I've kept out of this discussion and I don't have any personal stakes in what happened. Personally, I'd be happy if people could make amends, and above all, learn from these misunderstandings in the future. Rather than get all philosophical here, I'd like to adress probably the biggest issue dissected in this thread, the "changing too much about the FM maps" kerfuffle.
From all I've read about the Melan-Bikerdude incident concerning one of the Penny Dreadful FMs, the whole case strikes me as a textbook example of things that could have been easily avoided. Not to pontificate here, but if I was in Bikerdude's shoes, with Melan telling me to fix an error or two in the FM and send it back for testing, I'd first focus on that. Any ideas on potential small improvements to the mission would go in a notebook, and would be attempted only after the initial task was done. Ergo, you focus on the duties first, and exclusively on the exact things that the fellow mapper or mission co-creator asked you to do. Not less, nor more.
Once you're done with those and send the finished files over to the other person, you can save a separate copy of the map, under a separate name, and try to add your edits to it. If the other person is interested, you can send them that further modified version some time later, and explain the ideas implemented to that version of the map. Maybe they'll consider adding some of those, if they like them. They don't have to, it's their prerogative,
I don't get the impression Bikerdude was trying to be malicious. I even understand the point some have made about creative people getting carried away and wanting to try just one more thing, and boom, things get out of hand. It does happen, I've experienced it myself.
BUT ! But... there should always be limits. I know I'd be annoyed, similarly to Melan, if someone made loads of small, but potentially radical changes to something I've spent a lot of my free time on. That sort of thing could peeve even a very patient and understanding person. If one is working on something that's a collaborative effort, but is making changes well beyond what the fellow collaborator asked for, that starts to cross a line. In such a case, it's necessary, nay, paramount, to step back and communicate very openly about the changes. Trying to hide them won't help and just delays and complicates the inevitable butting of heads. The more honest we are about something that could potentially alienate or annoy our fellow collaborator, the better.
And, as I've detailed above, it's also important to relegate any major creative/artistic changes, ones that could influence the impression and gameplay of an FM, to their own separate version of the map. DR allows lots of different saving options. Doing the job of carrying out a requested fix, saving, then continuing with the map on a separate save, nice and isolated from the version desired by the collaborator at that point in time. Whether he or she will or won't like the expanded version made on that other save, you should leave that expanded version and debates about it for later.
There's always a way to resolve these misunderstandings. One just needs to be a bit prudent and mindful of other's current requests and expectations. If you promise your mod-buddy you'll carry out some highly specific level editing task, according to their wishes, you deliver on that promise, as accurately as possible, without unnecessary detours. Yes, detours can be thrilling, but having a mod-buddy who's counting on you begs for a certain degree of responsibility and restraint. Doing too much, far more than was needed or desired, can be just as much annoying to an author as doing far too little or nothing.
Edited by Petike the Taffer, 18 October 2018 - 07:35 AM.