Let's put this in a nicer, less egotistic way...

[Matuchkin]

As some of you already know, I posted quite a riveting topic, on the subject of the numerous shutdowns of mod (and mod-distribution) projects. Previously, before I wrote that, I was aggravated by an event that included a school project and a 2:30 AM sleeping time (long story). So, when I wrote that post, it came out as an egotistic, hubris-covered insult to @Fengist, @SirCmpwn, and other modders. To you, I apologize.

Now that I calmed down, a day later, it is time to actually say what I mean, in a nice and civilized way (now that a bunch of people probably view me as a complete [beach]).

I'd start by saying that a mod can actually be considered a service to the forum community, a service that is directed by the modder. I do not mean to say that a modder is in any kind of servitude to the forum community. I mean to say that a mod or a mod-distributor advances and helps the community, used by hundreds of people to alter an aspect of the game itself. Therefore, there should be some kind of controlling process to limit the removal or ending of mod/ mod distribution projects, a process that comes down to multiple other people, including the modder himself. A poll must be conducted (in order to keep community satisfaction), and numerous other such processes have to take place before one is given the all-clear to end his project (I do not know how to put this in a better way, please help). Otherwise, if no such process is conducted, service and maintenance of the project can be handed over to another forum user or suspended. With a system like that, things such as Fengist's Shipyard or Kerbalstuff will not be lost due to mere emotion/ anger/ anything else, only shutting down for urgent reasons, and the forums will be much calmer.

To summarize:  I am trying to think up a plan of action to somewhat limit the shutdown of important mods, mod distributors, or other projects, in order to avoid the endless waves of dilemma and argument hitting these forums. I am trying to think up a method to do this in a non-obliging, non-insulting way, while keeping the same degree of freedom modders now have with their projects.

I hope this is a nicer way of putting up the issue.

Holy god my previous thread was horrible. My first time actually getting scolded by multiple forum members. Dang.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Matuchkin

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Matuchkin said:

Therefore, there should be some kind of controlling process to limit the removal or ending of mod/ mod distribution projects, a process that does not come down to the modder himself. A poll must be conducted, and numerous other such processes have to take place before one is given the all-clear to end his project.

You say that the modder is not in any kind of servitude, yet this statement immediately requires the modder to do something he/she may not want/have time for/etc.  

It would be better to say that there should be some sort of "Code of Conduct" which a modder can voluntarily adhere to.  Then players would have the opportunity to either use or not use that particular modder's stuff, depending on whether the modder adheres to the code or not.

I am speaking both as a modder, and as a player.  Like everyone else, I was upset at the shutdown of Kerbalstuff.  Yes, it would have been nicer if SirCmpwn would have coordinated a takeover to someone else.  But for his own reasons, he decided not to.  BTW, for all those "curseforge" haters out there, this is one reason to NOT depend on a volunteer effort which so many people depend on.

 

Linuxgurugamer

[Matuchkin]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You say that the modder is not in any kind of servitude, yet this statement immediately requires the modder to do something he/she may not want/have time for/etc.  

But isn't it quite a slap in the face when something like kerbalstuff gets removed? There has to be some kind of process that a modder has to follow- a whole community depends on him, right? So he can't just leave hundreds of people in chaos. There's a difference between servitude and necessity. What if a real-life company that billions depend on, such as Microsoft, suddenly shuts down? Of course, KSP is not at the level of microsoft, but I'm just exaggerating to prove my point.

 

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

It would be better to say that there should be some sort of "Code of Conduct" which a modder can voluntarily adhere to.  Then players would have the opportunity to either use or not use that particular modder's stuff, depending on whether the modder adheres to the code or not.

There. That's a better way of putting it. The "voluntarily" concept is arguable, for reasons stated above. I do, however, agree completely with the second sentence. If a modder decides not to work on his mod, he can leave (the process taken before that action is debatable), but he doesn't have to take his mod with him, so that others can access it. Mod updating is another topic.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Matuchkin

[stibbons]

1 minute ago, Matuchkin said:

What if a real-life company, such as Microsoft, suddenly shut down?

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

[linuxgurugamer]

Just now, Matuchkin said:

But isn't it quite a slap in the face when something like kerbalstuff gets removed? There has to be some kind of process that a modder has to follow- a whole community depends on him, right? So he can't just leave hundreds of people in chaos. There's a difference between servitude and necessity. What if a real-life company, such as Microsoft, suddenly shut down? Of course, KSP is not at the level of microsoft, but I'm just exaggerating to prove my point.

 

There. That's a better way of putting it. The "voluntarily" concept is arguable, for reasons stated above. I do, however, agree completely with the second sentence. If a modder decides not to work on his mod, he can leave (the process taken before that action is debatable), but he doesn't have to take his mod with him. Mod updating is another topic.

Who is paying the modder for his time?  I can tell you, that one of my mods had over 150,000 downloads from Kerbalstuff, yet, so far, no one had made any contribution to my Patreon account.  Now, it isn't required, and I don't (obviously) do it for the money.  A company like Microsoft, Curse or others is different, in that they have received money to provide a service.  Kerbalstuff, on the other hand, was not only not making money, but was actually costing him about $150/month.  

In fact, I could even argue that the community has NO RIGHT AT ALL to expect anything from a modder, since THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THAT MODDER ANYTHING!  Therefore, there can be no expectation of something that MUST be done.  Rather, the community should expect that at any moment, things can change, either for the better or the worse.

