The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2

Discussion in 'Mod Discussion' started by slowpoke, Jul 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slowpoke

    slowpoke FTB Founder Team Member FTB Founder

    Clarifications on code policy in mods.

    Yesterday a post was made that started to give details about how we would handle code in mods that was deemed to be spiteful in nature or disputes between mod developers. However before we get into this there are a couple of points that need to be cleared up for everyone. Firstly is this term 'Malware' that is being thrown around a lot. By any definition of Malware that I have seen, the code that has been shown around in different places from various mods is not even remotely close to being classed as malware. In my original post I mentioned that code designed to crash games with malicious intent is as close to malware as someone can get. This is not the same as something actually being Malware.

    Why is this important? Essentially because once a few people start calling something Malware then it inevitably spreads across the internet. Soon, everyone is calling it malware and it sticks and then the mods reputation is harmed. Let us make no mistakes on this, this code is not designed in any way to track or steal information and it certainly wont harm anyones computer in any way.

    This leads us on to the next question. Does a mod developer have a right to add code which is aimed at preventing their modification in a way that is contrary to their wishes. This to me is a big question, that I honestly do not know the right answer . There are many points of view on this subject, many of them valid. For me I think the right line that needs to be drawn is that is it OK for a mod developer to add code to a mod which is targetted at preventing their mod from being used in a way against their wishes as long as they take all reasonable measures to protect the integrity of a players world and where possible ensure that the end user is sufficiently warned in advance.

    The next question is what do we do when someone adds code that contravenes this but is targetted at something other than FTB (eg a different modpack). This to me is a far harder question, morality dictates that we should be equal across the board and make decisions irrespective of where it is targetted. However this leads us down a road, I really do not want to travel. It is not our role or place to enforce our morality anywhere beyond FTB. If it doesnt affect us then it is really none of our business.

    So the line I am proposing is as follows.

    From this point forwards FTB will not knowingly distribute destructive or compatibility breaking code that has been added to a mod for spiteful reasons and affects mod packs that FTB distributes.

    Code added by a mod developer for any purpose that does not directly affect FTB will be deemed outside of our purview, this includes things like legitimate DRM measures.


    Slowpoke.
  2. xX1ACE1Xx

    xX1ACE1Xx New Member

    Slow, you definitely are taking this the right way with not trying to ruin Gregtech's reputation but instead get the information across about what has happened, and for that my respect for you increases immensely.
    Qwertz, Whovian, Cman333 and 2 others like this.
  3. Henry Link

    Henry Link Well-Known Member

    Slow, I was curious about all this so I listened to you twitch last night with Dire. I couldn't agree more with how you stated the problem and the final solution you have presented here. Thanks for all your support.
  4. Pokefenn

    Pokefenn Over-Achiever Mod Developer

    Nice to see the way how you have handled this problem.
    Thanks to the FTB team and everyone else involved :3
    dgdas9 likes this.
  5. slowpoke

    slowpoke FTB Founder Team Member FTB Founder

    To be clear, this is not final policy but a proposal based on input from a lot of people including mod developers and users.
    Sirstas, Eyamaz, Hoff and 1 other person like this.
  6. dgdas9

    dgdas9 Popular Member

    I think you're doing the right thing. We all thank you slowpoke.
  7. dries007

    dries007 Member

    Slow, very important word in the sentence: "From this point forwards FTB will not knowingly distribute destructive or compatibility breaking code that has been added to a mod for spiteful reasons and affects mod packs that FTB distributes."
    So the "modExclusionList()" from FML doesn't count I assume? (I watched part of the stream yesterday)
    Flipz likes this.
  8. KitKat31337

    KitKat31337 New Member

    Thank you Slow,

    Overall, very well put and I agree mostly, not that you care what little KitKat says. I do have one point that seemed off though. Malware by any definition I have seen is "Software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems."

