Suggestion Rule 13 should be adjusted.

[Backlash84]

Rule 13 in question.

13. Plagiarism (the copying of another member's content, includes writing, art, and Request Threads/plot ideas, and claiming them as your own) is not tolerated. This includes posting ideas from other members that you acknowledge are not your own, but that you do not have permission to use.

I have never broken this rule, never really even felt the need to, but it makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I understand not outright taking someone else’s idea and taking credit for it, taking credit for someone else’s idea is harmful to the writer of the original idea. My issue is with copying an idea not being allowed even when credit to the original author is given.

It makes ZERO sense. Countless users on this site completely rip off/“steal” other peoples ideas every single day. No one who’s played as one of JK Rowlings characters on this site has ever asked her for permission. And what’s the difference? The amount of fame the original has somehow makes it public domain? If that’s the case, why not ban people from using images from relatively unknown artists? People do that on here every day too without issue. What precisely makes characters/scenarios written by users on this site not fair game, but all ideas outside of this site are fair game?

I can’t think how it harms the creator of the original work at all, so long as they are credited. I don’t see how ideas/characters posted outside of this site (fandoms, artwork, even pictures of REAL people) are fair game, but if that same idea was written down in a request thread on this site, it’s now untouchable.

If anyone can explain the difference to me, I’d appreciate it.

 

[raison detre]

JK Rowling isn't a member on this forum, for one. The rule specifically says that plagiarizing a fellow member's ideas/work (be it art, graphics, writing). There's one difference.

Also, the rule mentions asking for permission. It's perfectly fine to post an idea that isn't yours if you first ask for permission from the member you're taking the idea from if you ask them first. This was also mentioned in the earlier thread. You would, of course, as a courtesy, ideally give credit to the user who you asked permission from.

Furthermore, I doubt JK Rowling, Kishimoto, George R.R. Martin or whoever people "rip off" ideas from in their fandoms care if fans use their characters as long as it isn't in a commercial sense. It's also unrealistic to expect a person to ask a famous author for permission to use their IP for a fanfic, and also for said author to reply, but it isn't at all unrealistic for you to ask the person you want to borrow the idea from for permission, since they're likely still active on the forum if you've seen their thread and ideas. An exception would be if you come across a request from years ago where the poster hasn't been active for years, but I think it'd be fine to assume you can take it and possibly adjust a few things to make it no longer plagiarism.

I think the rule is fine as it is. All it really asks from the user is to take a moment to ask for permission from someone before taking their ideas. It might not seem like much, but it can be really demoralizing to find out someone's taken your post and posing it as their own.

 

[Lord DreamCrusher]

The rule is also a good one to help prevent attempts at partner poaching. While I'd hope such things don't happen often, if someone were to, say, target another user and copy all their ideas in the hopes of lowering their odds of receiving roleplay requests then it's nice to have a ruling to be able to point to and ask for moderator intervention.

Rule 13 is a rule of respect, not commercial licensing. As part of this community you are expected to treat other courteously. Writing in fandoms in a forum that doesn't have anything to do with the original authors/creators is hardly the same as copying your next door neighbor so-to-speak; someone you are bumping shoulders with on a daily basis. Just like many artists dislike and attempt to limit where their creative works are shared (with varying degrees of success) the people who write on this site should feel comfortable not to think that the ideas they put out there can be taken so easily by someone else and undercut them.

At the end of the day Blue Moon can only be expected to enforce things as pertains to this site in particular. If outside sources want to get upset about individuals on the site using artwork or ideas then it becomes an entirely separate matter, most likely a legal one at that. Hence why copying from other members is against the rule and why the rule does not mention outside sources. The rule absolutely needs to stay.

 

[Backlash84]

JK Rowling isn't a member on this forum, for one. The rule specifically says that plagiarizing a fellow member's ideas/work (be it art, graphics, writing). There's one difference.

Also, the rule mentions asking for permission. It's perfectly fine to post an idea that isn't yours if you first ask for permission from the member you're taking the idea from if you ask them first. This was also mentioned in the earlier thread. You would, of course, as a courtesy, ideally give credit to the user who you asked permission from.

Furthermore, I doubt JK Rowling, Kishimoto, George R.R. Martin or whoever people "rip off" ideas from in their fandoms care if fans use their characters as long as it isn't in a commercial sense. It's also unrealistic to expect a person to ask a famous author for permission to use their IP for a fanfic, and also for said author to reply, but it isn't at all unrealistic for you to ask the person you want to borrow the idea from for permission, since they're likely still active on the forum if you've seen their thread and ideas. An exception would be if you come across a request from years ago where the poster hasn't been active for years, but I think it'd be fine to assume you can take it and possibly adjust a few things to make it no longer plagiarism.

