Jump to content

CKAN Discussion Continutation


phoenix_ca

Recommended Posts

Just now, TeddyDD said:

I'd like to have unsupported repo for advanced users but I this one must not be opt-out to make sense. Therefore it should not be part of offical CKAN to not cause controversy.

 

I wouldn't call it done since many modders passionately hate CKAN, and most don't care about it. I agree that manual edition of JSON file is not something that average mod autor cant handle. But for example, looking for deps is tedious since you have to use identifier instead of name. This could be streamlined a bit. Also I know CKAN metadata quiet well but I'd like to have tool that visualize package relationships including provides/conflicts trick and virtual packages.

the unsupported repo, and even the experimental repo, should be completely off by default. Modders could opt out of the managed Stable repository, and their support would be required to get it there. Maintainers could add any mod to Experimental, but without approval of the modder it would not progress any further - and would be removed at their request. Unsupported would be just that. Users use at their own risk, no support from modders or CKAN maintainers, with the perk of being able to use mods by modders who hate CKAN on principle.

Writing such a tool could be an interesting challenge. Beyond my abilities, unfortunately.

All the actions you suggested, with the one exception, are done. You cannot force people to care. You cannot make modders like CKAN. They should, but those who dont are not going to change their minds because they get an editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ckan isn't the real problem.

It's the users who are unexperienced with mod installs and keep bothering the modauthor for a failed install because those users obviously aren't able to check their gamefolders for having folders at the right place, OTOH ckan probably took some support requests from the modders shoulders by grabbing dependencies and filtering out incompatible mods.

Ckan however, should delist the mod when an author demands so.

Make a popup in ckan to tell people to first stop by in the ckan thread.

It's a question of good manners and respect for other peoples hard work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

no support from modders

From what i learn in this drama - users are idiots that can't understand this simple sentence.

 

2 minutes ago, micr0wave said:

Ckan isn't the real problem.

It's the users who are unexperienced with mod installs and keep bothering the modauthor for a failed install because those users obviously aren't able to check their gamefolders for having folders at the right place, OTOH ckan probably took some support requests from the modders shoulders by grabbing dependencies and filtering out incompatible mods.

This.

Generally I love idea of unsupported repo as long as that stupid users won't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, micr0wave said:

Ckan isn't the real problem.

It's the users who are unexperienced with mod installs and keep bothering the modauthor for a failed install because those users obviously aren't able to check their gamefolders for having folders at the right place, OTOH ckan probably took some support requests from the modders shoulders by grabbing dependencies and filtering out incompatible mods.

Ckan however, should delist the mod when an author demands so.

Right, and Ferram should make the drag way lower in FAR, because I think its way incorrect.

The CKAN policies are very misguided in their decision to only delist ARR mods on request; They really should not delist any mods on request, for their current repository.

With the walled garden idea being promulgated above though, delisting suddenly becomes viable.

Just now, TeddyDD said:

From what i learn in this drama - users are idiots that can't understand this simple sentence.

Generally I love idea of unsupported repo as long as that stupid users won't use it.

Make new versions of the client produce a popup that requires you to type an acknowledgement to dismiss it, when trying to add a non official repository - or the Unsupported one.

Include a short, single sentence warning that no support is offered by CKAN, or the modders involved, for using mods outside the official repo.

 

Its sad, isnt it, that we are trying to go from Linux to Apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bos said:

On the contrary, I just tried with a separate fresh install, and CKAN is basically completely broken now.

Other mods that depend on Module Manager don't even show up in the list. Even if Module Manager is installed via manual dll.

This includes mods for whom ckan is still the recommended install method. While I agree with your suggestion in general, I disagree for mods that could be considered core mods (Module Manager, Community Tech Tree, Community Resource Pack, and maybe Kopernicus come to mind). If a mod has enough different authors with dependencies, and the license is or has been a permissive one, then at least a week or two notice should be required to resolve the concern or find someone who will support it before delisting.

There is no need things have to happen right now.

Why should users get a week or two?.... Modders have been warning of these types of issues, and the possibilities of what could happen, and have been giving the CKAN team over a YEAR to work something out, or to prepare for something of this nature...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree; If you give modders the ability to request a delisting (which is unfortunately the case here for a subset of modders), it should not matter whether your mod is required by other mods to function.

