Why Do We Do It? An Observation on GPL Editing

From time to time many have said that GPL is more than a game, that it is a community and that this fundamental element in fact is one of the main attractions for many of us to GPL. Of course, GPL itself is good enough (or has evolved to a degree that it is still good enough) to create and maintain the community in the first place. And it is this constant development by amateur enthusiasts – usually referred to as ‘editors’ regardless of whether the contributor is actually editing some existing GPL element or creating entirely new GPL products that supplement GPL in some way – that has maintained interest in GPL. I am convinced that without the additional tracks, without the graphical updates, without some of the supplementary software (such as WinVROC, GPLRA and so on), that the GPL community would now have relatively few members. Driving around the original tracks with the original track and car graphics is quite eye opening – and if you use D3D try it in software mode – ha! Of course, the original product from Papyrus was – and is – superb, and it is the high quality of the core game, particularly the physics engine and the high caliber of the AI among other elements, that has provided the incentive to editors to develop the simulation further. And although I am convinced that if GPL had not been developed at all – save for the updates that came unofficially from Papyrus, the 1.2 patch and the graphic driver updates – there would still be a community of enthusiasts because of the time period GPL covers and the excellent physics model, I am just as convinced that many among us in the community would not be here today without the additional developments from the third-party editors..

So, as I said when I started this article, from time to time many have observed that the attraction of GPL is more than the game itself but the community that surrounds it. And also, from time to time, we have seen editors annoyed at some comments in the RSC forum and depart from the community, taking their skills, knowledge and products with them. These incidents spark debate in the forum and speculation by the community as to what motivates the editors and what might cause an editor to leave or stay. Thankfully, this doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen quite a bit and we seem sometimes to have a spate of these affairs. It also doesn’t happen regularly (if you define regular as “fixed time intervals”) and I suppose you wouldn’t expect these things to be regular. And the severity can differ markedly from one incident to another, ranging from heated rhetoric to an actual departure by an editor. Sometimes the editor stays away, and sometimes the editor returns to the community after some period of time.

It was the last such incident, and the related speculations by various community members as to what an editor might be thinking, what drives the editor, what circumstances might cause an editor to consider leaving, where and how the community should support the editor, and so on, that made me think about writing this article in the first place. But as we were in the middle of that whole affair, I thought better of it and decided not to write the article until we were in a quite period again. We seem to be in a bit of a lull now, so here it is.

Now I should explain something about my position. I am an active GPL editor, and have been for quite some time. I have experience producing a wide range of products for the GPL community, and this began with graphical updates that were built when I co-founded the GPLSF with Ken Drouillard and our dashes were used by most to complement the GPLEA cars. So I have quite some experience of sitting on the “editing” side of the fence and know what it’s like to provide content for the community and know personally what it’s like to see how the community reacts to offerings. But I can’t possibly know exactly what motivates other editors, of course, and can’t speak for them. However, I do assume that many of the things that motivate me and impact me when I release products and interact with the community are reasonably universal among editors. Also, I have seen, as I say, many times community members speculate on what drives an editor to contribute to GPL, and I think I am as qualified as most to talk on this subject. Some of what I say will generally apply to all editors, and of course some aspects and some views will be more particularly applicable to just myself.

OK, so here goes… first off, I don’t believe that the reason anyone builds anything for GPL is based solely on altruistic reasons: that is to say, the add-on is not built 100% because others who play GPL will benefit from it. If the distribution system were such that the product was uploaded to a server in such a way that the creator was (and remained) entirely anonymous, I sincerely believe you would see very few contributions. That’s because it is human nature to embark on an endeavor where there is some return, some motivation. This is particularly the case with add-ons (of all kinds, software, tracks, graphical updates and so on) since these generally represent a great deal of work. Excepting very few examples, most GPL add-ons are distributed free of monetary charge. It follows then that the return for an editor is something other than financial gain.

I am not suggesting that the editor (generally) does not derive some satisfaction from the knowledge that the community has benefited, only that this is not the primary motivator for the editor. Also, of course, most editors will derive some satisfaction of course from the simple fact that they have produced something of which they are proud (which would still be a benefit, of course, even if no-one else on the planet was aware of the item). However, although these two are factors, nonetheless I do not subscribe to the view that these are the major motivations for, at least, most editors. The main reason the editor creates and distributes his work is for the personal recognition derived from the community. This is certainly true in my case, and I believe this applies generally to most, if not all, editors, but of course the mix between entirely altruistic reasons and other reasons will differ from one individual to the next.

“Personal recognition” can be no more than those that simply use the add-on dropping an email to the editor to say thanks, or doing the same in a thread in the forum. Given that most add-ons contribute greatly to the enjoyment of GPL, take a considerable amount of time and effort to create, and a thank you takes only a moment to send, I do not think this is an unreasonable return for an editor to expect. I will qualify my next comment by saying that I believe we have an unusually friendly community and that it is generally appreciative of the efforts of the editors relative to other similar communities that exist on the ‘net. Even so, it’s a plain fact that most persons that download an editors work will not thank the editor for it, even if they enjoy the add-on and use it on a regular basis. In my own personal experience, for example, GPLAIM was downloaded a little over a thousand times in the first two hours of release. As an aside, this was enough to bring down the university server that the file was housed on. The RSC then generously hosted the file until the demand caused their ISP host to restrict the bandwidth for the forum and the file once more had to be removed. By the end of the day, I had no more than a handful of emails, ten or less I think, actually thanking me for the software. And please understand this is not a complaint, just an observation. And of course, these emails are supplemented by posts in the forum.

