Updating Rosters

[DylanBradbury]

If you take more of a communistic point of view, someone may say that they don't know how you can sleep at night keeping your mods as your own and not allowing others to improve on them. You should offer your mods to anyone who feels they can improve them because that is what is best for the whole. This is actually a very interesting example of how culture can determine morality.

I cannot fathom why a person would think that [myself not being able to sleep because I don't "share" my formulae.] I keep my calculators as my own because, well, they are my own. As Yankee mentioned earlier, they are just hosted here.

My calculators have two options, if you feel they're inadequate: don't use them; if you like them: use them.

If a mod is made as a template, then modify away. My calculators aren't templates..

I'm a very moral person, my parents raised me that way. I really don't see how a member who downloads my calculators, cracks the formulae, "improves" them here or there after I spent years perfecting them, and then releases his own version would be moral.

[DylanBradbury]

MVP2005Editor

Yes, MVP 2005 Editor is available. Download it at EAMods. You have to be a member to download it.

[CircleChange11]

I have a serious question.

I am contemplating editing all of the players' rating based on Baseball Prospectus's PECOTA card projections, eith er for my current franchise or for the 2010 season (using the Baseball Prospectus book that will come out in Feb '10).

I will likely use DB's calculators to come up with a medium value between the players actual 2009 performance and the 2010 PECOTA card projections because IMO, the PECOTA system tends to "under-project" somewhat.

This is for my own amusement/enjoyment, but I will start with KG rosters (the ones I am using in my franchise) including all of the MLB trades I have (and will) made/make, including off-season moves, how much 'editing' would one/I need to do in order to share them with others interested, if I were not able to obtain permission?

I would certainly give as much credit as possible, wherever the credit is due (and want to do the right thing). But, if I change/alter essentially ALL of the ratings, and leave essentially everything else the same, from who do I need to obtain permission and to whom do I need to credit (Ratings Calcs-DB, Starting Roster-KG, MVPEdit/Editor, etc) in order to share them with others.

This is something I intend to work on either now, or over the 'off-season'.

Thanks in advance, for the help/guidance.

[DylanBradbury]

I have a serious question.

I am contemplating editing all of the players' rating based on Baseball Prospectus's PECOTA card projections, eith er for my current franchise or for the 2010 season (using the Baseball Prospectus book that will come out in Feb '10).

I will likely use DB's calculators to come up with a medium value between the players actual 2009 performance and the 2010 PECOTA card projections because IMO, the PECOTA system tends to "under-project" somewhat.

This is for my own amusement/enjoyment, but I will start with KG rosters (the ones I am using in my franchise) including all of the MLB trades I have (and will) made/make, including off-season moves, how much 'editing' would one/I need to do in order to share them with others interested, if I were not able to obtain permission?

I would certainly give as much credit as possible, wherever the credit is due (and want to do the right thing). But, if I change/alter essentially ALL of the ratings, and leave essentially everything else the same, from who do I need to obtain permission and to whom do I need to credit (Ratings Calcs-DB, Starting Roster-KG, MVPEdit/Editor, etc) in order to share them with others.

This is something I intend to work on either now, or over the 'off-season'.

Thanks in advance, for the help/guidance.

You would not be able to release/share them, if you were unable to obtain permission from KG. To release a mod it has to start from scratch (i.e. the default rosters).

[CircleChange11]

You would not be able to release/share them, if you were unable to obtain permission from KG. To release a mod it has to start from scratch (i.e. the default rosters).

That's unfortunate, for a few reasons ... the primary one is if KG decides he doesn't want to do rosters anymore (or something like a PC crash) then the game essentially "dies" or it's "every man for himself" because I doubt too many are wanting to go back 4-5 years and make every retirement/transaction and create every new player that's been drafted/signed over the last half decade.

The reason I am asking is because going through just a few of the teams, I notice for example, Brandon Wood's ratings are based off his minor league performance (where's he's a beast), and not his major league performance (where he's a 'least), and Bonderman is rated higher than Porcello (and a lot of others), the "out of gas" or "ruined by injury" pitchers that are free agents are better than a lot of starters in the league (El Duque, Sheets, Pedro, etc), Eric Byrnes is a 'speed freak' even though a hammy injury last year destroyed any chance of him being "fast" (or even useful) again, and things like that.

That's not to criticize KG or anything of the sort b/c full roster updates for 120 teams is a monumental task.