I think the rule is fine as it is. All it really asks from the user is to take a moment to ask for permission from someone before taking their ideas. It might not seem like much, but it can be really demoralizing to find out someone's taken your post and posing it as their own.

Well, yeah, but I address all that in the main argument. The fact that being a member means no one can copy your work, even if they credit you, seems like an arbitrary distinction with no real purpose behind it besides “because I said so”.

And I’m aware you can ask, but they can say no… or just not respond at all. I don’t see what moral difference it makes to copy an idea from someone on this site compared to copying an idea from anywhere else.

And yes, George R. R. Martin does care about people writing fan fiction about his work.

 

[Backlash84]

The rule is also a good one to help prevent attempts at partner poaching. While I'd hope such things don't happen often, if someone were to, say, target another user and copy all their ideas in the hopes of lowering their odds of receiving roleplay requests then it's nice to have a ruling to be able to point to and ask for moderator intervention.

Rule 13 is a rule of respect, not commercial licensing. As part of this community you are expected to treat other courteously. Writing in fandoms in a forum that doesn't have anything to do with the original authors/creators is hardly the same as copying your next door neighbor so-to-speak; someone you are bumping shoulders with on a daily basis. Just like many artists dislike and attempt to limit where their creative works are shared (with varying degrees of success) the people who write on this site should feel comfortable not to think that the ideas they put out there can be taken so easily by someone else and undercut them.

At the end of the day Blue Moon can only be expected to enforce things as pertains to this site in particular. If outside sources want to get upset about individuals on the site using artwork or ideas then it becomes an entirely separate matter, most likely a legal one at that. Hence why copying from other members is against the rule and why the rule does not mention outside sources. The rule absolutely needs to stay.

I don’t really see how “player poaching” is a problem. If you credit the original writer of the prompt, you are directly advertising that the original writer is looking for people to write that prompt (or not, depending on how much time has passed, but since we are using the poaching argument I’ll assume they are still looking) and are simply offering the individual reading the opportunity to write it with you as well. Why should the other person be forced to decide to either write the story with the original author (who may not be compatible with you for a number of reasons), or not at all?

Getting upset someone else is using your idea for their own private stories is nonsensical to me. It would certainly make any fandom players massive hypocrites.

 

[raison detre]

Well, yeah, but I address all that in the main argument. The fact that being a member means no one can copy your work, even if they credit you, seems like an arbitrary distinction with no real purpose behind it besides “because I said so”.

And I’m aware you can ask, but they can say no… or just not respond at all. I don’t see what moral difference it makes to copy an idea from someone on this site compared to copying an idea from anywhere else.

And yes, George R. R. Martin does care about people writing fan fiction about his work.

Nothing's stopping you from reading a prompt, thinking "Hey, that idea sounds neat" and proceeding to modify it enough that it isn't the same idea any longer. As someone with a passion for writing, it shouldn't be that difficult. And if it is, then that's just an opportunity to challenge yourself to do it anyway. Then it no longer breaks the rule, because this is about stealing ideas verbatim.

I just gave George R. R. Martin as an example, it's not the crux of the argument anyway. Many writers start out writing fanfiction. Besides, as far as I can understand it, George R. R. Martin is referring to "fan-fiction" as a professional endeavor. Meaning, using other writers' universes and works in a professional setting, for money. It then goes on to say that he himself did write fan-fiction, as in for other fans. If you're writing a fandom roleplay, chances are you're doing it with other fans. In other words, "fiction written by fans for other fans". In that case, I'd say it doesn't fall under what George disapproves of.

In any case, the rule is a community-driven one. If it was fine to just take a person's idea without letting them know, but 'crediting' them, I don't think it'd be a very user-friendly environment.

 

[Backlash84]

It’s not really an issue I personally have, never used another persons idea or character before besides fandom stuff. I just get bothered when things don’t seem to make logical sense.

And he is quite clear what he means in the article I linked.

“he admitted that while he started out writing fanfiction as a high schooler, back then, it didn't mean fiction using characters and universes created by other writers. Rather, it was fiction written by fans for other fans.”

He even explicitly uses fan fiction written by an amateur not for profit in an example he gives on why he is against it.

 

[raison detre]

It makes logical sense to me in the context that a person might feel slighted or insulted if they see their own ideas posted by someone else without their consent. In that sense, I suppose if you don't care about the feelings of a fellow community member, it doesn't make sense. It's about fostering a kind environment in the community. That's what a lot of rules in the post are about; fostering an environment where people can be comfortable.

