brand new/overhauled versions of the FSX engine and new shaders.

What! What! I can't believe you said that,... overhauled vesions of the FSX engine is a possibility you can wrap your head around now.. ..I remember some of your first post about the FSX engine been brand new......

What! What! I can't believe you said that,... overhauled vesions of the FSX engine is a possibility you can wrap your head around now.. ..I remember some of your first post about the FSX engine been brand new......

I said it because of the beliefs of some others, not because I believe it myself. Just wanted to be covered so someone wouldn't come along and say something's wrong. :(

If you carefully examine exactly what was said on the thread regarding Orbx and the subsequent ban of a forum member, you will notice that the point which attracted the ire of the moderator was not that someone was disagreeing with a commercial developer's opinion (which is something you can do all day long without fear of anything untoward happening so long as you do it in a courteous way), but rather it was insinuating that developer had broken a EULA/non disclosure agreement and of therefore being untrustworthy because of having done so (and this repeatedly), which is a rather more serious accusation for a business, so it was not some simple case of a little innocent forum member being needlessly crushed by the unstoppable juggernaut wheels of a mighty commercial developer that is immune to any kind of admonishment, and to portray or perceive it as such would be at the very least disingenuous. Al

Al, as I am reading a lot of your post you seems to be a fair man so I would like to know where I'm going wrong with this one here if wrong I am.... if a member is insinuating that a developer had broken a EULA/non disclosure agreement... why will it be up to Avsim to take action on that?....is it not up to the developer to take action as they were the one been targeted by the poster and not Avsim.... if they feel like the poster was hurting their business in any way they should be the one taking action IF the poster was wrong....see, Avsim (David) took action without knowing (maybe he knew) if the poster was wrong in is insinuations....was he? What's your take on my post # 115....does it look as a double standard to you as it does to me?

I said it because of the beliefs of some others, not because I believe it myself. Just wanted to be covered so someone wouldn't come along and say something's wrong.

Hahahaha!! you little... .....

I wonder why they pulled the "leaked" battle ship screenshot earlier in the year only to include it this month.

Not "select", just "...our internal developers, and our external development partners." Maybe anyone clicking on 'do you accept the license agreement’ prior to installing the SDK can become a partner. I get your point though on the possibilities. However, I wouldn’t have expected them to describe in detail who will have access to the SDK in a job posting.

I stand corrected. I would have thought there was a signidficant difference in developing an SDK for professional third-party developes and for the general public. For example, professional developers will be more experienced and be more likely to have access to better development tools.

...professional developers will be more experienced and be more likely to have access to better development tools.

And need a lot less verbage to explain it all Perhaps the author of the job posting was only trying to convey the applicant would have to deal with internal and external customers?

why will it be up to Avsim to take action on that?

Because the forum rules include specific details on personal attacks not being allowed, and when a forum member calls another forum member 'untrustworthy' repeatedly, then regardless of whether that member is a commercial developer or not, the moderator's remit is clear. But as noted, there may also have been other stuff going on with PMs and such, I don't know, but even if there was not, then the aforementioned is enough to warrant action from a moderator. That action in itself has nothing to do with any other legal aspects pertaining to the situation. However, if Avsim becomes the medium by which libel is transmitted, then they too could be a plaintiff in a legal case, and in that instance, what are they supposed to do, and what would you do in the same situation? I think you know the answer to that one. Al

Because the forum rules include specific details on personal attacks not being allowed, and when a forum member calls another forum member 'untrustworthy' repeatedly, then regardless of whether that member is a commercial developer or not, the moderator's remit is clear. But as noted, there may also have been other stuff going on with PMs and such, I don't know, but even if there was not, then the aforementioned is enough to warrant action from a moderator. That action in itself has nothing to do with any other legal aspects pertaining to the situation. However, if Avsim becomes the medium by which libel is transmitted, then they too could be a plaintiff in a legal case, and in that instance, what are they supposed to do, and what would you do in the same situation? I think you know the answer to that one. Al

First let me say that here at Avsim we are not muzzled on what we can say compare to other (private or not) forums and that's a good thing. I can understand Avsim covering their a$$ just in case futher action is taken by the party been called "untrustworthy" in case the accused party had not broken a EULA/non disclosure agreement, but the point I was trying to make is....was the poster right or wrong in is insinuations...was there any transmitted libel or not, and that's the real question.....but I can see where you'r comming from Al. About my post #115, does it look to you as a double standard..... or is this something you may not be able to answer for the reason you explained in your post (#113) ....just asking.... Quote from your post, In fact, you probably have more freedom to say what you like than either Avsim staff or commercial developers, both of whom are bound by a considerably stricter set of forum rules than regular forum members have to adhere to

the point I was trying to make is....was the poster right or wrong in is insinuations...was there any transmitted libel or not, and that's the real question.....

