Mollom is the anti spam service. There is no reason it should be preventing you from posting. I was very careful when marking accounts for approval and spam. Let me see if I can figure that one out. What thread were you attempting to post in?
Ok, I've reviewed, approved, or removed about 1500 accounts. That should account for the vast majority of active, legitimate users. I removed a bunch of obvious bot accounts (never logged in, no activity of any kind, over 2 years old). If your account needs reapproval still, send me a message. If you're a new user, you don't need to message me. Your account will likely be approved by one of the moderators in a day or two. :)
EDIT: Ugh! I'm an idiot. No one can see this in the admin forum. Moved message to site admin thread.
Not a bad idea. In the meantime, I've reviewed, approved, or removed about 1500 accounts. That should account for the vast majority of active, legitimate users. I removed a bunch of obvious bot accounts (never logged in, no activity of any kind, over 2 years old). If your account needs reapproval still, send me a message. If you're a new user, you don't need to message me. Your account will likely be approved by one of the moderators in a day or two. :)
I'd like to take a crack at this, but there isn't an apparent way to bulk-approve the selected rows. I can check the "approve" checkbox but what do I do to finalize? the execute dropdown doesn't have anything approve-specific.
I think the inactive user filter isn't bad, just the part filtering 8 days old is no good.
Accounts appear to be flagged for pending approval when the account is new. If the account is somehow auto-unapproved due to altering profile settings or something, the account does not ever re-appear on the list of accounts pending approval. p0ss or some higher-level admin than I may be able to see deeper into the database, but as it stands now, there is nothing letting admins know that accounts need REapproval.
I approved SpiderDave's and Duion's account within minutes of their posts.
I don't think that was an excuse to ignore the source requirement, it was an example of the artist defining what constitutes source. In that case, the artists contributing to wesnoth aren't ignoring the source requirement, they're saying the assets they submitted are the source.
With code, the definition of source is fairly obvious. With art it isn't nearly as concrete, so they (wesnoth) defer to the preferences of the artist. "preferences" being directly related to "preferred form of modification". This interpretation being accepted by Debian, including newer submissions, not just grandfathered-in stuff from way back in the day, is relevant.
A friend of mine created a small game in machine code... because he's crazy. No, not assembly; Machine code. (He's since made it available in assembly so others can learn how to code like it on their own machines. see http://xlogicx.net/?p=515 and https://github.com/XlogicX, especially https://github.com/XlogicX/tronsolitare etc.) Regardless, there is no true source code other than the machine code itself. What happens when he releases it under GPL? He is the copyright owner, his preferred form of modification is direct bit manipulation of machine code. Will Debian like it? I don't know, but who can complain about him. He's the only one who has the right to complain about his own source. This is an obvious fringe case, but my point is that "preferred form of modification", especially pertaining to art, remains nebulous.
"...we interpret "preferred form of the work for making modifications" as the modifiable form that the author chooses to ship us for the source tree..."
...Wesnoth has been accepted in Debian for years - this is not an obscure oversight, this is a fairly major project openly expressing an interpretation of the source clause which has been accepted readily by the Debian maintainers....
However this goes, we can start asking (politely) artists using GPL to include more adaptive formats for their assets at the very least.
I understand where Clint is coming from; we want to be the shining example of how to handle licensing. I just don't have the answers to questions like what formats do we accept? Anything lossy* is where I personally draw the line, but as gsliepen pointed out, that isn't flexible enough for many people (or entities... like Debian).
*EDIT: By "lossy" I mean single-file common formats like mp3, ogg, or jpeg. Lossless alternatives being wav, flac, or png. Obviously there are "super-duper-lossless" formats like monstrous zip files containing midi's plus the entire sample library used by that midi (midi's by themselves are insufficient for reproducing the same song! Each computer's audio samples have widely varying quality, so don't try to tell me midi sounds just as good from one computer to another sans the sample library!) or xcf/psd files with individual layers, or audio daws with all tracks separated and synth settings. But what do we accept? Only super-duper-lossless? Even if the artist produced their art in mspaint or windows sound recorder? We've had artists wanting to upload some of the extra "source-y" formats, but found they were unable to because OGA can only handle 200 MB uploads. Yes, the "source code" for a single song was more than 200 MB.
I have no doubt that any restriction on GPL asset formats we come up with will drastically discourage the use of GPL on OGA far more than it will encourage the inclusion of flexible "source" formats. I'm fine with that if you guys are.
@SpiderDave: sorry about the lack of account approval. Your name doesn't show up in the list of users waiting to be approved, so I wasn't even aware of it. I'll try to remedy that.
