Policy on RB3 Versions?
This topic is 11 years and 6 months old. Instead of replying, please begin a new topic, or search for another related topic that may be more suitable.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 24th, 2011
- Reputation: 0
Policy on RB3 Versions?
Quick question. I just finished charting a song, and was going to make a post with links to both FoF and RB3 versions. However, my post was disallowed for "illegal content". I haven't been on this site in a while, and was just wondering if there was a FAQ I missed somewhere or if this was just a fluke.
Emperor naru
- nwru
- Administrator
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: October 14th, 2006
- Location: /dev/null
- Reputation: 64
- Contact:
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
It's basically the same rules as for multitracks. See: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=52411
Use the Search feature first to find answers to your questions. Chances are that they have been asked before!
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 24th, 2011
- Reputation: 0
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
Ok, that makes sense. Whoever deleted my thread probably looked at the filesize and assumed it was a multitrack.
However, most ways of compiling an mp3 into a RB3 file result in a way bigger size than an equivalent FoF track. Would this mean a RB3 file using a CD version like any other song here would be allowed?
However, most ways of compiling an mp3 into a RB3 file result in a way bigger size than an equivalent FoF track. Would this mean a RB3 file using a CD version like any other song here would be allowed?
Emperor naru
- nwru
- Administrator
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: October 14th, 2006
- Location: /dev/null
- Reputation: 64
- Contact:
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
I see now. I was the one who denied the post it because I initially thought it was a rip of a song FROM RB3
It's not explicitly mentioned in the rules anywhere, but it's discouraged to post an RB3 version of a charted song without the FoF(iX) version. You do know this forum is for the game Frets On Fire, right? The vast majority of members here would rather have that version instead.
It's not explicitly mentioned in the rules anywhere, but it's discouraged to post an RB3 version of a charted song without the FoF(iX) version. You do know this forum is for the game Frets On Fire, right? The vast majority of members here would rather have that version instead.
Use the Search feature first to find answers to your questions. Chances are that they have been asked before!
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 24th, 2011
- Reputation: 0
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
Thanks for clearing that up. I was planning on editing the post to include the FoFix version later, since I was having some problems with it. I only posted the RB3 version first because I chart primarily for that now, even though I started with FoF. The new post will have both.
Still Alive
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: July 25th, 2007
- Location: USA
- Reputation: 27
- Contact:
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
Bumping this to try to spark some discussion.
I would like to see a rule set in place about Con files. Lately I have seen quite a few "Tune Posting" topics regarding RB3 con file formatted customs. The authors of these topics only supply the con format and that's it. Since this is a Frets on Fire forum, I believe this should not happen. I don't have a problem with the actual RB3 customs themselves, but rather the lack of support for FoF. I strongly believe that if you post songs that are formatted for RB3 you should have to post their FoF formatted versions as well.
The Con-only topics are not benefiting FoF at all. In fact, they are causing confusion. Forcing FoF versions to be posted with Con files will fix both of those issues.
I would like to see a rule set in place about Con files. Lately I have seen quite a few "Tune Posting" topics regarding RB3 con file formatted customs. The authors of these topics only supply the con format and that's it. Since this is a Frets on Fire forum, I believe this should not happen. I don't have a problem with the actual RB3 customs themselves, but rather the lack of support for FoF. I strongly believe that if you post songs that are formatted for RB3 you should have to post their FoF formatted versions as well.
The Con-only topics are not benefiting FoF at all. In fact, they are causing confusion. Forcing FoF versions to be posted with Con files will fix both of those issues.
f*cking ninja's...
- Asskickulater
- Member
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: January 22nd, 2009
- Reputation: 2
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
wolferacing wrote:Bumping this to try to spark some discussion.
I would like to see a rule set in place about Con files. Lately I have seen quite a few "Tune Posting" topics regarding RB3 con file formatted customs. The authors of these topics only supply the con format and that's it. Since this is a Frets on Fire forum, I believe this should not happen. I don't have a problem with the actual RB3 customs themselves, but rather the lack of support for FoF. I strongly believe that if you post songs that are formatted for RB3 you should have to post their FoF formatted versions as well.
The Con-only topics are not benefiting FoF at all. In fact, they are causing confusion. Forcing FoF versions to be posted with Con files will fix both of those issues.
and just who would enforce that? theres barely any active staff around here
Emperor naru
- nwru
- Administrator
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: October 14th, 2006
- Location: /dev/null
- Reputation: 64
- Contact:
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
Asskickulater wrote:and just who would enforce that? theres barely any active staff around here
We're always watching
Besides, most of you don't see the posts that get denied in the moderator queue. I'm regularly shooting down multitrack posts and such.
Use the Search feature first to find answers to your questions. Chances are that they have been asked before!
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
Forum FAQ / Frets On Fire Wiki
f*cking ninja's...
- Asskickulater
- Member
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: January 22nd, 2009
- Reputation: 2
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
nwru wrote:Asskickulater wrote:and just who would enforce that? theres barely any active staff around here
We're always watching
Besides, most of you don't see the posts that get denied in the moderator queue. I'm regularly shooting down multitrack posts and such.
i think your the only staff active here lol
Edit (nwru): Ok, back on topic...
The Man, The Moose
- amak11
- Member
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: May 13th, 2008
- Location: Nowhere, and somewhere
- Reputation: 6
- Contact:
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
Im with Wolferacing on this. The fact here being this forum didnt start as a game hacks forum. All or most songs should be compatible with fof\fofix\PS first, everything else second
Disclaimer: If you take the above text seriously, then you are an even greater idiot then I
f*cking ninja's...
- Asskickulater
- Member
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: January 22nd, 2009
- Reputation: 2
Re: Policy on RB3 Versions?
amak11 wrote:Im with Wolferacing on this. The fact here being this forum didnt start as a game hacks forum. All or most songs should be compatible with fof\fofix\PS first, everything else second
I'm so proud of you :'-)
anyway yea I'm in agreement, but Is till think theirs any real way to enforce it lol (unless there are more mods active and just lurking all the time :P)
Still Alive
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: July 25th, 2007
- Location: USA
- Reputation: 27
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests