Reika can't dictate other people what to complain about, as long as they're not insulting or defaming him. He can't just intervene into the freedom of speech there.
Really stupid things that people have said about Modded MC(Off topicness makes moderators tired)
- Thread starter Qazplm601
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
- Status
I wasn't really replying to the comment you linked, I was replying to the topic as a whole. The "automatic" idea? Lets me turn off those nag screens indefinitely by continually updating my modpack. With the old version. Which is fine with me. If I run into an issue similar to the API issues that plagued your mods during the version updates and am forced to keep your mods at a lower version number? I have to keep a "fresh" copy on my computer to update with every two weeks, and then push that update to my users. That is an acceptable amount of work to me, and if my pack ever stops being updated, the update notification will turn on, and then people will know your mods are out of date and they should update. Hell I'd have to do that weekly for FTB from what I've seen about their update pushing schedule. That's work, yes, but it still enables me to keep my users from being a thorn in my side. Which they WILL be. They are not pack authors, they are not server admins, they are normal users. They all have CompSci degrees and I STILL don't want to have to explain the intricacies of balancing mod versions to them. That's my job. My job is to make their experience as easy as I can manage while trying to not drain the fun out of the task for me.
Your config change only works for two weeks past two updates. Ever. (Also I missed the "two major updates" bit when I was replying). That's the issue I had. I don't mind having to do some more work on my side with a reasonable distribution method to turn your marquee off for my users, but I *have* to be able to keep it off while I'm actively maintaining the pack. Even if that means I'm 6 months out of date. Because let's say XyCraft is installed and your v5 introduces a crash or world corruption bug, and Soaryn being Soaryn probably isn't going to update. I will eventually be more than 2 versions out of date for more than two weeks, even if I'm still updating all the other mods in my pack regularly. Resetting the map because I removed a mod is not a valid choice, unless nobody was using your mods except me, then there's no reset required. But I can NEVER count on my users not to use any mod in the pack... that's rather why they are there. So never ever never being able to turn it off past X cutoff date? That's a problem for me. I can see examples in your recent past where other mods would have been blacklisted from my packs forever if they'd done something similar while you were updating major versions of your mods. I don't mind having to work at it every so often, but being forced into bothering my users? That's something I just flat-out won't tolerate.
Apparently you use a different internal update notification system than the rest of the internet notices. Reporting it to you because I have no idea if it's you, Version Checker, or NotEnoughMods... though if it IS NEM? There's crap-all I can do about it. The versions reported to Version Checker are never going to get on NEM, because the human-readable reported versions are the ones on NEM.
The left side is what is being reported by your mod, the right side is the version being read from NotEnoughMods
Edit: The automatic idea as it is currently presented I like. I obviously reserve judgement for that actual implementation
As we have since seen, no matter what "nagging" system I have in place, people are going to whine and tell me I have no right to impel people to use new versions, and that any attempt on my part indicates I am "controlling", "selfish", "not all there", and "harassment", and that my wanting people to stop people from complaining about things already fixed is "psycho-crazy" and "against free speech".
Honestly, I have rather a strong desire at this point to just give up and refuse all bug reports except from a select few people I know, then flip off everyone who complains about the slowed bugfixes.
I am sick and tired of how every action I take to limit people from being unreasonable - and only an entitled moron would defend complaining about old problems as reasonable - is branded, as one person colorfully put it, "reason fascism", and that people will flatly demand I "suck up" all the s*** that gets thrown my way because a huge fraction of the userbase is either too lazy or too stupid to function.
NEM is out of date and version checker is reading the wrong versions entirely.Apparently you use a different internal update notification system than the rest of the internet notices. Reporting it to you because I have no idea if it's you, Version Checker, or NotEnoughMods... though if it IS NEM? There's crap-all I can do about it. The versions reported to Version Checker are never going to get on NEM, because the human-readable reported versions are the ones on NEM.
The left side is what is being reported by your mod, the right side is the version being read from NotEnoughMods
Edit: The automatic idea as it is currently presented I like. I obviously reserve judgement for that actual implementation
Last edited:
@Reika, have you considered getting someone to help you manage bug reports? They could give you a daily report of valid bugs.
I once had someone in that position. He miscommunicated nearly everything that was put to him and is partially responsible for some of the mod authors hating me because of it.
It was a useful experience to be sure, but only to reinforce my longstanding knowledge that trusting someone else is like sleeping on a land mine.
I do realize that NEM is out of date, but from what I understand, the VC integration shouldn't be trying to check NEM if you're integrating with it properly (obviously I could be horrifically wrong). And even if we updated NEM (speaking of, I need to get re-voiced in there so I can work on that without having to pester the IRC channel), the versions being reported to VC are wrong and so it would STILL false-positive.
On the other topic:
Honestly you'd be well within your rights to stop accepting bug reports. At least you're still trying to find a compromise that's reasonable for all parties involved. And we ARE trying to give you ideas and meet you halfway, even @SynfulChaot who decided to leave the discussion. You've mentioned refusing bug supports without logs... or someone did. Why not put that in the rules of the thread? You already don't support people that can't put their logs in spoilers, it's a simple extension. That lets you pretty quickly discern if they're using the right versions; and if they aren't, we get to use that oft-repeated word "update". A lot of the people in your thread gladly help you with the kind of things that a bot would. Why not try and let the thread handle some of this itself? It's not like we can't say "Sorry, no idea, Reika will have to handle this one". Obviously that doesn't help your PM inbox, but it's odd how you're averse to incremental solutions.
