The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and it is present in an instance without GT. I already bug reported it after confirming it was true. This only works with vanilla woods, though (oak, birch, jungle, spruce), not mod-added woods. Since this occurred when he provided support for mod-added woods, I suspect the culprit is somewhere in that code.
The only mod that seems to be removed from ngt appears to be the mod that added the different nether portals so the worlds should port fine if the configs don't change too much. I would suggest starting a new world though since extra trees was added to extra bees to create Binnie's mods. Another thing to mention is TiC removing silver bushes and replacing them with essence bushes. Also, take this with a grain of salt since I'm not working on any of the packs and worlds always have a potential to break when upgrading.
I agree. It's a very good analogy. I'm about 7 months into playing FTB, so my opinion is that of a relative newcomer, but as a member of this community of players I see the situation two separate issues. First is the dispute between the mod authors which should have been settled between them in an civilized manner. The second and more important issue is that Greg has violated the trust of the players. Don't be so selfish as to sabotage our ability to play the game because of your ego. While my preference would be to have FTB stop including Gregtech in packs as punishment. A punishment to set the standard and protect the trust that the members of this community have placed in the integrity of the modders. This type of behavior should be unacceptable because it is cancerous. If our trust is eaten away, then the numbers of players dwindle and the then community dies.
So, I've spent a little while thinking.
And a long while working to make sure I was keeping a cool head.
Isn't the pumpkin of shame in itself a violation of the no insulting mod makers rule, for everybody on the list of people it would be given to?
And a long while working to make sure I was keeping a cool head.
Isn't the pumpkin of shame in itself a violation of the no insulting mod makers rule, for everybody on the list of people it would be given to?
Quoted the whole thing again because it's really one of the best analogies I've read in a long while. I'm assuming the puddle is pee. I say this only so you won't be surprised when I start referencing pee.
I think Slowpoke's response was appropriate, but could have been stronger. That being said, erring on the side of saying too little is a HELL of a lot better than saying too much. (Rounding down isn't a mistake, it's wisdom.) Since no response would have satisfied everyone, I'll call this a win for Team FTB!
To the FTB Team:
- Sometimes, I worry you underestimate your place at this party, that you don't fully see the value you bring to the modders you honor with an invitation. Make no mistake: This is a great party, the best party, and an invitation to it is an honor, one that deserves a whole lot of respect for what you are building here (i.e. "please don't pee on the floor"). I mean, look around! We've got Direwolf in attendance (though he's presently hunting Endermen on the veranda), the Yogscast is here all the way from England, and Eloraam is just doing her "fashionably late" thing, as we all secretly know in our hearts. This is a really great party (though I'll never understand why Soaryn keeps hanging Christmas lights everywhere; it's July, for heaven's sake)! More than that, your constant dedication and unimpeachable professionalism has earned you a degree of respect from this community that's rarely seen on these puerile Intertubes. Whether it's deftly addressing everyone's concerns regarding the open question of RedPower, or keeping your hands clean during the Great Tekkit War, or your transparency over the progress of modpack development and related uncertainties, or your conduct through the present issue du jour.... It's a long list of accolades, and that's not even touching the little things, like your restrained moderation of the GregTech thread, which also speak volumes. What I'm trying to say is... when someone fraks with you and yours, you've got a community at your back and a whole lot of banked credibility, honestly-earned and widely-recognized, to justify drawing a strong line in the sand against destructive shenanigans deliberately aimed at you, your work, and the community you've cultivated.
- Alas, I also believe there's a reasonable expectation that you will defend this community when necessary ("with great power comes great responsibility", and all that jazz). I think it was necessary here. This may have originated as a dispute among modders, but it was your end-users who paid the price when their clients crashed for reasons unknown. Starting your response by hedging on the definition of "malware", whether accurately or not, was, in my opinion, starting off on the wrong foot. (In fairness, it likely came from the same well of cautious reserve that's earned you guys so much respect in the first place, so... ugh, does everything have to be a double-edged sword? Stupid reality.) Carrying nilness' wonderful analogy forward, with apologies in advance if I ruin it, it's a bit like debating whether or not our incontinent party guest peed on the hardwood or the linoleum. Is this really the material issue? He deliberately peed on the floor! He deliberately peed on the floor at your great party, in front of all these awesome guests, every single one of whom is united in their belief that deliberately peeing on any part of the floor, wall, or ceiling(!) is nothing less than Unacceptable Party Behavior---and should be treated as such.
