Stellar: A Free/Libre/Open-Source Game Maker Replacement

[diligentcircle]

I'm calling it what it is. If you want to stick to inflexible "definitions" of terms that's your affair; the rest of us don't see it as "releasing personal information", we see it as attempting to manipulate people's emotions to get what you want.

That's not what blackmail is. You are stretching the meaning of the word "blackmail" to include something that it is not, so that you have a convenient way to attack my character.

You want a world where everything is free, and you're willing to resort to underhanded tactics like the above (which I outlined and you nicely quoted) in order to force a change in people to bring them round to your viewpoint. Of course the statement of the ethics of source code is an opinion - yet you word it as though it should be obvious that it's a fact. That there is no room for misinterpretation, that if you don't see proprietary code as being "wrong" then you are yourself unethical.


Which is an awful thing to do, but you seem to be quite happy with it.

Why are you making out a statement of my opinion about ethics to be "underhanded tactics"? The only underhanded tactics here are yours: you are using the underhanded tactic of associating a word that everyone knows represents something horrible with a completely unrelated action in order to make me look like some sort of criminal. In fact, you're doing it twice: first you call a statement of my opinion "manipulation", and then you stretch the meaning of the term "blackmail" to be what you perceive to be "manipulation", so that my mere opinion about ethics is now comparable to extorting money from someone by threatening to reveal their personal information. It's disgusting, and it shows that you have no intellectual integrity.

You don't think the animals might not quiver in fear?

That's not what I meant at all, and if you are a reasonably intelligent adult (which I assume you are; let me know if this assumption is faulty), you should know that. I was saying the obvious truth that there is a difference between something being unethical and being scary. A vegan thinks slaughtering animals for food is unethical, but they aren't scared of meat.

You said that my mere statement that proprietary software is unethical is an attempt to arouse fear. That's bullshit. I'm not afraid of proprietary software any more than I am afraid of the North Korean government. I am not trying to get others to be afraid of proprietary software by saying it is unethical, either, any more than I would be trying to get people to be afraid of the North Korean government by saying that their actions are unethical.

I really don't think you really have as good a grasp on the language you're using as you think you have - so you're either ignorant or deliberately a nasty person with an agenda.


If someone wanders into a forum that's unrelated to their interests and starts accusing people of being unethical, which would you say they were?

I could say the same thing about you with the language you're using.

I "wandered" into this forum to share Stellar. That's it. I already got fed up with this community when a very similar argument to this one happened, and I think it was also with you. I've been thoroughly convinced that this community is hostile and not worth being a part of. If you agree with the mainstream opinion, great. Otherwise, well, damn, you might as well be a murderer!

Despite that, I came here because I have something of interest (an easy-to-use game engine which works out-of-the-box on the Pandora, and a project which lets you use that engine via a Game Maker-like GUI). I want to think that even though I completely disagree with this community's general position regarding software (the open source philosophy), we can still be helpful to each other and I can talk about my views like a normal person. And yet, once again, I am starting to be convinced that I can't.

Take a look at the start of this topic. In the first post, I briefly said that I'm not really interested in this community anymore. See two paragraphs ago for why I felt this way. But the rest of the post was talking about Stellar and SGE. I never intended to be participating in another argument about my views, much less have my character attacked by someone who clearly has no real argument. I haven't even gotten out my list of common arguments against free software, because you aren't interested in that. You are only interested in pretending that I'm some horrible, manipulative person who is "blackmailing" people by simply stating my views.

 

[moxie]

I do agree with ZXDunny that it might be a problem with language. You might not quite be aware of the values of the words you use.

 

[diligentcircle]

There is no reason a statement that something is unethical should ever be offensive to anyone. None of you will be offended by any of the following statements... or at least, I don't think you will:

- Murder is unethical.
- Rape is unethical.
- Totalitarian regimes are unethical.
- Torture is unethical.
- Slavery is unethical.
- Human trafficking is unethical.
- Harassment is unethical.
- Assault and battery is unethical.
- Massacres are unethical.
- Bigotry is unethical.

