crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 10, 2018 19:58:14 GMT
They are free to post, and some of them have been. However, most of their arguments are, in my view, unconvincing and kind of weaksauce. Honestly, I might be a little less dismissive if people just said “I know buying recasts is wrong but I do it anyways because it’s so much cheaper” than try to make a weaksauce moral justification for it based on complaints about pricing or perceived power level. That position at least stands up to some scrutiny. Yes, they have but if they are going to be called theives and that their personal beliefs are 'weaksause' or mere rationalizations when they might truly believe they are in the right, it might feel pretty hostile. Why can't you point out the problems without resorting to attacks? I guess I am just repeating myself and if you want me to stop I will lol. I don’t think I used the word “thieves,” though for the recasters themselves, if the shoe fits... I also don’t think I’ve been attacking anyone. Pointing out that their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and seem to be mere rationalizations is not an attack. I said that the arguments used to support recasting are weaksauce, and I stand by that. The two arguments I have seen so far are: 1. Models are expensive, therefore recasting is justified. 2. I need to always have the latest spammy netlist, and can’t financially keep up when that changes. Both those arguments are flawed, unconvincing, and unimpressive. Or, one might say — weaksauce.
|
|
Fang
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by Fang on May 10, 2018 20:20:28 GMT
Yes, they have but if they are going to be called theives and that their personal beliefs are 'weaksause' or mere rationalizations when they might truly believe they are in the right, it might feel pretty hostile. Why can't you point out the problems without resorting to attacks? I guess I am just repeating myself and if you want me to stop I will lol. I don’t think I used the word “thieves,” though for the recasters themselves, if the shoe fits... I also don’t think I’ve been attacking anyone. Pointing out that their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and seem to be mere rationalizations is not an attack. I said that the arguments used to support recasting are weaksauce, and I stand by that. The two arguments I have seen so far are: 1. Models are expensive, therefore recasting is justified. 2. I need to always have the latest spammy netlist, and can’t financially keep up when that changes. Both those arguments are flawed, unconvincing, and unimpressive. Or, one might say — weaksauce. I never meant to insinuate that you called them thieves, and realise my wording was poor and probably suggests that. My apologies. It was meant as a more general comment which is why the original comment didn't quote anyone. I should not have put it in a quoted response. I'm going to just respectfully disagree on the use of 'weaksause' statement, as we seem to simply have different opinions on the matter. I would like to point out that one of the statements that made me worried was calling the buyers of recasts worse than the recasters when they are self righteous about it, with self righteous seeming to be providing an explanation you find weak.(Which our discussion has unfortunately done nothing to ease that feeling) I hope you can at least see why that is worrying to me, even though you likely completely disagree with me whether it is negatively charged or not. Edit: I just wanted to add that I may be overreacting or oversensitive because I've been seeing some excluding hostilities on the boards lately, so sorry if I am going too far. I just am worried I'll end up just leaving these boards as well despite just getting started here. I truly did mean to just generally say let's give the other guys room because they might be on a totally different page than us, and don't want it to backfire so that anyone else feels like they are excluded, especially those who disagree with me I really like to talk to.
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 10, 2018 20:26:45 GMT
I don’t think I used the word “thieves,” though for the recasters themselves, if the shoe fits... I also don’t think I’ve been attacking anyone. Pointing out that their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and seem to be mere rationalizations is not an attack. I said that the arguments used to support recasting are weaksauce, and I stand by that. The two arguments I have seen so far are: 1. Models are expensive, therefore recasting is justified. 2. I need to always have the latest spammy netlist, and can’t financially keep up when that changes. Both those arguments are flawed, unconvincing, and unimpressive. Or, one might say — weaksauce. I never meant to insinuate that you called them thieves, and realise my wording was poor and probably suggests that. My apologies. It was meant as a more general comment which is why the original comment didn't quote anyone. I should not have put it in a quoted response. I'm going to just respectfully disagree on the use of 'weaksause' statement, as we seem to simply have different opinions on the matter. I would like to point out that one of the statements that made me worried was calling the buyers of recasts worse than the recasters when they are self righteous about it, with self righteous seeming to be providing an explanation you find weak.(Which our discussion has unfortunately done nothing to ease that feeling) I hope you can at least see why that is worrying to me, even though you likely completely disagree with me whether it is negatively charged or not. I didn’t mean that buyers were worse than recasters, I meant that buyers who get self-righteous about it and loudly proclaim that they are buying recasts because of some perceived dissatisfaction with PP are, in my opinion, worse than buyers who just admit that they are doing it for what they see as a better deal, even though they know it’s probably illegal and at the very least an ethical grey area.