I agree about not knowing who is a moderator or administrator. Beyond the "Administrator" medal, I can't tell who else is "staff" myself. As for the feedback forum, I don't feel it's all that bad. Posts are always responded to promptly. The issues are not always resolved immediately, but they are addressed. I don't see a helpdesk ticketing system providing any sort of wild improvement, but I'm not against it either. :)
Mollom is the anti spam service. There is no reason it should be preventing you from posting. I was very careful when marking accounts for approval and spam. Let me see if I can figure that one out. What thread were you attempting to post in?
Ok, I've reviewed, approved, or removed about 1500 accounts. That should account for the vast majority of active, legitimate users. I removed a bunch of obvious bot accounts (never logged in, no activity of any kind, over 2 years old). If your account needs reapproval still, send me a message. If you're a new user, you don't need to message me. Your account will likely be approved by one of the moderators in a day or two. :)
EDIT: Ugh! I'm an idiot. No one can see this in the admin forum. Moved message to site admin thread.
Not a bad idea. In the meantime, I've reviewed, approved, or removed about 1500 accounts. That should account for the vast majority of active, legitimate users. I removed a bunch of obvious bot accounts (never logged in, no activity of any kind, over 2 years old). If your account needs reapproval still, send me a message. If you're a new user, you don't need to message me. Your account will likely be approved by one of the moderators in a day or two. :)
I'd like to take a crack at this, but there isn't an apparent way to bulk-approve the selected rows. I can check the "approve" checkbox but what do I do to finalize? the execute dropdown doesn't have anything approve-specific.
I think the inactive user filter isn't bad, just the part filtering 8 days old is no good.
Done. :)
Accounts appear to be flagged for pending approval when the account is new. If the account is somehow auto-unapproved due to altering profile settings or something, the account does not ever re-appear on the list of accounts pending approval. p0ss or some higher-level admin than I may be able to see deeper into the database, but as it stands now, there is nothing letting admins know that accounts need REapproval.
I approved SpiderDave's and Duion's account within minutes of their posts.
I don't think that was an excuse to ignore the source requirement, it was an example of the artist defining what constitutes source. In that case, the artists contributing to wesnoth aren't ignoring the source requirement, they're saying the assets they submitted are the source.
With code, the definition of source is fairly obvious. With art it isn't nearly as concrete, so they (wesnoth) defer to the preferences of the artist. "preferences" being directly related to "preferred form of modification". This interpretation being accepted by Debian, including newer submissions, not just grandfathered-in stuff from way back in the day, is relevant.
A friend of mine created a small game in machine code... because he's crazy. No, not assembly; Machine code. (He's since made it available in assembly so others can learn how to code like it on their own machines. see http://xlogicx.net/?p=515 and https://github.com/XlogicX, especially https://github.com/XlogicX/tronsolitare etc.) Regardless, there is no true source code other than the machine code itself. What happens when he releases it under GPL? He is the copyright owner, his preferred form of modification is direct bit manipulation of machine code. Will Debian like it? I don't know, but who can complain about him. He's the only one who has the right to complain about his own source. This is an obvious fringe case, but my point is that "preferred form of modification", especially pertaining to art, remains nebulous.
Wow. that... that is a good point, MoikMellah.
However this goes, we can start asking (politely) artists using GPL to include more adaptive formats for their assets at the very least.
I understand where Clint is coming from; we want to be the shining example of how to handle licensing. I just don't have the answers to questions like what formats do we accept? Anything lossy* is where I personally draw the line, but as gsliepen pointed out, that isn't flexible enough for many people (or entities... like Debian).
*EDIT: By "lossy" I mean single-file common formats like mp3, ogg, or jpeg. Lossless alternatives being wav, flac, or png. Obviously there are "super-duper-lossless" formats like monstrous zip files containing midi's plus the entire sample library used by that midi (midi's by themselves are insufficient for reproducing the same song! Each computer's audio samples have widely varying quality, so don't try to tell me midi sounds just as good from one computer to another sans the sample library!) or xcf/psd files with individual layers, or audio daws with all tracks separated and synth settings. But what do we accept? Only super-duper-lossless? Even if the artist produced their art in mspaint or windows sound recorder? We've had artists wanting to upload some of the extra "source-y" formats, but found they were unable to because OGA can only handle 200 MB uploads. Yes, the "source code" for a single song was more than 200 MB.
I have no doubt that any restriction on GPL asset formats we come up with will drastically discourage the use of GPL on OGA far more than it will encourage the inclusion of flexible "source" formats. I'm fine with that if you guys are.
@SpiderDave: sorry about the lack of account approval. Your name doesn't show up in the list of users waiting to be approved, so I wasn't even aware of it. I'll try to remedy that.
I agree about not knowing who is a moderator or administrator. Beyond the "Administrator" medal, I can't tell who else is "staff" myself. As for the feedback forum, I don't feel it's all that bad. Posts are always responded to promptly. The issues are not always resolved immediately, but they are addressed. I don't see a helpdesk ticketing system providing any sort of wild improvement, but I'm not against it either. :)
A place to contact admins is a good idea.
Pages