does rules should be made by amok and ivan on who's game you publish your maps.

Enforcer of this rules doe, ones who decide about the appeals should be the map makers and the mods combined team because obviously someone who isn't bound to any rules or has an opposing force in a situation where they both control each other is bound to be corruptible and a power cocky son of a bitch.

...just turned neutral because of your "in the end map makers will never be happy" sentence ...i can see that's the truth

Thats the way governing works ...everyone gets to be controlled by someone and everyone is controlled by rules. Situation now is that no one can control the mods ...what you guys want is that no one can control the map makers.

Control each other, bound by rules.

I mean I wouldnt be against it, i would for sure be wanting to try a council and would hope to serve on it, but I am doubtful of the success it would have, and how would bans be repealed? if a majority of the council agreed? unanimous?

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 20:02

Általa írva Aetius, 15.01.2015 at 19:12

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 18:59

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

According to who? Mods?

Why do we need to prove it to mods? What level of proof is needed? What do they have anything to do with our maps?

Just read the pages above.

In the pages above we havent agreed on a clear answer to his questions, map makers feel that moderation has no business dealing with their ban lists of their maps and mods believe that they have every right to control who is banned and who isnt.

Általa írva Goblin, 15.01.2015 at 13:39

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:54

Sorry if I am wrong, but are you saying that mapmakers and mods should team up?

im just fuckin with you all xD

its not exactly team up as more we would be counters to each other, which is why it might not exactly work, its like having a two party system with conflicting values being put together and trying to work out a solution to issues, have you seen the American government, it doesnt work!

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 15:19

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:53

It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.

where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.

http://prntscr.com/5t3dh4

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 03:19

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 15:19

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:53

It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.

where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.

http://prntscr.com/5t3dh4

"The game" refers to AtWar. I am not interfering with your ability to play AtWar, you can still play any map that isn't mine.

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 03:19

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 15:19

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:53

It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.

where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.

http://prntscr.com/5t3dh4

Are you even serious showing us that rule again, because as i recall i wrecked your little impotent argument before.

...amazing how people "debate" in AW ...you crush their argument, they dont respond, day or two later they post the same argument to a different person.

Általa írva Quantum027, 15.01.2015 at 22:55

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 20:02

Általa írva Aetius, 15.01.2015 at 19:12

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 18:59

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

According to who? Mods?

Why do we need to prove it to mods? What level of proof is needed? What do they have anything to do with our maps?

Just read the pages above.

In the pages above we havent agreed on a clear answer to his questions, map makers feel that moderation has no business dealing with their ban lists of their maps and mods believe that they have every right to control who is banned and who isnt.

1. Some map makers use the banlist feature for their own grief; other map makers respect the original idea of banlist: ban trolls, rule-breakers, wf'ers, trolls, etc.
2. Mods have no intention in controlling who and who isn't banned; rather enforce a rule that will be issued shortly.
3. Bans from maps/scenarios are not free; they have to be argued... for the sake of game enjoyment (and the respective map/scenario).
4. Map/scenario enjoyment and ban of players that jeopardize this was/is the reason for the implementation of banlist feature.
5. Bans from hosted games are free.

What is not understandable?

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 16.01.2015 at 06:35

5. Bans from hosted games are free.

This is wrong ...this should be bound by rules as same as the custom maps.

Im looking forward to see this rules that will be issued instead of just "silly reasons are bad" that mods could one sidedly interpret as they please instead of enforcing the specific rules.

I did chose the map makers side here to support and ...mainly debated for fun ...truth be told both sides have arguments (only anti-map maker side didnt give a single good one).

• it is map makers maps and they are free to do whatever they want with their map its not communities like some suggested, its absolute property of the map maker and he has full power over it, he can chose with who he wants to share his map with or whatever he wants to do with it.

• but, once the map maker choses to "publish" the map (thus sharing it with everyone) he agrees to admins rules of conduct (you cant even publish anything you want - porn, forbiden imagery). Desu said it isnt map makers "right" to ban ...yes it is, that right was given to them by the admins, but under the term that if you want this "rights" when you publish your map you have to play by our rules.

• they didnt give does rules and mods were free to arbitrarily decide and revoke map makers arbitrary decisions if they found them "silly" while the map maker might consider the reasons to be just.

Hi my name is youknowwhoiamtalkingabout! I choose goblins side! I didnt read anything and I absolutely won't but everytime you guys quote something I dont understand I go off-topic and will ruin this thread!

