When I was at home this morning I saw on my phone a thread regarding Non-EA servers but I cannot see said thread which i wanted to comment on, any idea why or where it has gone?
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Missing thread?
- Thread starter Picus at the office
- Start date
- Watchers 4
Someone is being heavy handed with the censorship again.
It's odd, open chat can only be a good thing for the game and the OSI servers....right?
- Awards
- 5
Pretty sure I posted in that thread....I can understand EA hating on the Free shards, not that they did anything to stop them... but I'm at a loss as to why Stratics takes this stance. Maybe some kind soul can tell me why it's like this?! 
If someone went into your house and took a crap on your floor, you would clean it up right?Pretty sure I posted in that thread....I can understand EA hating on the Free shards, not that they did anything to stop them... but I'm at a loss as to why Stratics takes this stance. Maybe some kind soul can tell me why it's like this?!
Be careful folks! If you question "deleted threads" on Stratics, you run the risk of being hit with a warning point by a moderator. Just sayin'.
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
It wasn't the thread that was a problem, it was the article the thread linked to which named a free shard and was essentially a journalistic advertisement for that free shard including pictures of it. Discussing general things about free shards and the impact they have on UO is fine, however naming them and linking to things that advertise them have always been against the rules because they harm the real version of UO merely by existing.
This rule specifically:
This rule specifically:
- Posting or linking to 3rd party game related software and utilities not authorized for use by any title supported on Stratics, or images from such.
- Examples of this third party content include but are not limited to:
- Script Engines
- Emulation Software
- Speed Hacks
- Software that facilitates game client modification
- Examples of this third party content include but are not limited to:
- Awards
- 5
Thank you for clarifying that @Captn Norrington!
Okay, so to further understand this:
Stratics is strictly for Ultima Online Broadsword/EA/ Mesanna version.
No other UO matters or can be discussed openly.
Got it, thanks
Stratics is strictly for Ultima Online Broadsword/EA/ Mesanna version.
No other UO matters or can be discussed openly.
Got it, thanks
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
It can still be discussed as much as people want, it just can't have anything directly leading back to that free shard like a name or screenshots to avoid advertising for them. If people want to discuss that it's odd free shards have better advertising than UO does, or have cool additional features UO should add etc. that's totally fine, as long as they don't name the shard they are talking about or post pictures from it.
There are better communities out there for UO, that are way more open and less censored, just google them.
I'd like to post a link from a live webcam feed that a free shard just did last week that has Richard Garriott and Star long (British and Blackthorn) talking with free shard owners and offering advice and also discussing what they wished they had done differently with UO. Very cool insite but this stratics community would just surpress it. Better communites are out there folks!
I'd like to post a link from a live webcam feed that a free shard just did last week that has Richard Garriott and Star long (British and Blackthorn) talking with free shard owners and offering advice and also discussing what they wished they had done differently with UO. Very cool insite but this stratics community would just surpress it. Better communites are out there folks!
Last edited:
Then why are you here?
Then delete the link from the post and warn the poster, but don't sweep an entire thread under the rug. The lighter touch of a reasoned, proportional response always the best approach.
Probably for the same reasons I have not flushed stratics yet. You get in a habit of visiting the forum list over 20 years even when the site has become a Marxist Censorship dreamland over the last couple of years.
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
If it were completely up to me, that is what I would have done, and have done in the past. However it was decided that we should avoid editing people's posts whenever possible, to prevent trust issues of posters thinking a moderator was changing the meaning of their post, which leaves deletion as the only other option. Deleting the original post of a thread automatically deletes the rest of the thread along with it.
Victim of Siege
Grand Poobah
Professional
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
move it into the void and then ask the OP if you can edit it and what you want to edit?
Do we wish to see OSI servers compete and outclass the free shards or is it better to avoid direct comparison? To what benefit has all this head in the sand had for our little game while the free shards have evolved. Is this a legal issue or just bandwagoning?
DreadLord Lestat
Forum Moderator
Administrator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Social Media Liaison
Wiki Moderator
UNLEASHED
Leadership is currently discussing this very issue. We do not like to edit a member's post and avoid doing so. I will reach out to @DJAd and ask him to remove his link. If he does, I will re-open the thread. We aren't trying to eliminate discussion of the existence and effect on the official game of free shards, we just don't want to advertise them. If you have suggestions about something that you would like to see on Stratics, or a possible RoC change, you can post to Stratics Help and Suggestions
Imo worrying about advertising is silly unless you are either showing a superior product or concerned about loss of click through numbers. The notion that one is intentionally diverting conversation that might question current developer direction and provide direct comparison is odd.
