[Scummvm-devel] GOG-Affiliate program, recent additions to website

clem clemty at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 23:00:25 CET 2009


Max Horn <max <at> quendi.de> writes:

Hi Max,

> Now, there is one point that really stuck out to me in your posts: You  
> referred several times to the forum design being "yours",. I feel I  
> have to make one thing absolutely clear: Independent of the content  
> and/or potential outcome of the current debate, in my eyes it is not  
> acceptable for our forum design to be "owned" by a single person.  
> Period. I just checked, and sadly we put forum template under a clear  
> license :/. Bad for all involved parties, IMHO.

I am not sure I understand the last part of this paragraph - do you mean
it is bad that there IS a clear license (which is bad why?) or that there
isn't?

I think there is a misunderstanding here: I always assumed that what I
submitted as a forum template was automatically being GPL and I
basically forfeited all rights to decide what happens to it at that
point. Maybe I could have gotten SVN access to edit it back then if I
had asked (are there any people submitting engines who are then not
allowed to edit them?) but I thought you guys knew what you were doing
with it so I passed. Maybe if I had write access and therefore a more
official position in this project my opinion would have had more weight.

I know this might seem paradoxical, but I feel that just because I don't
have the right to be asked for my opinion in such matters is exactly why
it is important to me that I am being asked for my opinion. I rather
have people ask for my opinion because my opinion is important to them,
not because they are legally obliged to do so. But again, this is just
a personal feeling and not something objective - still it might explain
why I get so emotional about it.

Maybe contact us/buy games would have been placed differently if I had
stated the rationale behind the layout in comments in the files; I
didn't do that because I somehow assumed that the design decisions were
clear and because comments would be sent out to every person reading
the forum - since this header is used in every single forum page
this would mean increased traffic.

> However, it is my deep conviction that we cannot continue in a  
> situation where a single individual (no matter whether it is you, me,  
> Eugene, whoever) can dictate what we do by claiming exclusive  
> ownership to part of the project. Our code is under the GPL for that  
> reason. Likewise, I am convinced that we must have also a website /  
> forum / wiki design which is under a free license.

I have just re-read my original post on the forum and that is certainly
not what I was claiming there. I merely asked if there is any chance if
we could go back to the version before the edits.

Now I know that my replies in the original post in this discussion
sound a lot harsher, especially my line "Ditto to above. Remove it."
sounds like a command; but please keep in mind that

a) this was a reply to the question what I *think* should be done
b) this was already after my original post was removed from the forum
   so I was therefore quite upset
c) subsequent claims that the design is "mine" come from me trying to
   explain why I feel so strongly about it, not as an initial argument
   to demand things to be changed back.

> In conclusion, I see only two alternatives: Either all people part of  
> the creation of our current Forum template agree to putting it under a  
> suitable license (GFDL, Creative Commons, whatever -- and of course  
> credits & copyright are not affected by that).

That's absoluteley fine with me - I assumed what I submitted was under
some open license already anyway.

However, I don't think I should be credited with it any longer (seeing
a lot of changes made over the years by others) - my suggestion is to
change the text at the bottom to "Design by ScummVM team, icons by raina"
or similar.

Maybe another point, just for the record: before this theme was used
there was some indy-based theme which looked similar. When I was finished
with the design changes to the indy theme I asked in the channel if the
authors of the indy theme should be credited as well, but since pretty
much everything was changed it was agreed upon to not credit them.

> Or we immediately  
> revert to some default layout and build a fresh forum layout, this  
> time under an appropriate license from the start.

No need for that (unless you want to go phpBB3 of course)

> That fundamental issue made clear, I want to go into some more factual  
> points. As I understand you bring up roughly the following subjects:
> 
> (I) Criticism of the affiliate program with GOG.
> 
> (II) Criticism of design changes made to the forum template: Adding  
> contact & gog links.
> 
> (III) Criticism of design changes made to the main website.
> 
> Regarding (I): While you say that the forum template changes are the  
> most important to you, IMO this one is actually the core issue: If we  
> were not affiliate with GOG, we would not have the discussion, after  
> all. The whole discussion is completely different depending on whether  
> one argues based on the assumption that (a) the GOG affiliation is  
> here to stay, or (b) it has to go away ASAP.
> 
> In case of (a), one has to accept that'll place banners/links to GOG  
> on the forums and website and then proceeds to discuss how to make  
> that look best, constructively.
> In case of (b) one can just revert to the previous state.
> 
> So, we probably should as a project full of individuals first  
> determine whether to go on with (a) or (b) (something we should have  
> done *before* entering the program, indeed). Although, no, I don't  
> think that Sev and me *have* to discuss such things. We are not run by  
> consensus but rather are a meritocracy. But yeah, we *should* discuss  
> such things, and heed what people want, because otherwise people might  
> feel unhappy and leave the project. Not good.
> 
> So, I'd like everybody here who is opposed to entering an affiliate  
> program to GOG.com to speak up now. To remind everybody once more, an  
> affiliate program only makes sense if we place banners and links to  
> them in prominent places. If one disagrees with that, one disagree  
> with the affiliation .

I don't have a problem with GOG per se, although personally I'd still
prefer buying games where I get an actual medium and a box; it looks
nice on my shelf and the resale value is likely more than zero. The
opinion of others on this topic will likely differ.

Yes I know that when buying used games the original authors don't get
money. I'm not buying used games to hurt them.

> You ask why we are not affiliate with ebay or amazon. E.g. you wrote  
> "As far as I know, Amazon also does sell Broken Sword.", or "Amazon  
> also does have an affiliate program for all I know". True. Now while I  
> consider most of your remarks in that regard as purely rhetorical, the  
> main point was already answered: Because GOG focuses on classic games  
> and in particular *uses* ScummVM. While ebay and amazon satisfy  
> neither.

Broken Sword as an example was used deliberately here; I looked up
Broken Sword on Amazon but I can't tell if that's the SoldOut
version containing ScummVM or not. I didn't look up eBay but I assume
that if BS is sold there it'd contain ScummVM at least in some
instances, therefore I argue that both Amazon and eBay also use/
distribute ScummVM and therefore again help spreading the word about
ScummVM.

Amazon and eBay are larger than GOG - while they do not focus on just
classic games, I am sure they offer more classic games (not just
ScummVM-supported) than GOG.

Moreover I believe that both eBay and Amazon offer a wider range of
ScummVM-supported games (what about buying LucasArts games?) than GOG.
Is it strictly in the interest of the users to send them to a place
where they can't buy some games and omit the places where they can?

> Also, they got in personal touch with us and apparently  
> appreciate ScummVM and DOSBox a lot. To Ebay and amazon, we are  
> nothing more than insects.

Yes, that's nice that they talk to ScummVM.

> Regarding (II):
> 
> We don't have to lead this discussion if we don't agree to go on with  
> the affiliate program: In that case, we'd just revert. Hence, the  
> following is written under the assumption that we go on with it.
> 
> First, "no other websites does X" or "almost all other phpBB templates  
> do Y" are not arguments in themselves. They are at most pretext to  
> actual arguments, as in "No other template places a 'Contact us' link  
> there *because* XYZ". Without the "XYZ" part, it's an empty rhetoric  
> statement.

But then the placement of the "contact us" link is equally arbitrary,
and it is just there because the person who made the change has editing
privileges and I don't?

Let me rephrase: "most other websites I know have contact details at
the bottom of the screen. I am used to those websites to such an extent
that if I am at such a website and want to contact someone, the first
place I look for the contact information is at the bottom of the page.
Having it anywhere else is counterintuitive to me. Am I really the only
one thinking like that?"

