1
Appealing lock of Baldur's Craft texture pack.
Terzaerian
Cyprezz
To start with, I would like to thank the administration and staff of Planet Minecraft for providing the superlative service for sharing, uploading, and advertising the art and customizations the Minecraft community makes. Its design is intuitive, easy to navigate, and rich in helpful, fun features.
That said, today I was trying to update the description of my texture pack, Baldur's Craft, and I came across this message:
And was a little bit shocked. It doesn't appear to be an automated message, as removing references to Painterly in the description fields did not cause it to go away, so I can only assume that my texture pack was reported and then quickly locked by a moderator.
I would like to appeal this lock as it appears to have been done quickly and without due process. I was not notified prior to today of this judgement, and overall it is made in error as this is a unique texture pack based on the Painterly foundation, not a custom Painterly pack, in much the same fashion as many unique texture packs still retain elements of the default texture pack. Both arrangements are perfectly legal by the terms of this site and both Rhodox and Mojang's terms of use for their texture packs.
Mandating that all texture packs be made completely from scratch is, itself, insanely draconian. It would preclude any texture pack which changes some, but not all, of the default graphics of Minecraft. Very few texture pack authors go to that extent making their texture packs, and if this was the rule everywhere, we would have very, very few to choose from. Taken to its logical conclusion, any texture pack which didn't change the water or lava graphics could even be reported.
This texture pack, while it uses Painterly as a foundation, is not a custom Painterly set. It is impossible to reproduce this at painterlypack.net using the available options because this is a unique set with original graphics. I assume this rule was meant to stop the proliferation of custom Painterly sets on Planet Minecraft that could be reproduced at painterlypack.net; if so, then it has been applied in error here. Even a cursory glance at the screenshots should make this patently obvious. Furthermore, Rhodox has also stated in his readme:
So it is not as if this is the issue either, as I clearly credited Rhodox himself and the presence of Painterly elements in my description. Ironically, I suspect if I had not done this I would be in violation of Rhodox's own terms but would have not been reported and locked as a knee-jerk reaction here.
Hours of painstaking graphics work went into making the textures for this pack. What textures were not adopted from Baldur's Gate - mainly, the wood - were done from scratch. It seems ridiculous that my texture pack should be singled out for crediting Rhodox for the foundational work when there are dozens of texture packs which merely switch out a stone or cobble texture, or turn every piece of terrain into a flat color, or apply the greyscale filter to the file, and assert that it is a "unique" texture pack.
Furthermore, the number of views (over 7000) and downloads (over 1500) should show that this texture pack has generated a significant amount of interest in the Minecraft community, traction a mere custom Painterly pack would have enormous difficulty gaining.
Finally, prior discussion of the issue of stolen texture packs, such as occurred here, the opinion expressed by moderators was twofold: to crack down on texture packs that merely "cobbled together" textures made by others for Minecraft texture packs into new ones, and to eliminate custom Painterly builds that could be reproduced at Painterly's website. As I previously stated, this texture pack can neither be reproduced at painterlypack.net nor are most of the textures in it cobbled together from other Minecraft packs, but adopted by myself from Baldur's Gate graphics for Minecraft. So this is a lock that is also against precedent.
So I implore the staff of Planet Minecraft: please reconsider this lock. While Baldur's Craft is functionally complete, I plan to continue updating it through 1.7 and beyond, while progressively replacing more of the original graphics with graphics adopted from Baldur's Gate. I would definitely like to do so here. Thank you for your time.
That said, today I was trying to update the description of my texture pack, Baldur's Craft, and I came across this message:
And was a little bit shocked. It doesn't appear to be an automated message, as removing references to Painterly in the description fields did not cause it to go away, so I can only assume that my texture pack was reported and then quickly locked by a moderator.
I would like to appeal this lock as it appears to have been done quickly and without due process. I was not notified prior to today of this judgement, and overall it is made in error as this is a unique texture pack based on the Painterly foundation, not a custom Painterly pack, in much the same fashion as many unique texture packs still retain elements of the default texture pack. Both arrangements are perfectly legal by the terms of this site and both Rhodox and Mojang's terms of use for their texture packs.
Mandating that all texture packs be made completely from scratch is, itself, insanely draconian. It would preclude any texture pack which changes some, but not all, of the default graphics of Minecraft. Very few texture pack authors go to that extent making their texture packs, and if this was the rule everywhere, we would have very, very few to choose from. Taken to its logical conclusion, any texture pack which didn't change the water or lava graphics could even be reported.
This texture pack, while it uses Painterly as a foundation, is not a custom Painterly set. It is impossible to reproduce this at painterlypack.net using the available options because this is a unique set with original graphics. I assume this rule was meant to stop the proliferation of custom Painterly sets on Planet Minecraft that could be reproduced at painterlypack.net; if so, then it has been applied in error here. Even a cursory glance at the screenshots should make this patently obvious. Furthermore, Rhodox has also stated in his readme:
RhodoxThis pack may be used freely in whole or in part by any owner of Minecraft, and combined with other texture packs, so long as credit is given and no profit or donations are solicited through that person's use of my textures and skins. You don't have to credit me if you use it with your youtube videos or promoting your server or things of that nature, but it's appreciated if you do.
So it is not as if this is the issue either, as I clearly credited Rhodox himself and the presence of Painterly elements in my description. Ironically, I suspect if I had not done this I would be in violation of Rhodox's own terms but would have not been reported and locked as a knee-jerk reaction here.
Hours of painstaking graphics work went into making the textures for this pack. What textures were not adopted from Baldur's Gate - mainly, the wood - were done from scratch. It seems ridiculous that my texture pack should be singled out for crediting Rhodox for the foundational work when there are dozens of texture packs which merely switch out a stone or cobble texture, or turn every piece of terrain into a flat color, or apply the greyscale filter to the file, and assert that it is a "unique" texture pack.
Furthermore, the number of views (over 7000) and downloads (over 1500) should show that this texture pack has generated a significant amount of interest in the Minecraft community, traction a mere custom Painterly pack would have enormous difficulty gaining.
Finally, prior discussion of the issue of stolen texture packs, such as occurred here, the opinion expressed by moderators was twofold: to crack down on texture packs that merely "cobbled together" textures made by others for Minecraft texture packs into new ones, and to eliminate custom Painterly builds that could be reproduced at Painterly's website. As I previously stated, this texture pack can neither be reproduced at painterlypack.net nor are most of the textures in it cobbled together from other Minecraft packs, but adopted by myself from Baldur's Gate graphics for Minecraft. So this is a lock that is also against precedent.
So I implore the staff of Planet Minecraft: please reconsider this lock. While Baldur's Craft is functionally complete, I plan to continue updating it through 1.7 and beyond, while progressively replacing more of the original graphics with graphics adopted from Baldur's Gate. I would definitely like to do so here. Thank you for your time.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
1
1
Thanks for the compliments and detailed analysis of the situation. I wrote a script to detect painterly packs based on key indicators. In most cases it doesn't block packs like yours. It saves us a lot of time as well as the community from wading through custom painterly packs to discover truly unique packs like Baldur's Craft. In your case, it is a false flag but at the same time, it was a correct analysis. I assure you the "lock" was not placed by any member of PMC. I'll send you a PM to let you know why your submission is triggering the detection script.