(Well, I warned you I couldn't do TL;DRs.)
As nice as it would be if GregTech were exiled from the party and never seen or heard from again, you're still gonna have lots of party guests going "Where's GregTech?! I want my GregTech back! I don't care about your stupid floor!", as you can see already from all the people whining about GT not being in Unleashed.
That's a lot of negative attention on the FTB team, and probably not what they want. They're already taking enough flak over this as is, unfortunately.
Yeah, that just made me sad. The FTB folk do not deserve any flak. Is it so hard for people to recognize a difficult call when they see one, and realize that difficult calls don't always go their way? Oh, right, sorry. "Hi, I'm new to the Internet..."That's a lot of negative attention on the FTB team, and probably not what they want. They're already taking enough flak over this as is, unfortunately.
"and then the mods reputation is harmed"
Well, If you pull that kinda shit, You kinda deserve a dent in your rep
The whole incident made people see Greg badly because that's how he acted,
But i'm also sad and worried about the future of this modpack, When i look at the updates, And how much stuff is getting screwed because of one reason or another, i occasionally wonder if it's going to go the way of many other things that i have loved
Well, If you pull that kinda shit, You kinda deserve a dent in your rep
The whole incident made people see Greg badly because that's how he acted,
But i'm also sad and worried about the future of this modpack, When i look at the updates, And how much stuff is getting screwed because of one reason or another, i occasionally wonder if it's going to go the way of many other things that i have loved
@eunomiac Now I know the reason something was said to me regarding your postings here (cryptic all will come clear in good time thing lol) However I think I am going to reply to your post.
1. This is a totally fair assessment, maybe sometimes we do underestimate our position in the community, however by the same token maybe the FTB fanbase sometimes overestimates it. In my eyes we have always relied on the support of the mod developers and to a large extent I still believe that to be true. Here is the thing though and I am going to be quite frank about what I say here. What happened in this incident is something I will never condone. If mod developers have conflicts, then that is OK. Right up until the point it affects you the player.
Judging from some of the comments I have read in various places, there are some people who believe I should have pulled the trigger here and removed Gregtech totally. To me that seems extremely short sighted as a response and it certainly feels 'knee-jerk'. As an explaination, I can try to explain it like this. First what are people asking? do they want me to just remove the offending version with the bad code? If so then they haven't actually paid any attention because FTB never actually distributed this code. So are they saying that we just remove Gregtech from future packs? what about the packs we already have out there with Gregtech in. If we remove gregtech from future packs who is to say Greg wouldnt come to us and ask us to remove his mod from all packs (A request we would have to honor) Last I checked about 70-80% of FTB servers (this is tens of thousands of servers) that are played on by hundreds of thousands of players use Gregtech. (Ultimate, Mindcrack and 152wgt beta) Every one of these servers would potentially have their worlds destroyed here. The point is in the right circumstances, I am willing to pull that trigger but I am certainly not going to pull it on the basis of a knee jerk decision from the vocal part of our or anyone elses community.
Finally the comment about Malware. Leading up to the decision I made I spoke to a LOT of people. There are people around here who can verify I have barely left the computer in the last 2-3 days and a lot of that is getting input from as many people as I can and whilst there were a lot of people who were upset at this word of Malware going round, there were also a lot up were upset that so many innaccurate statements were going about. My point was an attempt to try and head some of that off and calm the situation down a bit. People are angry about this whole thing and rightfully so to some extent. FTB may even lose some of its followers due to its 'lenient' stance. However I have always tried to make decisions that are in the best interests of the entire community no matter how much negativity it may bring and I will continue to do so.