Anyhow, I personally think the rule is fine as it is. It doesn't really affect anyone in any substantial way to ask for permission before posting an idea. Whatever the case is, staff are the ones making the call whether the rule is changed or not. Discussion is free to be made. All I did was put in my two cents on the matter, just as you did by making this post. We are both free to express ourselves as long as it is in a civil manner. I think you're valid for your opinion, even if I personally disagree with it.

Whatever the case, I'd rather avoid talking in circles about the matter, so I'll just bow out of the conversation now.

 

[Solvent]

It’s not really an issue I personally have, never used another persons idea or character before besides fandom stuff. I just get bothered when things don’t seem to make logical sense.

It makes logical sense. Here you are dealing with other people in what could be described as a 'face to face' setting, part of a community. Not authors who may be dead, seperated by a vast gulf in popularity (GRRM) or wrapped up in so many layers of bigotry they're emotionally and intellectually in the Mariana Trench (Rowling).

Actions here affect the people here, they do not affect those example authors.

 

[Backlash84]

It makes logical sense to me in the context that a person might feel slighted or insulted if they see their own ideas posted by someone else without their consent. In that sense, I suppose if you don't care about the feelings of a fellow community member, it doesn't make sense. It's about fostering a kind environment in the community. That's what a lot of rules in the post are about; fostering an environment where people can be comfortable.

Anyhow, I personally think the rule is fine as it is. It doesn't really affect anyone in any substantial way to ask for permission before posting an idea. Whatever the case is, staff are the ones making the call whether the rule is changed or not. Discussion is free to be made. All I did was put in my two cents on the matter, just as you did by making this post. We are both free to express ourselves as long as it is in a civil manner. I think you're valid for your opinion, even if I personally disagree with it.

Whatever the case, I'd rather avoid talking in circles about the matter, so I'll just bow out of the conversation now.

I mean, I don’t see the value in placating someone who’s unreasonably upset about something that has zero negative effect on them at the cost of the enjoyment of other users. But if you don’t want to discuss it further that’s fine.

 

[Tassu]

Well, yeah, but I address all that in the main argument. The fact that being a member means no one can copy your work, even if they credit you, seems like an arbitrary distinction with no real purpose behind it besides “because I said so”.

All rules are either arbitrary, laid down by whomever runs the business/service or socially agreed upon when people form communities. I would argue that BlueMoon is, inherently, a service, and thus the admins are free to write the rules they feel achieve the goals they have. We are free to not associate with the site if we so choose to.

It’s not really an issue I personally have, never used another persons idea or character before besides fandom stuff. I just get bothered when things don’t seem to make logical sense.

Now, your logic isn't morally better than anyone else's. It's fine if things bother you. Expecting others to conform is a different story.

It makes ZERO sense. Countless users on this site completely rip off/“steal” other peoples ideas every single day.

People also break speed limits daily. Still, most people consider speed limits reasonable. People not abiding a rule doesn't make the rule bad in itself.

 

[Backlash84]

It makes logical sense. Here you are dealing with other people in what could be described as a 'face to face' setting, part of a community. Not authors who may be dead, seperated by a vast gulf in popularity (GRRM) or wrapped up in so many layers of bigotry they're emotionally and intellectually in the Mariana Trench (Rowling).

Actions here affect the people here, they do not affect those example authors.

I don’t see the affect it has on other users here that can be justified as reasonable. Or weighing that unreasonable irritation against the enjoyment of other users and valuing the unreasonable persons feelings more than the enjoyment of the person who is wanting to use the other persons idea in a way that does zero harm to them.

 

[Solvent]

I don’t see the affect it has on other users here that can be justified as reasonable. Or weighing that unreasonable irritation against the enjoyment of other users and valuing the unreasonable persons feelings more than the enjoyment of the person who is wanting to use the other persons idea in a way that does zero harm to them.

Well I sincerely hope you have a more fulfilling and enjoyable real life social life than your response here suggests you do.

 

[Backlash84]

All rules are either arbitrary, laid down by whomever runs the business/service or socially agreed upon when people form communities. I would argue that BlueMoon is, inherently, a service, and thus the admins are free to write the rules they feel achieve the goals they have. We are free to not associate with the site if we so choose to.


Now, your logic isn't morally better than anyone else's. It's fine if things bother you. Expecting others to conform is a different story.


People also break speed limits daily. Still, most people consider speed limits reasonable. People not abiding a rule doesn't make the rule bad in itself.

I mean… that’s pretty obvious. I’m arguing that the rule makes no sense, not that the owner of the site has no right to place arbitrarily rules.

