Jump to content

1.16 Rule discussion


NineLine

Recommended Posts

Please keep this thread clean for serious questions, no comedy hour here.

 

Well, considering I will probably get this deleted:

 

How about keeping the forum OPEN for dissent instead of quashing anyone that speaks out about something? That would be a VERY welcome update to ED and DCS as well as the Forum...:thumbup:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Well, considering I will probably get this deleted:

 

How about keeping the forum OPEN for dissent instead of quashing anyone that speaks out about something? That would be a VERY welcome update to ED and DCS as well as the Forum...:thumbup:

 

This thread is about 1.16, you need to read the rules to know that has nothing to do with what you are mentioning.

 

As far as what you are mentioning, if you cant find negative or concerns about DCS on these forums, you are not looking very hard. We enforce the rules in such a way that if you convey your concerns in an adult and constructive manner, you will be fine.

 

It's never about the message, it's about how it's delivered.

 

Anyways, please stay on topic. Thanks.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • ED Team

We would prefer that its free to share on the internet, with a link proving that it is indeed free and legal to share, if you cant confirm it is, its ok to give a title of where you find the info, and describe in your own words, but copying and pasting info from the document is not allowed.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would prefer that its free to share on the internet, with a link proving that it is indeed free and legal to share, if you cant confirm it is, its ok to give a title of where you find the info, and describe in your own words, but copying and pasting info from the document is not allowed.

 

And if I know 100% that document is itar controlled and I open a topic where I use my own words to describe what is written in it, and then add page reference in that document?

Do not expect fairness.

The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Hey everyone!

 

There is an issue which gives me a real headache and of course it is not only a hornet thing, but I gonna post it here anyway...

 

The question is whether the NATOPS manuals which you find asking google are 100% public?

Are there any restrictions e.g. for the A1-F18AC-NFM-000, 15 SEPTEMBER 2008, or are there none??? ... taking these infos as a reference ...

I always thought they were public as the data presented is only scratching the surface of the hornet and doesn't go into depth.

 

Problem is that "F/A-18C Flight Manual chapter-2" is done, but put on ice as I don't want to risk here anything...

 

What is your view?

 

Greets

cruizzzzer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Hi 

Feel free to PM me about it but our rules are very clear on this matter 
Just because it can be google searched and downloaded does not make it unrestricted.
 

Quote

1.16 Posting of images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document is from a classified or ITAR controlled source.
When posting aircraft, sensor or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document showing that it is 100% public and verified as not from a classified or non-ITAR controlled source. To not do so will result in the removal of the message.

Posting information from a classified or ITAR-controlled source will result in the message being removed and a 20% warning and one-week suspension (dependent on warning level).


This rule is in place to protect us and you. 

Thanks

posts merged

  • Like 2

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY locked and unlocked this topic
  • 2 months later...

I don't know exactly where to post this, this seemed the best place but feel free to move it if appropriate.

I wish to post pictures and information from TM 1-1520-251-10. The document is unclassified but distribution is restricted DOD and DOD contractors. However it is freely and publicly available for download and you can find it in multiple places if you use your favorite search engine.

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1008958

So can I post those files or not? I don't understand the whole idea of unclassified but do not distribute. As far as I understand it it's legal to distribute FOUO documents. Especially since it's publicly available anyway.

According to this: https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/InformationOperations/LogisticsInformationServices/Customer Outreach/Subscriptions/J6_ForOfficialUseOnly_160113.pdf

it seems like "It's not classified but you needn't release it publicly." But since it has already been released it doesn't matter anymore. Then again that's different from distribution by DOD only.

Rule 1.16 states that the information must be unclassfied (which it is) and not ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations?) restricted. I don't see how it is or how to check. It seems free of such restrictions.

So in short: Can I post stuff from the operator's manual here or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is always a bit of a gray area because even people in the military don't fully know what's restricted, not restricted, ITAR, or not ITAR. It actually came up in an episode of Smarter Everyday when he was on a nuke sub and two of the sailors argued over whether they needed to censor something or not because one thought it was classified and the other said it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nealius said:

This is always a bit of a gray area because even people in the military don't fully know what's restricted, not restricted, ITAR, or not ITAR. It actually came up in an episode of Smarter Everyday when he was on a nuke sub and two of the sailors argued over whether they needed to censor something or not because one thought it was classified and the other said it wasn't.

Yes, I watched that one. But they were underway and couldn't check easily what was or wasn't officially unclassified so they decided to play it safe, which is fine. What I'm asking is can I post stuff from the manual here if it's officially unclassified, which it is.

I'd prefer the answer from someone like @BIGNEWY so it's definitive. I'm sure ED would use the very same manual for developing the aircraft anyhow. Or at least I very much hope they do.


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

As I had already mentioned to you in a PM we have to be very careful with documents

Our rules states 

1.16 Posting of images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document is from a classified or ITAR controlled source.
When posting aircraft, sensor or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document showing that it is 100% public and verified as not from a classified or non-ITAR controlled source. To not do so will result in the removal of the message.

 

The site you link is not an official government site, anyone can mark a document unclassified on a web page, we will always delete first and air on the side of caution. 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

As I had already mentioned to you in a PM we have to be very careful with documents

Our rules states 

1.16 Posting of images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document is from a classified or ITAR controlled source.
When posting aircraft, sensor or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document showing that it is 100% public and verified as not from a classified or non-ITAR controlled source. To not do so will result in the removal of the message.

 

The site you link is not an official government site, anyone can mark a document unclassified on a web page, we will always delete first and air on the side of caution. 