1. This is a totally fair assessment, maybe sometimes we do underestimate our position in the community, however by the same token maybe the FTB fanbase sometimes overestimates it. In my eyes we have always relied on the support of the mod developers and to a large extent I still believe that to be true. Here is the thing though and I am going to be quite frank about what I say here. What happened in this incident is something I will never condone. If mod developers have conflicts, then that is OK. Right up until the point it affects you the player.
Judging from some of the comments I have read in various places, there are some people who believe I should have pulled the trigger here and removed Gregtech totally. To me that seems extremely short sighted as a response and it certainly feels 'knee-jerk'. As an explaination, I can try to explain it like this. First what are people asking? do they want me to just remove the offending version with the bad code? If so then they haven't actually paid any attention because FTB never actually distributed this code. So are they saying that we just remove Gregtech from future packs? what about the packs we already have out there with Gregtech in. If we remove gregtech from future packs who is to say Greg wouldnt come to us and ask us to remove his mod from all packs (A request we would have to honor) Last I checked about 70-80% of FTB servers (this is tens of thousands of servers) that are played on by hundreds of thousands of players use Gregtech. (Ultimate, Mindcrack and 152wgt beta) Every one of these servers would potentially have their worlds destroyed here. The point is in the right circumstances, I am willing to pull that trigger but I am certainly not going to pull it on the basis of a knee jerk decision from the vocal part of our or anyone elses community.
Finally the comment about Malware. Leading up to the decision I made I spoke to a LOT of people. There are people around here who can verify I have barely left the computer in the last 2-3 days and a lot of that is getting input from as many people as I can and whilst there were a lot of people who were upset at this word of Malware going round, there were also a lot up were upset that so many innaccurate statements were going about. My point was an attempt to try and head some of that off and calm the situation down a bit. People are angry about this whole thing and rightfully so to some extent. FTB may even lose some of its followers due to its 'lenient' stance. However I have always tried to make decisions that are in the best interests of the entire community no matter how much negativity it may bring and I will continue to do so.
As someone who had asked from GT to be removed, I hadn't even considered the issue that it would retroactively affect servers running Ultimate or 1.5wgt. That's an excellent point to consider, and one I hadn't seen mentioned at all in this discussion. You've changed my opinion with that consideration. Thanks slowpoke, I'm glad we have someone who is as diplomatic as you at the head of all this.
Slowpoke, if I may rebut a topic, and then share a concern?
Your point about Gtech being in a very large percentage of the servers that run from FTB is very valid, however due to how changes were made on the back-end, 1.6.x packs are not going to be in any way compatible with 1.4.x or 1.5.x worlds. So unless they wish to remain on the previous version, those worlds are going to have to be reset anyways. Thus a decision to, going forward, not include Gtech in any 1.6.x+ packs would not greatly impact your pool of users going forward. The servers which plan on retaining their current versions would not even necessarily be impacted, all they would have to do is simply not update and retain their copy with Gtech. Since they don't plan to update to 1.6.x anyways, it's a safe bet that not updating is probably the game plan for the server admins on those servers. Therefore, the damage to your userbase is perhaps not as catastrophic as you might think.
Furthermore, a private server pack runs permissions a bit differently than a public pack, and GregTech has, by virtue of relying on IC2, a blanket permission for mod pack authors for private servers. Thus if a server was truly concerned about being able to maintain their version, they could simply retain that version they are planning on using and distribute it however they wish, including theoretically as a Private Pack on the FTB Launcher. If you elect that his request includes all private packs, they could simply host it via Dropbox or various other means, quite legitimately, unless permissions were changed.
The only mod packs I can see being affected by a decision by Gregorious to pull his mod from the FTB Launcher would be the 152wgt/Unhinged pack. Since this mod pack is being built around GregTech and its infrastructure, removal of GregTech would probably kill that mod pack anyways.
And now for my concern.
Gregorious shows no remorse for his actions. Indeed, he sees the results as a confirmation of success. It worked, he no longer has to deal with (in this case) TiC. He has made no offer of apology to the users, nor does he see the need to do so, the implication being that as far as he is concerned, it worked perfectly. I'm not interested in demanding that he apologize, a force apology is worse than none at all, however that lack of willingness, indeed the inability to see why he might need to apologize, indicates to me that he is fully prepared and willing to employ this successful tactic again. He may have stated that he won't do so again... but we've heard these words before.
