Signatures, Stigmasures!

[Boco]

Originally posted by BillyBud
Possible signature convention:

Perhaps a signature that appears in the bottom right corner of a graphic would indicate the original artist's name.

Then ALL subsequent signatures of artists who modify the original version would appear in a clockwise fashion around the graphic.

So over time everyone would know that the sig that appears in the top right corner of the graphic would indicate the author who made the last known modification of the original unit.

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Maybe we could move this to another thread so we are not cluttering up the graphics threads? I remember people aren't too happy when they see more words than units

Since I agree with these sentiments, I thought I'd start a new poll. Hopefully this poll is formatted right.
[list=1][*]I like BillyBud's idea of a hierarchy of signatures[*]Only credit the most significant contribution[*]Only credit the latest contribution[*]Get some perspective! This is a game with icons in the public domain! Who needs signatures?[*]Who thought of this poll? Why didn't he give an option to do _____?[*]What's an icon?[*]All icons should look like bananas![/list=1]

[Henrik]

Would be too much work to go over all th graphics files and move the signatures around. I used to have a "system" where I simply added a "+" sign infront of those signatures that modified an existing graphic.
Much more convinient as not everyone puts their original signature in the same corner in the first place.
(and sometimes there won't be enough room on all sides of the unit otherwise)

It's not as exact, you won't be able to tell in which order people modified the image, but does it really need to be? By now everyone knows eachother in this miniscule community anyway.

[jim panse]

I use to leave the initial signatures on the unit if I dared to mod them. Usually the original unit designer is easy recognised anyway (e.g. Nemo or Fairline) - as Henrik pointed that out above.

In the example below you see that mercenary from the 14th century, without any doubt recogniseable a unit by Fairline, I simply modded it a bit (colours, weapon, etc.) - which is also the reason why I put my sig onto it: This unit was something else before I played with it.

(On a sidenote I am with Henrik on that issue if this would be really necessary since we know each other here anyways ...)

Comments?

[fairline]

Tend to agree with both Henrik and JP. A new system now won't take account of all the existing graphics and to be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you modify a graphic put your sig on it but leave the originator's. If you make it unrecognisable, delete the originators sig. Not that tricky is it?

As for making a distinction between an originator's sig and a modifier's through placement or stars or whatever, who's bothered? As JP said, most people here know where the original came from.

Now get back to making EA2 and stop worrying about this inconsequential nonsense!

[Stefan Härtel]

I always put my signature in the lower right corner. I've done this for about seven years now, and I have no intention of changing that. I always give mention to that in my readme files, and we've all been very happy with that. If I modify another unit, I usually leave the original signature on it, unless I've modified it beyond recognition (though I've abandoned that policy recently; now I always leave on the original signature). If the original signature is in the lower right corner, I put mine in the lower left corner. An example is attached.

[curtsibling]

The sig of the originator, and the sig of the editor...

Keep it simple, and keep it real!

[Boco]

Originally posted by Henrik
By now everyone knows eachother in this miniscule community anyway.

Who is this guy and what's he doing with my birthday?

Trivial issue or not, I'm hoping that this poll will keep the recurring signature wars out of the gfx listings. Clearly, it's neither desirable nor possible to enforce rules about posts, but perhaps we can agee on a balance between giving credit and being practical.

Having some loose convention could avoid the periodic cycles I've seen: poster #1 is admonished for 'breaking the signature rules', and then the admonisher gets embarrassed and/or lambasted for being trivial. These cycles are awkward and at best leaves people looking down at their virtual feet and shuffling sand. If any consensus comes out of this, it'd be nice to point to a single thread as a reference.

Originally posted by fairline
Now get back to making EA2...

Just finished designing a fun Egypt <-> Sudan <-> Hejaz intermap movement scheme for the Egyptian Army. Works pretty well, but elsewhere my stumpy wannabe Englishmen are having a hard time on those ramshackle Bolshevik trains! You really should avoid disclosing those moments of weakness when you get excited about revamping gfx!

Stefan, your convention seems consistent with BillyBud's idea, nichts? Or should we apply the KISS principle as curtsibling suggests? Fairline, you used to use Nemo gfx as a starting point. If someone edits one of those, whose signature(s) should appear?

[Stefan Härtel]

Stefan, your convention seems consistent with BillyBud's idea, nichts?

No idea. I haven't been following this.

[Broken_Erika]

it seems that the option "All signatures should look like bananas!" is in the lead,
now seriously, i usually put my sig wherever it will fit, and i tend to reduce the size of my sig for a lot of unit modifications, mainly beacause my full sig is a hugely overbloated thing,

[The ANZAC]

Henrik and Jim Panse seem to have it right on target with my sentiments.

[CapTVK]

My primary request is that the original author of a unit, any unit, is known at all times. So it must it include a sig somewhere. I'm asking because if you need to contact the orginal author it can be quite hard if you don't know who made the original in the first place*.

So, always include some form of identification, be that as a tag, name, email or in a readme that's included with the files.


*Where a Civ2/ToT original and derivative begins is another question. Any views on this?

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by curtsibling
The sig of the originator, and the sig of the editor...

Keep it simple, and keep it real!

Originator and editor, got it.

Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by CapTVK



Originator and editor, got it.

Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

That's when it gets ridiculous.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by CapTVK



Originator and editor, got it.

Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

Then, you fix yourself a stiff drink!

[Broken_Erika]

Originally posted by CapTVK



Originator and editor, got it.

Yeah, but what if the original edited by the editor is edited by another editor whose edits are edited by the original editor which is edited again by the former editor, leading to another edit at a later stage by a new editor!?

i don't think there is enough space in a unit slot to handle all the sigs, unless the unit is 2x2 pixels,
i can see it now,"i took the triangle and turned it into a square that was originally a circle!"