The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2
- Thread starter slowpoke
- 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'd like to be as unbiased as possible here:
Firtly, mDiyo did not "hack" GregTech. He simply included, in his own mod, a legitimate recipe that would overwrite Greg's wood nerf.
Likewise, Greg did not "distribute malware" or "prevent your access to Minecraft." He just intentionally made his mod incompatible with any mod that changes his recipes, specifically Tinker's Construct.
Firtly, mDiyo did not "hack" GregTech. He simply included, in his own mod, a legitimate recipe that would overwrite Greg's wood nerf.
Likewise, Greg did not "distribute malware" or "prevent your access to Minecraft." He just intentionally made his mod incompatible with any mod that changes his recipes, specifically Tinker's Construct.
Here's my $.02 in analogy form.
Playing modded Minecraft is like having a party in my computer. Now, I can try and organize this party myself but that's hard to do! FTB is like a party host, who has put together a wonderful guest list to make sure your party is a blast. And what awesome parties they are! FTB has a well-deserved reputation as having wonderful, fun parties.
Like any party, occasionally there will be accidents. That's expected. It's the nature of parties! But what seems to have happened here is a puddle appeared on the floor under Greg. And it turns out it wasn't an accident at all, he did it on purpose because mDiyo was at the same party and Greg doesn't like what mDiyo says about wood planks. So Greg decided to ruin the party.
Now Greg has cleaned up the puddle, and everyone has been assured that it was only water and there was never any real threat of damage. And FTB has assured us that Greg promised not to act this way anymore and just to be safe FTB won't invite Greg and mDiyo to the same party ever again.
But why would I want to let Greg into my house ever again? What if next time he decides to burn the place down when he's offended by another guest? No thanks, not worth the risk. I want fun parties where the guests act like adults, not children that have to be separated because they won't get along.
This analogy is flawed as most are, but I think it pretty well expresses how I feel. Installing any software involves a level of trust. What Greg did violated that trust. He's damaged his reputation. I won't be playing GregTech packs in the future.
He's also endangered FTB's reputation. I think FTB's policy should be zero-tolerance. You write the guest list. Your success depends on having mature, responsible (and yes, fun!) guests at this party.
tl;dr - mod author's aren't rock stars. They're guests on my and my children's computers. If they can't behave that way please don't include them.
Playing modded Minecraft is like having a party in my computer. Now, I can try and organize this party myself but that's hard to do! FTB is like a party host, who has put together a wonderful guest list to make sure your party is a blast. And what awesome parties they are! FTB has a well-deserved reputation as having wonderful, fun parties.
Like any party, occasionally there will be accidents. That's expected. It's the nature of parties! But what seems to have happened here is a puddle appeared on the floor under Greg. And it turns out it wasn't an accident at all, he did it on purpose because mDiyo was at the same party and Greg doesn't like what mDiyo says about wood planks. So Greg decided to ruin the party.
Now Greg has cleaned up the puddle, and everyone has been assured that it was only water and there was never any real threat of damage. And FTB has assured us that Greg promised not to act this way anymore and just to be safe FTB won't invite Greg and mDiyo to the same party ever again.
But why would I want to let Greg into my house ever again? What if next time he decides to burn the place down when he's offended by another guest? No thanks, not worth the risk. I want fun parties where the guests act like adults, not children that have to be separated because they won't get along.
This analogy is flawed as most are, but I think it pretty well expresses how I feel. Installing any software involves a level of trust. What Greg did violated that trust. He's damaged his reputation. I won't be playing GregTech packs in the future.
He's also endangered FTB's reputation. I think FTB's policy should be zero-tolerance. You write the guest list. Your success depends on having mature, responsible (and yes, fun!) guests at this party.
tl;dr - mod author's aren't rock stars. They're guests on my and my children's computers. If they can't behave that way please don't include them.
Splitting the baby is not a fun job. I do not envy you, slowpoke. I'll try and communicate how I see this decision and its basis and what it means in regards to what you are asking, though.
Having a hotter head on this could've had some serious long-term ramifications in general. This decision respects the natural boundaries you have as a result of the fundamental compact that makes FTB possible: FTB's agreement with mod developers that it will only distribute mods it has the permission to distribute. That agreement puts a clear-cut boundary on FTB's reach such that FTB can't arbitrarily dictate to mod developers what exactly will be in their mods, lest the developers pull their support. This is the rational and pragmatic view, and while it can be wedded to a moral view as well (e.g. FTB ought not dictate what mod developers do with their code) it isn't necessary to recognize where the hard line not to cross is in this instance. FTB decides to be "world mod police" and pushes too hard, support can be pulled and wreck the foundation of the packs. It is thus not in FTB's rational self-interest to overstep.