    By this logic, the GregTech code added was in fact malware as it aimed to disable minecraft as long as TConstruct was installed.

    Let me clarify my position though, as I have normally been a strong defender of GregTech as it is forced on no-one.
    While I do believe that this was Malware, I also believe that mistakes happen and people sometimes make poor judgement.
    Further, I also believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.

    All this said, I am not sure what I think of this whole situation, as with any dispute, it could have probably been handled better on both sides, but hindsight is always... (you know).

    I guess I will simply monitor moving forward, and most likely GregTech will appear back on my server every now and then.

    -Kat
  9. Ragnoff

    Ragnoff Member

    I must admit that I am disappointed. This seems like an out of site out of mind policy, don't ask don't tell.

    How many strikes will one get? How many times can a mod author mess with people, remove the last temper tantrum, and be welcomed back when they say. "well, THIS time I REALLY won't do it again?"

    I also think that if the bug would hit, should someone ad the mod to an existing pack, that should also be grounds to exclude that mod. (E.g., if Gregtech crashes with tinkers construct by the above policy you will still distribute it - as from this point forward those two will not be in the same modpack, correct?)

    Terrorist mindsets (do it my way or I will hurt end users under these conditions) should NOT be rewarded.
    Zexks, Flipz, RedBoss and 1 other person like this.
  10. Molten

    Molten Well-Known Member

    It seems like you have the end users at the top of your agenda.
    Because of that, I find it hard to do anything other than support you and the FTB team in return 100 percent.
    I feel safe installing FTB...
    Brysett likes this.
  11. Jadedcat

    Jadedcat Global Moderator and Modpack Creator Team Member Global Moderator FTB Pack Developer Modpack Team


    Its not our job to tell mod authors what they can and can't code. Our job is to make our packs stable. That's it. Slow will abide by any request from a modder to not have his mod included with a different mod. But its not our job to tell a modder how to code. We aren't the morality committee for minecraft modding. So yeah basically if it doesn't effect our mod packs its not our problem. (thats how I see it not necessarily FTB)
    chamender3, Hoff, Velotican and 4 others like this.
  12. slowpoke

    slowpoke FTB Founder Team Member FTB Founder

    I totally understand your point of view here. But to go down the line your suggesting takes us to a very dangerous place. It is not the job of FTB to police the minecraft modding community and I dont think it is appropriate for us to start dictating what mod developers can and cannot do. FTB is a launcher and a mod pack developer and thats it. It is our role to just make and put out functional working packs that dont contain code designed to hinder your experience. FTB's morality is limited to the ensuring we have the right to redistribute the mods that we do and we do so in a manner that is safe and secure for users.
    Sirstas, SpitefulFox, Hoff and 5 others like this.
  13. Vermillion

    Vermillion Member

    A warning was issued to all Mod Authors regarding their current and future content, that is all. To agree to have one's mod added to the FTB pack is to agree to SlowPoke's proposal and failure to comply will result in said mod being removed from the pack.
    No one is getting rewarded, no one is getting punished. Even if there was a "punishment" involved, no one here has any right to inflict it but SlowPoke and he has taken the high road in this situation. You may feel disappointed, but it's just that, a "feeling" that is unique to you and a minority of the FTB players who actually read the forums and are aware of the situation.
  14. Jadedcat

    Jadedcat Global Moderator and Modpack Creator Team Member Global Moderator FTB Pack Developer Modpack Team


    No warning was issued.
    Pokefenn and KitKat31337 like this.
  15. Ragnoff

    Ragnoff Member

    I guess I see it as turning a blind eye to despicable behavior, and putting the ability to update your packs at risk because of the inclusion of mods who's authors have a pattern of "spiteful" code. I would also hope that in your pack descriptions you would at least put a warning "adding mod xyz to this pack is known to cause spiteful crashes."

    "all that is needed for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing."

    I have a great deal of respect for the pack makers in the other threads who have stated that they will never trust again someone who engages in spiteful behavior.