"He who Sacrifices Freedom for Security Deserves Neither " Benjamin Franklin
If i really wanted anybody banned from my maps, i could easily fabricate a fake screenshot just like i have done before, ask meester how i got him to ban unleashed one time lel.

Általa írva Waffel, 16.01.2015 at 07:22

I choose goblins side!

Welcome brother Waffle!

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 16.01.2015 at 06:35

Általa írva Quantum027, 15.01.2015 at 22:55

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 20:02

Általa írva Aetius, 15.01.2015 at 19:12

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 15.01.2015 at 18:59

I support any proposal that promotes the responsible use of the banlist feature. Bans should be grounded, justified and applied to those players that de facto jeopardize the enjoyment of games.

According to who? Mods?

Why do we need to prove it to mods? What level of proof is needed? What do they have anything to do with our maps?

Just read the pages above.

In the pages above we havent agreed on a clear answer to his questions, map makers feel that moderation has no business dealing with their ban lists of their maps and mods believe that they have every right to control who is banned and who isnt.

1. Some map makers use the banlist feature for their own grief; other map makers respect the original idea of banlist: ban trolls, rule-breakers, wf'ers, trolls, etc.
2. Mods have no intention in controlling who and who isn't banned; rather enforce a rule that will be issued shortly.
3. Bans from maps/scenarios are not free; they have to be argued... for the sake of game enjoyment (and the respective map/scenario).
4. Map/scenario enjoyment and ban of players that jeopardize this was/is the reason for the implementation of banlist feature.
5. Bans from hosted games are free.

What is not understandable?

Easy to understand...

I think the mapmakers who can't understand CD's points are the very ones asking for more power, and the very ones most apt to abuse.

I do support mapmakers generally, as their maps make AW games interesting, fresh and new. Much ♥ and thanks to all of them...

That does not mean they all have the best judgment, and having seen the abuse some map-makers have inflicted (and received in Martell's case), i can't say i support giving more power to map-makers.

I can say this to the map-makers though: the world is full of things being used by people who have abusive personalities... your maps are no different - the people you want to ban are probably on the 'ban wish list' of manufacturers, computer designers, health care providers, educators, and anyone else who provides a service or creates a product... the hard core fact is, you have joined the ranks of those who must accept that some of the people they serve aren't deserving of their service. Do so gracefully...

Általa írva Columna Durruti, 16.01.2015 at 06:35

2. Mods have no intention in controlling who and who isn't banned; rather enforce a rule that will be issued shortly.

I really think Mods and MapMarkers should work together: Two or more different interpretation of a rule would cause more differences, but also less bias results.

Which bring us to the suggestion I've deleted.....

Általa írva clovis1122, 14.01.2015 at 08:09

(deleted by chill)


-A continuation of the last idea would also be, that the banlist threat get administrated by 6 people. There should be two MapMarkers, two regulated members that are not in MapMarker team nor in Mods team, and two mods. Both the Mods and MapMarker should be as neutral as possible in this type of issue for avoid possible bias.

It could ever work if there was one mod, one MapMarker and one regular person.

Following the idea, Tunder3 suggested a variation of it:

Általa írva Tundy, 13.01.2015 at 21:12

I will help you add to the idea of the commite to monitor the appealing system made by pulse

No leader in Map makers committee of course
- Only Map makers ...consisting of Makers who's maps are most played
- Number should be high and odd ...to avoid inactive players
- Offer of course for Columna to be a part of the committee ...to appease the mods
- 1 committee member 1 vote
- When the appeal shows certain there is a dead line in which members must vote
- Total number of members is not necessary for a decision ...and it shouldnt be a total number
- Random members vote on every other appeal to avoid bias and players knowing who will vote on their appeal
- members can be added or changed

Alright. Seeing the suggestions of a common committee, I'd like to add my variation of it.

===================
PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION AND OPERATION OF AN APPEAL COUNCIL, TO DISCUSS ISSUES OF BAN LISTS

SECTION I: MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE OF THE APPEAL COUNCIL
1. The Appeal Council will be formed and its powers given public recognition. A new forum category will be created for the Appeal Council to publish the result of their deliberations.

2. The membership of the Appeal Council will consist of 9 players. All the selection for membership will be made randomly, once a month, by the administrators.
a. Three of the nine members of the Appeal Council will be chosen from map and scenario creators that has 50 total plays in his or her maps and scenarios.
b. Three of the nine members of the Appeal Council will be chosen from the moderator team.
c. The remaining three members of the Appeal Council will be chosen from any player ranked Rank 5 or above.
d. The admins may designate, either by their own choice or through random selection, a Chairman of the Appeal Council from its 9 members. The Chairman will not hold special powers, but exists to ensure the smooth functioning of the Appeal Council.

