Difference between revisions of "Talk:Super Booster II: Magic"

Latest revision as of 01:09, 24 November 2009

cce / cc_e

Umm, I just got someone else (I haven't bought the pack yet) to use /cce in-game, and it worked. I can't guarantee they did it, but I asked them to use "cce" and didn't mention "cc_e", so I would have to assume they did it the way I asked. -- Agge (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Preview images

I personally don't think we should show these since they are pulled from the game files instead of a legitimate leak. I have hidden them currently. Yea/nay, should we show these "illegal" images? -- Aggelakis 06:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Selfish nay. Baalus Seth 08:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use the way NPC dialogue can be hidden, and add a spoiler tag, would that suffice? Sera404 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll not revert you at this point, but I firmly disagree. I'll continue the discussion on the forum, as this is really a more general issue, and deserves a more general, and wider, discussion. - Sister Leortha 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulling data out of the game's files is against the EULA. Featuring such data on this site is not in its best interest. Corebreach 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly he's right "While anything that leaks out as this costume piece has is fair game, please remember that decompiling the game files and looking through what you find by doing so is not allowed under the EULA." http://uk.boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=GenDiscussUK&Number=1306660&bodyprev=#Post1306660 - Dustified 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume forum moderators are qualified to give legal advice? Is it reasonable to assume they've read the EULA in its entirety and aren't just cherry picking? Is it reasonable to assume the section of the EULA that explicitly permits noncommercial use of game content is overriden by the section of the EULA prohibiting "decompilation" and preserving "decompilation rights" (which is not a legal term, does not appear in any copyright statute, and is undefined by the EULA) and not the other way around? Is it reasonable to assume a EULA prohibition against "decompilation" is legal, enforceable in court, and trumps a fair use defense (which is a legal term, defined by copyright statute)?

My opinion is that every one of these assumptions is fatally flawed. A forum mod is not a lawyer, much less your lawyer. The EULA is self-contradictory on the subject. There is no such thing as "decompilation rights." Reading files on your own computer and noncommercial use of the data is a clear cut case of fair use. Noncommercial use of game data someone else read doesn't even need to be fair use; it's licensed under the EULA. The images should be restored. Rigel Kent 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is difficult to understand, please let me know. It's a complex topic. I can try to simplify it, but no promises. Rigel Kent 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but this is, as you say, your opinion. Given that you're not my (or anyone else here's) lawyer either, your opinion on the matter doesn't really hold any more weight than that of a forum moderator. Sure, the EULA might not hold up in court - but who's going to take this to court and test it? Is this really a fight that Paragonwiki wants to take up as a point of principle? Is the publishing of these images against the wishes of NCSoft worth the loss of goodwill that will result? It seems to me that this is better looked at as a practical question than a legal one. Redoubt 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove. There have been official images posted by official sources, so personally, I don't think EULA violations should be posted alongside them. Yes, they are EULA violations. It's information pulled from the piggs, which is against the EULA. I don't care whether it carries any legal weight, Paragon Wiki needs to stay in good standing with the developers of this game. Until there is a consensus, do not add these images back to the main article. -- Agge (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

o.o actually, it should be okay now, we where originally holding off posting them till the pack had been officially announced. Now that it has.. well, main problem would be that we don't have any guy ones. Why this has been brought up after the fact puzzles me a bit.. @.@ as for lawyers.. we're on the interwebs, everyone is secretly a cat or dog mashing a keyboard here, we have no idea if anyone who would claim to be a lawyer is or not unless we contacted them in RL. The photos where kept of the main wiki (but where on the forums for viewing) as a matter of curtsy to NCsoft, not so much legality. --Sleepykitty 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with the goodwill argument when I see someone at NCSoft demand the removal of all pigg-dived content from Paragonwiki. Fair warning, though: there's a lot of pigg-dived content here. A lot. Be ready to lose a lot of Paragonwiki's content... and independence. And be ready to question how much "goodwill" is worth to this site.

As for the EULA end of the argument, I guess I just needed another hard lesson on not arguing with lay people on the Internet. I enthusiastically recommend taking a semester course in business law or contract law through your local community college for anyone who's interested in contracts. Other than that, I'll optimistically assume it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong on the EULA end and we can leave it at that. Rigel Kent 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I did 12 months of contract and company law as part of my degree, that doesn't qualify me to conclusively determine the legal validity of a contested clause in the EULA. There's a reason why lawyers can only give legal *opinions* - it's only the judge's interpretation that actually matters in the end. Anyway, I think you might be right about the legalities, I just think that it's beside the point. Overtly publishing content that's explicitly against the wishes of NCSoft will edge us closer to the crackdown on Pigg-derived content that you refer to - all of the less obvious stuff is extant at NCSoft's pleasure, and if they decide they want to start strictly enforcing what they see as their contractual right then they're at liberty to do so. The onus then falls upon the site to prove that the content is legal, and I really don't see Paragonwiki taking NCSoft to court for the right to publish this stuff. Better to take a conciliatory approach and avoid the situation entirely. Redoubt 02:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragonwiki is already publishing piggdived content. So NCSoft would take Paragonwiki to court, not the other way around. Also, I don't assume the situation is anything more than baseless paranoia. I still haven't seen any C&Ds against fan sites. Rigel Kent 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

P.W. has been asked several times to take down content published before official release dates. P.W. has been asked a few times not to publish certain info (usually in regards to developers' RL identities, but not confined to it). P.W. has been asked a couple times not to publish more than what we've already got published. So really, I think you're on the wrong foot, and I am on the right. -- Agge (talk)

Mystic Fortune

I've just added info on the Mystic Fortune power. Although I grabbed the info from City of Data, the information is also available in-game via linking to the power in chat, so I figured it would be fine to include on this page. The images had already been uploaded to Paragonwiki. If there's disagreement that it should be here before the new box expansion is released, feel free to remove it. But then, the box will be released in just a few days ;) --Fleeting Whisper 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I included the not on The Fool because even though it says -tohit, the value is only 3% --Fleeting Whisper 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

2 Capes Bug

Just for the record, here is Niviene's post [1] SaintNicster 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Extensive Image Gallery?

I wanted to browse over some of the stuff for the magic pack, but it doesn't have all the images listed like the much more in-depth Super Booster IV: Martial Arts. I'd be willing to take and upload screens, but I might miss a few. Would anyone like to help? -Dispari

Okay, I've done what I think is all of the male parts to begin with. http://meru.xfury.net/images/SB2/ They should be properly named per Super Booster IV: Martial Arts. Please let me know if I've missed any. I'll do female later if someone uploads these and puts them on the page. -Dispari

I took a look, but haven't had a chance to save all of your images off and upload them. It might just be faster if you upload them yourself with the Upload file link under "Toolbox" on the left. --Eabrace 08:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I may if nobody else gets around to it. I still need to do female. But I want to wait to see if I got everything first. Is there anything I missed with the male parts? -Dispari

I updated my site to include what I believe is all the female parts. http://meru.xfury.net/images/SB2/ Please let me know if I missed any parts. Anyone's welcome to upload these, or I may later. Just takes a long time! -Dispari

I've finished updating the page with all the male and female costume parts for the magic pack. Let me know if I missed any! -Dispari 01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)