To dovetail these neatly, 1.6.x really is a fork in the road. Since everyone is being forced into a world reset anyways, it is an opportunity for mod pack creators to make a lot of changes for the users that would have otherwise corrupted worlds. I think you have to consider here the exclusion of GregTech because now is the optimal time to make a decision which has the ramification of world corruption, because it is already going to happen, so you can get all the bad medicine down in one bitter pill. However, if you do permit GregTech in 1.6.x mod packs, and he does something like this again... or if he simply decides that he doesn't want his mod on the FTB launcher for whatever reason... there would be much more problems with world corruptions and stability issues as it is removed.
You have a unique opportunity afforded you by the incompatibility from 1.4.x and 1.5.x to 1.6.x to prune back what I feel is a potential hazard to the users. I have nothing against the mod itself, it introduces some great concepts and a greater challenge which yields greater rewards. This is probably one of the reasons it is included in so many mod packs where IC2 is installed. However, the proven willingness to crash users in his fight with another mod author, as well as his inability to see why this was wrong, makes me wonder if this isn't just going to happen again.
I do not envy you your position, Slowpoke. Whatever your ultimate decision, I have nothing but respect for you. Thank you for reading.
Your point about Gtech being in a very large percentage of the servers that run from FTB is very valid, however due to how changes were made on the back-end, 1.6.x packs are not going to be in any way compatible with 1.4.x or 1.5.x worlds. So unless they wish to remain on the previous version, those worlds are going to have to be reset anyways. Thus a decision to, going forward, not include Gtech in any 1.6.x+ packs would not greatly impact your pool of users going forward. The servers which plan on retaining their current versions would not even necessarily be impacted, all they would have to do is simply not update and retain their copy with Gtech. Since they don't plan to update to 1.6.x anyways, it's a safe bet that not updating is probably the game plan for the server admins on those servers. Therefore, the damage to your userbase is perhaps not as catastrophic as you might think.
Furthermore, a private server pack runs permissions a bit differently than a public pack, and GregTech has, by virtue of relying on IC2, a blanket permission for mod pack authors for private servers. Thus if a server was truly concerned about being able to maintain their version, they could simply retain that version they are planning on using and distribute it however they wish, including theoretically as a Private Pack on the FTB Launcher. If you elect that his request includes all private packs, they could simply host it via Dropbox or various other means, quite legitimately, unless permissions were changed.
The only mod packs I can see being affected by a decision by Gregorious to pull his mod from the FTB Launcher would be the 152wgt/Unhinged pack. Since this mod pack is being built around GregTech and its infrastructure, removal of GregTech would probably kill that mod pack anyways.
And now for my concern.
Gregorious shows no remorse for his actions. Indeed, he sees the results as a confirmation of success. It worked, he no longer has to deal with (in this case) TiC. He has made no offer of apology to the users, nor does he see the need to do so, the implication being that as far as he is concerned, it worked perfectly. I'm not interested in demanding that he apologize, a force apology is worse than none at all, however that lack of willingness, indeed the inability to see why he might need to apologize, indicates to me that he is fully prepared and willing to employ this successful tactic again. He may have stated that he won't do so again... but we've heard these words before.
To dovetail these neatly, 1.6.x really is a fork in the road. Since everyone is being forced into a world reset anyways, it is an opportunity for mod pack creators to make a lot of changes for the users that would have otherwise corrupted worlds. I think you have to consider here the exclusion of GregTech because now is the optimal time to make a decision which has the ramification of world corruption, because it is already going to happen, so you can get all the bad medicine down in one bitter pill. However, if you do permit GregTech in 1.6.x mod packs, and he does something like this again... or if he simply decides that he doesn't want his mod on the FTB launcher for whatever reason... there would be much more problems with world corruptions and stability issues as it is removed.
You have a unique opportunity afforded you by the incompatibility from 1.4.x and 1.5.x to 1.6.x to prune back what I feel is a potential hazard to the users. I have nothing against the mod itself, it introduces some great concepts and a greater challenge which yields greater rewards. This is probably one of the reasons it is included in so many mod packs where IC2 is installed. However, the proven willingness to crash users in his fight with another mod author, as well as his inability to see why this was wrong, makes me wonder if this isn't just going to happen again.