And how you determine who’s argument is morally superior is through discussion/debate… which is what I’m doing here.

And the last point doesn’t make sense. I’m not arguing against the usefulness of rules in society, I’m arguing that this rule makes no logical sense.

 

[Backlash84]

Well I sincerely hope you have a more fulfilling and enjoyable real life social life than your response here suggests you do.

So you just like coming to the section of the site literally made for discussion of these topics and insult people while adding nothing of value to the conversation?

 

[raison detre]

I mean, I don’t see the value in placating someone who’s unreasonably upset about something that has zero negative effect on them at the cost of the enjoyment of other users. But if you don’t want to discuss it further that’s fine.

See, but the same could be said about your perspective. What you see as unreasonable might be reasonable for me. It's all a matter of perspective and putting yourself in someone else's shoes. If I were to post an RT and someone came to me asking if they could borrow some of the ideas on it, I'd be fine with it. But do it without asking me and I find out, I'll be feeling real shitty about it. Might even report it, might not.

You yourself said you aren't personally affected by the rule since you don't take other people's ideas, thus it has zero negative effect on you, yet you were upset enough about it to make a separate thread asking to adjust the rule. To me, that seems a little unreasonable. You have no horse on the race, so why post about it? I'm not saying you don't have a right to do so, or to express your opinions, but it does seem unreasonable to me, the same way the rule seems unreasonable to you. See? It's about the perspective you take.

I know I said I wouldn't respond anymore, but I changed my mind. Oh well.

 

[Tassu]

I don’t see the affect it has on other users here that can be justified as reasonable. Or weighing that unreasonable irritation against the enjoyment of other users and valuing the unreasonable persons feelings more than the enjoyment of the person who is wanting to use the other persons idea in a way that does zero harm to them.

You assume it does zero harm. This might or might not be the case. Whose suffering is worse? Someone who can't copy stuff or a person who sees their stuff copied even with credits You assume that this is a solved question. Who says that your irritation does any real harm?

And how you determine who’s argument is morally superior is through discussion/debate… which is what I’m doing here.

What I am saying here is that, in this case, your morals do not matter. BlueMoon is a service.

And the last point doesn’t make sense. I’m not arguing against the usefulness of rules in society, I’m arguing that this rule makes no logical sense.

You argued that people braking the rules make it a bad rule. People breaking a rule does not make it a bad rule.

 

[Solvent]

So you just like coming to the section of the site literally made for discussion of these topics and insult people while adding nothing of value to the conversation?

You realise that the exact same thing can be said about your initial post and follow up posts right?

I don't understand how you are being so myopic with this issue. How do you not understand that people might take offence at their 'ideas being stolen' or that you would get pushback from insulting those people because their feelings have no value and make no sense?

I was being sincere with my comment as online interactions can be wildly different to real world ones, where for example you can't physically see if your words upset people, land badly or are just coming across as wildly insensitive.

 

[Backlash84]

See, but the same could be said about your perspective. What you see as unreasonable might be reasonable for me. It's all a matter of perspective and putting yourself in someone else's shoes. If I were to post an RT and someone came to me asking if they could borrow some of the ideas on it, I'd be fine with it. But do it without asking me and I find out, I'll be feeling real shitty about it. Might even report it, might not.

You yourself said you aren't personally affected by the rule since you don't take other people's ideas, thus it has zero negative effect on you, yet you were upset enough about it to make a separate thread asking to adjust the rule. To me, that seems a little unreasonable. You have no horse on the race, so why post about it? I'm not saying you don't have a right to do so, or to express your opinions, but it does seem unreasonable to me, the same way the rule seems unreasonable to you. See? It's about the perspective you take.

I know I said I wouldn't respond anymore, but I changed my mind. Oh well.

That’s why I’m arguing it. If you think it is reasonable to be upset about someone using your idea, present your argument why that is the case. That’s what I’ve done.

And if people didn’t argue things that don’t directly effect them there would have been no white people defending the civil rights movement. Using hyperbole to make my point of course, as obviously this issue doesn’t have as big an effect on anyone.

And if you find that level of concern unreasonable over something you consider so minor, you really shouldn’t be replying in the first place.

 

[Sync]

There are two aspects to plagiarism: consent and acknowledgement. This is also laid out in the rule in question.

If you approach the owner of an RT and ask them "do you mind if I take your Idea A and tweak it for my own thread?", and that person agrees (which is likely, given you've asked first), then you have not plagiarised that person, especially if you acknowledged that consent. Problem solved.