I'm just wanting a roster that's more based on "performance projections" kind of thing to play the 2010 season with the expected "improvement" or "regression" that's predicted by BP's extensive research, rather than playing the season with the ratings based solely on "last year's performance". I will certainly do the work for my own franchise/dynasty. I just thought it might be fun/friendly to share them with others that might want a roster like that.

I could/will certainly ask KG for permission (perhaps allowing him to preview the rosters to ensure that it's not 'too much' like his), since I would be doing something that 'might' be very different from his 2010 rosters.

Hopefully nothing in this post reads negatively. I certainly understand/respect the 'copyright' (for lack of better word) that one retains for their hours and hours of labor.

Thanks for your time and comments.

Edit: I just saw another thread regarding KG and the removal of his files from this site. Looks like this project will be for "me only". I wish everyone well.

[DylanBradbury]

That's unfortunate, for a few reasons ... the primary one is if KG decides he doesn't want to do rosters anymore (or something like a PC crash) then the game essentially "dies" or it's "every man for himself" because I doubt too many are wanting to go back 4-5 years and make every retirement/transaction and create every new player that's been drafted/signed over the last half decade.

The reason I am asking is because going through just a few of the teams, I notice for example, Brandon Wood's ratings are based off his minor league performance (where's he's a beast), and not his major league performance (where he's a 'least), and Bonderman is rated higher than Porcello (and a lot of others), the "out of gas" or "ruined by injury" pitchers that are free agents are better than a lot of starters in the league (El Duque, Sheets, Pedro, etc), Eric Byrnes is a 'speed freak' even though a hammy injury last year destroyed any chance of him being "fast" (or even useful) again, and things like that.

That's not to criticize KG or anything of the sort b/c full roster updates for 120 teams is a monumental task.

I'm just wanting a roster that's more based on "performance projections" kind of thing to play the 2010 season with the expected "improvement" or "regression" that's predicted by BP's extensive research, rather than playing the season with the ratings based solely on "last year's performance". I will certainly do the work for my own franchise/dynasty. I just thought it might be fun/friendly to share them with others that might want a roster like that.

I could/will certainly ask KG for permission (perhaps allowing him to preview the rosters to ensure that it's not 'too much' like his), since I would be doing something that 'might' be very different from his 2010 rosters.

Hopefully nothing in this post reads negatively. I certainly understand/respect the 'copyright' (for lack of better word) that one retains for their hours and hours of labor.

Thanks for your time and comments.

No problem, I'm glad you understand the 'copyright' that modders retain for their hours of work. A lot of people don't.

As I said earlier, just because there are no "current" rosters, does not mean this game/site has to die. There are more than one-hundred seasons of historic baseball that could be created (with tons of time and effort going into each one.

If you read up, the original question of the thread was very similar to your question. XxFightingIrish wanted to update KG's rosters; and if you read later on, KG declined to give permission because he plans on releasing an update soon.

Again, thank-you for accepting, understanding, and following "the modder's 'copyright'." For me, it's startling how some members do not.

--------

EDIT: You edited before I could finish my response, so some of my response is not necessary. Additionally, thanks for mentioning my calculators in your earlier post. It's nice to know you use them!

[CircleChange11]

As I said earlier, just because there are no "current" rosters, does not mean this game/site has to die. There are more than one-hundred seasons of historic baseball that could be created (with tons of time and effort going into each one.

With that comment, I was strictly referring to a "2010 Season" (If for some reason KG did not want to update the rosters). Someone else would have to go waaaaaay back and "re-invent the wheel" (<-- would not be fun).

If you read up, the original question of the thread was very similar to your question. XxFightingIrish wanted to update KG's rosters; and if you read later on, KG declined to give permission because he plans on releasing an update soon.

I started reading through the thread, and gave up once it seemed to not be going anywhere.

I think the OP was asking if he could just alter the hitters stats and essentially leave everythng else the same. My desire is to basically take the rosters and redo all of the ratings based on a different set of performance stats. KG is (likely) going to use the 2009 stats (majors or minors), and I am looking to take a hybrid of actual performance stats and PECOTA card projected stats, for a roster that's sort of a 'prediction' or 'projected' type of roster, versus one that is 'based on last season's performance' ... and for guys that bounce between mlb and milb, I would use an 'average' rating based on the ratings that are calculated by your calculators for 'projected milb' ratings and those for 'mlb performance' (if that makes sense).