3. For the purpose of determining eligibility for membership in the Appeal Council as a map-maker, plays on maps and scenarios made in collaboration with other map-makers as well as plays on scenarios based on maps made by the map-maker will all count towards the 50 total plays required for eligibility.

4. Any player may, for any reason, waive his or her right to be selected as a member of the Appeal Council.

5. A player who have served in the Appeal Council in a certain month will not be considered for membership in the succeeding month, unless there are no other eligible players in his or her category.

6. If, due to clause 4 and 5, there are not enough eligible map-makers, moderators, or players to choose nine members as per clause 2, then players who have served in the Appeal Council in the preceding month may be considered eligible. If there is still not enough eligible potential members, the corresponding seats on the Appeal Council will remain unfilled for the duration of the month.

SECTION II: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BAN LISTS, MAP-MAKERS, AND PLAYERS
7. The creators or collaborators of a map or a scenario may include players in the ban list, if that player conducts himself or herself within a game in a manner which compromises the enjoyability of said game to other players.

8. Should a map-maker include a player in the ban list, as per clause 7, he or she will be responsible for collecting sufficient evidence of the banned player's conduct to justify his or her inclusion in the ban list, and for informing the banned player the cause for their ban.

9. Should a banned player believe that his or her inclusion in the ban list is unjustified, he or she may appeal to members of the Appeal Council. If one-fourth of the Appeal Council, rounded down, agree that the ban is unjustified, the possibility of removing said player from the ban list will be considered by the Appeal Council.

SECTION III: CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL FROM BAN LIST
10. No ban which has already been considered by the Appeal Council will be considered again, unless either the map-maker or the banned player has previously unconsidered evidence, and convinces one-fourth, rounded down, of the Appeal Council of the new evidence's novelty.

11. If, as per clause 9, a ban has been deemed appropriate for consideration in the Appeal Council, the members of the Appeal Council will, according to the following procedure, determine the final status of the ban.
a. The map-maker an the banned player in question will be notified by messages that the Appeal Council consideration is taking place.
b. Within four days (96 hours) of the initial notification, the map-maker may submit an argument, consisting of up to 2,400 words and 15 screenshots, explaining the justification of the given ban, to the Appeal Council, the Chairman of which will at the earliest convenience forward this argument to the banned player. The banned player may then, within three days (72 hours) of receiving the forwarded message, submit to the Appeal Council a counterargument, consisting of up to 1,200 words and 5 screenshots, explaining why the ban is unjustified. Should the map-maker fail to submit their argument in time, or their argument exceeds the given limits, the Appeal Council will automatically rule in favor of the banned player, and the map-maker must lift the ban in question. Similarly, if the banned player fail to submit their counterargument in time, or their counterargument exceeds the given limits, the Appeal Council will automatically rule in favor of the map-maker and declare the ban legitimate.
c. The nine members of the Appeal Council will discuss the ban, taking into consideration the argument and counterargument submitted by the map-maker and the banned player, discuss this issue, using whatever means of communication are available, for three days (72 hours).
d. In the next day (24 hours) after the conclusion of the discussions, the nine members of the Appeal Council may then vote publicly, using a new thread in the forum category created as per clause 1. Each member of the Appeal Council may vote and explain their reasoning behind their vote using one forum post in said thread.
e. After the day is over, the votes will be counted by the Chairman, and a general ruling made. If one-half of the Appeal Council voted for the repeal of the ban, the map-maker must then remove the banned player from his or her ban list. If less than one-half of the Appeal Council voted for the repeal of the ban, the banned player must recognize the legitimacy of the ban.
i. Votes may be made in only two categories: for or against the repeal of the ban.
ii. Votes submitted late will not be counted. If a member of the Appeal Council fails to vote in time, he or she will be assumed to be voting against the repeal of the ban.
iii. In a case of a tie, the ruling will be made in favor of the map-maker.