Trust me, I (at the very least, and I'm pretty sure everyone else) understand the frustration of dealing with your average person. I've done tech support. But a lot of these solutions seem like you're TRYING to piss off your userbase... and that's crazy. You have gotten a large number of good suggestions with positive response from pretty much all of us. There are a few people that are grumbling about not being able to turn it off permanently, but as that's literally completely contrary to your wishes on the matter... you can't please everyone
The current idea as I understand it is to use Coolsquid's jarfile hash thing to give people a way to not see update notifications for a reasonable grace period, which COULD be extended indefinitely by regular modpack updates. Not infinitely, there's no proper kill switch, but as long as the pack maintainer has to do some work to manage to keep the notification from the players of the pack, that satisfies you. Right?
As long as I can prevent my users from seeing update notifications in some way that doesn't feel like I'm being made to jump through overly complicated flaming hoops, for as long as I continue to keep updating my pack? I don't see a problem myself. When a pack becomes abandoned? The update notification will show up. While I'm actively keeping updates flowing, as a pack maintainer I obviously noticed the marquee, and chose to not update for some reason, and you making it so I can make sure my users are not bothered by that administrative decision is GREATLY appreciated, really. Not that I'm not going to grumble about it (to myself) while I'm doing it mind, but that's the mark of a good compromise: Nobody is 100% satisfied
On the other topic:
Honestly you'd be well within your rights to stop accepting bug reports. At least you're still trying to find a compromise that's reasonable for all parties involved. And we ARE trying to give you ideas and meet you halfway, even @SynfulChaot who decided to leave the discussion. You've mentioned refusing bug supports without logs... or someone did. Why not put that in the rules of the thread? You already don't support people that can't put their logs in spoilers, it's a simple extension. That lets you pretty quickly discern if they're using the right versions; and if they aren't, we get to use that oft-repeated word "update". A lot of the people in your thread gladly help you with the kind of things that a bot would. Why not try and let the thread handle some of this itself? It's not like we can't say "Sorry, no idea, Reika will have to handle this one". Obviously that doesn't help your PM inbox, but it's odd how you're averse to incremental solutions.
Trust me, I (at the very least, and I'm pretty sure everyone else) understand the frustration of dealing with your average person. I've done tech support. But a lot of these solutions seem like you're TRYING to piss off your userbase... and that's crazy. You have gotten a large number of good suggestions with positive response from pretty much all of us. There are a few people that are grumbling about not being able to turn it off permanently, but as that's literally completely contrary to your wishes on the matter... you can't please everyone
The current idea as I understand it is to use Coolsquid's jarfile hash thing to give people a way to not see update notifications for a reasonable grace period, which COULD be extended indefinitely by regular modpack updates. Not infinitely, there's no proper kill switch, but as long as the pack maintainer has to do some work to manage to keep the notification from the players of the pack, that satisfies you. Right?
As long as I can prevent my users from seeing update notifications in some way that doesn't feel like I'm being made to jump through overly complicated flaming hoops, for as long as I continue to keep updating my pack? I don't see a problem myself. When a pack becomes abandoned? The update notification will show up. While I'm actively keeping updates flowing, as a pack maintainer I obviously noticed the marquee, and chose to not update for some reason, and you making it so I can make sure my users are not bothered by that administrative decision is GREATLY appreciated, really. Not that I'm not going to grumble about it (to myself) while I'm doing it mind, but that's the mark of a good compromise: Nobody is 100% satisfied
Hyperme Presents: Oh Dear Theater
A reply in 5 Acts
You mean people argue against their own self-interest? People have been doing that forever. As for wanting to stop people complaining, that is crazy, mainly because it's impossible. If someone is asked why they didn't like a mod, there aren't going to check if their reasons were 'nullified by a later version'.
You are perfectly within your rights to do so. All things considered, you probably should.
Especially since you seem to actively hate your users. Using the phrase 'entitled morons' to describe people who disagree with you is also unreasonable. No matter how hard you try, people will complain about old problems. Attempting to prevent it by making it against your terms of use is going to get you mocked.
I... what? If you seriously think that, then wow. You should of opened with that, as to save everyone's time.
Of course I'm sure you'll read this in a way to suit your 'everyone is dumb but me' worldview since trust is apparently wrong. I must commend you, however, for managing to change my view of you from 'pretty cool guy' to 'i don't even' in two posts. I think that has to be a record.
A reply in 5 Acts
You mean people argue against their own self-interest? People have been doing that forever. As for wanting to stop people complaining, that is crazy, mainly because it's impossible. If someone is asked why they didn't like a mod, there aren't going to check if their reasons were 'nullified by a later version'.
You are perfectly within your rights to do so. All things considered, you probably should.
Especially since you seem to actively hate your users. Using the phrase 'entitled morons' to describe people who disagree with you is also unreasonable. No matter how hard you try, people will complain about old problems. Attempting to prevent it by making it against your terms of use is going to get you mocked.
I... what? If you seriously think that, then wow. You should of opened with that, as to save everyone's time.
Of course I'm sure you'll read this in a way to suit your 'everyone is dumb but me' worldview since trust is apparently wrong. I must commend you, however, for managing to change my view of you from 'pretty cool guy' to 'i don't even' in two posts. I think that has to be a record.
Last edited:
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
Quite agree.
I don't overtly agree with either side; but Reika gets a fair bit of sympathy as this is probably the straw that broke the camels back.
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
- Status