Notice that the wording of all of these statements is exactly the same as the statement, "Proprietary software is unethical". The reason you are not offended by any of this is because you all agree with these ethical positions. So this is not about my word choice at all; it's about people being offended by my beliefs themselves. That's irrational.

 

[moxie]

Notice that the wording of all of these statements is exactly the same as the statement, "Proprietary software is unethical". The reason you are not offended by any of this is because you all agree with these ethical positions. So this is not about my word choice at all; it's about people being offended by my beliefs themselves. That's irrational.

But that is not what you said. This is what you said:

It's unethical for the developers of these programs to make them nonfree, but I judge the developers of these programs, not the users or the community, and judgment is not my end goal. My only goal is to promote freedom.

(my emphasis)

I would suggest for everyone here: to stop using the OpenPandora, because it's not a free system.

And it is not the same thing. And if you think that is the same thing, I maintain that you have a problem understanding the values of the words you use. 


This is made more likely by the fact that you're seemingly believing (or at least acting like) that the phrase "emotional blackmail" was coined by ZXDunny, or at least that it is some weird neologism. It isn't. It is a quite common description of exactly the kind of thing that you're doing.

There is of course also the possibility that you're just playing dumb and pretending to not understand these things. I do take the more charitable assumption here, though.

And, also:

There is no reason a statement that something is unethical should ever be offensive to anyone. None of you will be offended by any of the following statements... or at least, I don't think you will:


- Murder is unethical.


- Rape is unethical.


- Totalitarian regimes are unethical.


- Torture is unethical.


- Slavery is unethical.


- Human trafficking is unethical.


- Harassment is unethical.


- Assault and battery is unethical.


- Massacres are unethical.


- Bigotry is unethical.

The point is also that which was discussed above: Ethics isn't objective. There is a scale between what is uniformly agreed upon to be unethical, and what is the opinion of a select few. That is the difference between saying "Rape is unethical - I judge the rapists, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them" and "Mixed race marriages are unethical - I judge these blood traitors, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them". The form of the sentence is not at question (even though you're being kinda loose with that, even) - The underlying assumptions is,  and that one would most certainly seem offensive at least to me. Whilst "Non-free software is unethical" most certainly isn't as bad as the one with mixed marriages, it is still far from being a generally agreed upon principle.

 

[diligentcircle]

Notice that the wording of all of these statements is exactly the same as the statement, "Proprietary software is unethical". The reason you are not offended by any of this is because you all agree with these ethical positions. So this is not about my word choice at all; it's about people being offended by my beliefs themselves. That's irrational.

But that is not what you said. This is what you said:

It's unethical for the developers of these programs to make them nonfree, but I judge the developers of these programs, not the users or the community, and judgment is not my end goal. My only goal is to promote freedom.

(my emphasis)

I would suggest for everyone here: to stop using the OpenPandora, because it's not a free system.

And it is not the same thing. And if you think that is the same thing, I maintain that you have a problem understanding the values of the words you use.

No. This is what ZXDunny said:

So describing a coder as being "unethical" because he or she won't release source is merely proclaiming to the world that you don't agree with their decision, and that you'd like others to see them as somehow being wrong despite the fact that the only yardstick you can measure them with is created by your own prejudices. Describing this as "ethics" is just trying to persuade people with emotional blackmail to agree with your own agenda.

He didn't say that the problem was that I said that I "judge" proprietary software developers. He said that the problem was that I called proprietary software unethical.

Also, in your emphasis of that part of the sentence, you forgot about the part where I said, "...judgment is not my end goad. My only goal is to promote freedom." Judgment by me is a mere consequence of the fact that they are doing something unethical. You would judge a rapist, whether you call it judgment or not. It's human nature to judge people who are doing something unethical. Note that "judgment" just means to form an opinion about something or someone.