If you, however, see an idea in another person's RT and add it to your own without modification, consent or acknowledgement, you have then plagiarised that person. Problem exists. This also applies if you approach an RT owner but they deny consent.

If the Admins decide that the rule could use some clarification and/or tweaking, they will do so in their own time and in a manner that they feel best fits the site, and they will announce the rule change/clarification in due course. Until that time you will be obliged to follow the rule as currently written; after that time you will be obliged to follow the rule in its new form.

If the Admins decide that the rule is perfectly fine the way it is, then you have a choice: follow the rule as written (regardless of whether you think it makes sense), or leave the site (either by your choice, or forcibly after being called out for rule violations).

Seems perfectly clear to me.

 

[Backlash84]

You realise that the exact same thing can be said about your initial post and follow up posts right?

I don't understand how you are being so myopic with this issue. How do you not understand that people might take offence at their 'ideas being stolen' or that you would get pushback from insulting those people because their feelings have no value and make no sense?

I was being sincere with my comment as online interactions can be wildly different to real world ones, where for example you can't physically see if your words upset people, land badly or are just coming across as wildly insensitive.

Point to the personal attack I made against anyone, at any point.

I’m sharing my opinion, which is what this part of the site is for. I have stayed on topic the entire time, only arguing my position. You decided to insult my personal life.

 

[Backlash84]

There are two aspects to plagiarism: consent and acknowledgement. This is also laid out in the rule in question.

If you approach the owner of an RT and ask them "do you mind if I take your Idea A and tweak it for my own thread?", and that person agrees (which is likely, given you've asked first), then you have not plagiarised that person, especially if you acknowledged that consent. Problem solved.

If you, however, see an idea in another person's RT and add it to your own without modification, consent or acknowledgement, you have then plagiarised that person. Problem exists.

If the Admins decide that the rule could use some clarification and/or tweaking, they will do so in their own time and in a manner that they feel best fits the site, and they will announce the rule change/clarification in due course. Until that time you will be obliged to follow the rule as currently written; after that time you will be obliged to follow the rule in its new form.

If the Admins decide that the rule is perfectly fine the way it is, then you have a choice: follow the rule as written (regardless of whether you think it makes sense), or leave the site (either by your choice, or forcibly after being called out for rule violations).

Seems perfectly clear to me.

I mean… did you even read my post? I said I have never broken the rule or intended to. I’m not making demands either, I’m making a suggestion and explaining my reasoning behind it, which happens to be what this part of the site is for.

You’ve basically addressed nothing in the discussion and said “don’t like it, you can leave” when everyone else was already aware that was an option.

 

[Solvent]

Point to the personal attack I made against anyone, at any point.

I’m sharing my opinion, which is what this part of the site is for. I have stayed on topic the entire time, only arguing my position. You decided to insult my personal life.

Just because you feel I insulted your personal life doesn't mean I did. That's just your feelings and to judge sonething on them makes no sense, it is not logical.

The facts are that I made a sincere statement, it says so in the words I used. It would be illogical to be upset by my word choice, why would I consider how my word choice might affect you? People taking a meaning other than the intended and stated one would be illogical so it doesn't matter.

Is some of that sarcasm? Maybe. But it is however your argument applied to something you are upset by.

 

[Sync]

I mean… did you even read my post?

Yes, strange as this may seem.

I said I have never broken the rule or intended to.

I saw that too, and never implied that you had or would.

I’m not making demands either, I’m making a suggestion and explaining my reasoning behind it, which happens to be what this part of the site is for.

I never said that you'd made a demand for a rule change. All I did was offer possible outcomes to your suggestion that the rule may need revisiting.

You’ve basically addressed nothing in the discussion and said “don’t like it, you can leave” when everyone else was already aware that was an option.

The fact that my way of thinking and addressing a problem doesn't match your way of addressing a problem does not make me wrong. I think differently to you. Last I checked, that's not a crime.

 

[Backlash84]

You assume it does zero harm. This might or might not be the case. Whose suffering is worse? Someone who can't copy stuff or a person who sees their stuff copied even with credits You assume that this is a solved question. Who says that your irritation does any real harm?


What I am saying here is that, in this case, your morals do not matter. BlueMoon is a service.


You argued that people braking the rules make it a bad rule. People breaking a rule does not make it a bad rule.

You should really read what section of the site you are in, this is for making suggestions, I made a suggestion and presented my argument. Didn’t attack anyone, didn’t make any demands, yet it seems a bunch of people who don’t want to actually defend their position want to come in here and say “hey! Don’t use this section for its intended purpose! If you don’t like everything exactly how it is, leave!”

Does that seem reasonable to you?