    I do not have the right to "tell" you what to do, I have HUGE respect for you personally Jaded (my wife and I love your Magic Farm pack, and your mod duties are handled in a first rate manner), but my understanding is this is not yet policy, just a proposal with comments invited. My feeling here is that FTB is choosing to allow evil to flourish, as long as FTB has plausible deniability, as that is the easier road to walk.

    Ragnoff

    Slow I had not yet seen your post when I replied to Jaded, I was not ignoring your post. Will protecting your users include warning against adding mods with spiteful code to pack they are not currently in?
    Zexks, Flipz and Brysett like this.
  16. Droideka30

    Droideka30 Active Member

    Slowpoke, it's great that you're making a general policy for situations like this, as it can be used in the future if necessary. However, I was hoping you could explain how you plan to apply this policy in this specific GregTech/Tinker's Construct incident.
    --- Double Post Merged, Jul 19, 2013 ---
    Also, how are we defining "compatibility breaking code?"
    Flipz likes this.
  17. slowpoke

    slowpoke FTB Founder Team Member FTB Founder

    Ragnoff, seriously you want to go round quoting Burke and relating it to something like this? There is no evil intent in any of this. The code was added briefly and was removed shortly after. I have spoken to Greg about this and he has assured me he will not use similar tactics again in the future. (ie code designed to crash a world). I have had his actual code checked and it certainly posed no risk to anyones world from what we can tell, it crashed your game. Just like a thousand bugs out there have done in the past.

    Was adding the crash code ill-advised? Yes. Could this situation have been handled better? certainly. but to equate it to being evil is a bit to far.

    With regards to gregtech and Tinkers Construct, they will no longer be distributed in the same pack. The offending code has already been removed and was never distributed by FTB. the 152 packs will be redesigned to take into account the wishes of the mod developer.

    To define compatibility breaking code, by this I mean code that has the potential to cause a crash that isnt readily apparent at startup or adds a glaring exploit that a mod developer wishes to avoid. Remember though this isnt the ten commandments, it isn't set in stone and each case will be looked at on an individual basis.
    Sirstas, Edam, Hoff and 3 others like this.
  18. Golrith

    Golrith Forum Addict

    Just to confirm then, that Natura will also have to be exlcuded from any packs with GregTech?
  19. casilleroatr

    casilleroatr Popular Member

    While I haven't been committing my opinions regarding this whole affair too much on these forums, I will say that if I were in your position I might have been tempted to be a bit firebrand towards Gregtech. Reading your careful and measured response though, I am reminded of the importance of an organisation being true to its mission and not slowly accruing too much extra responsibility up to the point where it all gets into an unwieldy, hypocritical mess where it becomes impossible to execute policy in a predictable and consistent way (especially when you have friendships with a large number of modders). I should say that I have only ever downloaded an FTB pack once and it was only to play a bit on a Direwolf20 map, but I have appreciated the hard work of the FTB team as it has influenced my private modpack in a positive way (tbh my pack is just Direwolf20 with MFR and a couple of Universal Electricity mods now). However, my opinion of the FTB "brand" has improved and I am considering getting an FTB pack (without Gregtech of course) for my next world.

    Finally, in the interests of fairness (I have sent something similar to Jadedcat!) I would like to say that I am a big fan and I love it when you are on Direwolf20's server play videos.
    KitKat31337 likes this.
  20. This is nonsense: There is no such thing in this context. If a modder is to release something to the community for it to use, and then try to control what the community does with it, they have not in fact released something to the community for it to use.

    Nobody, anywhere, should EVER get to decide what users do on their own computer. Nobody, anywhere, should EVER get to decide what mods a user installs on their computer.

    I am disappointed: I had almost thought the FTB pack was moving forward with improving the state of the Minecraft modding community by setting an example that each of us must remain in control of our own play experience. It's sad to see that, in this case, no progress will be made at all.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page