The Future of FTB Modpacks.

[Stephen Baynham]

Yeah, don't put them together. Which is great for their egos but not so much for people who might of enjoyed playing with them both in the next FTB pack. Anyways I'm done, its obvious we don't see eye to eye on it and that fine. As a FTB user I just wished to give my 2 cents on the issue

No, I'm serious, greg made it so his thing wont' crash and mDiyo made his thing configurable.

 

[MissRaptor]

No, I'm serious, greg made it so his thing wont' crash and mDiyo made his thing configurable.

Maybe so but Diyo still doesn't want TC put with GT. I'm not a fan of what GT did at all but compromise or not, it still ruins it for all the fans

 

[Dee_Twenty]

As for MDiyo giving him a taste of his own medicine, as I said two wrongs don't make a right even as notorious as GregT is for it. It could of been handled better

That's the thing, I don't view this as a wrong, Gregtech changes recipes, vanilla or otherwise, it's what Greg does, I don't agree with many of the changes but I don't think what he does is wrong, what I think is wrong is that when someone comes along and does it to him he throws a tantrum because "How dare you? My mod is sacred! Nobody but me is allowed to make changes to it! Me me me!"

 

[soulgriever]

My question is why did it take this long to make a stance on it when both greg and sir sengir have had code in their mods to crash games if their mods were put in the technic launcher, I know you guys dont get along with technic but its still the same concept this should be addressed as well

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I was just commenting on the lack of condemnation of any of those actions, and the lack of attention that they get. It seems that, since it didn't happen to FTB, everyone turns a blind eye and assumes that Slowpoke's vague statement about "modders-that-are-not-GregT" apply to the beloved "core mod" developers.

Probably because the condemnation happened over a year ago, and people got over it? People assume it is just about GregT, but I'm reading it to be more of a generation of policy which will be applied across the board, which might possibly include Railcraft if it does as you claim. If people chose to be ignorant of that, then they will be ignorant. Try waiting for Slowpoke's response after reading this thread and sleeping on it before putting words in his mouth.

Keep your snark to yourself. Nobody cares about philosophical or intellectual dickmeasuring. When the childish "mod warz" stop, I'll stop "trying."

Jesus loves you too

 

[Dee_Twenty]

My question is why did it take this long to make a stance on it when both greg and sir sengir have had code in their mods to crash games if their mods were put in the technic launcher, I know you guys dont get along with technic but its still the same concept this should be addressed as well

There's a reason that motive is taken into consideration during a trial, there's a difference between killing someone who's broken into your home and threatened the lives of your loved ones and killing a man because you don't like the way he wears his hat, similarly there's a difference between taking steps to ensure your mod isn't used with a modpack that you've made perfectly clear does not have permission to use your mod and crashing the game because someone has the sheer gull to do to you what you do to everyone else.

 

[Hoff]

So this thread has become somewhat useless. I would suggest dropping any current arguments. They do not aid in the discussion meant for the OP.

 

[RedBoss]

I want to thank everyone who is inputting on this thread, this combined with input I am getting from elsewhere is helping me to clarify where I want to actually go when it comes to which lines we want to use. I think I will sleep on it a bit tonight and take another look at it tomorrow. The one thing I dont want to do is rush this decision due to the impact it will have. Again this is not something that is going to be targetted at any one specific mod, but rather guidelines that we will use in the future.

Thank you for addressing the community. Thank you for making the effort to judge the situation objectively. Thank you for even leading the compilation of the mod packs in FTB.

I don't profess to be a code expert or even being that knowledgeable about MC mod history. I've only been playing modded MC since December of last year. I primarily started after watching LP'S that showcased FTB. My knowledge has definitely grown in that time.

As an end user of mod packs, and being an active participant in this forum community, trust is deeper than an expectation, it's assumed. FTB came endorsed as a simple package to enjoy mods within minecraft and there was never any doubt about its safety on board my PC. Through my experience and interactions with mod devs, support staff, and the other users here, that trust has been reassured. Trust was never in doubt.

What has happened in recent days casts doubt on that trust. I speak not only for myself, but those I've introduced to this modpack. I have to consider how much trust to place in a mod pack that includes code from a developer that has included code to crash a game intentionally. It doesn't matter whether he removed it, Pandora's Box has been opened and I feel a serious level of concern about that mod in particular. I feel a shade of doubt about mods in general now, when it come to the safety of our data and machines.

