RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[JohnOC]

Any kind of barrier you mandate will diminish that.

And the barrier under discussion for v7 is much lower than the barrier in place currently. Its a step from 'no' all the way past 'maybe' to 'yes, with these conditions.' That is actually a pretty substantial change, and though it doesn't affect my efforts at pack-making at all (personal use only - and I only change configs) I applaud it.

Agreeing with others who have mentioned in this thread, a list of customizations to mods should be included in a modpack. Other mod devs should follow this example in providing a page for it in their in-game books for pack authors to use. If more adopt it, I hope it'll become common enough that its the expected thing to do.

 

[Hyperme]

hey it's the monthly 'reika did something so let's grab our faces and pull until the skin tears off' thread. because being able to change some things instead of all the things is just too much oppression?

Really if we're into permissions here (which we are), if you're building a modpack large enough to require Minetweakery it seems like you'll be spending enough time getting your permissions straight (you are getting your permissions, right?) what with all these arcane rules about packs of mods that a few more won't matter? You can even bake the 'this is what i wanna change' words into the 'can I use mod' PM.

We could also get a grip, but that's waaaaay to much of a tall order. Better blame Reika for slippery surfaces as well! (do not do this)

 

[xbony2]

About documentation, I'd also recommend the official Gamepedia FTB Wiki. I'm probably ten times more biased then Padfoote, but that bias doesn't come from nothing . Our templates are pretty well optimized, but at the same time it's not too difficult to create new crafting-grid templates. I and the other staff member keep an eagle's eye on Recent Changes. Lastly, it's possible to make articles translatable if people are interested in that (they would need to speak to me, though. Those pages need special markup, and I'm pretty much the only person who is unlazy enough to add it).

 

[TomeWyrm]

I'd offer to help, but wiki syntax drives me up the wall and I don't know the mods like the back of my hand. But better documentation sourced from the community would totally be awesome. We have people like Demosthenex who do all the crazy experimentation and research, all we need is someone(s) that loves data input on wikis to interface with. Which is totally not me, seriously. I love using wikis, but every time I try to participate in them it blows up in my face.

 

[lucariomaster2]

I have been trying to avoid posting in this thread because of the sheer level of drama of it, but there's something I really feel needs to be said.

I know it was said above, but the permissions, the restrictions, etc. do not change the fact that RotaryCraft is an amazing mod. Unlike so many other shove-resources-into-a-workbench-to-get-a-magic-block-that-solves-all-your-problems mods, RoC actually makes you think. Things like... what's the most efficient way to power an extractor given that I can't make tungsten yet? How can I make a factory that makes loads of ethanol? And the rewards for putting actual thought into a contraption are so satisfying. Instantaneous 5x ore processing? Check. An infinite range weapon that can 1-shot kill the Wither? Check. Enough jet fuel to fill an olympic-sized swimming pool? Check. Yes, it does have its flaws (lack of documentation being the main one), but it doesn't change the fact that it's one of my favourite mods. (And heck, the lack of documentation encourages trial and error, which I am a huge fan of.) Reika is not afraid to do something different instead of conforming to the tyranny of RF, and I really respect him for that.

So thank you, Reika, for making a mod that has made Minecraft new and exciting for me again.

 

[RedBoss]

Do we really need another thread like this?

 

[VapourDrive]

Well I think talk of the actual policy changes is pretty much done, and that Reika probably has enough feedback from this thread. Just my opinion but I'm not convinced it needs to stay open much longer, because the longer it does the more emotional people get about all the other aspects of Reika and his mods.

 

[RedBoss]

I don't think it needs to stay open.

 

[Alex Cubed]

I believe it has served its purpose.

The purpose of course is up to the individual reader.

 

[Reika]

I say keep it open. There are many, many people who have not yet provided their opinion, and many people who I want to see reply on the topic of the revision to point #1.

 

[TomeWyrm]

It makes sense to keep it open for commentary on revisions, which until it drops with v7, could continue to happen.

 

[Padfoote]

It makes sense to keep it open for commentary on revisions, which until it drops with v7, could continue to happen.

Perhaps even after as well.