12. Although the members of the Appeal Council are free to vote for their own conscience, the following guidelines are suggested to guide the discussion and voting.
a. If the banned player has committed an action that is not obviously disruptive of gameplay, but is rather a violation of a rule specific to that map or scenario, the ban should only be considered legitimate if said rules are written either on the map or scenario at a highly visible location, or detailed in a forum guide to that map or scenario. Unwritten rules should not be considered legitimate grounds for a ban.
b. Violations of the AtWar Rules and Guidelines are always legitimate grounds for banning.
c. If the banned player has consistently acted in a rude or irritating manner despite repeated warnings to the contrary, that may be considered legitimate grounds for banning, even if no written rules were violated, or obviously disruptive behavior committed.

13. During the process of appeal, discussion and voting, the ban will remain in place until the general ruling declares the ban illegitimate.
===================

Comment and discuss. If this gets an even marginal amounts of support, I'll edit it to reflect any issues I think of later (I can't think well at the moment - it's late night where I live), and popular community suggestions.

If you want to reply to this, please please absolutely do not quote the entire thing.

Általa írva International, 16.01.2015 at 08:46

Didn't read it completely, but I can say, Admins doesn't have enough time for check stuff like this in the community.

And I guess that if you guys leave the election to moderators OR MapMarkers, then there will be for sure bias in the election.

Therefore, there is a potential danger that those 3 neutral members are going to be biased to one or other group. Maybe you can suggest another mechanic for choose them? or maybe Mods and MapMarkers can elect those 3 members? (if they don't agree in who to elect, there will be problem I guess...)

No stupid council is needed. More government is not the solution to bad government.

Mods just need to stay OUT of our banlists. Just like they have no right to make edits to our maps.

Általa írva clovis1122, 16.01.2015 at 09:08

If my suggestion is implemented as-is, the admins merely have to use a random number generator four times a month. Unless the admins are insanely busy, I don't think 15 minus a month is going to cost them dearly.

Alternately, if they have a few hours to burn, they can write their own RNG that will do this for them for the foreseeable future.

The three random players exist to serve as the balancing power in the Council. If the council is split 4-4, then the Council is pointless, and if it's 4-5, it's unfair. So I needed some relatively neutral members, and random players was the best I could think of.

Általa írva Aetius, 16.01.2015 at 09:22

No stupid council is needed. More government is not the solution to bad government.

Mods just need to stay OUT of our banlists. Just like they have no right to make edits to our maps.

How do you deal with map-makers that give unwarranted bans?

Általa írva Aetius, 16.01.2015 at 09:22

You do not believe in the benefit of compromise?

Általa írva Aetius, 16.01.2015 at 09:22

No stupid council is needed. More government is not the solution to bad government.

Mods just need to stay OUT of our banlists. Just like they have no right to make edits to our maps.

Then feel free to unpublish or publish your maps on some other site ...when you publish it on AW you will play by admins rules and they have the right to deny you publishing your map.

"Create your own maps" ...doesnt say "publish". And mods are not bad ...they just need strickt rules to follow, and so do you.

Too much greed and lack of reason from some of you map makers ...

Általa írva Goblin, 16.01.2015 at 09:47

Általa írva Aetius, 16.01.2015 at 09:22

No stupid council is needed. More government is not the solution to bad government.

Mods just need to stay OUT of our banlists. Just like they have no right to make edits to our maps.

Then feel free to unpublish or publish your maps on some other site ...when you publish it on AW you will play by admins rules and they have the right to deny you publishing your map.

"Create your own maps" ...doesnt say "publish". And mods are not bad ...they just need strickt rules to follow, and so do you.

Too much greed and lack of reason from some of you map makers ...

The admins rules? Cite me the rule that says banning people for questionable reasons is illegal. And inb4 that is the rule CD is adding. All they care about is control, the admins seemed content to let map makers decide who was able to play their maps, but then Pulse started that banlist appeal thread in a frantic attempt to restore moderator supremacy in all things.

People are equating mods with admins. Admins are like Gods, mods are just priests who claim to interpret their will. I remember how many mods did not want map banlist and said it would never happen before the admins decided to implement it.

Anyway seems you just like playing devils advocate from the posts in this thread.

Általa írva Aetius, 16.01.2015 at 09:57

The admins rules? Cite me the rule that says banning people for questionable reasons is illegal. And inb4 that is the rule CD is adding. All they care about is control, the admins seemed content to let map makers decide who was able to play their maps, but then Pulse started that banlist appeal thread in a frantic attempt to restore moderator supremacy in all things.

People are equating mods with admins. Admins are like Gods, mods are just priests who claim to interpret their will.

Seriously ...another analogy? ...
All they care about is control ...and wtf are you doing?
Admins seemed content ...do you know that for a fact, or is it possible they let mods administrate that knowing most of you are not mature enough to make decisions.