A crash of the game was introduced due to a squabble. End users were poised as victims in a dispute that they had no involvement. I honestly don't care about the right or wrong of the argument. A line was crossed and that can never be forgotten. No, the current versions of FTB were not affected, but the person behind this attack is positioned in 2 of FTB's more popular packs. There's even evidence that this developer revelled in this capricious act.

A contributor to a trusted mod compilation has subjected users to deliberately sabotaged code. He further displayed what is arguably unstable behavior by not admitting fault and insulting his own user base. That is more than slightly unnerving.

I hope you will take this into consideration when you decide on the parameters going forward. We as end users need assurance that we are safe in using these mods. The general user doesn't even consider FTB to be a compilation of separate mods, but as the mod itself. It would be a loss to a great deal of effort to allow one foul & malicious deed to derail the efforts of those who had nothing to do with this incident. I hope your decision is well met by the community, but that it also addresses the true concerns over security that these days have brought about.

 

[soulgriever]

There's a reason that motive is taken into consideration during a trial, there's a difference between killing someone who's broken into your home and threatened the lives of your loved ones and killing a man because you don't like the way he wears his hat, similarly there's a difference between taking steps to ensure your mod isn't used with a modpack that you've made perfectly clear does not have permission to use your mod and crashing the game because someone has the sheer gull to do to you what you do to everyone else.

but you have to go back to the OP of slowpoke "mods that contain code designed to crash games. This one is fairly simple, as far as I am concerned this is as close as a person can get to distributing malware with their mod. Any mod that is found to contain code like this will be removed from a pack."
both mods still contain such code, also just like the platforms dont have permission to use the mod, the other mod does not have permission to alter code (both are doing the same thing because they dont like each other same concept nothing more) but that is besides the point of whether it is moral or not, I am sticking to my arguement on the OP from slowpoke, If the code is present to crash the game under certain conditions its a no go. If that is to be said it should be for mods and platforms alike.

 

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

There's a reason that motive is taken into consideration during a trial, there's a difference between killing someone who's broken into your home and threatened the lives of your loved ones and killing a man because you don't like the way he wears his hat, similarly there's a difference between taking steps to ensure your mod isn't used with a modpack that you've made perfectly clear does not have permission to use your mod and crashing the game because someone has the sheer gull to do to you what you do to everyone else.

Until you come to grips with the fact that it is not okay to metaphorically shove a spiked mace up the backside of your users to try to get back at them (or even worse, to get back at somebody to whom they're only peripherally connected), this discussion will get nowhere and this new policy will be toothless.

The fact that anyone anywhere is still endorsing and encouraging this behaviour, past or present or future, is ludicrous and disgusting to me. The behaviour exhibited both in prior and current instances is that of squabbling children pranking and sabotaging each other in the only way they know how, and you are in effect saying "that's fine, but only if he really seemed to have a good reason".

 

[Greevir]

Thank you for addressing the community. Thank you for making the effort to judge the situation objectively. Thank you for even leading the compilation of the mod packs in FTB.

I don't profess to be a code expert or even being that knowledgeable about MC mod history. I've only been playing modded MC since December of last year. I primarily started after watching LP'S that showcased FTB. My knowledge has definitely grown in that time.

As an end user of mod packs, and being an active participant in this forum community, trust is deeper than an expectation, it's assumed. FTB came endorsed as a simple package to enjoy mods within minecraft and there was never any doubt about its safety on board my PC. Through my experience and interactions with mod devs, support staff, and the other users here, that trust has been reassured. Trust was never in doubt.

What has happened in recent days casts doubt on that trust. I speak not only for myself, but those I've introduced to this modpack. I have to consider how much trust to place in a mod pack that includes code from a developer that has included code to crash a game intentionally. It doesn't matter whether he removed it, Pandora's Box has been opened and I feel a serious level of concern about that mod in particular. I feel a shade of doubt about mods in general now, when it come to the safety of our data and machines.

A crash of the game was introduced due to a squabble. End users were poised as victims in a dispute that they had no involvement. I honestly don't care about the right or wrong of the argument. A line was crossed and that can never be forgotten. No, the current versions of FTB were not affected, but the person behind this attack is positioned in 2 of FTB's more popular packs. There's even evidence that this developer revelled in this capricious act.