As it currently stands the status of the thread is that the author has not requested a lock and the current discussion is well within the rules. There is no reason to lock the thread.

 

[Reika]

Perhaps even after as well.

Agreed. Not like the rules cannot continue to be revised.

 

[Psygantic]

I say keep it open. There are many, many people who have not yet provided their opinion, and many people who I want to see reply on the topic of the revision to point #1.

EDIT: Pending re-analysis...

-----

(First of all, to everyone reading this thread, please try to distinguish between criticism of this policy and criticism of Reika the person or Reika's mods. They are not the same thing. I think Reika is a swell dude who makes swell mods, and I am offering constructive criticism in response to what I interpret to be a request for comment from Reika.)

Since you asked:

• I think any blanket provision that requires your prior consent for inclusion in a pack creates an unreasonable amount of friction for pack authors.
  • There was some discussion about how asking for consent takes 5 minutes. I find that estimate to be disingenuous. I will probably spend half an hour just writing this post, and I'm not seeking your permission for anything. In addition, I would expect some amount of back-and-forth correspondence in the average case, likely taking days to conclude. And what about when you're on vacation? Or in the hospital? Or feeling lazy? Or a family member dies? If every mod required this, we just wouldn't have the kinds of packs we have today - it's too onerous.
  • Pack authors are going to have good ideas that you just aren't going to be able to appreciate beforehand because they sound crazy or silly or impractical or whatever. If you're OK with the idea of preventing the next Crash Landing or Agrarian Skies from happening because you couldn't see the author's vision, you should feel bad.
  • Ultimately, this is about perception. I'm sure you see yourself as a perfectly objective arbiter, but nobody else assumes that. Some pack authors will be turned off by the suggestion that you be given prior review of their creative work. Some will be cowed by the perceived judgement and won't bother. Others will assume it'll take too much time (keep in mind there's a huge flurry of pack creation that happens for the JamPacked competition, which has a deadline) and won't bother. Others will just find the requirement arrogant and not want to deal with you.
• I see you are attempting to solve real problems, but I believe there are simpler solutions that don't put you at odds with the community. For example:
  • Strict license terms are easier to deal with than seeking your personal blessing. You could give blanket permission to use your mods, but only within certain reasonable limits:
    • Certain items may not have modified recipes or oredict equivalency.
    • Certain items can only have modified recipes or oredict equivalency with equivalent materials, defined by effort and rarity.
    • All changes to the mod have to be documented in the provided book.
    • Bug reports will only be considered with a repro case using the unmodified mod.
    • Etc. And if somebody wants to go beyond these limits, they still have the option of approaching you and seeking special permission.
  • Many of the problems you've had seem to be problems of perception. You could do more to communicate the extreme potency of the mods' endgame items and explicitly point out that they are unsuitable for any multiplayer environment not consisting of trusted friends. Heck, you could print it to the console when people log in for the first time.
  • If you're that worried about compliance, you could do what Mojang does with their server EULA. That'll probably annoy people too, but it's better than asking your permission.
• Your goal here should be to keep honest people honest. Someone with malicious intent is going to ignore your requirements anyway; nothing you write as policy is going to stop them in advance. I think a lot of the backlash you're getting is from a sense that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater; making the entire community answer for some shady things a few people did that have nothing to do with the average pack author.

And finally, I invite you to feel free to not pick this apart line by line. I understand that these are your decisions to make, and you don't have to explain to me why you're not going to do what I suggest.

 

[Reika]

(First of all, to everyone reading this thread, please try to distinguish between criticism of this policy and criticism of Reika the person or Reika's mods. They are not the same thing. I think Reika is a swell dude who makes swell mods, and I am offering constructive criticism in response to what I interpret to be a request for comment from Reika.)

