If any of you remember that community card game topic, I'm remaking it. I found the old program I used to use and it's much easier to use.
So let's get to the rules and introduction to what this game is.

This game is a simple yet, ideally, fun community card game where you, the members of this group, create 5 cards; one main card, 4 support cards, and a limit added to each card. For example, one card can't be played until your main card has already been played, or a certain trigger is reached, for instance, certain cards are played by another player.

You can only have 5 cards, and you cannot double post unless one of your card abilities allows for such, and a good rule of thumb is to never god mode, as in never create and play a card that puts everyone out of the game itself.

You have to use the download called Magic Set Editor, your card must be a spell card (but not locked down by Magic or Yugioh rules), and it must have a name, an ability, and a picture before it can be used. Each match will be held for 10 minute sessions, and each session's winner will be determined by the best card posted. IE, it's ability that forces others to lose, you to win. Do not share your cards with anyone, so it leaves it a mystery about what will be played. Anyone can join into the sessions, there is no sort of "first come first server" basis. You want in, you post your card, though once the session is over you have to wait till I create a new session. We will need a time keeper to tell us when 10 minutes are up from when it starts, though.

But this is where you make your own cards, and battle each member .


If you want in, all you need to do is go download:
http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/download

This will work, by the way. The link I had last time sucked. Plus we found out the uploading site fucked the download up.

Here is an example, by posting my card. If it gets well received on here, I'll create it as it's own Facebook page, and each wall post by the page admin will be battle sessions.

That also means your cards used are out, and once the user of this card picks your card, you must delete your post so the image is deleted. It represents your card being stolen.

Think of it like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

>>>>

Thiamor what the fuck do you think you're doing, using my friend's art and not crediting her. I'll have you know she's very upset at this, and at the fact that you didn't approach her beforehand is even more infuriating. Art theft is 100% unacceptable and I'll have to demand that you take this down immediately yes??

man what a bad day to come back to bbs

i didn't expect to see both thiamor and bread i thought you both dieded wut

>>5 She's not posting here herself.

>>7 That doesn't change the facts in any way. It could be a stranger's art and it would still be a dick move.

>>8
You've probably committed this "art theft" yourself before by using an image found on google as your profile picture.
Hey, dick move because your using someone elses intellectual property and not crediting them.
I can't expect anything more from deviantfart fiends.
I also wish your friend could self advocate.

>>9 the difference, from my understanding, is that Thia knew the artist.

>>10 That doesn't change anything. He didn't claim for the art it to be his own. The actual card, yes.

There is nothing wrong with this.

>>11 I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.
There isn't. You can't own art aha.
However, on like a person to person kind of relationship viewpoint, I'd be butthurt too.

>>11 If you use someone else's art, credit it. That's common sense, especially if you're altering it into something else like a card, *especially* if you're then distributing it on the most active page of a site that gets a ton of hits.

And no, it's not right to use a random piece you find online for your profile pic. Do we do it? Yeah. But there's always a chance of the artist contacting you to remove it or credit it, which is actually quite common if the artist is still active.

The artist doesn't want it being used. It's no big deal. Just have a mod remove the image and Thia can re-post it with art that's properly credited.

>>12 "You can't own art"

Except, you can. There's a whole business centered around licensing and distributing the rights to using others' art. You make it, you own it 'less you declare it public domain.

>>13 Makes sense to me.

>>14 "business" does not mean ownership, Baba. :))
Art is not a tangible thing a person can own, sorry just kind of have my thoughts set pretty firm on that one.

>>16 Why not? If you build a house and choose to live in it, do you not own it? If you carve a chair and choose to keep it, is it not yours? If you grow a company and choose to retain ownership of it, is it not yours? If you keep ownership of those things, then why can you not own your own painting? Why do you think that paintings and sketches are owned by the public when you choose not to sell them when other things remain your own unless abandoned or sold off? Art is tangible, a company isn't. Why can you own a company but not a painting?

>>17 In the eyes of Capitalism, yes.
In the eyes of the Universe, no.

Do you own the atoms that make up that chair? All the energy that was spent making the seeds for the trees, the energy required to make water rain from the sky and provide that seed enough sustenance to grow into a tree: can you truly say you own the chair just because you added yet more energy into a process that had been happening for billions of years before you were born and will continue for billions of years afterwards? I say, no you cannot. That is my view, basically that ownership is silly when you've not really 'earned' that ownership, at least in my eyes.

As for the art, a painting is a representation of a concept. Concepts are not created by humans, they are represented. For example, humans did not create the concept of energy, they merely discovered it. That is the argument against ownership of art. Art is merely a concept, and concepts are not property of anyone seeing as how they are not created by any one person. I don't think I fully agree with that, but I think that's pretty much the idea.

However, as Chreggome himself implied, this is irrelevant to the current situation. While it may be true that according to this model, the original artist does not own the art, they put their own significant energy into that picture. Thiamor, by contrast put very little into taking it for use in his card (probably 0 if he didn't edit it). So, as I think Chreggome agrees, this is a problem and would make any number of us upset. While it may not be morally 'wrong' if you subscribe to the above system of thought, that doesn't change the fact that it is a thoughtless move not to credit the person who spent the time making it.

At least, I think that's true. I don't mean to speak for other people, but that's what I gathered.

(>>19 had too many typos for my flavor)

>>18 A universe where nothing can be owned isn't what's being discussed. Everything originates from Earth and, ultimately, from the universe. Nothing is original. No, you down own land you buy. You're just a human facilitating it for your own means. Yes, it applies to everything beyond just concepts when you apply your own logic outside of it.

I get that.

But that doesn't change the legal ownership of something you've created, concept or not, and your rights to manage the distribution of it.

don't*

Ended up not even fixing the typo. /derp

>>21 gg

Considering that artist herself (*cough >>5 *cough*), then it should be removed.

Otherwise I think we could all just assume automatically that whatever picture Thia is using isn't his.

Also the idea that, by our society standards, you can't "own" art is pretty dumb. It's something the artists creates and puts effort into, probably hours. Saying you can't own art would put many, many artists, animators, companies, media editors (idk proper terms for them), logo artists, 3D animators, etc just out of business.

>>20 I didn't say it changed her rights at all, Baba. By all means.
I even said I would be butthurt if it were me or my art. (Kind of, I guess)

>>22 you're dumb

I can see who would be a child of stallman and who wouldn't.

>>25 Saw that.

>>28 Don't care. If I cared, I'd've left it there with an explanation lol

>>23 thanks, man

Guys, I'm not talking about capitalism or dumb pinko shit.
Art; as an idea, a concept to me personally isn't something a person can own.
Also, Ham, I was kidding.

But really, I don't give a shit because none of Thia's ideas seem to take off. X)

I still don't get how a painting or drawing is a concept, but w/e.

>>32 guess it's not

Thia, delete your thread because you're a thief.

>>31 this is a recurring theme here i can never tell when you're joking or not

>>31>>32 Maybe he means like the idea of art as compared to the physical art??

Idk I give up on life.

>>34 Just assume it's a joke :|

>>34 Pretty much everything is a joke.
I actually do mean the idea of art, not physical art, also, fuck art.
It doesn't really real.
And artists that cry about their shit being used by others are just fucking insecure babies, trust me, I know, I'm one.
:))))

"It doesn't really real."