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 10, 2018 20:32:40 GMT
You should be careful about making judgements about serial killers, morality differs from person to person. See how silly that sounds? It sounds extremely silly, probably the silliest thing I've read in Lormahordes ever, borderline stupid. I mean really, equating Murder with IP infringement. I didn’t equate the two, it was an analogy to illustrate the point that if we accept the premise that we can’t make judgements about people based on their actions because they may have different opinions on ethics and morality and not see that they are wrong, then it quickly becomes impossible to make any sort of ethical judgement, even about things that we all know are wrong. So, if I can’t say that in my opinion, someone is in the wrong for supporting recasting because he doesn’t think his actions are morally queationable, then how can I say that in my opinion, a sociopath like Jeffrey Dahmer is wrong because he doesn’t think his actions are morally questionable?
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on May 10, 2018 20:46:05 GMT
So, if I can’t say that in my opinion, someone is in the wrong for supporting recasting because he doesn’t think his actions are morally queationable, then how can I say that in my opinion, a sociopath like Jeffrey Dahmer is wrong because he doesn’t think his actions are morally questionable? Because everything has more nuances than that? There is no such thing as a universal set of Ethics and Morals. Communities and whole countries are organized around sharing ethics and morals. One group can think it's ethical and moral to stay loyal to a King, while a different group can say it's wrong and unjust to kneel before a King and decide to form their own country across the ocean. In the past Decade the amount of illegal immigrant children stopped at the US border has skyrocketed, there are those that believe that it is Just and Moral to haul those children back to their country of origins, while the parents in said country thought it would be more Ethical to have those kids take a chance at a better life. Those parents understand they will be breaking the law, but what would be more ethical? To be a law abiding citizen while your kids starve, or to brake some laws in order to give them a shot? You can't see every single Ethical Dilemma through the same lens. That path leads to the Dark Side. PS: I do share the sentiment that rationalizing a crime is annoying. And I find it the most annoying when I share the same socio-economic status as the one doing the rationalizing. But I also recognize that I can't possibly share the same morals and ethics as other people that live in vastly different conditions than me.
|
|
Fang
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by Fang on May 10, 2018 20:51:38 GMT
It sounds extremely silly, probably the silliest thing I've read in Lormahordes ever, borderline stupid. I mean really, equating Murder with IP infringement. I didn’t equate the two, it was an analogy to illustrate the point that if we accept the premise that we can’t make judgements about people based on their actions because they may have different opinions on ethics and morality and not see that they are wrong, then it quickly becomes impossible to make any sort of ethical judgement, even about things that we all know are wrong. So, if I can’t say that in my opinion, someone is in the wrong for supporting recasting because he doesn’t think his actions are morally queationable, then how can I say that in my opinion, a sociopath like Jeffrey Dahmer is wrong because he doesn’t think his actions are morally questionable? Simply put, don't polarize immediately to the extremes. When you accept only absolutes you miss out on all that is in between. It's kinda like physics, classic physics work well at our observable level, but you need a different understanding to work at the quantum level. That doesn't invalidate classic physics when used to describe a situation it is better suited for (although this gets of course fuzzier with more philosophical thinking as what is right is of course not clear cut). Heck, some Newtonian physics taught in school has been shown to be wrong and relativistic physics possesses much more elegant formula that encompasses a wider range of situations, but we can still use Newton physics when we are dealing with the situations it was designed to deal with with acceptable outcomes. When it failed at an extremity, that's when a new idea came, but it kept it's power within a certain range of thought. It's a key to empathy in my mind, when dealing with something morally grey you gain more in my experience by disagreeing but letting be as opposed to rising to arms as vehemently as you would against say a murderer. There's nothing wrong with voicing your disagreement, and discussing it with someone who holds the other belief is in my mind one of the coolest things about being a 'free' human. When you polarize, you can end up creating groups that refuse to interact which is a shame in my mind, though I'm sure others will disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on May 11, 2018 2:02:37 GMT
We're talking about copying miniature toys not turning away the disenfranchised or dealing with murderers. If you live in a country where this sort of thing would be considered illegal and you choose to do so regardless the rationale is immaterial. The illegality suggests that social mores deem these things unacceptable behavior and if your own personal moral compass differs from this I would suggest not being surprised when presented with a dissenting opinion. If one for whatever reason decides they are ok with doing something illegal, however small, then that is their choice. However, it should not be the expectation that others will be ok with this choice. I'm not passing judgement, but I think its more than fair if you have a recast army that an opponent could opt not to play you without hearing a lecture about it.
|
|
Fang
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by Fang on May 11, 2018 7:55:48 GMT
We're talking about copying miniature toys not turning away the disenfranchised or dealing with murderers. If you live in a country where this sort of thing would be considered illegal and you choose to do so regardless the rationale is immaterial. The illegality suggests that social mores deem these things unacceptable behavior and if your own personal moral compass differs from this I would suggest not being surprised when presented with a dissenting opinion. If one for whatever reason decides they are ok with doing something illegal, however small, then that is their choice. However, it should not be the expectation that others will be ok with this choice. I'm not passing judgement, but I think its more than fair if you have a recast army that an opponent could opt not to play you without hearing a lecture about it. I agree fully that everyone has the right to choose who they play and that no one should have to undergo a lecture (either against the recast or for the recast as several posters here have noted). I do want to add to the legality issue that while yes it is a good guessing stick, it remains just that. On areas like IP rights, I've found the majority where I live currently aren't actually in support of this. IP rights are a business issue and large businesses can pay large sums or cut interesting deals with politions to get their wills through, but the actual societal response, which is being ignored if it isn't in agreement, is what we should care about the most. This also shows in wargaming at my local level. I don't play 40k but know several people here that do. While not all of them own recasts, it is an open topic and no one refuses to play each other over it. Those who buy recast usually only limit it to specific things they consider overpriced, and vote with their wallet so to speak on the company's pricing policies. Those who don't buy recast vote with their wallet by simply not buying the model if they disagree with the price. Either way, the company does not make money and the hobby money will get spent on other things, at least in part often from other companies. The only reason I bring this up is because by taking a definite stance against a potential subpopulation, it encourages either secrecy (I am fully aware that some of you will not play me on principle because I make recasts for conversions and the like and can live with that, but others might not want to risk losing opponents) or seperation from the community (less players means less games which could affect non recasters). Again it could very well be that this stance is what the community as a whole deems necessary and proper. One question I do have for those who refuse to play (as is fully your right!) someone with recasts, say you know he has recasts but his current list is fully legal. Do you play him now, as there is no offending material? Or is his reputation due to the fact he does have recasts, even if he isn't currently using them, enough to refuse playing with him?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 11, 2018 8:12:25 GMT
Re-casting and selling models that are not your intellectual property is theft, plain and simple.
If you were trying to synthesise a cancer drug in a home-made lab for people because the hedge fund that brought the patent hiked the prices by 10,000 percent, then I might sympathise with breaking the law.
This is a hobby however, if you want to play, you gotta pay, if you don't like it, play something else, there is no excuse for knowingly buying re-cast models
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on May 11, 2018 13:05:06 GMT
So here's a situation I'd be interested to know people's takes on:
I want to play with models I like. I'm willing to forgo top-tier competitiveness if I don't like the models. Cryx models sometimes have souls or ghosts or whatever as part of their sculpt. Trying to making them properly ghostly with paint doesn't appeal to me, to the point that I'd rather just not use them. But I am interested in recasting those parts in clear or glow-in-the-dark resin and then painting them with transparent inks. For some models like Soul Trappers, it'd be hard to only recast the ghostly parts, and a lot easier to recast the whole thing.
If I were to buy PP models, recast them in clear resin, paint them, and then field my recasts, would you or your local tournament organizer have a problem with that? I can bring the solid-metal models as proof of purchase. Or should I chop up a metal model, recast the ghostly part, and re-assemble it so that <50% is resin, just to be clearly within conversion guidelines?
