Question of the century: why is it not allowed to discuss deprotecting?

[GhostWolf]

And I only ask because some mods insist on stating that on every occasion they can.

Is there any valid reason for this rule to exist?

 

[Chaosy]

Aren't you breaking that rule now?

Ban

 

[Dr Super Good]

Is there any valid reason for this rule to exist?

Because it would not look very good if on one side the site is helping a map developer make and distribute their map and on the other side they are also helping other people hack, modify and ruin their map. One does not want a situation where most of the forum traffic is kids requesting cheats be added to X map.

There is a difference between the technical discussion of how a map works including how no concept of "protection" exists, and one out right helping other people modify maps against the permission of the map developer.

 

[deepstrasz]

Actually, we should be talking map protection and author encryption to avoid theft.

 

[Chaosy]

Because it would not look very good if on one side the site is helping a map developer make and distribute their map and on the other side they are also helping other people hack, modify and ruin their map. One does not want a situation where most of the forum traffic is kids requesting cheats be added to X map.

There is a difference between the technical discussion of how a map works including how no concept of "protection" exists, and one out right helping other people modify maps against the permission of the map developer.

Technically, that is not allowed either.
"- The topic of removing or circumventing map protection is not permitted." we can not even talk ABOUT the topic

 

[Dr Super Good]

"- The topic of removing or circumventing map protection is not permitted." we can not even talk ABOUT the topic

Except no concept of map protection technically exists. Map protection is only an intellectual property ownership concept which the site should respect.

If someone "protects" a map they do not give consent for other people to modify it, even if there is nothing technical stopping them from doing so. As we often helped them make the map, it is only honourable to respect this decision of theirs and not help others trying to modify it against their consent.

 

[chobibo]

Well, when people talk about protecting maps, they already give out how to deprotect them so I think there's nothing wrong with discussing deprotection, as long as the topic is about deprotection in general and isn't about how to deprotect a map (e.g. "How to deprotect Naruto Wars?").

@deepstrasz: Aren't there some tutorials on how to protect maps already? I remember there was obfuscation for map scripts and filelist removal for assets? I'm not disagreeing with you, just to clarify.

 

[deepstrasz]

Aren't there some tutorials on how to protect maps already? I remember there was obfuscation for map scripts and filelist removal for assets? I'm not disagreeing with you, just to clarify.

Compatible with latest patches I mean.

 

[chobibo]

Ah, I thought they still worked.

 

[The_Silent]

- The topic of removing or circumventing map protection is not permitted.

I think it is fair to assume; that the spirit of the rule is to not talk about "how to do it".


I think it is important to show map creators that we respect their intellectual property. Otherwise they probably wouldn't upload here, if the forums were spammed with "how to deprotect" posts and tutorials.

 

[Chaosy]

The problem is that some mods take the rules literary.
For example, I got a warning for "promoting piracy" because I wrote "yarr matey" in a thread.
True enough, I intentionally wrote that to hint at privacy, but it is far from a tutorial.

I think this is somewhat the same, where some mods will take the rule's phrasing literary.

 

[Selaya]

I think we should revise this rule. I understand that this was created an eternity and a half ago back in a different age when the Battle.net ecosystem looked completely different from what it is now and thus would have benefited a lot more from this (actual individual players hosting; more risk of map poisoning because of people accidentally hosting a modified version).
However, with the grand advent of the hostbots this is not the case anymore, because most people tend to play more or less official versions of maps on the bots, which dictate the version, greatly mitigating the risk of poisoning.

Besides that, by now sites dedicated to map deprotection with a heavy emphasis on cheating have arisen.
I do not believe that the concept of map deprotection itself is something anyone could stop; however by revising said rule we could make sure that we can steer this topic to somewhere under our jurisdiction and away from the cheaters'.
Ie, censorship doesn't help, quite on the contrary actually (who would've guessed!).

There's also more legitimate demand to map deprotection than ever before because by now multiple patches have been released that have broken a significant amount of maps (1.24, 1.27 (?), 1.29) that could probably be fixed with not-too-much effort would we but able to deprotect them.

 

[pyf]

Anyone here remembers Sparky of KISS Software?