Another reason to not delist any mods at all.

I note that Module Manager is under a ShareAlike license, so there is nothing stopping anyone from forking it on Github, and asking it to be relisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a staging and an official repo as @TeddyDD has stated.  I do not agree with any official repo where 'unsupported' mods are - because all this does is push us right back into the current issues when all of the users scramble over there right after a new release drops.  And we've seen how well that has worked out for us.  Ultimately, cleaning CKAN and filling it with stuff that is supported, has an official maintainer, and has facilities for proper pre-testing is just going to help everyone, and also mitigate a huge amount of the animosity there.

One official repo - one staging repo.  Dedicated maintainers for a mod, ideally the mod author.  If not, a volunteer approved by and working with the author.  Let us actually use staging ourselves to test our stuff out before it gets pushed to official.  This means users are going to have to wait a few days sometimes after a major update (or longer if there are dependencies, since there is going to be a long testing chain).  And this is ok, if it acts as a massive filter to a lot of the issues.  It's also undone by any kind of 'experimental' or 'unsupported' repo.  Let's not do a repeat of what got us here.

Opt-Out (for all) of course needs to always be an option.  Case in point - having the power of opt-out ensures there's motivation for a conversation (again, the case in point being that it took all of this, and the loss of Module Manager to get to an actual discussion).  

All of this is moot until we hear @pjf weigh in.  I (and I expect the rest of the modders) would like to make sure that this policy is going to actually stick, and not be rolled back.  And once in place, we need to agree that this particular part of the policy needs to be irrevocable.

I am not familiar with the CKAN team structure, but maybe @TeddyDD or @politas can help clarify the process, and let us know how we can best ensure the opt-out policy currently in place remains so that we can get back to focusing on more important issues, instead of waiting for the rug to be pulled out from under us.

 

1 hour ago, blu3wolf said:

Another reason to not delist any mods at all.

I note that Module Manager is under a ShareAlike license, so there is nothing stopping anyone from forking it on Github, and asking it to be relisted.

This is not productive.  Especially when a lot of us are trying to sort this.  You are not helping right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, superdavekerman said:

Speaking of not productive, as a user I'd like to see the modders bring something to the table.  A general agreement to refrain from insulting and mocking your own user base. It's toxic. 

You are not gonna get that wish unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, superdavekerman said:

Speaking of not productive, as a user I'd like to see the modders bring something to the table.  A general agreement to refrain from insulting and mocking your own user base. It's toxic. 

Unbelievable. Did you even read your own post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

This is not productive.  Especially when a lot of us are trying to sort this.  You are not helping right now.

Depends on your definition of productive. When you say sort this, you refer to your own efforts in taking down CKAN. As Im opposed to that, Im going to be taking actions that are not productive towards that goal.

 

That should be pretty obvious. Talk of being productive when our aims align.

1 minute ago, Qberticus said:

There are no "users" of mods. Only receivers of gifts. People who receive gifts should act accordingly.

If your gifts have strings attached, count me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

We bring all of the content...

well, not all the content..

all the FREE content :)

they still have to buy KSP from squad

 

maybe modders should pitch in to help players buy a copy of KSP, that would be productive enough I'd imagine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blu3wolf said:

Depends on your definition of productive. When you say sort this, you refer to your own efforts in taking down CKAN. As Im opposed to that, Im going to be taking actions that are not productive towards that goal.

 

That should be pretty obvious. Talk of being productive when our aims align.

Incorrect, maybe read the rest of the post.  At the moment we're attempting to sort out a workable deal.  And provided nobody shoves another broom into the bike wheels, it will be sorted soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, superdavekerman said:

Speaking of not productive, as a user I'd like to see the modders bring something to the table.  A general agreement to refrain from insulting and mocking your own user base. It's toxic. 

 

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

We bring all of the content...

 

6 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

You are not gonna get that wish unfortunately.

 

4 minutes ago, Frybert said:

...

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

Wow.

 

1 minute ago, Van Disaster said:

Unbelievable. Did you even read your own post?