FTB's other primary "duty" (I use the term lightly, this is a hobby after all) is to provide well-curated packs of mods that play nice together. There are other, lesser considerations like "do the aesthetics of the mods align" and such that go under the penumbra of "well-curated", but let's not mess with those at the moment. If fundamentally the mods absolutely refuse to run together for whatever reason, FTB has to make a decision on inclusion in the packs. This is plain logic and should not be an item of dispute for anybody. Initially this can be discussed as "the code does not permit these mods to run in tandem", but this current set of circumstances has extended that even to "the mod developers for the respective mods have determined they do not wish to invest the effort in making them compatible". As I already said, FTB doesn't have "world mod police" duty to force the mods or even the mod developers to play nice together, its only duty is to ensure the packs it produces are internally compatible and that they don't produce adverse effects on player systems. When this is not possible, that is where FTB needs to step in and make a judgment call.
That sets the boundaries for the proper area for FTB to make this call: when circumstances render it difficult-to-impossible for FTB to produce packs, or when the mods themselves are at risk of adversely impacting player systems, FTB is obliged to step in and deal with it. Outside of that, pragmatically speaking, FTB doesn't have much of a foot to stand on in prodding the mod developers. Again, morally speaking FTB is certainly "allowed" to take all manner of stances it wishes, but that has to be weighed against the tolerance of the mod developers whose mods are included to be dictated to before they pull their mods from the pack. Thus it behooves FTB to not overreach and worry about what happens in situations where the mods are used outside the environments FTB provides.
That's the balance being stricken here with this stance, I think. FTB can't tell the mod developers what they will do with their code. They can only push to the extent that such things impact FTB's ability to provide its service. DRM and anti-inclusion code are totally aside there, because they do not impact FTB or FTB's user base. It could offend somebody's moral stance on it, but the mod pack operations come first because the mod pack operations are easily and readily justified without moral wrangling. The only pragmatic injection here comes from FTB's reputation and people's projections on it and how that may affect their opinion of the packs and willingness to play them, but you can't please all the people all of the time.
Where the fuzziness comes in, and where it's hard to dictate a standard policy, is where you start having to look at patterns of behavior and the like. If a mod developer is consistently being curmudgeonly in an adverse manner to producing the packs, but whenever called out on it eventually complies, is there a point where you just say "no more of this crap" and pulls their mod entirely? What about when the mod developer is merely dramatic/histrionic on a regular basis? What about the mod merely being controversial? (If you want an example of how "dramatic" and "controversial" vary, GregTech's a good measuring stick for both: GT's initial inclusion in the pack is merely "controversial" even if the forum posters themselves get "dramatic" about it; Greg's spats with KL, Soaryn, and now mDiyo are "dramatic".)
I think the fair thing to do in this case is what is being done. Communicate the expectation first, then enforce it. Previous hullabaloo aside, everybody's slate gets wiped in this regard. Further incidents will be dealt with as communicated. Mods that the developers communicate should not run together will not be included together. Making the FTB Team's life consistently difficult may be grounds for total removal from the packs. Go forward from there.
Having a hotter head on this could've had some serious long-term ramifications in general. This decision respects the natural boundaries you have as a result of the fundamental compact that makes FTB possible: FTB's agreement with mod developers that it will only distribute mods it has the permission to distribute. That agreement puts a clear-cut boundary on FTB's reach such that FTB can't arbitrarily dictate to mod developers what exactly will be in their mods, lest the developers pull their support. This is the rational and pragmatic view, and while it can be wedded to a moral view as well (e.g. FTB ought not dictate what mod developers do with their code) it isn't necessary to recognize where the hard line not to cross is in this instance. FTB decides to be "world mod police" and pushes too hard, support can be pulled and wreck the foundation of the packs. It is thus not in FTB's rational self-interest to overstep.
FTB's other primary "duty" (I use the term lightly, this is a hobby after all) is to provide well-curated packs of mods that play nice together. There are other, lesser considerations like "do the aesthetics of the mods align" and such that go under the penumbra of "well-curated", but let's not mess with those at the moment. If fundamentally the mods absolutely refuse to run together for whatever reason, FTB has to make a decision on inclusion in the packs. This is plain logic and should not be an item of dispute for anybody. Initially this can be discussed as "the code does not permit these mods to run in tandem", but this current set of circumstances has extended that even to "the mod developers for the respective mods have determined they do not wish to invest the effort in making them compatible". As I already said, FTB doesn't have "world mod police" duty to force the mods or even the mod developers to play nice together, its only duty is to ensure the packs it produces are internally compatible and that they don't produce adverse effects on player systems. When this is not possible, that is where FTB needs to step in and make a judgment call.