This is made more likely by the fact that you're seemingly believing (or at least acting like) that the phrase "emotional blackmail" was coined by ZXDunny, or at least that it is some weird neologism. It isn't. It is a quite common description of exactly the kind of thing that you're doing.

So it is. I didn't know that, but let's see here (looking on Wikipedia):

Emotional blackmail is a form of psychological manipulation - it is "the use of a system of threats and punishment on a person by someone close to them in an attempt to control their behavior".

Why, it's just what I thought it sounds like! You know, threats. I never threatened anyone. Hell, if I'm reading this correctly, it's even worse: I am not, by any measure at all, in a close relationship with the proprietary software developers being talked about, or with the members of this community.

So ironically, my point stands even stronger: ZXDunny was using the term "emotional blackmail" horribly incorrectly in order to attack my character.

The point is also that which was discussed above: Ethics isn't objective. There is a scale between what is uniformly agreed upon to be unethical, and what is the opinion of a select few. That is the difference between saying "Rape is unethical - I judge the rapists, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them" and "Mixed race marriages are unethical - I judge these blood traitors, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them". The form of the sentence is not at question (even though you're being kinda loose with that, even) - The underlying assumptions is,  and that one would most certainly seem offensive at least to me. Whilst "Non-free software is unethical" most certainly isn't as bad as the one with mixed marriages, it is still far from being a generally agreed upon principle.

You just repeated what I said. It's not my language that's offensive; people are offended because they disagree with me. Well, sorry, but if you don't like my views on ethics, argue with me about it like an adult. Don't backhandedly attack my character by lying about what I'm doing in an attempt to silence me.

 

[skeezix]

I've not read much of this thread (cause wow, I do not want to).

I'd suggest..

If you care about promoting the software here then

- start a new thread

- in that thread, do not as your first thing say 'I hate you guys'

- instead, just promote the software _without agenda_

Let it stand on its own merits.

As I replied right off on your original post.. you came out swinging with an insult, and further, incomplete software that was not ready for any form of promotion (no screenshots, no UI available so therefore not useful to the people you are promoting to, no details about the engine (so not useful to coders at all) ...) .. it was just a 'wank'.

You're conflating multiuple issuers here; is this about software, or about agenda, or one thing?

If its one thing, its too much baggage, no one wants to care. Every time you open your mouth, you're beating the agenda drum.. people get tired of it; life is busy, life is hard, people are making choices all the time; but once in awhile they want to look at something and not be attacked, or be made to feel guilty, or not want to be ngaged even if they agree; they just wonder 'whats this software about'?

Anyway, I'm not reading this thread, I'm too busy right now with crazy-RL stuff, but as this popped up on 'new content' I thought I'd throw my two cents in (feel free to delete/ignore as you see fit.)

I respect your position, but don't push it on people

 

[Rockthesmurf]

My issues are firstly I'm not sure how these two things you said really add up:

 

'I came here because I have something of interest (an easy-to-use game engine which works out-of-the-box on the Pandora)'

'I would suggest for everyone here: to stop using the OpenPandora, because it's not a free system.'

 

You supposedly leave the community, but still post on the boards software that you specifically can be used on the Pandora, and say that everyone should stop using the Pandora. Amidst all the confusion you throw in, secondly:

 

'It's unethical for the developers of these programs to make them nonfree'

 

Which is not true. And despite what you believe it comes across quite offensively to be described as 'unethical' when used in an authoritative way. If you worded it something more like:

'As you know, I personally believe the greater good of software comes from open source endeavours, so I am pleased to be able to share Stellar with you all.'

I believe you would have got more positive replies about your software, and less negative replies about the way you talk about other people on the forum. You say this isn't a friendly forum (or whatever) but I think most people on here would argue completely the opposite. If you conduct yourself in a friendly way you'll get friendly responses, if you conduct yourselves otherwise please be prepared for the consequential replies.