Given that very few people actually take the time to say thank you for an editor’s file they have downloaded, it is all the more frustrating for an editor when some people are downright rude about a contribution or even make a personal attack (for whatever reason) on the character of an individual editor. It is a sad fact that all editors must accept that these incidents will happen. (That is not to say that an editor must accept these things and is obliged to continue to edit, only that it is a fact of life that these things will happen). Again, I will refer to my own work as an example, not because it is unique, but simply because it serves well as an illustration. When the GPLAIM Compatible version of the GPLEA Eagle was released some people posted in the forum in such a way that it seemed obvious that they were taking delight in announcing that they were manually installing the car, as if that simple fact was in some way a badge of honour. These persons also were evidently happy to have the opportunity to attack the GPLCSM software for the sake of attacking the software. Let me be candid here: anyone is perfectly entitled to choose to use or not use a particular add-on or utility, and is perfectly entitled to publicly state there reasons for adopting or rejecting an add-on. Furthermore, I have publicly often asked for comments on the work I produce and I have often times explicitly asked for people to criticize my work and to point out why they either don’t like the product or what problems they have with it. The simple fact is that any software I produce will have some problems and some bugs in it; this is true for any software of a non-trivial nature produced by any software developer. Apart from actual bugs, there may be design issues or considerations of functionality that make the software unattractive to a subset of the community. For this reason, it is important to hear why a product is unsuitable or unattractive to some members of the community.

There is, however, a distinct and crucial difference between constructive and destructive criticism. I have seen some community members, in defense of some particular editor or other, state that if someone is not going to say something positive about an editor’s contribution, that nothing at all should be said. I don’t agree with this at all. As I have said, I think that limiting comments to only those that are positive is counter-productive and does not help an editor to objectively gauge the usefulness of the product to the community or determine ways that it might be improved.

When the only real return to an editor is some sense of satisfaction in providing to the community something that is appreciated and found to useful, it is understandable that an editor becomes upset when criticism is either particularly rude or destructive. This, rightly or wrongly, to a great extent negates the positive feedback that is otherwise present. In my own personal case, when the GPLEA Eagle was released, for the first time I questioned why I invested my free time to create items as a direct result of the response from some community members. Again, I’ll stress here that I don’t believe I’m particularly thin-skinned, and I have no interest in receiving only positive feedback which would obviously limit the usefulness of feedback as a whole. But I can certainly empathize with an editor that has received rude and destructive criticism and simply decides that continuing to build add-ons for the community is not something they wish to continue to do. Which brings me to my next point…

When an editor decides that the personal positive aspects of producing add-ons are outweighed by the negative aspects and states that he/she will no longer be creating add-ons, that should surely be the end of the matter. For example, I have discussed at some length here the negative aspects of destructive criticism, but there could be any number of negative elements that have little to do with the community per se. For example, building add-ons results in less free time for other activities, such as time with the family and so on, and this of course is an entry in the negative column. Simply no longer deriving as much satisfaction or pleasure adds to the negative column. As long as an editor continues to build add-ons the positives must, by definition, outweigh the negatives. But as soon as the balance shifts in favour of the negative elements, the editor will stop making add-ons.

Now, in particular cases where the balance, for whatever reason, has shifted and the editor has decided not to continue I have seen community members suggest that the editor is obliged to continue to produce add-ons. Now, we all have obligations: we are obliged to be civil to each other (even of we don’t always observe the obligation, it is nonetheless there); we are obliged to represent ourselves truthfully; we are obliged to avoid slandering another; and so on. But no-one is obliged to spend their free time building something for someone else, which they then provide to the other party free of charge. And the obligation does not exist simply because they might have done this in the past.

As an aside for a moment, I want to say another negative element as far as add-on editors is concerned (and I know this not only from my personal experience but also from communicating with many other well-known editors in the community) is an issue concerning the unauthorized or uncredited use of an editors work. For example, someone else spent a lot of time creating a paintjob. The considerable amount of time it took to create meant that in my opinion the editor was justified in the expectation of some appreciation for the work from the recipients and benefactors of the labour – the GPL community. But very shortly after the work was released someone else took the item, opened it in Paintshop, selected “Colours / Adjust / Brightness/Contrast” from the menu and used the slider to increase the brightness and then released the paintjob as “my lighter paintjob”. This activity takes almost no time or effort (about as long to do as it just took me to describe) and is virtually devoid of any creative element and it was therefore obviously galling to the original editor to see the release result in many comments such as “I really like your new paintjob” directed at the other “editor”. This is an ongoing problem and cause of frustration for editors and constantly adds to the “negative” side of the balance which is why I particularly mention it here.