This individual from the Doom / Doom II community is responsible for converting / fixing / legalizing a huge number of fan-made custom levels for these two games. All with the blessing of the Doom community.

It is imho one of the finest examples of one individual taking action to improve the overall quality of fan-made levels originally developed by other people.

 

[deepstrasz]

It is imho one of the finest examples of one individual taking action to improve the overall quality of fan-made levels originally developed by other people.

When we're talking about things that need fixing it is different but imagine that most people don't do that and use other people's work for their own selfish interest.

 

[Rui]

In my view, some of the reasons (then valid, and still valid, mind you), are:

1. it would not look very good if on one side the site is helping a map developer make and distribute their map and on the other side they are also helping other people hack, modify and ruin their map.

   Not to mention, whenever conflict of interests ensued, the Hive would become a courthouse, and no one recognizes it legitimacy to perform that role or decide what's in public interest.
   
   

2. If someone "protects" a map they do not give consent for other people to modify it

   And this needs to be respected. Our generation is losing grip of the concept due to having everything at the tip of their fingers.
   
   
3. Most people want to deprotect a map only to add cheats to it. I speak from bad experiences concerning two maps I've made. And I'm pretty sure we've all seen more examples.
   
   
4. If you want to learn from a system inside the map or grab resources from it, chances are they're public (perhaps even hosted in this site). Even better, if you have questions, you could ask here at the Hive, and then everyone learns from the answers.
   
   
5. Do it yourself has more merit and is better for pedagogy.

 

[pyf]

When we're talking about things that need fixing it is different but imagine that most people don't do that and use other people's work for their own selfish interest.

One might want to visit the (Z)Doom community, to find out how such things are handled inside another modding community?

The Doom community is imho incredibly active since the mid-1990s, has successfully evolved with the times, and keeps growing. Their fan-made levels / mods / TCs / Resources do not use any protection schemes afaik.

 

[deepstrasz]

One might want to visit the (Z)Doom community, to find out how such things are handled inside another modding community?

The Doom community is imho incredibly active since the mid-1990s, has successfully evolved with the times, and keeps growing. Their fan-made levels / mods / TCs / Resources do not use any protection schemes afaik.

I'm not referring to a community in particular, but to the internet and world. Bad people will have their doing outside such communities.

 

[Selaya]

Copyright laws have provisions about how long works can stay copyrighted (years after publication, death of the creator). That'd probably be a close equivalent to taking over long-since abandoned maps' developement effort. For maps that are still under active developement there should be some additional provisions.

As for equating map deprotection = cheating no u.
Obviously a lift of the blanket ban on map deprotection should have provisions against cheating like that. However, justifying a blanket ban on map deprotection with that's just a strawman.
Are we to ban cars next because you can use them to run people over?

 

[GhostWolf]

I was going to wait for some mod to reply, but I guess they ain't got it in them.

All of the comments against "deprotecting" so far are indeed as Selaya mentioned strawmans, and also show a complete lack of trust in anyone else in the community.
X can be used for bad, so ban X, disregarding the fact it can also be used for good, because you don't trust anyone else to use X for good.

There is no need to discuss the legality of this, because the only possibly illegal thing that is being done is running maliciously corrupt files on Battle.net, i.e. "protecting".

When it comes to not being able to trust a game is hosting the legit map - you can't do that with "protections" either.
If you want actual protection, contact Blizzard and pressure them into adding a way to verify maps when you load them on Battle.net, and there are indeed widely used ways to do this in other markets.

My pet peeve however is neither of these, but rather the fact that this is a modding site, and it has nothing to do with protecting your personal data, so I don't see why it should have a rule in either direction.

 

[Rui]

Copyright laws

Hive has never had or followed them, or governed itself by anything close to a code of conduct regarding copyrights. So, no disrespect meant, but everything afterwards is a moot point.

All of the comments against "deprotecting" so far are indeed as Selaya mentioned strawmans, and also show a complete lack of trust in anyone else in the community.

I've given more arguments than "everyone's gonna add cheats", but okay.