I do not envy you your position, Slowpoke. Whatever your ultimate decision, I have nothing but respect for you. Thank you for reading.
@Slow yeah your handling this the best you can I guess, & I too had considered the ramifications of removing gt from ftb but with out the insight you have so I guess I was wrong there, I was about to post my reasoning but shneeky kind of summed up my feeling too.
Any way keep up the good work & may I apologizes to any staff I may have offended directly or indirectly by comments, My views are unchanged on the matter but I see that the issues are much bigger than they first appear.
Any way keep up the good work & may I apologizes to any staff I may have offended directly or indirectly by comments, My views are unchanged on the matter but I see that the issues are much bigger than they first appear.
@ShneekeyTheLost The problem with what you are saying is the Mindcrack pack is not going to be updated for at least another month I would think and there is no update to Ultimate coming. Ultimate is by far our most popular pack (more copies of ultimate are downloaded than every other pack combined) but this is all immaterial. Because if it was just a matter of safeguarding mod packs I would have pulled gregtech already. The fact is its not just about that. At the end of the day I genuinely believe that as bad as the decision greg made to put that code into his mod. The code was removed very quickly (it was no longer active when I first heard about it) and I have received an assurance that this tactic will never be repeated. We now have a written policy in place that is designed to address these issues and if a similar situation arises in the future then we will have a policy in place to help guide the decision we take. From this point only time will tell us whats going to happen.
The second sentence is absolutely true, but it in no way diminishes the reciprocal respect you've all earned. I think most people just leave the "modders deserve respect" half of that equation unspoken, simply because it's so obviously understood and practiced by you at every turn. You've always shown modders the highest level of respect and courtesy (the way you handled RedPower and the 1.5 update is a perfect example, as is your treatment of GregT). Thus, what looks like overestimation might instead be overemphasis (even one-sided emphasis) of the "FTB deserves respect" half of the equation, motivated by the belief, shared by many, that it's the only half of the equation that needs adjustment (so try to let some of this go straight to your head).
I completely agree with that assessment, and think it would have been a grave error to take so drastic a step in these circumstances. (For my part, I was recommending a clear, firm, denunciation of malicious code, without hedging or wavering, that mentions no modder by name.)
As for the "right circumstances" to pull that trigger, I'll present a hypothetical (that you'd probably be wise to avoid responding to, as the risk of needless harm isn't worth it): If GregT had not given you assurances that he would never use malicious code in the future, my opinion would swing all the way over to "kick him down a well" (yeah, the awesome image I have in my head of you shouting "This! Is! Feed-The-Beast!", then kicking someone down a well is not going away any time soon... I imagine it in the same style as the Dw20 modpack logo... might commission a t-shirt...). As horrible and as damaging as that would have been in the short term, and I fully understand that it would have been (the forum rage would have been legendary), I think even that would have been the lesser of two evils given the importance of preserving the FTB modpack against any modder who would reserve the right to insert malicious code going forward (which, again to be perfectly clear to anyone watching from home, Greg did not).
Right. Frakking. Here: THIS is that firm line in the sand I've been waiting for, and the line I would have opened an "official response" with. The lack of a really strong denunciation of malicious coding is really the only issue I had with your response.
So... because I'm a meddlesome bastard, I'm going to boldly defile your statement of policy by suggesting a few tweaks with strike-outs and ugly bluelights, with reasons for each suggested change below. (It's neither necessary nor expected for you to respond to anything you don't agree with; I'm comfortable in my knowledge that this is a delicate matter, and you're in a better position than I to know what is and what isn't appropriate).
- "never"/"malicious" strengthen that "line in the sand" in a subtle but important way, setting an appropriate tone for the gravity of offense being discussed (plus, it's neither controversial, nor does it change the substance of your position)
- "spiteful reasons" is a trap you don't want to fall into, because it opens the door for people to argue their motives (is "teasing" or "joking" spiteful? etc.). The only real victims are the end-users; there are no justifiable motives for attacking them.