This is just something "I prefer", as I used to make rosters based on the "last 3 years", whereas most just used the "previous season". With the PECOTA card stuff, BP has done all of that hard work for me.

So, in that regard I was viewing my idea as being A LOT different than the OP. I'm not sure if KG would see it that way or not. I would be essentially editing every single rating in the game (based on different core data than he uses), as well as creating all the 'new' players via the draft/signing, which would probably take monthes of work ... as compared to just going through the names and changing the ratings that I thought KG "got wrong" (so to speak). Your calculators might also generate 'unique' hot/cold zones for the hitters/pitchers as well, since they data entered into the calculators would be different than KG's.

But, in the end, a lot of information (names, numbers, ht/wt, pitch selection, player ids, etc) would still be his work, so I could understand if he did not see the rosters as being "so different".

I'll certainly ask him for permission, and offer for him to preview the rosters if he wants. Worse thing he could say is "I'd rather you not." Well, I suppose he could call me ugly, but I've heard that one before.

EDIT: You edited before I could finish my response, so some of my response is not necessary. Additionally, thanks for mentioning my calculators in your earlier post. It's nice to know you use them!

Yeah, I kept reading and found more information. The calculators work very well (great work). I'm impressed.

[Yankee4Life]

This is still going on? Wow.

Look, I will admit that some of you guys made some pretty good points in here but everything still ends up going back to the same starting point in that you need the modder's permission to modify their work. If you get that, you are good to go. If not, it's over. And that right there should cover everything.

[CircleChange11]

This is still going on? Wow.

Look, I will admit that some of you guys made some pretty good points in here but everything still ends up going back to the same starting point in that you need the modder's permission to modify their work. If you get that, you are good to go. If not, it's over. And that right there should cover everything.

Once in a while I "bark at the moon". I'm having one of those days where I'm just kinda in the mood to be a fart.

I went and looked through the roster section of the downloads. I counted through the last 4 pages and came up with 13 unique roster modders (not counting people that only did one team). I then stopped counting and just skimmed through and noticed that there are essentially 4 major rosters in the last 2 years (4 different modders).

Now, am I really to believe that all 4 of these guys all 'started from scratch' and did not use Pared's work (Edit: Sorry, Pasred is nthe 'slider guy', Rashidi is the 'roster guy'), or any other contributor, to get started (or even to provide the bulk of the work). They ALL researched all of the transactions using ESPN or other website? They all individually read BaseballAmerica.com or minorleague/NCAA journal/pub to obtain scouting reports for the milb players? And used their own research at baseball-reference, etc and came up with their own rating system that works with a datafile, etc? Or did they borrow some ratings and/or ideas/systems/basis from others?

If so, I call 'Bullsh!t' and I call it in a BIG way. I think a lot of folks used Pared's great initial work (perhaps without credit) as a basis and then just kept up with the trades, created players, etc with input/assistance from others, and then claim the whole work as their own (more or less).

How do we know whether someone started from scratch or whether they used someone else work and just "say they did"? Won't a created player in one roster update be virtually identical to the same created player in another roster update? How do we know just how much of one roster might be incorporated into another with minor changes? The truth is "we don't", and for that reason, I am questioning my own stance on the issue. I don't personally know anyone involved, so I don't have 'trust' or 'mistrust', but experience in a variety of fields tells me there is rarely, if ever, a completely unique idea or invention or mod that is not heavily influenced or supported by something/someone.

Like I said, there are 13 pages of 'roster updates'. I don't believe that they are all "pure solo works", or 'starts from scratch' with the default rosters, without incoporating the works of others.

I think there is an undefined line here between what is "acceptable borrowing" and what is "stealing". This is where my mom would tell you "borrow means you give it back". For some reason, this is issue is "sticking with me.

It would seem to me that the goal of a modding community would be the "best possible mods" (with credit is given where it is earned, and in proportion), not so much concerning who has control over them. I'm seeing a whole lot of roster makers, likely all based on Rashidi's work, and yet very few, if any given any credit or thanks in ANY readme. Take that however you want. I just think it should be consistent. Don't demand permission, when you didn't (or didn't have to) ask for it, and don't demand thanks, when you didn't reciprocate.

Safe to say, I think this situation flat out stinks, and I think the owner of the site should have the decision (or some say) on whether one work is too heavily based on another to "not be distinct" (i.e., be posted as a spearate mod), because all one has to do to in order claim 'uniqueness' is "not reveal their sources" ... and I wonder how often that happens, because I don't see reference/thanks as often as I think I should in the readme's of some files.