The document itself states it's unclassified. I assumed a .mil domain would be official. Anyone could alter the document to say it's unclassified. Where would I get the information given only the manual name (TM 1-1520-251-10 from 2002)? And, if indeed it were unclassified, where does this leave me with the distribution notice? Can I post or not?


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

If the document states it is unclassified it should be ok, but I can not stress enough how careful we have to be, if we are not happy a post can be deleted without notice. 

My personal opinion is it is best not to post documents newer than 1980. 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if unclassified, it's okay, even with "Distribution by DOD and DOD contractors only"?

I don't understand this distribution nonsense anyway. If it's unclassified then it should be free information. I'm not an US citizen, I'm not exporting anything. It's on the internet and not in some dark corners of the tor network offered by chineese hackers or something. It's like "Everybody is free to read it. But don't give it to people to read." It makes no sense.

Also you have not answered my question. The document is unclassified. How can I be sure it is? The website, mind you a .mil domain, says it is. The document I downloaded from 2 different sites says nothing about a classification. I downloaded the document with a google search and didn't have special forces didn't blow up my door and jumped through my windows this morning. From what I can see it is unclassified, otherwise how would I get my hands on it in the first place? But how can I be certain? What is the standard of proof you require?

Quote

This document contains technical data whose export is
restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751
et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title
50, U.S.C., App. 240 - 1 et seq. Violation of these export laws are
subject to severe criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with
provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25.

The rule is muddy, I would like a very clear description of what is and is not allowed based on the information provided on the title page of the document.

As I said I am not an US citizen, I'm not exporting anything from the US. I don't know what ITAR is, what an ITAR restriction is, how to recognize an ITAR restriction. I read "unclassified" and it tells me "anyone can read it anyway so It should be fine". I don't get all that bureaucratic nonsense, restrictions of unclassified documents and what have you.

Aside from all that I am not even dumping the whole document here. I just wish to point out things that I want in the new Apache module or later point out things that are wrong with it. And to prove my point or to illustrate the problem/feature I wish to use the manual as a reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 12:45 PM, FalcoGer said:

Aside from all that I am not even dumping the whole document here. I just wish to point out things that I want in the new Apache module or later point out things that are wrong with it. And to prove my point or to illustrate the problem/feature I wish to use the manual as a reference.

Imho you can just point out that your knowledge comes from the real manual. No need to upload it or even link to it.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 10/14/2021 at 12:45 PM, FalcoGer said:

So if unclassified, it's okay, even with "Distribution by DOD and DOD contractors only"?

I don't understand this distribution nonsense anyway

 

It might be copyright or intellectual property.

For example, system drawings for a commercial passenger aircraft may not be classified but they are definitely intellectual property, and, as such, should not be distributed on a forum like this, where ED could be held liable for content posted here.

Important disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer either.


Edited by Zius
  • Like 1

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 7:45 PM, FalcoGer said:

The rule is muddy, I would like a very clear description of what is and is not allowed based on the information provided on the title page of the document.

Honestly, I think it's completely arbritrary. The avionics we have modeled in our F-16 come from the -34 manual and probably some others. Those are export restricted. The Hornet's avionics and such from the NATOPS equivalent, TAC manuals. Also export restricted. DCS devs are located all over the world, yet are somehow privy to these export-restricted documents to create the modules, while regular folk located all over the world aren't? The only three logical conclusions I can think of are 1) the enforcement is completely arbritrary, 2) there's some kind of release contract/permission from the DoD given to the DCS devs to work with such documents, 3) some documentation has had their export restrictions rescinded but there's no notation, and there's some master list somewhere so posting it is playing roulette. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

this really is common sense stuff, 

if you are going to post documentation you need to verify it is safe for public release and include the source linked in the post. 

Our forum rule is there to protect you and us, failure to comply results in warnings points on the forum, and deletion of the post. Continued failure to comply with the 1.16 results in a forum suspension. 

 

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nealius said:

More complex and nuanced than common sense.

When in doubt, don't post it, or at least PM the moderator first.

  • Like 2

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 2:40 AM, draconus said:

When in doubt, don't post it, or at least PM the moderator first.

i guess this is the answer.

i deal with CUI at my office. there are standards for marking these documents. based on level of sensitivity. Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, etc. it is the responsibility of provider of the document to mark them with the correct markings. if a document is found online at a (suspected) reputable website, yet it is not marked, is that a violation? how does a censor at ED know? it is ITAR restricted if it is not marked as such? i am not trying to be crass. i see stuff all the time online looking for good reference material that are not marked, but seem that they should be. though just my opinion.

  • Like 2

AKA_SilverDevil AKA Forums My YouTube

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” — Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The problem is that US classification system is a mess. The government classifies way too much, and this sometimes results in people being cavalier with all classified info, including stuff that really needs to be kept secret. All fun and games until some kid in the Guard posts classified military documents on Discord, or on War Thunder forum. All too often even TS stuff isn't secured as well as you'd hope, particularly when handled by executive types like generals and politicians.

Because of this, the stuff on the internet was not necessarily legally released, and using it in a commercial product (or even posting on a related website) might cause legal complications, and that goes double for a non-US company. Even if the document is not marked, this might just mean someone neglected to mark it properly. Then you have FOIA requests, where the document is very much still classified, but the government releases a redacted version to the public because someone asked nicely and they figured it'd do no harm. Sometimes you even get the whole damn thing uncensored, either because there was nothing to redact, or the person who was supposed to be doing the redacting screwed the pooch. And yes, AFAIK in the latter case the information is OK to use, and in fact activists have been known to exploit this to get info released that would normally be sent as a bunch of blacked-out pages. FOIA stuff is typically marked, but an excerpt from such a document might not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...