First, has any of you made a map that got popular and left it unprotected on Battle.Net? No? Because I have, and I known a couple of people who have too. By calling it a strawman, you're denying reality. This has happened and probably still does happen. Likely not as frequently, I'll give you that. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe the state of affairs has changed. If you redact rules based on a fantasy, you're asking for trouble down the road.

Second, about "trusting the community". @Selaya was not around to witness, but @GhostWolf, it is my opinion that you should know better. When this site decided to "ban everyone" (I'm quoting your own words), those of the community who spoke up took a very clear stand: let us have the resources and get rid of the resource makers and whomsoever else you want to. Do you not remember? Because I do. Very clearly so. I give the community the trust it deserves.

 

[Selaya]

Another strawman.
map deprotection != uploading and/or hosting an unprotected version of your map.
An unprotected map can and will be modified, without further assistance or tools than a standard WE.
Any kind of protection that stops that, even if it is easily circumvented will stop a lot of these idiots already. This is because most people inclined to cheat like that are (mental) juveniles, and those people are usually both lazy, incompetent and stupid. If it is not trivial to open up a map to modify it they will very likely not further try to do so.

As for trusting the community, well you're part of the community and you should exercise your own judgement as for whom to trust with this sacred knowledge (of map deprotection). I guess you're trying to say that you aren't willing to trust anyone anymore due to past incidents that've burnt you? Well you're part of the problem in that case, then.

Hive has never had or followed them, or governed itself by anything close to a code of conduct regarding copyrights. So, no disrespect meant, but everything afterwards is a moot point.

I'm sorry, but: what is reading comprehension??????
(The point is that it is pretty much universally accepted that the, well creators' privilege on the sanctity of one's creation has, in fact an expiry date. No work is to forever stay untouchable. Thus, your arguments against map deprotection by blanket-invoking said privilege is invalid.)

 

[deepstrasz]

The way I see it: there are people who will protect and who will not. It's their choice. What happens afterwards is partly a consequence of their choice.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Over the years I have collected a large number of modifiable versions of "protected" maps in various stages of development. This was as a result of the authors having varying problems that were not solvable by communication alone and so required direct access to the map to fix. However the only reason many such authors agreed to send me a copy of the map was due to my reputation and that they can trust that I would not redistribute said maps, claim it as my own, etc.

In many ways Hive as a website has earned such a reputation and trust with map makers. Not only has it acted as a platform to help create their map, it also hosts their maps for download and have allowed thousands to download them in the case of more popular maps. If Hive was to suddenly provide support for "deprotecting" maps this destroys this reputation and trust as a platform. One side they would help you make a map, but on the other they will help someone else tamper with your map without your permission. Hence why I do not think it is a good idea to encourage deprotecting maps.

That said a big problem is that too many people "protected" their without any consideration for future proofing. Shortly after the last official release was made they really should have considered making public an "unprotected" version. There should have been big community movements to encourage and promote this behaviour as well as written articles explaining why map protection is a bad idea in the long run. Unfortunately no one bothered to do this and now it is far too late. Hundreds of maps have been broken by patches over the ages and although some would be trivial to fix, one cannot do so without touching the subject of deprotection. If this site suddenly supports repairing these broken "protected" maps without pushing map makers for a more open "unprotected" development cycle then future map developers might be chased away fearing that this site is some kind of big evil who encourages people to steal and modify their maps without permission.

 

[Selaya]

[ .. ]

In many ways Hive as a website has earned such a reputation and trust with map makers. Not only has it acted as a platform to help create their map, it also hosts their maps for download and have allowed thousands to download them in the case of more popular maps. If Hive was to suddenly provide support for "deprotecting" maps this destroys this reputation and trust as a platform.

[ .. ]

Not (necessarily) true.
For once, we could limit it to discussion only (no posting of automated deprotection tools), and generally speaking the people who'd like to tamper around with maps aren't able to deprotect anything to save their lives without an automated tool to do so. Again, censorship doesn't help and won't stop map deprotection (people will just turn to another, potentially more, well um cheaty site anyways) and there's quite a lot of legitimate reasons why one would want to deprotect a map.
However, should the Hive permit deprotection discussions we actively shape it (setting certain rules & frameworks, discouraging cheating et cetera) instead of delegating it to other sites that are less concerned about random idiots fucking up other people's maps willy-nilly.