- "or that otherwise harms the end-user's enjoyment ..." gives you a bit more latitude to deal with unforeseen shenanigans, and since you've already narrowed the scope in the first part of the sentence, this isn't so broad as to draw fire for being ambiguous or vague.
- "... approved FTB mod pack" implies that consent has been given by every contributor, removing any need for compatibility-breaking code to be unilaterally inserted in a way that harms the end-user's experience.
- "In the unlikely .... our response" was the tricky part, because, if put the wrong way, it could either be taken as an insult by the modders and/or be seen as too lenient by the player. However, in a statement of policy, I think it's important to provide some understanding of how you'd address such a situation, however unlikely it may be. I think this wording strikes a good balance that won't strike modders as an attack on their integrity, without appearing too lenient to the player. (Plus, it gives you a WHOLE lot of room to maneuver should such an ugly turn of events ever come to pass.)
- "... as distributors, not authors, of a mod pack" just clarifies your role in the grand scheme of things, and will answer a few questions before they're asked
- "DRM measures" is an unnecessary mention (unless you have a specific reason for wanting it there, which could well be the case), because "legitimate DRM measures", by definition, doesn't fall into the category of "malicious, destructive or compatibility-breaking code". And, by avoiding mentioning it, you avoid the obvious controversy surrounding that whole can of worms
Now, to the extent that ...... you'd really just be culling the herd of those people who refuse to appreciate the difficulty of the diplomatic/political side of your job. Anyone with half a brain just needs to read the post I've been quoting from to see the amount of careful consideration you put into this situation (which, by the way, is yet another example of the transparency I was applauding you for earlier).
For anyone who doubts this, there's plenty of room in that well.
Malicious is a trigger word that has been at the center of far too many flame wars and is more often than not, misused. The same goes for "malware" for that matter, which shares a root with "malicious". The technical software definitions of both "malicious software" and "malware" are firmly defined and neither can be applied to this case. They don't even come close to applying to what Greg did. You'd have to twist the definitions greatly to make them apply.
In fact, the only Minecraft related case of either that I am aware of applies to some guy on one of the old custom server outfits (McAdmin?) that coded in a backdoor so he could grief servers that were using his software. If you think the backlash of what Greg did was bad, imagine if someone on Bukkit purposely added a secret backdoor that could give anyone admin permissions on any server. The rage would be felt across the entire internet. That is the kind of thing "malicious" and "malware" apply to, not this petty scuffle in the school yard.
Defining what Greg did as either "malicous" or "malware" is applying the terms incorrectly, and not only weakens their meaning, it also makes the Minecraft Modding Community look bad. I do not believe making such statements is healthy for the Minecraft Modding community in any way. So I for one, am glad that FTB has chosen to avoid this pitfall (admittedly several of us modders yelled at slow for a couple hours about this the other day).
What Greg did was stupid and immature, but it was not "malware" or "malicious" by any accepted definition of either term. Nor was it "destructive" or "world harming" in any way for that matter. I checked this myself. The possibility of permanent damage to any user's experience was essentially nil.
Besides, both "spiteful" and "malicious" are based on motivations of the act in question anyway, so you get no benefit from using a controversial word like "malicious". And yes, its very controversial.
And making a blanket statement like "harms the end user's enjoyment" is far too wide a focus. A statement like that could be used to argue that legitimate nerfs "harms the end user's enjoyment" and would result in idiots swarming modders threatening that if they don't undo the nerf, FTB would be forced to drop the mod. Not a healthy situation for the Minecraft Modding Community either. Yes, stupid stuff like this happens when people make poorly worded statements like that. It happens far too often. As can be demonstrated by the backlash slow's original statement in the previous thread caused against Modders that had absolutely nothing to do with the war between Greg and mDiyo.
Not to mention the fact that by removing the "that does not directly affect FTB" clause, you've essentially turned FTB into the the "thought police" for the entire Minecraft Modding Community. A position I'm sure they have no desire to hold. Particularly if it results in the alienation of the very Modders who graciously allow FTB to distribute their mods.