That sets the boundaries for the proper area for FTB to make this call: when circumstances render it difficult-to-impossible for FTB to produce packs, or when the mods themselves are at risk of adversely impacting player systems, FTB is obliged to step in and deal with it. Outside of that, pragmatically speaking, FTB doesn't have much of a foot to stand on in prodding the mod developers. Again, morally speaking FTB is certainly "allowed" to take all manner of stances it wishes, but that has to be weighed against the tolerance of the mod developers whose mods are included to be dictated to before they pull their mods from the pack. Thus it behooves FTB to not overreach and worry about what happens in situations where the mods are used outside the environments FTB provides.
That's the balance being stricken here with this stance, I think. FTB can't tell the mod developers what they will do with their code. They can only push to the extent that such things impact FTB's ability to provide its service. DRM and anti-inclusion code are totally aside there, because they do not impact FTB or FTB's user base. It could offend somebody's moral stance on it, but the mod pack operations come first because the mod pack operations are easily and readily justified without moral wrangling. The only pragmatic injection here comes from FTB's reputation and people's projections on it and how that may affect their opinion of the packs and willingness to play them, but you can't please all the people all of the time.
Where the fuzziness comes in, and where it's hard to dictate a standard policy, is where you start having to look at patterns of behavior and the like. If a mod developer is consistently being curmudgeonly in an adverse manner to producing the packs, but whenever called out on it eventually complies, is there a point where you just say "no more of this crap" and pulls their mod entirely? What about when the mod developer is merely dramatic/histrionic on a regular basis? What about the mod merely being controversial? (If you want an example of how "dramatic" and "controversial" vary, GregTech's a good measuring stick for both: GT's initial inclusion in the pack is merely "controversial" even if the forum posters themselves get "dramatic" about it; Greg's spats with KL, Soaryn, and now mDiyo are "dramatic".)
I think the fair thing to do in this case is what is being done. Communicate the expectation first, then enforce it. Previous hullabaloo aside, everybody's slate gets wiped in this regard. Further incidents will be dealt with as communicated. Mods that the developers communicate should not run together will not be included together. Making the FTB Team's life consistently difficult may be grounds for total removal from the packs. Go forward from there.
I am disappointed that FTB is taking the easy way out, and doubly disappointed that they are giving tacit approval to anti-user code by supporting mod authors who include such code in their packs.
I am also disappointed that the FTB team has decided to reward Greg's multiple instances of bad behavior with his very own mod pack rather than being booted out entirely.
I'm fairly certain that this policy will look the other way when considering code that *does* negatively affect FTB users, including the continuation of GregTech's immature "pumpkin of shame".
This is not the high road, this is the coward's path. It demonstrates that while FTB was held up as an example of "respecting mod author's wishes", it certainly doesn't respect the safety or wishes of its user base.
I'll have to consider whether or not I continue using FTB in the future. I've never really tried the whole 'Technic' side of things. I might have to give that a try someday.
I am also disappointed that the FTB team has decided to reward Greg's multiple instances of bad behavior with his very own mod pack rather than being booted out entirely.
I'm fairly certain that this policy will look the other way when considering code that *does* negatively affect FTB users, including the continuation of GregTech's immature "pumpkin of shame".
This is not the high road, this is the coward's path. It demonstrates that while FTB was held up as an example of "respecting mod author's wishes", it certainly doesn't respect the safety or wishes of its user base.
I'll have to consider whether or not I continue using FTB in the future. I've never really tried the whole 'Technic' side of things. I might have to give that a try someday.
Yeah, so basically you're finding an excuse to kick mods like Greg Tech, but keeping mods like Forestry or any other that harm Tekkit which don't really have better excuses than Greg Tech for doing it.
biased much ?
biased much ?