 

[Dr Super Good]

For once, we could limit it to discussion only (no posting of automated deprotection tools), and generally speaking the people who'd like to tamper around with maps aren't able to deprotect anything to save their lives without an automated tool to do so. Again, censorship doesn't help and won't stop map deprotection (people will just turn to another, potentially more, well um cheaty site anyways) and there's quite a lot of legitimate reasons why one would want to deprotect a map.

As far as I am aware Hive already permits such limited discussions since they blend in with discussions in underlying Warcraft III engine mechanics rather than directly targeting map deprotection. The rule only really applies to people explicitly wanting to deprotect a map which may or may not be theirs, or others posting tools and scripts explicitly created to help people do so.

I think a good start would be to encourage people to not protect their maps to begin with, or to at least have an end of life plan for protecting their map.

 

[Selaya]

[ .. ]

I think a good start would be to encourage people to not protect their maps to begin with, or to at least have an end of life plan for protecting their map.

15 years too late

 

[Rui]

Another strawman.
map deprotection != uploading and/or hosting an unprotected version of your map.

Another denial of reality. No, indeed it is not equal, but it is a consequence. What's the big idea? You pass on unprotected versions to trustworthy people and expect them never to pass these unlocked versions to anyone else? Whom exactly will decide who is trustworthy? Those who are turned down, won't they turn to what you call "cheaty sites" anyway? Who's going to assume responsibility when a leak occurs? What's the downfall for the Hive then? And most importantly, what's wrong with making maps yourself?

I'm sorry, but: what is reading comprehension??????

I'll go further: what is comprehension in general? For one, it is coherence. First you spoke of laws, now you speak of «pretty much universally accepted», which is hardly equivalent. Second, it requires accuracy, involving historical background which you choose to ignore. Finally, presenting things as “sacred knowledge” and “sanctity of creations” further contributes to pollute the discussion. Further prolonging a debate contaminated with selfish agendas, fact evasion and historical ignorance does not interest me, so have a good day.

 

[Selaya]

[ .. ] No, indeed it is not equal, but it is a consequence. [ .. ]

so because you can use cars to run over and kill people, we should ban cars .. ?

 

[The_Silent]

If it were actually a strawman argument, they would be claiming you all only want to deprotect maps so you can add cheats.
This is more a case of:
They see your point, but the risk is still too big.

There is plenty good legitimate reasons for deprotecting maps, but they do not outweigh the potential loss of trust the hiveworkshop would face if they were to support the practice openly.

 

[Rui]

so because you can use cars to run over and kill people, we should ban cars .. ?

...Did you just compare deprotecting with terrorism? If yes, I greatly approve of this analogy.

On a serious note, “we” should do nothing, because we have no legitimacy. The state, however, should sanction the driver, deprive him of his license, and perhaps even jail him, possibly for life in case the runover was intentional. The problem with applying this logic here is: it's the Internet. Who's the state? Hive? Blizzard? Yeah, there isn't one. Makes the Internet great when you want to download music, games and other illegal activities, and a pain in the ass when you want to guarantee basic rights, be it copyrights, privacy or otherwise.

 

[Selaya]

no the point is that basically everything can be used for insidious intents should one wish to do so, that's not a reason to ban anything

better analogy maybe, you can drown people in water, should we ban water now and just die of thirst instead

in any case

[ .. ]
They see your point, but the risk is still too big.

There is plenty good legitimate reasons for deprotecting maps, but they do not outweigh the potential loss of trust the hiveworkshop would face if they were to support the practice openly.

Now that is an actual argument, altho I have disagreed with that already.
I do not believe that the risk would be too great (which by itself is a pretty dumb argument to make), obviously this isn't to become mapdeprotectinsertcheatintomapsworkshop.com, it would still be governed by a (rather strict) set of rules, however this current mentality of basically censoring anything related to map deprotection doesn't really help nor make sense in 2018.