> 
> All in all I extracted the following factual arguments from your mails:
> 
> 1) "From a logical point of view, neither "contact us" nor an  
> advertisement make sense in this line: they are not related to using  
> the forum, they are not two "large entities" like scummvm website VS  
> forum. "
> 
> -> This is only "logical" if one accepts the postulate / axiom that  
> the top line of our forum may only be used as you say. Well, I don't  
> "believe" in this axiom, at least not until gives me sufficient reason  
> as to why it makes sense (i.e., derives it from other axioms which I  
> do accept, such as usability etc. .

Good point. But I believe my original version to be usable (my mistake
here obviously being that I thought others also see it that way) so of
course I'm opposed to changes which in my opinion make things worse.

If we can't decide on a common axiom than the opinions are not
reconcilable, I don't think there can be done anything about that.

> 
> 2) The top bar of the forum is now very wide (too wide?). If the  
> screen resolution is not wide enough, that has unpleasant side effects.
> 3) The GOG.com link is in bold and sticks out in an unpleasant way.
> 
> -> While 3) is a somewhat subjective one, I still tend to agree with  
> both points. Let's think of a solution, then, not the problem . As  
> for the "contact us": It was added because we had the problem that  
> people didn't figure out how to contact staff properly. I think giving  
> people the opportunity to find out how to do that is very important.
> 
> Some ideas on how to resolve the crowded space issue:
> * Use a small banner image for the "Buy games" part
> * Use two rows of text (probably doesn't mesh nicely with the layout,  
> though)

for 2): if you really have to have that "contact us" link, why not make
all the links (including the website links) to align to the right border
of the screen - that way at least the left and right part won't push into
each other.

for 3) maybe put the "buy games" link in a line below the scummvm website/
forum index links - and perhaps in a smaller font, and in dark gray (and
certainly not bold)

> * Get rid of the "Forum Index" link -- it is not needed that much, as  
> most pages have a much bigger "Forum Index" link a bit below. Notable  
> exceptions are the search, profile and PM pages, but we could find  
> separate solutions for them. Or just turn the ScummVM logo into a link  
> back to the forum index after all -- I don't see what we loose by  
> doing that. IMO it's a mistake to believe that website could be built  
> upon purely "logical" reasoning, given that at some point the human  
> factor has to enter the picture, rendering most of the carefully  
> crafted logical arguments invalid .

I am sure you like consistency in user interfaces as much as I do;
if I want to go to the forum index I don't want to look for the respective
link on the pages without the link - I could be wrong, but I always thought
that the header of the website should offer this kind of navigational
consistency.

I think it's counter-intuitive to make a graphic which says "scummvm" link
to the index of the forum. I once read a website on good html practive
(sorry, no source) and it said to make sure links say what they link to -
e.g. instead of "download it here" with "here" being the link, writing
"download scummvm" with "scummvm" or even better "download scummvm" being
the link. This impressed me because it seemed perfectly logical but it
is something I would not have noticed myself. As a result I try to adhere
to this as much as possible, even if the people reading what I write
won't consciously notice that. Using a graphic as a link really seems to
be the worst choice.

> Regarding (III)
> 
> The current placement of the banner looks ugly, period. We already  
> asked them for a smaller button to be placed there. I hope that  
> resolves that issue with the main website.

Fine with me.

If I might ask for a final favor: I have uploaded a screenshot of my
original forum post to http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0200586/stuff/svm.png

Please read it - I have read it again and again and I still don't see why
this was quietly removed from the forum. The wording still seems reasonable
to me, and I am merely asking for the justification (maybe to strong a word
in retrospect - should have used "reason") why the links were added. I asked
(not demanded!) if it was possible to revert it. Would you call this post
"polemical," as timofonic did in another mail? I don't. Also the part about
the button on the main website is just an aside. I didn't say it was ugly,
I just said it did not fit into the design.

Please also note that I do not criticise GOG as such or say that I am
strictly opposed to advertisements on the website. In the subsequent
discussion some of my original points got blown out of proportion.

If my language became harsher in my mails to -devel than that's because I
felt I was treated unfairly. I admit that I could have used better wording
in my original mail to -devel though.

I think that is all I can say on this matter for now. 






More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list