EDIT: Just saw skeezix's reply after making this message. If I had of read his first I wouldn't have bothered with this message, as he covers it really. Bottom line I'd much rather get on. I'd much rather you posted your work on here and receive positive responses.

 

[ZXDunny]

Don't backhandedly attack my character by lying about what I'm doing in an attempt to silence me.

I'm not lying. Everything I said about you is the truth. You're sitting there masturbating yourself into a stupour over your disgust for proprietary software, all the while planning how you'll twist and distort other people's attitudes towards any coder that you feel doesn't make the grade.

That's you, that is.

D.

 

[diligentcircle]

If you care about promoting the software here then
- start a new thread

- in that thread, do not as your first thing say 'I hate you guys'

- instead, just promote the software _without agenda_

I never said that I hate you guys. I said that I'm not really interested in this community anymore.

I do think this topic has become such a shithole, what with half of the thread being about attacks on character, that a new topic is justified. I think giving SGE its own topic in the Python sub-forum would be a good idea, anyway. But I didn't say that proprietary software is unethical in the first post. It was a response to you a few posts down. It also was something I was dismissing at the time, a part of a broader statement that was attempting to sweep the whole issue under the rug after I had made a joke about it and you took the joke too seriously, something everyone seems to have forgotten:

I was just poking fun. It's unethical for the developers of these programs to make them nonfree, but I judge the developers of these programs, not the users or the community, and judgment is not my end goal. My only goal is to promote freedom.

It was then ZXDunny who took issue with this simple statement several posts later. First he started arguing that ethics are subjective, which I couldn't care less about, and then he called it "emotional blackmail", which was where I took issue (because it's lying, and it's an attack on my character).

'It's unethical for the developers of these programs to make them nonfree'

 

Which is not true. And despite what you believe it comes across quite offensively to be described as 'unethical' when used in an authoritative way. If you worded it something more like:

'As you know, I personally believe the greater good of software comes from open source endeavours, so I am pleased to be able to share Stellar with you all.'

That second statement you suggest does not fit with my views at all. First, I don't advocate "open source"; I advocate free software. Second, I don't advocate free software for "the greater good of software"; I advocate free software for personal freedom, and nothing more.

It seems to me that you are confusing free software and open source philosophies. That is a mistake. Open source is the name of a philosophy which rejects the views of the free software movement. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I'm not lying. Everything I said about you is the truth. You're sitting there masturbating yourself into a stupour over your disgust for proprietary software, all the while planning how you'll twist and distort other people's attitudes towards any coder that you feel doesn't make the grade.


That's you, that is.

Well, I'm glad you've run out of creative ways to attack my character, but it seems you still don't have a real argument, because all you have left to do now is make a stupid metaphor about something that I haven't done (I've not talked, at least extensively, about disgust for proprietary software; I've only said that your attacks on my character were disgusting) and vague predictions of some kind of malicious intent from me.

Request to the moderators: Please close this topic. I'll start a new topic as skeezix suggested on a later date.

 

[Franko]

Thanks for the entertainment!


...just wanted to get that in there before the cyber curtains are pulled down over this thread...

 

[moxie]

No. This is what ZXDunny said:

So describing a coder as being "unethical" because he or she won't release source is merely proclaiming to the world that you don't agree with their decision, and that you'd like others to see them as somehow being wrong despite the fact that the only yardstick you can measure them with is created by your own prejudices. Describing this as "ethics" is just trying to persuade people with emotional blackmail to agree with your own agenda.

 
He didn't say that the problem was that I said that I "judge" proprietary software developers. He said that the problem was that I called proprietary software unethical.

You are completely unable to see what you are writing, then? The problem is that you are calling developers unethical (and thereby judging them). You even quote ZXDunny straight off and then fail to read what you've quoted. Amazing. And, of course, that you are converting this into emotional blackmail by turning to the language of ethics to judge them for not agreeing with you. Being, as it is, a rather more emotionally loaded discourse than the more honest but less tarring "I do not agree with the decision to spread non-free software". 