 

[disruptive_]

better analogy maybe, you can drown people in water, should we ban water now and just die of thirst instead

You know why this never (maybe it does in totalitarian regimes) happens right? Because rational (don't confuse rational with logical) people never take absolute positions when trying to achieve agreements. The thing is that in negotiation of such agreements, people often start in positional "form" because who knows actually? it's like customary but counterproductive at the same time. The immediate effect is that the counterpart also adopts positional form, and there you got it...2/more people (not neccesarily idiots) bluffing each other and never settling anything. Then, when things start pressing, they open up. But precious time was lost anyway.
This is happening right here and now.

 

[Retera]

I am just sitting here laughing at how you all see history as reality. I posted Goliath deprotector to end all map protection when this was discussed around April Fool's and protection just continues to exist because people think it does. I wasn't banned or penalized for posting this in the slightest.

You guys should go talk about making content instead of worrying about this. Good people will use and share good content. It'll work itself out.

Goliath download, on Hive:
[April Fools] Hive Workshop Map Deprotection

 

[KILLCIDE]

The problem is that some mods take the rules literary.

@The_Silent is right with what the rule means.

 

[Abovegame]

Well if one would download the maps from a legit site and not on bnet or any other illegitimate way this wouldn't be an issue. I think we discussed about this on discord a while ago.

On a side note if we discuss deprotecting maps would that make developers find new ways of protecting them ?

And then comes the reason of deprotecting them in case you want to learn something since everything is pretty much know for this old game of ours. Cheers !

 

[stein123]

Goliath download, on Hive:
[April Fools] Hive Workshop Map Deprotection

 

[Ralle]

I was going to wait for some mod to reply, but I guess they ain't got it in them.

I just don't got much to say.

I honestly don't know. I sit here and nod when either side of the argument makes their point. One part of me wants to say that information should be free and open. But I can see the downsides of it too. But I am sure that just because you can't find it on Hive doesn't mean it doesn't exist scattered elsewhere. So why not us?

Even if we do allow the discussion, we can restrict public sharing of deprotected things but that's sort of already disallowed because uploading something against someone else's will is already against the rules.

Also, if people decide to play a cheat version of a map, fuck them, join another lobby? What do you actually lose from it?

 

[KILLCIDE]

I was going to wait for some mod to reply, but I guess they ain't got it in them.

Oh that's definitely the case *sarcasm*

I honestly just want to see you guys come up with an agreement alone.

 

[GhostWolf]

As much as there are points for and against protection and deprotection, and there's a lot of drama, I mostly want your replies, because the question wasn't whether deprotecting is good or bad, or whether protecting is good or bad, but rather why is it relevant at all to the Hive to be a rule in either direction?

 

[Abovegame]

As i've said we've discussed this on discord a while back, the most best solution , and least plasusible, is that Blizzard was to interfere and have it's own ( server ? ) where mods can upload their maps and at the same time other people would download them!

 

[KILLCIDE]

I used to be for protecting maps in the case they did it solely to decrease map size, but with the new map size limit, I find it hard to see a reason to protect a map at all other than to hide the inner workings of a map. In this case, I find it rather selfish and distasteful. This community didn't grow because everyone hid their own creations.

In terms of why we have the rule, all of the Staff members actually had a discussion about this rule last year, and we had all agreed to make it a site discussion, but we never came across to it xD

 

[Selaya]

Map protection still has a merit, most important what killcide's said (reducing map size); however unlike him I would disagree about the new increased map size limit making a reduction in your compiled (protected) release's file size less desirable.
This is due to manifold reasons, most importantly these two:
(i) Warcraft 3 population has a higher representation of people with lesser computer and internet specs
(ii) Most bots throttle download to shit (100KiBps), and bnet itself throttles download (?, I unthrottled my bot and download speed is still kinda shitty).

Besides that, I would always advocate for making it non-trivial to open and tamper with your release version. This is because the vast majority of potential cheaters are idiot kids who will only try the most straightforward way to open and tamper with your map, which in our case is using the default WE to open up your map and fucking it up.

However, that doesn't make the valid reasons of deprotecting a map less so (fixing maps that got broken in 1.24, 1.29 for once), but I'm repeating myself here.