I have limited skin in this game and am only waiting to turn on my rig, patch and close down the accounts. I could give all my personal grievances but they are silly compared to my concern for the remaining players. Sadly I, like many others, will vote with wallet
I have limited skin in this game and am only waiting to turn on my rig, patch and close down the accounts. I could give all my personal grievances but they are silly compared to my concern for the remaining players. Sadly I, like many others, will vote with wallet
I disagree that there are better communities out there. Its just the facts of free shards having stolen the basic design, concept and all graphics from UO, they are the competition, and EA did not want to actively go to the effort, expense and lawyers fees to prosecute copywright infringements..
So why would you want to advertise them here, in a forum pretty much dedicated to UO issues or concerns? It is close to the same thing as being explicit about exploits of UO that you found heard of etc, to put them here instead of sending them to the devs. I doubt that this is suppression of free speech.
Just don't mention specific names..
if im not mistaken and in years past if you wanted to retain your title of 'Official UO fan-site' and have interaction with the Dev's and such you needed to keep free-shards and such off your site.
letting people post about them would loose you your certification.
which is why Stratics of old took the stance it did and which im assuming they still hold.
so you have to ask yourselves..... do you want stratics to retain what little interactions it has with the mother-ship or give that up just so you can post a link to free-shards or uncertified 3rd party sites -o r do you want to still have access too the Dev's ears from time to time (what little of it we have anymore).
like its been said above, lets let the other sites cater to those other things, lets keep stratics above board and legit.
just my take on it.
letting people post about them would loose you your certification.
which is why Stratics of old took the stance it did and which im assuming they still hold.
so you have to ask yourselves..... do you want stratics to retain what little interactions it has with the mother-ship or give that up just so you can post a link to free-shards or uncertified 3rd party sites -o r do you want to still have access too the Dev's ears from time to time (what little of it we have anymore).
like its been said above, lets let the other sites cater to those other things, lets keep stratics above board and legit.
just my take on it.
Wait a minute!!!
We have communication with the devs?!?!?!?!
We have communication with the devs?!?!?!?!
Yep,
And the proof is the PVP pet nerf, and other changes. There are positives and negatives to the communication, but thats life, and is needed to keep balancing our beloved UO and to make it a better experience for everyone..imo..
The fan site agreement doesn't actually say anything about free shards...
Broadsword should really update the agreement and have sites resubmit. Especially since it's likely that we're about to get an updated ToS/RoC with EJ. Two birds and all.
While one could generously read into the no-nos listed, that wouldn't actually be binding if challenged. Free shards don't neatly fit into what is listed per the present wording.
Broadsword should really update the agreement and have sites resubmit. Especially since it's likely that we're about to get an updated ToS/RoC with EJ. Two birds and all.
Victim of Siege
Grand Poobah
Professional
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
"Pretty much" and "are", are two completely different things try making "pretty much" hold up in today's legal system. "You're honor, i'm pretty much innocent of murder since i didn't mean to stab the guy 37 times with a spoon."
legality isn't really relevant here. Ultimately you could get cut off for any reason, it's not like Stratics would be sued. It just has to fit in a blanket sense.
Victim of Siege
Grand Poobah
Professional
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
since we are discussing a ToS of this website, then legality is relevant. it's not a matter of if they get sued it's whether the terms are being broken or not.
Legality and specifics only matter in a court room.
If the powers that be decided to be petty, then "almost" and "sort of" mean the same as "absolutely" and arguing the language is ultimately pointless.
Victim of Siege
Grand Poobah
Professional
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
if it had nothing to do with legality then we wouldn't have to agree to it to post.
I understand that this is Stratics' sandbox, and if we don't want to play by their rules then we have to take our toys elsewhere.
But the restrictions noted above are for maintaining a license to be an official fan site so the devs will come here and talk to us. Which is a joke two ways.
As I understand it we are no longer an official fansite...and how times have the devs posted anything meaningful here in the last month?
But the restrictions noted above are for maintaining a license to be an official fan site so the devs will come here and talk to us. Which is a joke two ways.
As I understand it we are no longer an official fansite...and how times have the devs posted anything meaningful here in the last month?
Meaningful posts would be something far deeper than anything posted here in the last few years. @Kyronix is the only person who can be half counted on for a reply.
All this wonderful outside content and one can't post a link for fear of Bonnie not posting here? There has to be another way to engage....
All this wonderful outside content and one can't post a link for fear of Bonnie not posting here? There has to be another way to engage....
Well, that's kinda my point too lol. they dont post here, or havent in a coupla months. So why are we afraid of losing them? They're already gone!