The point is also that which was discussed above: Ethics isn't objective. There is a scale between what is uniformly agreed upon to be unethical, and what is the opinion of a select few. That is the difference between saying "Rape is unethical - I judge the rapists, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them" and "Mixed race marriages are unethical - I judge these blood traitors, and encourage all to have nothing to do with them". The form of the sentence is not at question (even though you're being kinda loose with that, even) - The underlying assumptions is,  and that one would most certainly seem offensive at least to me. Whilst "Non-free software is unethical" most certainly isn't as bad as the one with mixed marriages, it is still far from being a generally agreed upon principle.

 
You just repeated what I said. It's not my language that's offensive; people are offended because they disagree with me. Well, sorry, but if you don't like my views on ethics, argue with me about it like an adult. Don't backhandedly attack my character by lying about what I'm doing in an attempt to silence me.

That is not what I wrote, and I really by now am finding it hard to believe that you aren't deliberately playing stupid in order to continue this farce. The problem is not "I believe X is unethical", the problem is "These people are unethical". You are saying the latter and afterwards pretending that you've said the former. That is rather dishonest.

 

[DrCJBoduma]

Just to cut a scythe through all of this......

I like the look of the project itself

How is the GUI version progressing?

CJ

 

[skeezix]

Suggestion..

Mod: Lock thread with extreme prejudice.

onpon: Open a new thread, and don't even mention (jokingly or not) any agenda; let the software stand on its own.

Precondition: I've not looked lately, but when you first posted. the available information/website wasn't really useful; the GUI wasn't there, just the engine. but not enough information to give anyone a clue without them getting into the code and looking, which is too much investment for a lot of people. ie: Given the entire purpose of such things is to make peoples lives easier.. make their lives easier, kay? (at the website, all the way to the backend. I realize it may be too early to do that 'promotion' however

btw.. good luck with it all.. it is _great fun_ to work on such things (I build a crummy RPG-maker sort of thing many many years ago, though since I never intended to use it and had very limited platforms, it really crumbled

jeff

 

[diligentcircle]

You are completely unable to see what you are writing, then? The problem is that you are calling developers unethical (and thereby judging them). You even quote ZXDunny straight off and then fail to read what you've quoted. Amazing. And, of course, that you are converting this into emotional blackmail by turning to the language of ethics to judge them for not agreeing with you. Being, as it is, a rather more emotionally loaded discourse than the more honest but less tarring "I do not agree with the decision to spread non-free software"


[...]


That is not what I wrote, and I really by now am finding it hard to believe that you aren't deliberately playing stupid in order to continue this farce. The problem is not "I believe X is unethical", the problem is "These people are unethical". You are saying the latter and afterwards pretending that you've said the former. That is rather dishonest.

Oh, OK, so you'll be offended if I say "rapists are unethical", then?


But anyway, if you read "proprietary software developers are unethical" out of anything I said, it was a miscommunication. I don't condemn people; I condemn actions. That isn't to say that I don't judge people by their actions, though. Like I said, I think judging people by their actions is human nature and I don't think it's wrong.

How is the GUI version progressing?

I haven't tried the GUI myself, but the impression that I get from Emilio is that it's almost usable. I'm working on the room editor separately in SGE, and I'll be done with that fairly soon. This is a mockup of approximately what the editor will look like:

http://imgur.com/XG85Uqh


Emilio expressed to me a desire to start the GUI again from scratch, but decided (after I suggested that it's a bad idea) to at least get a working version out before thinking of doing that. In any case, since the room editor is now going to be a component which is separated from the main GUI, I'll be able to release it with SGE along with some other basic tools. The GUI will then only be necessary for beginners who use the drag and drop interface instead of or in addition to writing Python code directly.

 

[TrashyMG]

Locking the Thread by request, while it's an interesting debate it's way off topic..