CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Idunno man, the DNS pack you linked does have a mod list with Industrial Craft 2 in it and doesn't use adfly links, they just link to your wiki instead of your main site or forums. Seems like they're not violating the modpack policy on purpose, you'd think a quick email could fix that. EDIT: It really seems like the problem the modding community has with modpacks time and time again- just asking the dude to fix their shit is a totally foreign idea, so instead you start messing with their users' play experience.
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Before blacklisting a pack, I am sure that mod authors failed contact with them - Pahimar for dnspack and Sengir for lukepack.
vibur Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 ...and look, it's at least better than destroying your world. This is true. EDIT: It really seems like the problem the modding community has with modpacks time and time again- just asking the dude to fix their shit is a totally foreign idea, so instead you start messing with their users' play experience. This is also true.
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I'd also like to add that I was also part of the conversation Pahimar had with the dnspack creator, nothing was done really. They also used to use direwolf20's name without permission.
Lothos Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 the whole tirade on both sides really saddens me out of curiosity, did either of those packs mentioned give credit at least?
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 On crediting, dnspack got partial credit but admit not having permission to distribute IC2 (evil), and lukepack is behind adfly links (also evil) - I haven't checked it but I'm sure it has no credits either.
CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I'd also like to add that I was also part of the conversation Pahimar had with the dnspack creator, nothing was done really. They also used to use direwolf20's name without permission. Well, if they don't anymore then something was done. The site doesn't represent the mods as the owner's, each mod is listed and linked to. The site seemed legit to me when I visited it, it just wasn't following the specific guidelines Albalka laid out. That said, if ya'll have talked to the guy about the two specific issues you have (linking to the IC2 wiki instead of the main page, not listing authors in the mod list), then yeah, go for it. the whole tirade on both sides really saddens me Sorry if it seemed like I was in a tirade- I do appreciate that this isn't sneaky shit or anything awful. I just don't really like mods being used against modpack creators at all, especially when the creator does seem like they're mostly doing right. out of curiosity, did either of those packs mentioned give credit at least? No idea about the other one, but DNSPack was linking to websites/threads for each mod, and made a point of stating that the pack author's role was in assembling different mods into a pack. The names/handles of the mod authors/teams were not listed on the site, though. It's not good enough, but it's not like the dude is trying to make people think he made the mods either.
CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 On crediting, dnspack got partial credit but admit not having permission to distribute IC2 (evil) And we come back to this, which I kind of already figured was the point. IC2 doesn't need permission to be distributed. IC2 doesn't need permission to be distributed. IC2 doesn't need permission to be distributed.
GreenWolf13 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Hi RichardG. I'm glad to see that the "This modpack does not have permission" thing isn't directed at technic. Sorry for accusing you of inserting malicious code, but you DO have a past history of being anti-technic. Ironically, the idea of a modpack blacklist was also something that I considered for my unreleased WIP mod. No hard feelings, okay?
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Nah, have no issues. The Solar Helmet lock wasn't very well thought out (I spent an entire day talking to cpw, xcomp, Pahimar and others about this nag), but there's another IC2 addon doing the same now.
CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Hi, Richard, I just visited the DNSPack IRC channel and everyone in there was under the impression that things had been worked out with Albalka a few days ago. Is that not the case?
jakj Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 it's at least better than destroying your world. Am I the only one not sickened by both this attitude and its easy acceptance? This quotation right here, in context, implies directly that mod-makers have the inarguable right to do anything they want, and if they don't, we should count our lucky stars and be grateful. We should be upset at that idea, even to the point of boycotting the mods. Nevermind if someone doesn't do nasty things: That they freely admit that they could and might should be enough.
Hushful Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Other than not using their IP what can you really do about it? Every mod maker has their die hard fans that will continue to use the mod regardless. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Am I the only one not sickened by both this attitude and its easy acceptance? This quotation right here, in context, implies directly that mod-makers have the inarguable right to do anything they want, and if they don't, we should count our lucky stars and be grateful. We should be upset at that idea, even to the point of boycotting the mods. Nevermind if someone doesn't do nasty things: That they freely admit that they could and might should be enough. I read it more as a sort of a jokish thing, I didn't take it as "It's better than destroying your world WHICH I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO" more like, wry humor.
GreenWolf13 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Am I the only one not sickened by both this attitude and its easy acceptance? This quotation right here, in context, implies directly that mod-makers have the inarguable right to do anything they want, and if they don't, we should count our lucky stars and be grateful. We should be upset at that idea, even to the point of boycotting the mods. Nevermind if someone doesn't do nasty things: That they freely admit that they could and might should be enough. You make a good point, but what the IC2 devs are doing is a non-destructive method at trying to get their mod removed from modpacks that don't have permission. In effect, they are "boycotting" the modpack, or the mod equivalent of it. They can't remove the mod from the pack themselves, so they inform the end user that the pack they are using does not have permission. This is far less destructive than the methods employed by Sir Sengir, and it is far less invasive. Although, might I suggest that you make the pop-up appear at random times for a few seconds so as to make it less intrusive.