[CircleChange11]

*posted above*

[CircleChange11]

At this point, my roster resembles EA's original roster in very few ways.

I'm glad to see these comments. I must have missed em the first time around.

I have some questions, because I am trying to decide, if only for myself, what types of things would be considered "original work" and which would be considered "borrowed/shared", as to determine what I might be comfortable with 'borrowing/sharing' in my own work (even if not hosted at this site).

My preference would be not to focus on who the actual modder is, but how the mod is made in regards to what is or is not considered "original work". But, as the case is in this thread, fairly or not, your (kg) name has been brought up, and since you are here and other roster makers from the past are not (UR, Luna, etc), you're the only one I can ask.

[1] Were the transactions you made in the past based in any way on Rashidi's annual Guides (or something similar)? I ask because this is a common source for player moves/transactions for a lot of people that make rosters.

If so, would you consider that 'original' or 'shared' work?

I've created thousands and thousands of new players,

[2] Were these created out of your own findings and calculations based on research you did of websites/stats regarding amatuer and minor league players?

[3] Did any of this information come from the numerous Create-A-Player (CAP) guides that have been produced over the years or as part of faqs or CAP threads that are on many forums? I ask because these are common sources of information used by a lot of guys to make/update rosters.

If so, would you consider this 'original' or 'shared' work?

and done the attributes for them myself.

Are the ratings ones that you determined yourself based on research of stats, observations of baseball, etc ... or are the ratings produced from stats entered into DB's calculators? (or a combination)

I ask specifically of the "Brandon Wood situation" that I noticed in JR26's franchise. His ratings are based on his MONSTROUS 3 minor league seasons, while ignoring his feeble 3 major league seasons, and the result is an All-Star that is barely a '4A player'. At this point, he's not even a 'prospect' anymore. I bring that up, not as a point of "ha ha, you're wrong", but as a question of "Is it original work?", and if so "Whose?", yours or DB's? I don;t consider entering data into a calculator and going with what it spits out as 'original work' of the guy that entered the data. Now, if you were to say take the avregae of his B to B+ projected ratings based on milb performance and average them with his D- to F MLB ratings based on performance, and threw in a "bit" of "this is how a feel his ratings should lean", then i would consider that to be 'mostly original', while giving credit to DB for providing a tool to form some sort of basis off. I view this a little like the situation where others debated just how 'original' highheat32's unis were.

So, i started looking at other stuff that caught my eye, but I haven't delved into whether they are just holdovers from previous updates (Pedro, El Duque, Sheets, Bonderman) or of they're based on some sort of calculated ratings based on performance or modder interpretation, etc.

What aspects do you consider to be 'original work' and what aspects are 'based off someone else's work' or even 'shared/borrowed'?

Thousands of hours have been spent on it.

I don't doubt that a bit, and as one that has made complete rosters/ratings for MicroLeague, Earl Weaver Baseball, Tony LaRussa Baseball (before Nick Keren did a lot of work for us), BBPRO98, and other games, I know how long and how pain-staking it is to make a roster update.

Which is why I am trying to figure out, if just for my own mind, what information is/should/could be viewed as "original" and what would be termed as "shared/borrowed'.

I ask because I think I have a unique way of viewing/combining/calculating various stat sources to determine ratings that are 'unique' from other roster updates, but I see no need to to repeat (i.e., from scratch) a lot of 'editing' that would/could be viewed as "shared" information (i.e., obtained/based on information not from the modders original thought/idea).

I want to be respectful, but I also realize that there is a ot of "shared information" that goes into roster making (via the internet) because it is such a monumental task. I'm also interested in how each modder goes about it, because well, I'm just intersted in that type of thing. I like to see the thinking behind the actions. To me, I guess I see a lot of grey area that am trying to shift to 'mostly black' or 'mostly white'.

Thanks for your time.

[cubanking]

i think you're wrong they have all reasons to say that, is nothing ethic to get the work from other people and then you get the credit .

[DylanBradbury]

CircleChange, I don't know for sure, but I think KG uses his own formulae/calculators/judgement to adjust his ratings, and not my calculators. I don't want to talk for him though, so you should probably still wait for confirmation from KG himself.

I agree with you that people should give credit for their mods, no matter how small the contribution.