A contributor to a trusted mod compilation has subjected users to deliberately sabotaged code. He further displayed what is arguably unstable behavior by not admitting fault and insulting his own user base. That is more than slightly unnerving.

I hope you will take this into consideration when you decide on the parameters going forward. We as end users need assurance that we are safe in using these mods. The general user doesn't even consider FTB to be a compilation of separate mods, but as the mod itself. It would be a loss to a great deal of effort to allow one foul & malicious deed to derail the efforts of those who had nothing to do with this incident. I hope your decision is well met by the community, but that it also addresses the true concerns over security that these days have brought about.

I tried to like this multiple times but it just didn't work! Well put, my friend. Well put!

 

[Dee_Twenty]

the other mod does not have permission to alter code (both are doing the same thing because they dont like each other same concept nothing more) but that is besides the point of whether it is moral or not, I am sticking to my arguement on the OP from slowpoke, If the code is present to crash the game under certain conditions its a no go. If that is to be said it should be for mods and platforms alike.

mDiyo didn't actually change any of Greg's code, mDiyo added a new recipe to the Forge dictionary that would override one of Greg's. As for whether or not the rule applies to Forestry, that's up to the FTB honchos to decide, I personally believe that the reason the code is there should be taken into consideration and not just whether the code is present.

 

[Stephen Baynham]

but you have to go back to the OP of slowpoke "mods that contain code designed to crash games. This one is fairly simple, as far as I am concerned this is as close as a person can get to distributing malware with their mod. Any mod that is found to contain code like this will be removed from a pack."
both mods still contain such code, also just like the platforms dont have permission to use the mod, the other mod does not have permission to alter code (both are doing the same thing because they dont like each other same concept nothing more) but that is besides the point of whether it is moral or not, I am sticking to my arguement on the OP from slowpoke, If the code is present to crash the game under certain conditions its a no go. If that is to be said it should be for mods and platforms alike.

I guess to a certain extent I feel like a total ban on crashing code is too much? I think a mod ought to be allowed to say, "I will not run like this", provided:

1. It happens right at startup
2. It will always (or generally always) affect any two users running the same modpack equally
3. It's not suddenly or quietly introduced like this was.

Frankly, if Greg uploads a version saying, "Hi, GregTech can't run with TConstruct anymore, it will crash if TConstruct is installed." that doesn't seem like a problem to me. Obviously, any pack with TConstruct in it will want to remove gregtech because hell, but if he's open, doesn't waste user time or investment, and makes it so that modpackers can make informed decisions about when to use/not use gregtech, then I think he's doing his due diligence. His responsibility is to not surprise users with crashes, basically. Nobody's surprised when Railcraft crashes because you tampered with a mod, and people consider that okay. People aren't generally surprised when Gregtech crashes because they have "tekkit" in their path, and people are generally okay with that. The issue here is that greg didn't tell anyone and made it difficult for FtB to make decisions about when to include GTech in a modpack. If Greg had approached slowpoke and said, "GregTech will crash if you include it with TConstruct", I daresay that slowpoke would have found it very easy to make decisions about whether to include GTech.

 

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

I guess to a certain extent I feel like a total ban on crashing code is too much? I think a mod ought to be allowed to say, "I will not run like this", provided:

And why, precisely, do you feel any modder anywhere has a right to tell people what mods they are allowed to play with? Even if we grant that a modder has a right to tell a user how to play with the mod that modder created (which I do not and will not grant), what business can it ever be of theirs what else happens to be on their computer? It's as asinine as trying to tell someone they're allowed to eat their chicken sandwich but not if they have a root beer with it.

 

[Shukaro]

I have the impression that the FTB forums require aggressive pruning, and yet it tends to be done without public mockery. Your argument (in the rest of the post, that I didn't quote) seems to boil down to "No really, some of our members ARE obnoxious." Certainly, no one's disputing that. I only object to the way you're dealing with it. The Helen Keller thing is offensive, the penalty avatars are mean-spirited, and scoring verbal points off semi-literate confused people just seems unnecessarily cruel.

I'm not a Redditor (do they vote on things?), but I don't think that you have to resort to that kind of moderating to foster a high level of debate.

This is very much a cultural gap, and two very different ideas of how a community for public discourse should be run. The way the Technic forums are run is directly based off of how the Something Awful forums are run, in a very no-nonsense way. Check out the forum rules for some context, and possibly the leper's colony as well.