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on May 11, 2018 13:37:04 GMT
So here's a situation I'd be interested to know people's takes on: I want to play with models I like. I'm willing to forgo top-tier competitiveness if I don't like the models. Cryx models sometimes have souls or ghosts or whatever as part of their sculpt. Trying to making them properly ghostly with paint doesn't appeal to me, to the point that I'd rather just not use them. But I am interested in recasting those parts in clear or glow-in-the-dark resin and then painting them with transparent inks. For some models like Soul Trappers, it'd be hard to only recast the ghostly parts, and a lot easier to recast the whole thing. If I were to buy PP models, recast them in clear resin, paint them, and then field my recasts, would you or your local tournament organizer have a problem with that? I can bring the solid-metal models as proof of purchase. Or should I chop up a metal model, recast the ghostly part, and re-assemble it so that <50% is resin, just to be clearly within conversion guidelines? I think generally, some small scale casting for the purposes of conversions for personal use is accepted by most miniature companies. Doubly so if the conversion is cool. If you started up a business trying to sell these and were doing commercial recasting, then there would be more of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on May 11, 2018 14:14:03 GMT
I think generally, some small scale casting for the purposes of conversions for personal use is accepted by most miniature companies. Doubly so if the conversion is cool. If you started up a business trying to sell these and were doing commercial recasting, then there would be more of an issue. It also really depends on what type of recast conversions you were doing. GW ran in to this difficulty with Chapter House Studios. They made a lot of models which had rules by GW, but no actual models. In addition, they made a lot of fluffy bits, like Salamander-themed transport doors and Storm Shields. While GW couldn't get them on copyright for producing GW hadn't and weren't producing themselves, nor for using a generic name like "Space Marines", there were a few small things that Chapter House was producing which did fall under copyright infringement. Please note that this was under U.K. law not U.S.A. law, which is a little different, but many of the same standards apply. That having been said, I am not the copyright police, and I take a don't tell/don't care attitude when it comes to recasts. If you don't tell me where you got your models, I don't care where you got your models. I would also state that as a community site, LormaHordes doesn't want to get in the middle, so endorsing, recommending, encouraging, or citing where to purchase recasts should be left to PMs at the most and off the regular boards. The information is already out there, you don't need this site to find it.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on May 11, 2018 15:13:50 GMT
It's the only thing that keeps game alive in my area. I don't know how otherwise are you supposed to keep up with buying hundreds of dollars worth of models every time PP decides to rebalance things around (which is like every two months nowadays) and then paint them. You can have several changes happen in a span of one delivery+paint, so I just gave up on originals. Also some old PP metal models are godawful, they actually look and assemble better as fakes. Also spam. If PP doesn't care about spam armies being good competitively I sure don't care about how it looks because all spam armies look boring, might as well play proxy bases since you know there is no artistic merit behind a spam army, only pure number crunching. So all that makes it ok to steal it, right? And enable those that do? I'm not here to convince you to do the same, in fact buying the originals is the right thing to do. I'm telling a story of why I and some other people I know do that. Apparently this is enough justification for us. Rest assured, we don't have guilty conscience about any of this.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on May 11, 2018 16:01:35 GMT
There is no excuse for knowingly buying re-cast models The whole point of this debate is that you can't unilaterally apply your First World views and morals to everyone across the globe equally.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 11, 2018 16:19:45 GMT
Ooh I have a question. Can I make copies of my models for my own personal use? Say I want to field nine slayers. I buy one, then make eight copies of it. Morally, it obviously seems a bit shady... the appropriate way to show PP how much I love their slayers is to actually buy all nine. By only buying one, I am only paying once but benefitting eightfold. However, I am not buying from a pirate reseller, and I am not selling anything for my own profit either. So saying I'm not allowed to copy my own slayer seems to be like saying that if I bought a music CD, I'm not allowed to copy it onto my computer... I have to pay for a new copy on itunes. See what I mean? Edit to add: I have actually done something similar to this in real life - not actually copying any parts, but basically making one model out of three. I bought a pack of the Circle Satyr heavy kit, and I assembled one as a standard Shadowhorn. Then I took the Riphorn parts, and scratch-built a body for it, so then I had a Riphorn too. Finally, I took the Gnarlhorn parts, and made them into a Brennos conversion. So I only bought one Satyr kit, but ended up with three Satyrs with all-PP parts. To me, that feels morally just - but what is really the difference between the two different actions?
|
|