The Future of FTB Modpacks.

[ScottKillen]

Thanks, FTB team, for taking this stance. Ultimately, mods are for the players and in situations like this, no one wins.

 

[Sneezy]

Personally I wouldn't be so lenient, but then again I don't need to consider how many people use the various modpacks and the impact my lack of leniency would have. If you're going to intentionally crash the game for PLAYERS because you have a beef with another modder then out you go, for good. It really doesn't matter how good your mod was, you don't screw the players when they've done nothing wrong. In this situation you're also messing with Slowpoke and the FTB team, they sure don't need this drama either.

 

[Hoho]

Ultimately, mods are for the players

except in cases where mod author states otherwise as has been seen in past.

 

[Lady_Oolong]

Does this policy in any way apply to mods who's code prevents the mod from loading if anything is present the mod author does not like?

Forge includes a hook that allows modders to say "Mod X and Mod Y should not be used together, remove one or the other in order to load the game". It would be problematic for FTB if a mod in the pack decided to exercise this but it would not run afoul of this policy, according to the TS convo with Slowpoke on Myrathi's stream this morning.

 

[Moleculor]

Forge includes a hook that allows modders to say "Mod X and Mod Y should not be used together, remove one or the other in order to load the game". It would be problematic for FTB if a mod in the pack decided to exercise this but it would not run afoul of this policy, according to the TS convo with Slowpoke on Myrathi's stream this morning.

What about Greg's code that prevents his mod from loading if any part of the directory structure references Tekkit, Technic, or (possibly?) Voltz? A server I used to play on apparently was someone's version of FTB running inside his old Tekkit directory structure as that meant he didn't have to recode all the server maintenance and backup scripts. When Greg released that code, our server crashed, died, and wouldn't restart. The server was permanently shut down shortly thereafter, with that particular crash contributing to the shutdown.

(To be clear, GregTech has not and as far as I am aware has never been planned to be a part of Tekkit. This was a pre-emptive "fuck you" to Tekkit that just screwed over any user who used to use Tekkit in any way.)

 

[Hoff]

You can be quite sure things like that are not a problem for FTB crew due to history between them and tekkit people.

AFAIK there are no contentions any longer.

Considering what Greg thinks of the FTB community though it does raise a red flag.

 

[Hoff]

Neutrality is easily swayed.

 

[Ashzification]

Again, this isn't the thread to be discussing GregTech. I've already linked it once, go discuss this there.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Interesting, will we finally see a IC2less pack? *crosses fingers*

Well, if you want to go to third-party mod packs, there's several out now, including the one I maintain. In fact, there's a whole sub-forum dedicated to them. Go check it out, if you like.

And thank you, Slowpoke, for establishing a clear policy which prohibits deliberately crashing a user.

 

[Craig Nagy]

Thanks for the info. Keep up the great work, we know it's not easy.

 

[Moleculor]

As of the updated version of those mods the code is gone as none of the jars are signed.

Though this is not the place to discuss it. Make a thread if you so choose.

This is a place to indirectly explain what it is, however, as we're asking questions about it with reference to this policy.

i.e.:

Does this policy apply to CovertJaguar's in-crowd DRM?
Does this policy apply to GregTech's code against players converting from Tekkit?

We need to explain both examples in order to have common ground for further clarification of the new/current policy. (They have both been explained now, so you are right in that discussion about them doesn't need to continue except for answers to the questions, and I eagerly await answers.)

 

[Hoff]

This is a place to indirectly explain what it is, however, as we're asking questions about it with reference to this policy.

i.e.:

Does this policy apply to CovertJaguar's in-crowd DRM?
Does this policy apply to GregTech's code against players converting from Tekkit?

We need to explain both examples in order to have common ground for further clarification of the new/current policy. (They have both been explained now, so you are right in that discussion about them doesn't need to continue except for answers to the questions, and I eagerly await answers.)

I was speaking purely to CJ's DRM. It is gone.

Greg has yet to actually remove his crash code AFAIK he just simply flagged it not to trigger.

Again this is not the thread to discuss specific modders or mods. Create a new thread if you wish to discuss it(Simply reinforcing what you said not to you specifically).

 

[Moleculor]

I'm not discussing specific mods, I'm asking about the policy as stated in the first post. A few mods may represent a few useful examples for situations the new policy may or may not apply to, and asking about them is easier than inventing a hypothetical situation to describe something that already exists.

If it makes you feel better, we can "anonymize" the mods by asking questions about hypothetical situations, but I find it easier to ask about existing situations.

If CJ's code is gone, let me rephrase the question:

In a hypothetical situation in which a hypothetical mod exists that has code that causes Minecraft to crash in cases where OTHER mods or their own mod have been modified from the standard, does this policy apply? (See how much more difficult to follow that question is?)

 

[Hoff]

I'm not discussing specific mods, I'm asking about the policy as stated in the first post. A few mods may represent a few useful examples for situations the new policy may or may not apply to, and asking about them is easier than inventing a hypothetical situation to describe something that already exists.

If it makes you feel better, we can "anonymize" the mods by asking questions about hypothetical situations, but I find it easier to ask about existing situations.

If CJ's code is gone, let me rephrase the question:

In a hypothetical situation in which a hypothetical mod exists that has code that causes Minecraft to crash in cases where OTHER mods or their own mod have been modified from the standard, does this policy apply? (See how much more difficult to follow that question is?)

You're overstating the question;


If a mod exists that causes minecraft to fail if it or other mods have been edited without permission does this policy apply?

Hypotheticals will stop the drama, generally.

Forestry needs to be added to the list as well. Last I recall Sengir still has the crash code from the Tekkit fiasco still a part of his mod, just has it disabled.

There was no crash code in his mod. The vindictive bees exploded like a creeper if you were near them. He simply made it impossible for tekkit/technic users to use one part of his mod.

 

[Aetherr_]

This post shouldn't have to exist.

 

[Hoff]

Yes, to drive home how silly it is for people to have to discuss "hypothetical" mods when you and I both know what we're really talking about. We should be capable of discussing real-world examples.

We may be able to but others(Modders included) may take it personally and lead to more drama the likes that caused the OP. If we understand what we're talking about without using names, it is best to do so.

Sounds to me like anti-user behavior, and vaguely close to (or actively worse) malware. The active destruction of people's worlds, work, and homes is arguably worse than just not letting Minecraft load.

The users in this attacked Sengir large in part. They were not in a crossfire they were the target because they attacked him. It also did not destroy homes or worlds anymore than a creeper. Less so because you had to opt into using it.

-snip-

1.4.7 or 1.5+?

 

[Hoff]

This is from the absolute latest Railcraft version on his site.

I am misinformed then.

Personally on the matter of using illegal software the game should not start.

To me that's like saying you would be against mods not working on cracked minecraft clients. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Lordlundar]

There was no crash code in his mod. The vindictive bees exploded like a creeper if you were near them. He simply made it impossible for tekkit/technic users to use one part of his mod.

It does still beg the question on what limits there are to this policy and what factors can change this limitation? In this example Sengir has malicious code in his mod and is a favored modder by the FTB crew. As such, how impartial and how restrictive is this policy?

 

[Shukaro]

I am misinformed then.

Personally on the matter of using illegal software the game should not start.

To me that's like saying you would be against mods not working on cracked minecraft clients. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think comparing the most common cause of patching (fixing bugs or whatever) to running a cracked client is really apt, wouldn't you say?

 

[Skyjester]

I just want to say good on the FTB team. Any mod that attempts to sabotage another mod isn't worthy of being in an FTB mod pack.

Keep up the hard and excellent work FTB.