"Look the other way" is indeed pretty much the exact definition of this policy. In its 'respecting mod author's wishes' goal FTB is already taking a moral stance; if your job is only to put together a stable pack, why is that moral stance okay, but the stance of not putting out an unsafe or malicious product is not? This is more or less a case of simply washing your hands of the matter and moving on, especially after it was found to touch upon several 'in-crowd' modders like Sengir, Azanor, and CovertJaguar. I realize these people are your friends, and that you personally think what they do is okay, but is it really that hard to pull them aside and quietly say, "Look, guys, personally I don't care, but you gotta cut this crap out, it's making us look bad."? Because it is.
they aren't kicking GT. Tekkit isn't FTB so there is no reason to kick Forestry.
GregTech isn't being "kicked" as much as it should be.
mDiyo requested that his mods not be shipped in the same pack as GT mods. Greg then made the same request. This requires a modpack shuffling.
Hopefully a large swath of mod authors will make similar requests. Like cpw.
I know that it isn't being kicked even though it will have its own modpack now.
But Slowpoke here is talking about ethic. Ethic should be universal. It isn't here, as it is "screw the others, i care about myself". It isn't ethical to exclude a behavior such as the crashing Greg Tech but not to excludes other mods that crash other stuff for other reasons. Here, he's just justifying his decisions with "ethical" stuff. He could just say directly what he meant, not hiding it behind this unclear philosophical stuff.
Other modders screwing up Greg Tech by these requests wouldn't be more mature, as it would be harming the players that just want their mod pack with all these mods together. Also, greg tech players would just toss FTB away and FTB would definitively lose players.
My guess is that drama will just disappear with time, people will stop thinking "ZOMG REMOVE GREGTECH" and the question of its inclusion in FTB will become irrevelant
One can but hope, up to this point each have been fighting there own little corner, but as a unit hmm...
Here's the concern that I have, and I'm just offering this up for consideration.
Ever since this whole debacle with Greg and mDiyo, everywhere I go (FTB related), all I see is GregTech. Corporations would pay top dollar for this kind of public exposure, and they'd often have no reservation about earning that exposure with scandal if they knew they could do so without consequence. Yet here Greg is doing just that; gaining mass exposure for his mod through scandal with no consequence. He's still got his sycophants on the IC2 forums, he's still got his fanbois on Reddit, and he's still got a place in FTB mod packs.
It's not surprising that the best way for mod devs to get attention is to do things that are controversial. I agree that it's not my job or the FTB team's job to enforce morality, but setting boundaries isn't enforcing morality. "That behavior does not fit with our vision for the experience we're trying to provide" isn't enforcing morality. It's setting a boundary, akin to saying, "Do whatever it is you feel you need to do, but understand you won't be doing it with us."
I heard rumor (and emphasis on rumor, which obviously may or may not be true) that GregTech is basically coming out of this with his own FTB pack, including mods that are hand picked and known to play well with GT. Seems very much like rewarding poor behavior. He goes from controversial inclusion in select packs, to inclusion in packs delineated almost exclusively by whether or not they include GT, to his own pack. It's like a promotion. There are situations in life, be they school or work, where certain behaviors can lead to things like suspension, academic probation, warnings, detention, etc. And then there are certain things that will get you expelled/fired on the first offense, because you shoulda damn well known better.
I know we don't need to go into detail on the hypocrisy of a mod dev who routinely modifies the function of other mods and who includes a logic bomb in his mod when someone changes the yield of a recipe. I know we don't need to go into minute detail over a mod dev who essentially holds other mod devs hostage with a statement that amounts to, "I can continue to get what I want through unstable means in modifying your mod (reflecting), or you can do as I say."
Crashing the client over a couple of wood planks...shoulda damn well known better. Please do not include GT in any future packs. Please do not give GT its own pack. Please do not reward the kind of behavior that we don't ever want to see again. I don't disagree with anything Slow said in the OP or in yesterday's post. I just want to be clear that despite anything that was said, this GT issue, both the most recent manifestation and previous behaviors, is clearly an exception to any general rule and I would prefer to see it handled as such. Greg has had months to settle down and play nice and he's only gotten worse. I don't care what he does in the future, I just don't want to see mention of him in FTB modpacks anymore.
Ever since this whole debacle with Greg and mDiyo, everywhere I go (FTB related), all I see is GregTech. Corporations would pay top dollar for this kind of public exposure, and they'd often have no reservation about earning that exposure with scandal if they knew they could do so without consequence. Yet here Greg is doing just that; gaining mass exposure for his mod through scandal with no consequence. He's still got his sycophants on the IC2 forums, he's still got his fanbois on Reddit, and he's still got a place in FTB mod packs.