That's not how these things work at all, these terms are about respecting the IP, not legality. You're not gonna get sued for breaking them. And even if this was about legality, this clearly falls under 3rd party. Infact, I don't know a shards that doesn't require an unapproved program to access.
Thats inacurate. I know what your getting at but you can change the nameservers in UOs config files.
That was pretty much the whole point of my original posting. Showing how the free shards can create "adverts" and hype for themselves but our current dev team is about to launch a MASSIVE update for the game and I've not read anything about it on any other sites. Its pretty sad really. They should be sending out press releases / emails to old members etc etc. in preparation for endless journey.
Basara
UO Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Wiki Moderator
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
I just love all the people who can't seem to understand that it's not Broadsword, but EA, that calls the shots on a lot of the "legalese" - especially in regard to the 3rd party stuff. Otherwise, one of the 3rd party clients would have already been made legal, if Mesanna had her way (according to at least one BS rep).
"Almost" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades... and the preliminary rounds before a lawsuit.
Lawyers routinely threaten to "almost" people into bankruptcy over years or decades of delays to prevent people from going through a lawsuit that their client would lose, if it went all the way to a judgement. Similarly, it's "almosts" that result in some settlements, as the cost of fighting outweigh the cost of settlements that admit no guilt. (and, if the two parties are in a license agreement, the a disparity in size means the smaller party might as well not try). One does not casually consider something that MIGHT PO one of the gaming company juggernauts, because it might be an "almost" but not quite, because if they interpret "almost" as "is", you don't stand a chance.
I knew a guy (who passed away last year) who created a dimensional travel RPG (paper & dice type) in the early 80s. It did fairly well and got some critical acclaim in the industry, despite the first few printings being being assembled in the guy's garage with plastic comb bindings. nearly a decade later, someone in Hollywood found a copy of one of the early printings, assumed that the writer was long gone (instead of having booths at Gen Con, Origin, and a dozen or more midwestern SF & gaming cons every year), and wrote a movie script, stealing the portal design, NPC character names, and about 50 other points of direct comparison. That movie stared big name actors, and spawned no less than 3 TV shows and multiple TV/direct-to-video movies (and a failed attempt at an MMO). Said game company owner (a 1 man operation, other than a few freelancers), tried several times to get a lawyer to sue. He was turned away, being told by the law firms "You have an air-tight case - IF it ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. However, Universal could spend both you and our firm into bankruptcy, and drag the case out until we were long dead, so it's not worth even trying." However, he COULD make the claim that said movie was stolen from his work, and if Universal tried to claim otherwise, the ball would have been in their court, and the legal fees would have eventually have come out of Universal's pocket. But, of course, Universal was smart enough to never do anything that would endanger that franchise's legitimacy by acknowledging the claims existed.
"Almost" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades... and the preliminary rounds before a lawsuit.
Lawyers routinely threaten to "almost" people into bankruptcy over years or decades of delays to prevent people from going through a lawsuit that their client would lose, if it went all the way to a judgement. Similarly, it's "almosts" that result in some settlements, as the cost of fighting outweigh the cost of settlements that admit no guilt. (and, if the two parties are in a license agreement, the a disparity in size means the smaller party might as well not try). One does not casually consider something that MIGHT PO one of the gaming company juggernauts, because it might be an "almost" but not quite, because if they interpret "almost" as "is", you don't stand a chance.
I knew a guy (who passed away last year) who created a dimensional travel RPG (paper & dice type) in the early 80s. It did fairly well and got some critical acclaim in the industry, despite the first few printings being being assembled in the guy's garage with plastic comb bindings. nearly a decade later, someone in Hollywood found a copy of one of the early printings, assumed that the writer was long gone (instead of having booths at Gen Con, Origin, and a dozen or more midwestern SF & gaming cons every year), and wrote a movie script, stealing the portal design, NPC character names, and about 50 other points of direct comparison. That movie stared big name actors, and spawned no less than 3 TV shows and multiple TV/direct-to-video movies (and a failed attempt at an MMO). Said game company owner (a 1 man operation, other than a few freelancers), tried several times to get a lawyer to sue. He was turned away, being told by the law firms "You have an air-tight case - IF it ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. However, Universal could spend both you and our firm into bankruptcy, and drag the case out until we were long dead, so it's not worth even trying." However, he COULD make the claim that said movie was stolen from his work, and if Universal tried to claim otherwise, the ball would have been in their court, and the legal fees would have eventually have come out of Universal's pocket. But, of course, Universal was smart enough to never do anything that would endanger that franchise's legitimacy by acknowledging the claims existed.