And why, precisely, do you feel any modder anywhere has a right to tell people what mods they are allowed to play with? Even if we grant that a modder has a right to tell a user how to play with the mod that modder created (which I do not and will not grant), what business can it ever be of theirs what else happens to be on their computer? It's as asinine as trying to tell someone they're allowed to eat their chicken sandwich but not if they have a root beer with it.

I'm going to have to agree with Jakj here on this one, crashing code for non-functional reasons is simply unacceptable regardless of the when or where or why it crashes.

Things it's OK to crash for: Item ID conflicts, major mod conflicts or other types of major experience-impairing conflicts

Things it isn't OK to crash for: Literally everything else.

 

[gattsuru]

And why, precisely, do you feel any modder anywhere has a right to tell people what mods they are allowed to play with? Even if we grant that a modder has a right to tell a user how to play with the mod that modder created (which I do not and will not grant), what business can it ever be of theirs what else happens to be on their computer?

At the very least, because there will always be potential cases where a mod simple will not work. I would /rather/ Modular Powersuits, for example, simply refuse to load (whether through good clear error messages, or through not registering its items or recipes), than to fail unpredictably on a system with Optifine -- and Modular Powersuit's conflicts are less severe than, say, potential chunk resets or even world corruption, all of which are possible results.

At the edge cases, mod authors kinda wrote their mods. That simply has to come with certain levels of control, as a tautology, because allowing people to write arbitrary code means that they're going to have potential crashes. There are even practical benefits to this : closed-source efforts are common in the Minecraft community, despite the lack of obfuscation and the lack of for-sale mods, because this allows mod authors to maintain a unified focus for their work.

 

[Moleculor]

That simply has to come with certain levels of control, as a tautology, because allowing people to write arbitrary code means that they're going to have potential crashes. There are even practical benefits to this : closed-source efforts are common in the Minecraft community, despite the lack of obfuscation and the lack of for-sale mods, because this allows mod authors to maintain a unified focus for their work.

I disagree that we should be excusing mod authors who close off their work and refuse to interoperate with each other "just because".

Closed off mods just result in situations such as RedPower 2, where a single author can lose interest resulting in thousands of worlds being stagnant or lost.

Mods are contributing to an already existing work (Minecraft) in order to (ostensibly) improve upon it. Insisting that other people can't also do the same, both to Minecraft or even to their own mod, is hypocrisy.

But this is a debate that has been going on since the Morrowind days, and won't likely be solved in Minecraft either.

 

[Gamabunta00]

With all due respect (and i mean that as i really do respect you for all the crap you put up with as well as you and others bringing the modders/modding community together which is awesome) I Disagree with your decision Slowpoke. GregTech should NOT be in ANY FTB packs by defualt. Reason being it put Malicious Code into the game which could have potentially made it into servers. and quite frankly i would NOT trust someone who put Malicious code just because they didnt like another mod/had a conflict or EVER put in malicious code to begin with. Honestly i cant help but question the integrity of ANY pack with GregTech in it. I mean if this were a less popular mod creating a crash on purpose what would you do?

What im trying to say is that it should not be defualt in any pack, doing this would raise the question "What if its not just a crash next time". I dont know GregoriusT so i must base my Trust in his mod based purely on the mod itself. If it crashes for no reason other than there is another mod he doesn't like there then how can i trust him not to go farther?. Malicious Code is Malicious Code so unless your condoning it, get rid of GregTech. Thank you

 

[Lordlundar]

I want to thank everyone who is inputting on this thread, this combined with input I am getting from elsewhere is helping me to clarify where I want to actually go when it comes to which lines we want to use. I think I will sleep on it a bit tonight and take another look at it tomorrow. The one thing I dont want to do is rush this decision due to the impact it will have. Again this is not something that is going to be targetted at any one specific mod, but rather guidelines that we will use in the future.

Thank you for the response Slow. I do apologize and take full responsibility for this turning into a "Sengir vs. Tekkit" thread as it was not the intent. The response from you is why I had asked the question in the first place. I respect your decision to take your time on this policy change.

 

[eragonawesome]

It's pretty ridiculous that this is even an issue but I'm glad an official FTB stance on the matter has been produced promptly.

I have to say it feels too lenient for my taste but it's not my call to make.

lenient? they are removing it from the modpacks, or adding the option to at least