The perception about heavy handed moderation is pervasive and well documented, and I won't beat the dead horse. However, disallowing donations in the EULA is heavy handed and I would argue that it is also non-binding in accordance with common law. As long as we're not talking about an expected donation with quid pro quo, there should be no restrictions on the willing transfer of property without any other expectations. I understand why ED wishes to maintain control over payware (hint: it's not all about greed), but by coming hard down on modders who depend on the generosity of others, they are coming down hardest on their most loyal supporters: those who have put their time into making ED's product better for everybody. Forbidding donations is clumsy and legally questionable; enforcing this is short sighted and ham-fisted. All this does is turn ED's strongest advocates into vocal opponents, and the more widespread the modder, the more people that get a negative perception when the modder and his works are gone. In political terms, this is known as an "unforced error."
and there is another aspect of forbidding donations that is even more absurd:
I make mostly skins for P3D, but I also make skins for DCS - if I add to my signature a donate button, and that signature appears in a website that hosts both P3D and DCS (www.lockonfiles.com) does that mean that I am in violation of DCS EULA ? how should I know for which sim I am receiving donations ?
and the donations received from our website - are they are in violation of some EULA ? are websites forbiden from accepting donations ?
Quote:
The perception about heavy handed moderation is pervasive and well documented
I remember in 2007 when they banned the owner of a well known and liked website, MrWolf owner of Lockonskins, he got so angry he closed down his own website.
That forum has a long history of going after people who invest a lot of time on their products.