In response to your earlier post, there might be situations where the original roster creator felt it was unnecessary to be given credit.

Sadly, and I think this is more prevalent than the aforementioned condition, but sometimes rosters that are copied and then edited aren't caught. If you believe a roster has been the victim of this, you can report it to an admin.

As well, a lot of the thirteen pages of rosters are a lot smaller than an entire Major and Minor League Update, and therefore aren't as hard to make and more likely to be totally original.

I believe also roster creators often put a check in their rosters in case this happens. That way the original creator can easily tell if it's a clean original roster, or if it has been copied without their permission, you can confirm this with KG as well.

I think the general rule of thumb is that you give credit to every member that helped you on the mod. Organizations, stats, baseball analysis books, and websites don't generally receive credit, but if you feel that it's required, then I think that's cool for you to do so.

Hope that clarifies things!

[DylanBradbury]

i think you're wrong they have all reasons to say that, is nothing ethic to get the work from other people and then you get the credit .

I believe you're saying that it's not ethical to steal/borrow/get work from other people, and then take the credit for your stolen/borrowed/modified mod. I couldn't agree more!

[patsen]

Technically, shouldn't people be keeping references to the data they use, sort of a bibliography? For your ratings, you said in various threads you used several sources and that they're no longer similar. Shouldn't we have access to that previous source as well?

You were quoting plagiarism, but generally misattributing or failing to quote sources is also a case of plagiarism. Or, does it not count if the person in question isn't on this site?

[DylanBradbury]

Technically, shouldn't people be keeping references to the data they use, sort of a bibliography? For your ratings, you said in various threads you used several sources and that they're no longer similar. Shouldn't we have access to that previous source as well?

You were quoting plagiarism, but generally misattributing or failing to quote sources is also a case of plagiarism. Or, does it not count if the person in question isn't on this site?

I think the minimum is to credit those who's mods you used who used, and using only the mods you received permission to use.

(If you're just arguing the use of the word "plagiarism", we're not here to debate diction.)

As I said in my previous post to CircleChange:

I think the general rule of thumb is that you give credit to every member that helped you on the mod. Organizations, stats, baseball analysis books, and websites don't generally receive credit, but if you feel that it's required, then I think that's cool for you to do so.

As for your second remark, I think you might have misunderstood me in the various threads. Stecropper did very generously help me with my inital versions of my pitching calculator, and I did credit him. All other work in all my other calculators, including subsequent versions of my pitching calculator, was done entirely by myself, and myself alone.

I hope that clarifies things.

[CircleChange11]

CircleChange, I don't know for sure, but I think KG uses his own formulae/calculators/judgement to adjust his ratings, and not my calculators. I don't want to talk for him though, so you should probably still wait for confirmation from KG himself.

That's possible. There are some very bright and passionate people on hobby forums.

If someone makes all of their own calcs using their own formula, etc ... that's certinaly a big shove in the direction of 'original work'.

In response to your earlier post, there might be situations where the original roster creator felt it was unnecessary to be given credit.

Yeah, I think that's obvious.

Sadly, and I think this is more prevalent than the aforementioned condition, but sometimes rosters that are copied and then edited aren't caught. If you believe a roster has been the victim of this, you can report it to an admin.

I'm only concerned with what constitutes an "original work", not turning people in or having things removed.

As well, a lot of the thirteen pages of rosters are a lot smaller than an entire Major and Minor League Update, and therefore aren't as hard to make and more likely to be totally original.

Does anyone really think I am talking about the rosters that were made mere monthes after the game was originally released?

I think with the examples/names, I've listed, I am be very clear about what I am getting at.

I believe also roster creators often put a check in their rosters in case this happens. That way the original creator can easily tell if it's a clean original roster, or if it has been copied without their permission, you can confirm this with KG as well.

I would imagine so. A name spelled wrong here, a reversed number there, give that guy a moustache even though he doesn't have one. It happens in lots of different hobbies and works. There's likely other "programming ways" of doing it that I don't even know about.

My only thought is the person better be sure that every single thing in their work is totally their own creation/idea, otherwise it's just a pretty damn dumb thing to do.

I think the general rule of thumb is that you give credit to every member that helped you on the mod.

edit: Oops, I tried a bit of humor and posted a link to an image of 'weak sauce'. Didn't work.

Seriously, that's a really w-e-a-k rule of thumb to have, given the context/content of this discussion.