The guy from Orbx refuted the allegation and said that he had not broken anything in any agreement he had signed when making the comments he had done about Flight, and he was threatening legal action to back that up, so I'm forced to assume that when someone is going so far as to be getting on the blower to a legal assistant, then the accusations were probably unfounded. If that's the case, then it would indeed be libellous to state otherwise, just as it would be if I said you were untrustworthy without any foundation to such an assertion. Now me, that's another matter entirely... I wouldn't trust me as far as I could throw me.. Al

The guy from Orbx refuted the allegation and said that he had not broken anything in any agreement he had signed when making the comments he had done about Flight, and he was threatening legal action to back that up, so I'm forced to assume that when someone is going so far as to be getting on the blower to a legal assistant, then the accusations were probably unfounded. If that's the case, then it would indeed be libellous to state otherwise, just as it would be if I said you were untrustworthy without any foundation to such an assertion. Now me, that's another matter entirely... I wouldn't trust me as far as I could throw me.. Al

Hahaha!!, ok case closed about libel and stuff like that.... I was not trying to put you in hot water when asking you to answer my questions on my post #115, but as far as I am concern this is nothing but a double standard http://forum.avsim.n...ct-please-read/ unless you (or David) can show me where I'm wrong...so in a way we are "kinda" muzzled are we not......

I don't even know what the questions are on post 115, that post is kind of a confused mess, with bits in bold, plain, dotted underlines etc, so it's hard to tell what the question is. Although if you mean this bit: Discussing here about the deal between Microsoft and Lockheed Martin without any basis is useless then the part where it says the following should make the meaning apparent enough, and clarify that it is completely in line with the other situation as far as standards go: without any basis What people need to remember is that this forum is on the world wide web, i.e. anything we write on here goes all around the world for any and all to see, and we do not abdicate or become immune from legal responsibilities just because we are on a forum about toy aeroplanes. Normally people are smart enough to realise that and act accordingly as a result of it, but when they don't, then the moderator's big stick of justice is going to get unsheathed, and it may be quite tough when it is wielded simply because this is indeed not a lawyer school, so one can hardly blame moderators for erring on the side of legal caution. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. Al

I don't even know what the questions are on post 115, that post is kind of a confused mess, with bits in bold, plain, dotted underlines etc, so it's hard to tell what the question is. Al

Seriously, ok let me try it this way, read wha's here http://forum.avsim.net/topic/350831-legal-aspect-please-read/ and tell me why this apply to Prepar3D and not Flight....here is why it should have been applied to Flight for the same reason... Gents,From now we won't allow any more comment on the legal aspect of Flight.Discussing here about the deal between Microsoft and 3rd party developers without any basis is useless and sterile.Avsim is not a lawyer school and all those groundless speculations and comments are inappropriate and out of place here. Thanks to MS, we have a fantastic opportunity to interfacing with them using their website (feedback), we shouldn't waste it because of legal stuff that isn't in our hands.Thanks for understanding.

In a perfect world a forum wouldn't have to be moderated at all. The world isn't perfect so the moderators (who happen to be human) have to step in. It would be great if humans weren't biased but that is not the case. Consequently you only have a couple of options: 1. Realize that the moderators are doing the job as they see fit and you'll just have to put up with it.2. Check out other forums to see if the moderators in those forums perform the job closer to how you see things. I hope everyone realizes that complaining about it won't change a thing.

Seriously, ...

Seriously, you need to let it go. It could be that you have an issue with one of the Administrators, David Roch. If so, discuss it with David. If you feel that you can't, look to one of the members of Avsim management. But to keep on the same subject, post after post after post, doesn't make any sense. Unless you just want someone to say "Yes Alain, you are right"? It's like the very recent posting you made about whether Flight will contain FSX-code or be totally rewritten. Haven't we moved wayyyy past that discussion? Unless you just want someone to say "Yes Alain, you are right"? I respect people and want them to have the opportunity to express their opinions. But after hearing the same spiel over and over and over again, it doesn't hurt to say Let It Go! Time to move on to more important things.

Thanks Meshman.I have never had any issue with Alainneedle1 and I am surprized to discover my name and my message quoted a few times by this member. (!)But now I have something to tell him! Alain,May I refresh your memory?http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2130943http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2130953http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2130971 After that JP Mes told you very clearly and I thank him for that: "So we agree. And if it needs to be settled, it won't be in these forums." So you see, I wrote this notice in the P3D forum because of you Sir. Now, to close this childish discussion, let me tell you 3 things:1- Your comparison between MS Flight and P3D shows your very little understanding of our (Avsim) responsability as well as a wrong approach of legal stuff.2- Please allow us to judge whether locking a topic or not and whether warning people or not.3- If you look at the P3D forum you will probably notice that it is very clear, factual, interesting and tidy. This is not the case here, amongst other things because of people hijacking topics to turn them into a big mess to settle their personnal agendas.