Will cite you the rule as soon as admins correct the existing, widely and baldy done one and make it so that mods are only ones who enforce the rules and not interpret and make them.

Általa írva International, 16.01.2015 at 09:41

Általa írva clovis1122, 16.01.2015 at 09:08

If my suggestion is implemented as-is, the admins merely have to use a random number generator four times a month. Unless the admins are insanely busy, I don't think 15 minus a month is going to cost them dearly.

Alternately, if they have a few hours to burn, they can write their own RNG that will do this for them for the foreseeable future.

The three random players exist to serve as the balancing power in the Council. If the council is split 4-4, then the Council is pointless, and if it's 4-5, it's unfair. So I needed some relatively neutral members, and random players was the best I could think of.

I don't think they need to be "neutral" but more players that are knows for their reasoning. Players that actually "mind" and are able to provide arguments to their point.

But that's my opinion, just saying Admins shouldn't choose random players because if they do, that player can be completely overruned by those who catch him first and either get to be a friend or convince him outside from the appeal threat. Again, that player (specially if he don't mind much) could be potentially biased to one side or another.

This without count the inactive or player without the minimal knowledge required.... (Also, I don't think all the rank 5+ knows about this game or how it works.....). Might want to add that the Admins trust the Moderator Team, they would rather tell the mods to choose neutral people than choose them by any kind-of mechanic (Because as I said before, they don't have time for this).

On the other hands, if the three neutral members are choose by both Mods and MapMarkers participation, there would be more differences but less bias on the election. Why? because if both teams knows that the other team will decline any member that they consider is bias against them, then it is pointless.

So both teams will try to find "moderated players inclined toward one team" which support one team, but they aren't fanatic of that team (I mean, they only support a team a little). In this way that player have more chances of being balanced toward two teams than those who are either fully on one team or new in the matter (those without knowledge).


I used the word "moderated players inclined toward one team" because we need to recognize that there will away be bias. If I had to choose from this post I would point out Goblin and/or briawnl, since - as they stated - they support MapMarkers in one matter but none of them support MapMarkers in the other matter. They totally fit my description of "moderated players inclined toward one team".

In the other side I don't really knows which mod is inclined because very few of them stated their opinion here. But I guess you can say Desu and Pulse are totally against the Banlist. Columna is a MapMarker, but I wonder if he support the creation of such list. On the other hand, both Pinheiro and Cthulhu were willing to argue with Tik-Tok (even though both were still inclined for the moderator team) when the Strike happened. But that is just conjectures.... people change with the time I guess, or just my interpretation of the matter.

Általa írva Goblin, 16.01.2015 at 06:26

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 03:19

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 15:19

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:53

It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.

where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.

http://prntscr.com/5t3dh4

Are you even serious showing us that rule again, because as i recall i wrecked your little impotent argument before.

...amazing how people "debate" in AW ...you crush their argument, they dont respond, day or two later they post the same argument to a different person.

Then I #rekt your impotent little argument

Általa írva KYBL, 16.01.2015 at 06:12

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 03:19

Általa írva Tundy, 15.01.2015 at 15:19

Általa írva Guest, 15.01.2015 at 12:53

It says you cannot limit someone's ability to play maps even when they play by the rules, that's where it says you cannot ban people for SILLY reasons.

where does it says that? give me a screenshot of it.

http://prntscr.com/5t3dh4

"The game" refers to AtWar. I am not interfering with your ability to play AtWar, you can still play any map that isn't mine.

what ''the game'' can refer to is debatable. I honestly wish the Admins updated the rules.

But you do limit my ability to play AW a bit by banning me, though I would not be able to complain to the mods if you would provide a prntscrn of me breaking the rules of the map.

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 10:11

Then I #rekt your impotent little argument

> people who use hastags

No what the game is, is not debatable ...you can make your map, you payed to store it on AW servers, but if you want to publish your work you are to follow the rules of does on who's game you publish it.

Jesus ...do i have to debate both sides.

Általa írva Goblin, 16.01.2015 at 10:18

Általa írva Guest, 16.01.2015 at 10:11

Then I #rekt your impotent little argument

> people who use hastags

No what the game is, is not debatable ...you can make your map, you payed to store it on AW servers, but if you want to publish your work you are to follow the rules of does on who's game you publish it.

Jesus ...do i have to debate both sides.

What is your point? You do know I am on the anti mapmaker side?