Modders bring their mods to the table. That said, can we steer away from the impending shouting match and get back to CKAN, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoverDude said:

Incorrect, maybe read the rest of the post.  At the moment we're attempting to sort out a workable deal.  And provided nobody shoves another broom into the bike wheels, it will be sorted soon enough.

I read the rest of the post, and your definition of workable and mine do not align. That gives me a hell of an incentive to see what things could fit into the spokes.

Edited by blu3wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

I read the rest of the post, and your definition of workable and mine do not align. That gives me a hell of an incentive to see what things could fit into the spokes.

with all due respect, and with trying not to let this thread get derailed any further, the issue is between mod creators and CKAN, not users and CKAN. The arguments presented here are the result of a long period of hoping things would get fixed, and yet still belligerently remain broken. Things that content creators find extremely stressful, and intolerable could be seen as complete BS by an end user, however thats not the point. The point is that the creators themselves should have the final say in their mods

If you have decent case then by all means make it, but at the end of the day, it's our personal time and effort that lets people play all this extra content. This is about creating a FAIR way for our content to be distributed, and to be taken down when & if we so choose. As it currently stands the wave of ARR licensing and bad blood will only damage the community in the long run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KillAshley said:

with all due respect, and with trying not to let this thread get derailed any further, the issue is between mod creators and CKAN, not users and CKAN. The arguments presented here are the result of a long period of hoping things would get fixed, and yet still belligerently remain broken. Things that content creators find extremely stressful, and intolerable could be seen as complete BS by an end user, however thats not the point. The point is that the creators themselves should have the final say in their mods

If you have decent case then by all means make it, but at the end of the day, it's our personal time and effort that lets people play all this extra content. This is about creating a FAIR way for our content to be distributed, and to be taken down when & if we so choose. As it currently stands the wave of ARR licensing and bad blood will only damage the community in the long run

As above, our differences are axiomatic - you say creators should have the right to override freedom of speech, I disagree. You say creators should be able to say their mods must only be downloaded using Firefox, I disagree.

As things stand, your content is being distributed, by either you, or a website you personally nominated to do it for you. CKAN presents a list of the locations of such downloads, not a mirror of the downloads themselves. In short - you absolutely can take your content down when and if you choose. If you licensed it under an OSS license, mind you, you have no ability to prevent someone else from reuploading it. If you have a problem with that, then you really should have an ARR license to start with.

As far as the issue being between mod creators and CKAN, Ill pay that. My issue is that the proposed solutions affect (in a number of cases severely) the users. I think if the solution to the issue presents another issue, then as a user of CKAN I have a stake in this discussion.

Edited by blu3wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

As above, our differences are axiomatic - you say creators should have the right to override freedom of speech, I disagree. You say creators should be able to say their mods must only be downloaded using Firefox, I disagree.

As things stand, your content is being distributed, by either you, or a website you personally nominated to do it for you. CKAN presents a list of the locations of such downloads, not a mirror of the downloads themselves. In short - you absolutely can take your content down when and if you choose. If you licensed it under an OSS license, mind you, you have no ability to prevent someone else from reuploading it. If you have a problem with that, then you really should have an ARR license to start with.

and it's attitudes such as that that has made so many amazing mod authors leave in the past in many communities. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this anyway, freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want without governing bodies stopping you, however it doesn't protect you from those who have to listen to the inane rants. I can understand the mentality of how you think, however an attitude such as that will only create more issues in the community itself, the attitude that mod authors don't matter and that end-users should get to do what they want will eventually destroy the community altogether. I mean, who would want to create anything for people that won't even respect them? Why spend countless hours creating content if you can't even control it?

you are right though, theres nothing stopping you from re-uploading everything, except after you do so you'll have to sit there and watch how quickly all of these amazing people leave the scene for good. We work through a mutual respect, it's the only thing we have. We don't make money off our work, we don't get famous off our work. We do it because we enjoy doing it, and if more people act to us the way you act to us then why should we do anything?

 

anyway, lets leave it there and go back to the topic, this thread is about trying to create an understanding and a better system for CKAN and/or any other mod manager that exists/will be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent posts in thread are exactly why I've been loathe to participate.  This game is amazing.  The mods that many, many people have poured their hearts and time into are also amazing.  The users have made many amazing contributions in how the game can be played, and the modding community has responded with ever more integration, collaboration, and great spirit in making KSP more than it ever could have been on its own.