Since you asked:

• I think any blanket provision that requires your prior consent for inclusion in a pack creates an unreasonable amount of friction for pack authors.
  • There was some discussion about how asking for consent takes 5 minutes. I find that estimate to be disingenuous. I will probably spend half an hour just writing this post, and I'm not seeking your permission for anything. In addition, I would expect some amount of back-and-forth correspondence in the average case, likely taking days to conclude. And what about when you're on vacation? Or in the hospital? Or feeling lazy? Or a family member dies? If every mod required this, we just wouldn't have the kinds of packs we have today - it's too onerous.
  • Pack authors are going to have good ideas that you just aren't going to be able to appreciate beforehand because they sound crazy or silly or impractical or whatever. If you're OK with the idea of preventing the next Crash Landing or Agrarian Skies from happening because you couldn't see the author's vision, you should feel bad.
  • Ultimately, this is about perception. I'm sure you see yourself as a perfectly objective arbiter, but nobody else assumes that. Some pack authors will be turned off by the suggestion that you be given prior review of their creative work. Some will be cowed by the perceived judgement and won't bother. Others will assume it'll take too much time (keep in mind there's a huge flurry of pack creation that happens for the JamPacked competition, which has a deadline) and won't bother. Others will just find the requirement arrogant and not want to deal with you.
• I see you are attempting to solve real problems, but I believe there are simpler solutions that don't put you at odds with the community. For example:
  • Strict license terms are easier to deal with than seeking your personal blessing. You could give blanket permission to use your mods, but only within certain reasonable limits:
    • Certain items may not have modified recipes or oredict equivalency.
    • Certain items can only have modified recipes or oredict equivalency with equivalent materials, defined by effort and rarity.
    • All changes to the mod have to be documented in the provided book.
    • Bug reports will only be considered with a repro case using the unmodified mod.
    • Etc. And if somebody wants to go beyond these limits, they still have the option of approaching you and seeking special permission.
  • Many of the problems you've had seem to be problems of perception. You could do more to communicate the extreme potency of the mods' endgame items and explicitly point out that they are unsuitable for any multiplayer environment not consisting of trusted friends. Heck, you could print it to the console when people log in for the first time.
  • If you're that worried about compliance, you could do what Mojang does with their server EULA. That'll probably annoy people too, but it's better than asking your permission.
• Your goal here should be to keep honest people honest. Someone with malicious intent is going to ignore your requirements anyway; nothing you write as policy is going to stop them in advance. I think a lot of the backlash you're getting is from a sense that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater; making the entire community answer for some shady things a few people did that have nothing to do with the average pack author.

And finally, I invite you to feel free to not pick this apart line by line. I understand that these are your decisions to make, and you don't have to explain to me why you're not going to do what I suggest.

Now address the revised first point.

 

[Psygantic]

Now address the revised first point.

My impression of the revision may have been inaccurate. I went back and read it again.

So if I understand correctly, the revised policy looks like:
- Pack authors may use unmodified Reika mods without explicit permission (EDIT: This part seems to be incorrect)
- They may also use tweaked Reika mods without explicit permission, barring a specific, TBD list of forbidden tweaks
- Anything more tweaked/modified than that requires Reika's explicit permission
- Use the handbook to document changes
- Be excellent to each other

Is that a reasonable summary?

 

[TomeWyrm]

Well you still have to agree to the rules and ask for permission like normal. But in regards to ONLY TWEAKING? That's my understanding of the rules current incarnation, and an accurate summary (keeping in mind this is only regarding tweaking rules, not "can I use these mods at all", which still goes through the previous process of agreeing to The Rules and getting the go-ahead from Reika)

 

[Reika]

My impression of the revision may have been inaccurate. I went back and read it again.

So if I understand correctly, the revised policy looks like:
- Pack authors may use unmodified Reika mods without explicit permission
- They may also use tweaked Reika mods without explicit permission, barring a specific, TBD list of forbidden tweaks
- Anything more tweaked/modified than that requires Reika's explicit permission
- Use the handbook to document changes
- Be excellent to each other

Is that a reasonable summary?

Aside from the first entry, which @TomeWyrm already clarified, yes.

 

[Psygantic]

So pack authors may NOT include your un-tweaked mods without first seeking individual permission?

 

[Reika]

So pack authors may NOT include your un-tweaked mods without first seeking individual permission?

No. I have always required permission, because the pack author needs to explicitly agree to abide by the pack rules. Modification rules aside, those rules also forbid monetization, claiming credit, or (outside the pack) redistribution.


Here is a sample: