about the usage terms

[xie]

First of all, i realize that the terms are not really up for discussion.
I did however feel that i had to voice my concern for one specific point.

First of all, i recently bought grimrock and really enjoy it. Playing it i saw big modding potential, and thus made a search for it and found this forum, where i found the usage terms post.

"We hope these rules are sensible."
I say pretty much all of them are (though the strict no-asset-distribution seems harsh, i can understand the need for it), with one small exception:
"We also reserve the right to revise these rules at any time, with immediate and retroactive effect."
Of course you need the right to change the rules, and of course the changes should have immediate effect but...retroactive effect? I completely fail to see anything sensible about that. It would be like passing a law that fines people for smoking, and then fining everyone who ever smoked.
I understand that you want to protect your product from bad people, especially as a small company, but you also need to take some responsibility for your own actions. If you as rule makers mess up, its not more than right that you accept past losses due to your own mistake, and make a correction for the future.
Im not planning on doing anythin in particular, but i find the thought of the possibility of retroactive punishment unsettling, to say the least.

I just wanted to throw this thought out there as a gamer and possibly a future modder (who does want to stay on the right side of the rules).

[Darklord]

Of course you need the right to change the rules, and of course the changes should have immediate effect but...retroactive effect? I completely fail to see anything sensible about that. It would be like passing a law that fines people for smoking, and then fining everyone who ever smoked.

Well it needs to be retroactive, otherwise if someone found a loophole that Almost Human weren't happy with they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Daniel.

[xie]

I understand the thought behind it very well, i just don't agree with it.
If a loophole shows up (used on purpose or by accident), what Almost Human could do either way is patch it up and make sure future abuse can't occur. I don't agree that past offenses to a new rule should be punishable, a sentiment i hold in all areas in general. The worst case scenario is of course if legitimate users receive some sort of punishment for doing something that at the time seems reasonable and doesn't break any rules, but that Almost Human later decides isn't ok.
I really don't mean to be a jerk about this, it's an honest concern that myself or other users may at some point get in trouble completely unwittingly, even if we read the rules and do our best to abide by them.

There is a reason laws are not written in this manner. Imagine the same logic applied to an actual law (of any kind).

Was this written in collaboration with some sort of legal adviser by the way?

[Darklord]

You wouldn't get in trouble, I don't think Almost Human plan to start suing fans!

This is just so they can change their minds at a later date, if anything turns out to be a problem. I think you are worrying overly here.

I'm sure they would make any changes in a polite professional manner as they have with everything else they have done.

Daniel.

[xie]

I think you are most likely right, it just seems like a strange policy to me.
Also i think insisting on retroactive change of rules borders on overly worrying on their part

Though "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", ill assume they are decent people until proven otherwise.

[Darklord]

Welcome to the forums by the way. Hoping you are enjoying the game!

Daniel.

[Thels]

I think the "retro-active" more applies that if you were hosting a mod, and they later on decide that your mod contents no longer complies to their new standards, you're forced to take the mod down.

That would still be pretty annoying, though. But either way, it's not like AH can fine you for anything, a real danger existing with laws.

But I do see your point. It's worded a tad odd.

[Darklord]

But I do see your point. It's worded a tad odd.

Well English isn't their native language, so that's probably why.

Daniel.

[Thels]

But I do see your point. It's worded a tad odd.

Well English isn't their native language, so that's probably why.

Daniel.

Neither is it mine.

Either way, it seems grammatically correct to me, but as the OP stated, retroactively doesn't make a lot of sense. This could use some clarification.

[Vosla]

I see this "retroactive" thing more in the light of this game being distributed around the globe with no real international law to protect the game and the people behind it.
So if a situation arises anywhere, the usage terms could be "better worded" to encompass unfortunate situations aka loopholes as stated in this thread before.

Just imagine : There were already people on this forum who really thought that they could make money with the mods they planned to do.