Search results

That's not true: TConstruct-denerf|Gregtech-denerf|Result false|false|nerfed true|false|denerfed false|true|denerfed true|true|denerfed

The good news is they don't have to- both configs work.

Like I said, i'm pretty sure that writing to the system error log prevents minecraft from finishing startup.

I guess to a certain extent I feel like a total ban on crashing code is too much? I think a mod ought to be allowed to say, "I will not run like this", provided: 1. It happens right at startup 2. It will always (or generally always) affect any two users running the same modpack equally 3...

No, I'm serious, greg made it so his thing wont' crash and mDiyo made his thing configurable.

A compromise was reached.

He added a recipe.

And he added a config option for his change, allowing players to once again choose to chop more trees.

This is silly shit, crashes occur regularly, posting crashlogs is a skill every user has at this point, and greg's long-winded diatribes are more than informative enough for the person being posted to to diagnose.

#1. If you're modifying the mod with the author's help, the author will ostensibly sign it and you'll have no issues. #2. For most mods, as long as you remove the signature, forestry and other mod-police-style mods will be copacetic. This isn't true for closed-source mods like RP2, though...

For me, whether a particular thing is okay comes down to a few different criteria: 1) Are the users being actively punished in a way that can't be corrected? {redacted history} 2) Can the users play the way they want to with your thing intact? {redacted history} 3) Do you make clear to...

I feel as though you'll have to give examples of what you're talking about. The only ostensibly-malicious code that I am aware of is code that 1) Attempts to respond to the mod being packed in certain modpacks that do not have permission to include the mod. or 2) Code that responds to other...

What's hard to understand? "Looking on GitHub, there are some wonderful improvements - <wonderful improvements>. One minor catch, however. This update also <bad things>. You can like things about an update while still considering something else a deal-breaker.

Buildcraft is open source, it belongs to the community, it's not just Power Source For Railcraft: The Mod, as CovertJaguar likes to pretend.

He did provide you an example usage, and your exact words in response were "I could care less what KL is doing with TE".

You are walking back the status of this change pretty hard from when it was discussed with you in #buildcraft, and later on the buildcraft github issue tracker. Earlier it was a done deal, now it is not? If you stand behind this change, stand behind it, don't pretend like you weren't saying...

You weren't warned in that conversation specifically, but you play this game every couple months and have been warned about it in the past. "I'm not saying you guys don't have permissions but you don't have permissions" is a perfect description of the conversation you're describing. Playing the...

EDIT: Also you can't lie about the way your second overture to the technic crew ended and lie about not knowing why you were banned and expect that to end well.

No need to ask forgiveness, you were right and I was wrong, and I appreciate the correction. However: Slowpoke's word is that he has no idea why he was banned.

Well, it was more than that. He actually was involved in a really productive discussion about the issue and seemed to be making peace with the tekkit crew, but then got baited into a youtube argument by some 13 year old, and it was like the part of the movie where the snobby rich guy...