To bicker about this and that devolves this community into minecraft or wow, or other such games that have gone mainstream and with that added the baggage of "expectations" by the user community.

I actually appreciate the expectations the users have, as it pushes us better modders and improves the gaming experience for everyone.  HOWEVER,

Any user that wishes to use mods MUST understand that these additions to the game are NOT guaranteed to work, interact, collaborate and/or generally behave like commercial production software.  With that said, even commercial, production software has its share of bugs, behavioral problems and "issues". The difference lies in the fact that you paid money for the core game, so some "expectation" of support is reasonable.  This is not so when it comes to mods.  

CKAN is an awesome tool for making it easier to install and manage mods,  IT is NOT commercial software, and is supported by its authors.  Imagine the bandwidth being paid for to support the hundreds of thousands of users...  Curse gaming provides a mod installer for other games.  They also support it via either subscription or by ads.  The mod authors here nave no such revenue path, but mod anyway.  The modders have "expectations" as well.  They want the users to understand that they share the responsibility for using mods by learning how they work, and supporting the mod authors with feedback and encouragement to become even better.

This thread is all about "expectations".  the problem with "expectations" is that they set you up for disappointment, because people rarely meet those expectations, We have no control over any other person.  We can only control ourselves.

So please, everyone here, examine your expectations, and instead of getting upset that they are not met, do something about it to help solve the problem.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

you say creators should have the right to override freedom of speech

An author not wanting to deal with the support headaches that come from their mod suddenly appearing, without their knowledge or approval, on a mod manager service that has up until now been very reticent to fix the "dumping support problems upstream" issue is nothing to do with freedom of speech, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is.

I hope the problem is resolved soon, without more weaponising of software licenses. I have always been in favour of a workable mod manager to make stuff easier for end users and authors. However CKAN up until now, was not heading in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KillAshley said:

and it's attitudes such as that that has made so many amazing mod authors leave in the past in many communities. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this anyway, freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want without governing bodies stopping you, however it doesn't protect you from those who have to listen to the inane rants. I can understand the mentality of how you think, however an attitude such as that will only create more issues in the community itself, the attitude that mod authors don't matter and that end-users should get to do what they want will eventually destroy the community altogether. I mean, who would want to create anything for people that won't even respect them? Why spend countless hours creating content if you can't even control it?

You have missed the point entirely. I will endeavor to make it, once more.

I might point out that Freedom of Speech in the US at least does protect you from those who would otherwise have to listen to the inane rants. In this specific case though, Im not asking you to listen to me. The speech that is protected is the contents of the library. The metadata CKAN collects is not your work, and it is not your mod. It relates to your mod, and it describes your mod and some details about it, like where it can be found. You have as much power to say that CKAN should not index your work, as you have power to prevent discussions of your work. That applies whether your mod is ARR, or CC, or a book for that matter.

End users want to install your mod. If that counts as disrespecting the wishes of the modder who deliberately put it out there, and distributed it themselves over http... well then. we are at an impasse.

1 minute ago, technicalfool said:

An author not wanting to deal with the support headaches that come from their mod suddenly appearing, without their knowledge or approval, on a mod manager service that has up until now been very reticent to fix the "dumping support problems upstream" issue is nothing to do with freedom of speech, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is.

I hope the problem is resolved soon, without more weaponising of software licenses. I have always been in favour of a workable mod manager to make stuff easier for end users and authors. However CKAN up until now, was not heading in that direction.

Your insults aside, if mod authors do not actually want their mods to be free or open, they ought not be releasing them under such licenses. Its not weaponising. Its also worth nothing that its hardly a defense, given that no mod manager interacts with the distribution license of your mods anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

Your insults aside, if mod authors do not actually want their mods to be free or open, they ought not be releasing them under such licenses. Its not weaponising. Its also worth nothing that its hardly a defense, given that no mod manager interacts with the distribution license of your mods anyway.

Authors use open licenses because they want to foster other upcoming creators and enable thier mods to out live them. Not give entitled users a license to disrespect them.

Edited by passinglurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...