It's not surprising that the best way for mod devs to get attention is to do things that are controversial. I agree that it's not my job or the FTB team's job to enforce morality, but setting boundaries isn't enforcing morality. "That behavior does not fit with our vision for the experience we're trying to provide" isn't enforcing morality. It's setting a boundary, akin to saying, "Do whatever it is you feel you need to do, but understand you won't be doing it with us."
I heard rumor (and emphasis on rumor, which obviously may or may not be true) that GregTech is basically coming out of this with his own FTB pack, including mods that are hand picked and known to play well with GT. Seems very much like rewarding poor behavior. He goes from controversial inclusion in select packs, to inclusion in packs delineated almost exclusively by whether or not they include GT, to his own pack. It's like a promotion. There are situations in life, be they school or work, where certain behaviors can lead to things like suspension, academic probation, warnings, detention, etc. And then there are certain things that will get you expelled/fired on the first offense, because you shoulda damn well known better.
I know we don't need to go into detail on the hypocrisy of a mod dev who routinely modifies the function of other mods and who includes a logic bomb in his mod when someone changes the yield of a recipe. I know we don't need to go into minute detail over a mod dev who essentially holds other mod devs hostage with a statement that amounts to, "I can continue to get what I want through unstable means in modifying your mod (reflecting), or you can do as I say."
Crashing the client over a couple of wood planks...shoulda damn well known better. Please do not include GT in any future packs. Please do not give GT its own pack. Please do not reward the kind of behavior that we don't ever want to see again. I don't disagree with anything Slow said in the OP or in yesterday's post. I just want to be clear that despite anything that was said, this GT issue, both the most recent manifestation and previous behaviors, is clearly an exception to any general rule and I would prefer to see it handled as such. Greg has had months to settle down and play nice and he's only gotten worse. I don't care what he does in the future, I just don't want to see mention of him in FTB modpacks anymore.
Yes, as I've said before this is similar to RedPower issues.
People using GT are upset that the mod has gone off the deep end. They are upset because they use it and removing it from existing worlds is generally painful or impossible. Most of these people will reset as the modpacks update to 1.6 anyways, they won't have GT to uninstall, and the issue will die down.
I'll tell you right now, the cut off point for GT is 3.09. Current 152wgt has 3.06d, and you can't download anything but 3.11
The ethics are universal. If someone acts up and it disrupts the functionality (not weird dumbnut stuff like 111 bronzes) then the mod gots to go. FTB cannot dictate anything to a modder. Modders like Greg do not solely write for FTB. They may not even have FTB in mind at all. And I believe slow is setting a precedent in which any mod (including forestry, TC, etc.) causes issues with functionality, then they have to axe it. I could be wrong though.
There have been several references in this thread about Greg being rewarded with his own pack due to his behavior. I just would like to point out that the 1.5.2 FTB pack development has had a dedicated WGT and NGT branch since well before this took place, I would assume due to the dichotomy of the user base between those that prefer the added time and challenge offered in GT and those that do not. The decision to break out the modpacks this way was not a result of the recent issues..
That was the precedent he set last night.
He changed his mind when he realized what it actually meant (that his friends would have to be held accountable). So now, instead, Greg gets his own pack.
Yeah... as Uriah said, Greg already "had his own pack" because 152 comes in ngt and wgt flavors already.
If we were speaking purely in technicalities then you would be right. However I think that your interpretation of the situation may be a bit too literal, and downplaying what conspired. In my opinion we must also consider the intent as well as the context of what happened just as much as what the change actually does.
When the actual crash first started happening users of GregTech reported it as a bug the same as they normally would. Greg then responded by putting all of the blame on Tinkers Construct and leading people to believe that it was strictly faulty code that mDiyo needed to fix. Then when people suspected GregTech of intentionally crashing the game he continued to lie about it, and still attempted to place 100% of the blame on mDiyo.
It wasn't until proof was presented that Greg was intentionally crashing the game that he finally admitted to it. Then at that point he essentially started bragging about how effective his tactics were, and publicly said he intended to incite a mob mentality against mDiyo and to use that as pressure for him to remove the wood plank un-nerfing.
That, in my opinion, is purely malicious behavior which goes beyond a simple "intended incompatibility". If his goal was merely to make GregTech incompatible with TiC then he would have publicly announced such a move. He wouldn't lie about it until being caught red handed and then crow about how effective his deceit was.
That's fine. You can call it rewarded if you wish. I call it a win/win scenario. I think it should be called the Official Gregpack. That way people who want it, know exactly where to go. People that want to stay full clear of it, know exactly where not to go.
- Status