(I would also recommend an unprotected source code release of your map, preferrably making it unplayable with a simple invalid trigger or w/e to prevent people from accidentally hosting this version of it.)

 

[Chaosy]

I have seen protected singleplayer maps.

The.fuck

That is selfish, if it is a popular multiplayer map I understand but otherwise.. fuck you if you protect maps.

 

[chobibo]

You can also add [dev build] to the filename and explain that in the download page. However, some people claim that most people don't read anymore.

 

[TheSilverhand]

If I didn't reduce the map size for a lot of my maps, they would be "Literally" Unplayable because when I use the "Protection" for some of mine it will reduce the map size by like.. 35.5% and instead of having like 13mb where as no one could play it, it would become 8.45 which is the fitting Number for MakeMeHost.com or Any other Blizzard host out there, the limit is 9mb a map.

 

[disruptive_]

I like how the discussion now has some ethical aspect now. You can be either a "selfish bastard" or a "lazy thief", as if you protect or not protect your map defines, not only your logical capabilities but also your moral code. Of course i'm joking.

Just talk about the concrete interests already. Protection or not, it's just a freaking tool. You can do good things and bad things, or nothing at all (usually the latter). ?????. Not just because you allow deprotection or even speak about deprotection bad things will happen to the community or to anybody. But also, not just because you now allow it some good things will happen aswell. Usually people just adapt and do whatever they already were doing (ie. like following orders).

And who cares actually. It's human nature, and you all are kind of asserting and reaffirm this again and again each time. You don't need to justify the logic or ethical viability of a tool. This discussion is more abstract of what it should. Unless the thread starter wants some kind of intellectual stimulation through this post and not a concrete result or policy change. I can hardly tell right now, because i'm beign abstract right now .

I really see some legitimate interests behind map deprotection, like free learning or to untap the potential of dead/lost maps that otherwise will be wasted, and more.

You are not encouraging selflesness through map deprotection, and selflesness is just another value worth of protecting. You are not making people good or bad through this policy. In my opinion neither kind of norm, regulation, law can do this. Also what about the legitimacy of the will of the author of a map to bring us their creation under his/her terms, this is what inspires the creative and artistic industry. The virtue of regulation is precisely on how to ponderate each interest with eachother, a kind of ideallistic endeavour. But you all can start by presenting such interests right of the bat, instead of discussing the ethical implications or logical pertinence of map deprotection. That's for doctoral thesis that nobody will ever read.

 

[Rui]

why is it relevant at all to the Hive to be a rule in either direction?

Because you need to have a clear (and preferably coherent among staff) stand on activities people carry out in your website that promise to upset others. Be it trolling, posting pornography or... deprotecting maps.

@disruptive_ you've nailed it with your first paragraph. "Selfish bastard" would, in fact, be a strawman.

Let me make it clear, though, that I do believe unprotecting is okay if the author is gone and it is certain (not straightforward when it is or not) the author is gone, and is not returning. Or doesn't care in case he is. Every other reason I've seen lacks validity. Free learning is one of them. There are plenty alternatives to looking into a map. You can even ask the author himself. Be it tips to implement your own system or resources you're looking for. I remember I once asked @NWG_Jonas or @lord_Turin for a copy of "Battle for Middle Earth", for example. It's a map I've played since 2005 and I wanted to create my own spinoff. It was denied to me. And I had to accept and respect their will. It's that simple.

 

[chobibo]

I believe deprotecting maps is okay, just don't distribute it. Distributing a map that isn't your work is a different issue. You don't even need to edit it, just distributing the file is something that's sure to piss off the author. Some people will argue that it's still not acceptable to distribute maps from authors who have no intention of retouching their work without getting their permission, and I think that's just fine.

 

[Selaya]

Deprotecting a map to steal it would obviously an offense, and generally maps that are still under active developement should not be allowed to bedeprotected at all.

However, blanket banning any map deprotection discussion because you can, amongst others deprotect a map to steal it isn't a valid argument.
By that virtue, we'd have to put some drastic restrictions on the other resource categories asw because rn people can just download icons/skins/models and steal them.

 

[Kyrbi0]

via Imgflip Meme Generator