Organizations, stats, baseball analysis books, and websites don't generally receive credit, but if you feel that it's required, then I think that's cool for you to do so.

I think if you use (or alter) the work of someone else you should give them credit (even if they're *cough* not an mvpmods comm member *cough*). If someone else, regardless of format, illustrated/published batter's hot/cold zones, or published spray charts, or published pitchers pitch slection and rated them, and you used that info pretty much "as is", then you better give em credit instead of passing it off as your own knowledge. If any of the information came from other websites that make rosters (even if different game titles or platforms), that information should be cited.

I think the same thing applies to [1] fake name threads, [2] transaction/FA threads, [3] CAP threads, [4] Roster Guides that were all over the place when this game was "hot".

That's not to say you need to list "The Life and Times of Roberto Clemente" that you read in 4th grade, or explain that "I saw BBTN episode 3 years ago where Corey Patterson stole 4 bases, so I bumped his speed up 2 points."

What I am saying is that the term 'original works' is very loosely defined and inconsistently applied.

Hope that clarifies things!

It doesn't. But, I've seen this movie before in lots of different theaters (i.e., had/read the discussion at other hobby forums ... animation, sketching, pitching coach, etc at one time or another depending on what I was working on), and it's always the same shade of grey because of flimsy definitions/applications of "original". It's a circular discussion because of a sucky definition. MVPMods is not unique in that aspect, unfortunately.

[DylanBradbury]

Sorry I couldn't clarify things further, CircleChange.

You've got a point about referencing material outside of the site. However, are there any forums/modding sites that reference outside material? I doubt there is.

Keep in mind, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them. You could asking the administrators what are the exact referencing rules for this site.

[Yankee4Life]

Keep in mind, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them. You could asking the administrators what are the exact referencing rules for this site.

Referencing rules? What the hell is that? I've stopped following this thread because there's nothing more I can say in this that I have not said already.

[patsen]

Generally, the serious ones reference while the casual ones tend to eschew it. Generally, the best modders in a field are such because of high standards, anyway. But, you should be careful telling us to use other sites' rules, given how aggressively we seem to be enforcing ours, as well as confusing rules and ethics.

But, is it safe to assume if there are threads whose purpose is collecting info, that said info is usable? The stance/delivery thread comes to mind, as well as the 'official' list of player IDs everyone seems to use.

[CircleChange11]

Sorry I couldn't clarify things further, CircleChange.

DB, there isn't anything you could have said to make the situation less murky. It's not due to a lack of communication or understanding. IMO, modding communities in general seem to have a sort of "pirate morals", which is to state that they are inherently screwed in ANY ethical or morality based debate. It's like trying to rationally explain "You can cheat on your wife/spouse/SO if you're not presently located in the same area code." Some go along with it for the benefits, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

You've got a point about referencing material outside of the site. However, are there any forums/modding sites that reference outside material? I doubt there is.

My points are primarily about 'originality' and 'ownership' and the "principle of the thing", not bibliographies, etc. Let's not get hung up on the less important details, and concentrate on the bigger idea of "original work" and "ownership".

I view "who did the thinking" as to who has 'origin' and 'ownership' claims to it. So if spray charts, roster changes, ratings calculators/formula, pitch data, hot/cold zone info, and other 'specialized data/info' came from somewhere other than the "modder's mind", then they should state it. If not the assumption is that the information is "their work".

Again, if I take someone's Baseball Mogul roster and "MVP'ize" it, it's not my original work, and I should definitely give credit to whoever made the the roster, and explain how I altered it (not giving away any possible information/formulas/etc that are more own creation).

I think we can all agree that basic, non-specialized data, BA, hometown, height, etc does not need to be referenced.

Keep in mind, I didn't make the rules, I just follow them. You could asking the administrators what are the exact referencing rules for this site.

S do I, and I am not trying to get them changed.

Like I said, my issues are primarily with the inconsistencies inherent in modding (and sketching, and pitching coaching, etc) because the whole deal is to share and expand with the optimum goal of the having the highest quality and most enjoyment. It only gets tricky when ownership starts to get claimed. Sometimes there's a valid claim, sometimes someone tries to claim something that isn't 'totally theirs'.

3rd party tools, IMO, are the classic exception.

[DylanBradbury]

Referencing rules? What the hell is that? I've stopped following this thread because there's nothing more I can say in this that I have not said already.