So I have to say I much prefer slow's statement to your hacked up one. Had slow made your statement instead of the one he did, it would have only made the situation worse and expanded the conflict even further to affect even more unrelated issues than it already had.
I hadn't really intended to write an essay on the subject, and will probably regret saying anything later, but I felt it needed to be said anyway.
I'll see your essay and raise you a dissertation, because I am utterly incapable of brevity.
Good news! We totally don't disagree. Uh, I apologize in advance for getting a little word-technical here (irony, ho!), but, well, you quite literally keep my trains running on time, and I won't be able to sleep tonight if I don't try to clear up a few misunderstandings:
Most importantly: I was approaching Slowpoke's statement as a general, formal statement of policy going forward, and trying to steer clear of bringing up past shenanigans. So, for example, adding the word "malicious" was meant only to emphasize that FTB's policy does not include distributing malicious code, whatever the definition; it wasn't meant to describe Greg's actions. That being said...
I didn't remove that clause, it's contained in "... [ code] that doesn't meet the above description". This is a direct reference back to the first sentence, which limits things to (A) code that is destructive or compatibility-breaking AND (B) that directly affects FTB modpacks or the end-user's enjoyment of approved modpacks. The first sentence states that both (A) and (B) need to be true for the clause to kick in. The second sentence merely flips this around, explicitly stating that, if either (A) or (B) are NOT true, then the code falls outside of FTB purview.
Anyways, I just wanted to clarify those misunderstandings, because a few of the things you pointed out were quite the opposite of what I thought I was saying. (And I couldn't leave you thinking I was nominating the FTB Team to be Minecraft's Thought Police, because I'm gunning for that position.)
Good news! We totally don't disagree. Uh, I apologize in advance for getting a little word-technical here (irony, ho!), but, well, you quite literally keep my trains running on time, and I won't be able to sleep tonight if I don't try to clear up a few misunderstandings:
Most importantly: I was approaching Slowpoke's statement as a general, formal statement of policy going forward, and trying to steer clear of bringing up past shenanigans. So, for example, adding the word "malicious" was meant only to emphasize that FTB's policy does not include distributing malicious code, whatever the definition; it wasn't meant to describe Greg's actions. That being said...
... while I was aware of the controversy surrounding "malware", I didn't realize the same was true of "malicious". I knew it was a strong word, certainly, and chose it for that reason, but I certainly agree that avoiding controversy is simply good practice (hence my avoidance of "malware"). I wouldn't have recommended "malicious" had I known what you're telling me now.
It certainly would be, if it stood alone---but, in this case, it's limited by the subject matter of the sentence as a whole: "FTB will never knowingly distribute destructive or compatibility-breaking code that directly affects FTB mod packs or harms the end-user's enjoyment of an approved FTB mod pack." If it's not "destructive or compatibility-breaking" (like a legitimate nerf), then it wouldn't qualify, whatever the player's complaints about its impact on their enjoyment.
Oh, no, not at all---this one's just a misunderstanding, probably due to my ugly strike-outs interrupting the flow
I didn't remove that clause, it's contained in "... [ code] that doesn't meet the above description". This is a direct reference back to the first sentence, which limits things to (A) code that is destructive or compatibility-breaking AND (B) that directly affects FTB modpacks or the end-user's enjoyment of approved modpacks. The first sentence states that both (A) and (B) need to be true for the clause to kick in. The second sentence merely flips this around, explicitly stating that, if either (A) or (B) are NOT true, then the code falls outside of FTB purview.
Anyways, I just wanted to clarify those misunderstandings, because a few of the things you pointed out were quite the opposite of what I thought I was saying. (And I couldn't leave you thinking I was nominating the FTB Team to be Minecraft's Thought Police, because I'm gunning for that position.)
You are forgetting the average age on the forums is 13, they lack the grammatical skills necessary to notice the small but important differences in the words you wish to use. The statement that was released was worded to prevent misunderstandings from the people with less grasp of the finer points of the english language and sentence structure. You, Covert, Slow etc have that grasp which is why y'all can argue your sides with such detailed essays, try to remember 80% of our users do not have that grasp, they only care about playing not about debating the difference between 2 words.
- Status