This quote in a comment after the article from a pseudo stake holder or relevant consultant was disturbing..
> I believe it is unfair to benefit - especially financially - from a community effort, then turn your back on said community. It is your right, you are correct in saying so, but it is also a bridge that you are burning and you must be aware of that.
Correct is correct. It isn't their fault the rules didn't explicitly state rights in perpetuity. Retaliation based on vibe logic is not only childish but also in this case, illegal.
This person suggested the request for prize money returned and and awards rescinded. And from the tone and logic, no doubt they are doing more behind the scenes.
For the sake of public record, I would like to state that I was doing nothing "behind the scenes". My part of the conversation in question is public - I was pinged as a gbdev Discord community member and that is the extent of my "consultancy". I also warned the GBcompo organizer that they should validate the rules' interpretation with a lawyer before trying to justify any requests that go beyond disqualification/delisting, particularly ones where finances get involved.
The comment about "burning bridges" is not a statement of intent, but of observation: if I publicly call someone out on the Internet, and we fail to reach a common agreement or understanding, that bridge inevitably becomes burned - even if I'm correct, even if most people agree with me! It was based on my understanding of how other people reacted to the controversy as it was brewing in community spaces, but I understand now how it could have been interpreted as a threat in its own right.
The reason I made a comment below the post (now deleted as per the game author's wishes) is because I saw him accusing the gbdev community of "censorship" - as such, I wanted to provide full transparency and accountability with regards to my role in the dispute. That was the extent of what I could do at the time, as someone who was never involved in the organization of gbcompo23 or any other gbdev community event and thus had no decision-making powers. I realized later that my stance led to harm. I regret getting involved in this at all, and I regret the things I said.
Limited participation in a community is not turning one's back on the community. What would that even mean? What kind of healthy community expects permanent loyalty from temporary participants?
> It is your right, you are correct in saying so, but ...
Manipulation and threats.
Personally, I believe it is appalling for Itch.io to benefit - from hard work submitted at GBCOMPO (Game Boy Competition) 23 - from a community member, then turn on that member and attempt to punish them financially or otherwise, for a lack of lifetime compliance, beyond good faith participation.
By submitting to the contest and especially winning money, you made a contract with the contest organizers. In this case one part of that is agreeing to allow the organizers to publish and distribute your copyrighted work.
> my games were public, free, and accessible for judging during the entire competition period.
But the rules didn't say anything about this being limited to only the competition period.
> Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website, while you are free to keep working on it (and eventually charge for it/make commercial usage).
It seems that under US copyright law, the license is by default irrevocable if the contract terms did not specify any conditions for revocation. So in this case unilateral revocation of the license is not possible. I can also see courts taking the words kept online to imply long term or perpetual distribution.
Anyways if you look at the situation logically, this sort of contest almost always has all the past submissions and contest results as a resource for future contestants as well as something to browse interested people. If all that's left after the contest is over is the ranking of the winners, then I think that would be quite sad.
> they threatened to retroactively disqualify my games (which they did) and demanded reimbursement of the prize money I had won in 2023, claiming my games were no longer “available online.”
In fact this feels to be almost opposite of a threat, but actually a courtesy. The contest organizers are offering to basically undo the contract (basically erasing the contest submission) without any penalty, something they aren't obligated to do at all. They could just as easily just say "pound sand" and keep hosting the rom forever.
If you look at the situation logically, the rule on the competition site says:
> The submission must be available for free for the public (and not only the judges). Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website, while you are free to keep working on it (and eventually charge for it/make commercial usage).
“Must be available to the public.”
It was.
“Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website”
It was. But also, it isn’t mandatory based on their own wording.
This quote in a comment after the article from a pseudo stake holder or relevant consultant was disturbing..
> I believe it is unfair to benefit - especially financially - from a community effort, then turn your back on said community. It is your right, you are correct in saying so, but it is also a bridge that you are burning and you must be aware of that.
Correct is correct. It isn't their fault the rules didn't explicitly state rights in perpetuity. Retaliation based on vibe logic is not only childish but also in this case, illegal.
This person suggested the request for prize money returned and and awards rescinded. And from the tone and logic, no doubt they are doing more behind the scenes.
For the sake of public record, I would like to state that I was doing nothing "behind the scenes". My part of the conversation in question is public - I was pinged as a gbdev Discord community member and that is the extent of my "consultancy". I also warned the GBcompo organizer that they should validate the rules' interpretation with a lawyer before trying to justify any requests that go beyond disqualification/delisting, particularly ones where finances get involved.
The comment about "burning bridges" is not a statement of intent, but of observation: if I publicly call someone out on the Internet, and we fail to reach a common agreement or understanding, that bridge inevitably becomes burned - even if I'm correct, even if most people agree with me! It was based on my understanding of how other people reacted to the controversy as it was brewing in community spaces, but I understand now how it could have been interpreted as a threat in its own right.
The reason I made a comment below the post (now deleted as per the game author's wishes) is because I saw him accusing the gbdev community of "censorship" - as such, I wanted to provide full transparency and accountability with regards to my role in the dispute. That was the extent of what I could do at the time, as someone who was never involved in the organization of gbcompo23 or any other gbdev community event and thus had no decision-making powers. I realized later that my stance led to harm. I regret getting involved in this at all, and I regret the things I said.
> then turn your back on said community
This is absolutely awful behavior.
Limited participation in a community is not turning one's back on the community. What would that even mean? What kind of healthy community expects permanent loyalty from temporary participants?
> It is your right, you are correct in saying so, but ...
Manipulation and threats.
Personally, I believe it is appalling for Itch.io to benefit - from hard work submitted at GBCOMPO (Game Boy Competition) 23 - from a community member, then turn on that member and attempt to punish them financially or otherwise, for a lack of lifetime compliance, beyond good faith participation.
By submitting to the contest and especially winning money, you made a contract with the contest organizers. In this case one part of that is agreeing to allow the organizers to publish and distribute your copyrighted work.
> my games were public, free, and accessible for judging during the entire competition period.
But the rules didn't say anything about this being limited to only the competition period.
> Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website, while you are free to keep working on it (and eventually charge for it/make commercial usage).
It seems that under US copyright law, the license is by default irrevocable if the contract terms did not specify any conditions for revocation. So in this case unilateral revocation of the license is not possible. I can also see courts taking the words kept online to imply long term or perpetual distribution.
Anyways if you look at the situation logically, this sort of contest almost always has all the past submissions and contest results as a resource for future contestants as well as something to browse interested people. If all that's left after the contest is over is the ranking of the winners, then I think that would be quite sad.
> they threatened to retroactively disqualify my games (which they did) and demanded reimbursement of the prize money I had won in 2023, claiming my games were no longer “available online.”
In fact this feels to be almost opposite of a threat, but actually a courtesy. The contest organizers are offering to basically undo the contract (basically erasing the contest submission) without any penalty, something they aren't obligated to do at all. They could just as easily just say "pound sand" and keep hosting the rom forever.
If you look at the situation logically, the rule on the competition site says:
> The submission must be available for free for the public (and not only the judges). Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website, while you are free to keep working on it (and eventually charge for it/make commercial usage).
“Must be available to the public.”
It was.
“Submission will be published and kept online for free on the competition website”
It was. But also, it isn’t mandatory based on their own wording.