Referencing rules as in: "Thanks to Yankee4Life for his cyberfaces, JoeShmo for his portraits," etc. Some people (if you read above) think there should be things like: "Thanks to Baseball-Reference.com for stats, and ESPN.com for the pictures." (Or something along those lines.)

Generally, the serious ones reference while the casual ones tend to eschew it. Generally, the best modders in a field are such because of high standards, anyway. But, you should be careful telling us to use other sites' rules, given how aggressively we seem to be enforcing ours, as well as confusing rules and ethics.

But, is it safe to assume if there are threads whose purpose is collecting info, that said info is usable? The stance/delivery thread comes to mind, as well as the 'official' list of player IDs everyone seems to use.

Patsen, I think you might have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that we follow other sites' rules, just curious as to if there was a modding site that forced users to cite work outside of the website.

[patsen]

Referencing rules as in: "Thanks to Yankee4Life for his cyberfaces, JoeShmo for his portraits," etc. Some people (if you read above) think there should be things like: "Thanks to Baseball-Reference.com for stats, and ESPN.com for the pictures." (Or something along those lines.)

What's the difference? What we do seems to imply we only acknowledge using sources off this own site. If someone took a Baseball Mogul roster and converted it to MVP, you seem to imply he has no reason to acknowledge it, as though this rule only applies to the site (and EAMods by extension). Like it's only unethical to steal from members of this community.

Patsen, I think you might have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that we follow other sites' rules, just curious as to if there was a modding site that forced users to cite work outside of the website.

I don't know the details, but like I said, most of the serious modders do. It's a thing of respect, and I know Retrosheet asks that anyone who uses their numbers posts a notice saying so. BR by extension uses Retrosheet data, and other data.

Academically, it is an offense to not quote references, but it doesn't seem like anyone is doing any of this for academic reasons, but if you're trying to wedge ethics into the deal, I want to show you both sides of the coin.

We just want to know what we can and can't do. It seems rather inconsistent, and all the answers from your side were of questions three pages ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if all this discussion did was deter people from wanting to make new updates, to avoid being yelled at.

[CircleChange11]

Some people (if you read above) think there should be things like: "Thanks to Baseball-Reference.com for stats, and ESPN.com for the pictures." (Or something along those lines.)

DB ... I think you're a smart guy. So, when I read comments like this I think you are intentionally miscontruing, mis-stating or misrepresenting what is actually being said.

I'm wondering if it is just being ornery or if it is avoiding the main arguement, which is a very touching issue at ALL modding/hobby forums.

There is data that is basic (non-derived, essentially), such as those that you find at espn.com, cbssports, and even baseball-reference. But there is also data that is specialized, some of it highly specialized, that only gets in it's usable form by a lot of work by 'someone'. IMO, to use that work without citation, since it's the "thought" that's the actual 'original work', is basically theft. It would be getting praised/recognized for thinking and/or application of something that "ain't yours".

The difference is very significant and I'm sure you see it.

-----------------------------------------

To be very specific, and at this point this is just an "ethical discussion". But when one claims ownership on a mod and attempts to control all of the information/aspects of that mod, given the community nature of modding, it think it's right to try and figure out just how much of a 'mod' a modder has the right to try and control, again given the nature of modding and the reliance on lots of different sources.

[patsen]

So, hypothetical, I decided to start doing a 2009 roster set. Not trying to compete, just put an alternative out there.

- It's perfectly alright to get stats from whatever source and use them. But, we need a way to convert it to ratings.

- We have bio data from the stats set, and we have roster data from MLB/MiLB, so we have teams and uni numbers.

- Players are also indexed for picture/audio purposes. There's a master list, so I assume we get to use that, as opposed to force us from doing it from scratch. Same with referencing existing cyberfaces.

- So, we find a way to convert stats to ratings, whether via MVPEdit or your calculators, or CAP instructions on another site, or some other custom source.

- Of course, a lot of people lie about height and weight, so we either need to take it verbatim, or modify them later.

- And, the other info about appearance, like stance, swing type, hair, facial hair, delivery, and what accessories we have. There are threads on stances, I assume that's fair game.

- As for pitch lists, we can generally rip those off Mogul, which according to you is perfectly ethical, so at least that's a plus.

So, generally speaking, we should have the ability to make a roster set from scratch, but it would definitely be nice to have a pool of these 'visual' things we can draw from instead of making them up pseudorandomly, and having to set them once the complaints come in.

Am I missing something? Given all these 'copyrighted' parts are generally only appearances.