will be updating text to this, assuming there is no critical issues with it:
Originally posted by hack core values.comIf you use resources from the community, you should make a good effort give credit to the authors of those resources, this includes things submitted to the site as well as off-site resources that have known authors.
What we look for in included credits:
either a formatted text document or in-game credits (you can do one or the other, you need not do both)
that good faith effort was made to include all authors of resources used
When you can leave things out:
if an author states that credit is not necessary (if it is unclear, we recommend going with crediting them)
you have an appropriate reason to not include an author in your credits
if the author of a given resource is unknown
if the resource is a Tweak (hex edit) since it constitutes a very minimal change
Including credits is a good way for resource makers to know the impact of their contributions and for hack makers to acknowledge that. So we recommend providing as detailed credits as you can.
it is wordier, sure, but given all the questions regarding semantics of the core value, perhaps it will be more useful.
Originally posted by SweatyNoodleI've seen a couple resources say something like "credit is not necessary", do you now have to credit these resources? Good rule btw.
no, but it doesn't hurt to give extra credit to everything + it's a good habit. if an author says to explicitly Not give credit, sure, use your judgement.
Originally posted by PicayuneFrom the events that have led up to this point, it seems that this was caused because of GPW3? I’m not sure.
this was not caused by gpw3. granted, gpw3 is a very recent high profile example, but when a cursory mention of the hack lacking credits was brought up amongst hack mods, it quickly turned into a discussion about how common eschewing credits in smw hacks are. we figured why not remedy that issue while it was hot on the press. i would not put much weight on gpw3 being the impetus for that change, it's a bit unfair to throw on that hacks shoulders.
Originally posted by MarioFanGamerThere also is the issue of derived resources i.e. if I make a sprite which is based on an existing one (not just a disassembly but
one made by a different user), who should actually be credited in this situation?
generally just use and trust your own judgement on how to approach it - whatever feels more fair to you.
Originally posted by lexyWill this change include crediting the staff of original SMW in its entirety as well?
Since, you know, without them no SMW hack would've ever been possible in the first place.
If it's so important to everyone to get credit, where is the credit for the original creators?
no
Originally posted by JP32I personally always have credited but I think it's bit much to force it, as it can be hard to remember exactly what assets I used and what I never ended up using or used something at some point but removing it later,
it'll be a one time annoyance to go back and work on credits for a project you're currently making or nearly finished making. just keep a log of what you use going forward, strike stuff that goes unused, or find some method that works for you.
Originally posted by SF - The Dark WarriorThat is why I didn't think a rule like this needed to be made formalized in the first place but is because of how the site has been stress-tested with the release of GPW3 made by Barb, and whom I assume does not share the same kind of values SMWC has.
please don't make these kinds of assumptions about people, it's not a good look. the site going temporarily down has nothing to do with anything in this thread (and, furthermore, was not barbs fault - and i hope he does not feel bad about it, shit happens).
Originally posted by Daizo Dee Vondoes this mean Barb doesn't actually have to do it since his hack was already waiting by the time this rule was made? Unless it's rejected, he doesn't even have to do it. (Silent updates are a thing)
weird making this solely about barb and gpw3 aside - any hack currently waiting does not need to go by this change. any hack accepted will have to comply if an update to it is submitted, and any hack rejected from the waiting section will have to comply.