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 So, issues with DNS being sorted out (I didn't know either), need to think about other packs.
Normal69 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Notch= Egotistical, narcissistic creator of Minecraft. Terrible coder. Flower Child= Egotistical, narcissistic creator of a Minecraft Mod. Terrible coder. Do you see any similarities? Yes, they did it. They have the necessary imagination. Better coders will hack out the checks, and everything proceeds smoothly. :3
GreenWolf13 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Yes, they did it. They have the necessary imagination. Better coders will hack out the checks, and everything proceeds smoothly. :3 What? Am I just too tired to understand this, or does this not make sense to any one else either?
CanVox Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 So, issues with DNS being sorted out (I didn't know either), need to think about other packs. The issue I have with this whole thing, though, using IC2 as a weapon against specific modpack authors is summed up in this whole exchange we've had. You developed this feature to go after modpacks except one of the two you named, your reasoning was: - Didn't ask for permission, even though IC2 doesn't need permission - Had some problem with Pahimar, claimed that Pahimar couldn't come to an agreement with them despite the fact that I can't seem to find any evidence that their mod includes EE. - Claimed that they claimed a connection to Direwolf they didn't have, but apparently talking to them about it got them to pull that. - Claimed that talking to them about their link usage/author naming couldn't work, hasn't in the past, even though Albalka was able to talk to them about that stuff and apparently reach an agreement. Frankly, I've always gotten the impression from you that you just don't like modpacks. I'm glad that technic has been granted diplomatic immunity from your wrath, but I can't really be okay with you going after other modpacks with the same irrational fervor. EDIT: What? Am I just too tired to understand this, or does this not make sense to any one else either? He's saying the similarity is that both those guys did the things they set out to do.
RichardG867 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 It doesn't include EE due to being 1.3.2, but did in the 1.2.5 pack. Direwolf denies that they talked to him about using his name.
GreenWolf13 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I wouldn't say that he's using IC2 as a weapon, I'd say it's more of a defense mechanism. If there is a pack that violates IC2's inclusion policy, then I say that if the IC2 devs know about it, by all means, insert a thing that tells users of that modpack that the modpack they are using doesn't have permission. The pen is mightier than the sword, or in this case, an achievement pop-up is mightier than exploding bees.
freakachu Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I do remember their (DNS pack) site claiming to be the direwolf pack at some point, back when they came on here and made a big stink in a now whale boxed thread. Here is the thing, though, if you will allow me to play devil's advocate: it seems like your issues with them got fixed by talking to them, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. Instead you'd prefer to use this passive aggressive approach of punishing the people who are simply trying to enjoy your mod, along with others. Is it better than exploding bees? Sure. does that mean it's a good idea? No. It is still a degraded play experience. Your beef is really not with people who use these packs, it is with the creators of said packs. Go after the people you have a beef with. Contact their hosting provider, isp, etc. Talk to them directly and let them know you've got a problem. These people are not the devil spawn you might think maybe they are young, and don't understand or maybe they hoped you would not notice, but will comply once asked. You never know. If they won't, you have to ask yourself, "is this a battle worth fighting?" Because that answer may be no. If it is yes, then fight it, but fight the real enemy not the innocent bystanders edit: as a side note, if you never forgive anyone for anything, even after they've fixed it, that's not a good thing. I notice that you seem to be upset at then for things they stopped doing already, and this is a trend with the modding community. Why do this? You don't have to be great friends with these people, but holding grudges forever is only going to raise your blood pressure and make things harder for you, not them.
GreenWolf13 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I do remember their site claiming to be the direwolf pack at some point, back when they came on here and made a big stink in a now whale boxed thread. Here is the thing, though, if you will allow me to play devil's advocate: it seems like your issues with them got fixed by talking to them, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. Instead you'd prefer to use this passive aggressive approach of punishing the people who are simply trying to enjoy your mod, along with others. Is it better than exploding bees? Sure. does that mean it's a good idea? No. It is still a degraded play experience. Your beef is really not with people who use these packs, it is with the creators of said packs. Go after the people you have a beef with. Contact their hosting provider, isp, etc. Talk to then directly and let them know you've got a problem. These people are not the devil spawn you might think maybe they are young, and don't understand or maybe they hoped you would not notice, but will comply once asked. You never know. If they won't, you have to ask yourself, "is this a battle worth fighting?" Because that answer may be no. If it is yes, then fight it, but fight the real enemy not the innocent bystanders I agree completely with this. When I was considering the possibility of a modpack blacklist for my mod, one thought that occurred to me was making a list of mods not allowed to use my mod in a modpack, and posting it in my mod's thread. Perhaps you could do something like that?
freakachu Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 additionally, if the creators and maintainers of these packs are evil, as you put it, what makes you think they will not simply remove your nag code and go about their business? do you want to get into an arms race with these people instead of doing something more enjoyable? that has worked out great for the record, movie, and video game industry so far.
Recommended Posts