There are quite a number of mods which have restricted licenses, and those modders have left the scene for whatever reason.  Again, it's their mod, and for their own reasons they have restricted the license.  Yes, it would be nice if they turned the mod over to other people, and in fact, one of my mods (EditorExtensionsRedux) is actually a combination of 4 other mods which the authors have let me carry on for the good of the community.

Until you have been a modder, you don't have any right to comment on what the modder should or should not do.  You can request (nicely).  But you cannot demand.

[CobaltWolf]

While I certainly think that members of the community who make things (be them websites, mods, etc) shouldn't just abandon their work, I really don't think that they are under some form of obligation. I think that is the distinction. You have to recognize how deep the personal commitment for a lot of these projects are (otherwise they wouldn't put so much time into them) and how uncomfortable it is to think of it being different than how they imagined, or see their hard work without them in the picture.

I lost my train of thought a bit here (someone brought free sandwiches to the office!) so I'll just reiterate that while personally I would rather see things be handed over to the community, I really don't think you can make a case that there is some sort of obligation on the part of the creator. 

[Matuchkin]

7 minutes ago, stibbons said:

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

Mod authors are not for-profit companies.

There's something I said later, featuring the words "exaggerating to prove my point."

If one makes an analogy to something, that analogy is usually not literal. Please understand me.

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

While I certainly think that members of the community who make things (be them websites, mods, etc) shouldn't just abandon their work, I really don't think that they are under some form of obligation. I think that is the distinction. You have to recognize how deep the personal commitment for a lot of these projects are (otherwise they wouldn't put so much time into them) and how uncomfortable it is to think of it being different than how they imagined, or see their hard work without them in the picture.

I lost my train of thought a bit here (someone brought free sandwiches to the office!) so I'll just reiterate that while personally I would rather see things be handed over to the community, I really don't think you can make a case that there is some sort of obligation on the part of the creator. 

I certainly did not mean that there is an obligation by the modder. I meant that one cannot just drop a project, and that there should be some system to avoid large-scale dilemmas, such as with kerbalstuff (again, that example). What do you say?

[linuxgurugamer]

3 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

I certainly did not mean that there is an obligation by the modder. I meant that one cannot just drop a project, and that there should be some system to avoid large-scale dilemmas, such as with kerbalstuff (again, that example). What do you say?

As soon as you put the word "cannot", you are putting the modder under an obligation.  Nicer to say "should not".

[CobaltWolf]

5 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

I certainly did not mean that there is an obligation by the modder. I meant that one cannot just drop a project, and that there should be some system to avoid large-scale dilemmas, such as with kerbalstuff (again, that example). What do you say?

 

I think the line I bolded is my sticking point. It should read 'shouldn't' or something. That's the difference. 

Believe me, I wasn't happy with the way the KS shut down. And as some have said, that's the reason why Squad uses Curse and not some one-man-show. I think that Spacedock, as long as they continue to have a team working on the project, will be more stable. Though I think some would disagree with me.

(Apologies in advance if there is a ton of empty space in the quotation. The browser on my work PC does it sometimes and I can't fix it)

EDIT: Ah, yes, it happened.

And @linuxgurugamer beat me  

Edited April 13, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Matuchkin]

8 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Who is paying the modder for his time?  I can tell you, that one of my mods had over 150,000 downloads from Kerbalstuff, yet, so far, no one had made any contribution to my Patreon account.  Now, it isn't required, and I don't (obviously) do it for the money.  A company like Microsoft, Curse or others is different, in that they have received money to provide a service.  Kerbalstuff, on the other hand, was not only not making money, but was actually costing him about $150/month.  

In fact, I could even argue that the community has NO RIGHT AT ALL to expect anything from a modder, since THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THAT MODDER ANYTHING!  Therefore, there can be no expectation of something that MUST be done.  Rather, the community should expect that at any moment, things can change, either for the better or the worse.

There are quite a number of mods which have restricted licenses, and those modders have left the scene for whatever reason.  Again, it's their mod, and for their own reasons they have restricted the license.  Yes, it would be nice if they turned the mod over to other people, and in fact, one of my mods (EditorExtensionsRedux) is actually a combination of 4 other mods which the authors have let me carry on for the good of the community.

Until you have been a modder, you don't have any right to comment on what the modder should or should not do.  You can request (nicely).  But you cannot demand.

I don't mean that the modder is obliged. I don't mean that he is payed. Shutting down large scale projects that support the game causes huge amounts of argument and disgruntlement. I'm trying to think of a way to end that, without making modders obliged, owing, under service, etc. A "process to limit mod shutdown" is just a beggining of my thoughts. But please, do not mistake this for what you think it is.

[stibbons]

4 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

There's something I said later, featuring the words "exaggerating to prove my point."

If one makes an analogy to something, that analogy is usually not literal. Please understand me.

If your point is not that mod authors should be under the same obligation as a for-profit company that has sold products and services to customers, then please explain what it is.

[Matuchkin]

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

As soon as you put the word "cannot", you are putting the modder under an obligation.  Nicer to say "should not".

So that was my source of misunderstanding, the whole time? Fixing that.

[RA3236]

Huh? When did this happen?

*looks through post history

Still confused, but no need to explain the post to me...

[Matuchkin]

1 minute ago, stibbons said:

If your point is not that mod authors should be under the same obligation as a for-profit company that has sold products and services to customers, then please explain what it is.

I am trying to think up a plan of action to limit the shutdown of important mods, mod distributors, or other projects, in order to avoid the endless waves of dilemma and argument hitting these forums. I am trying to think up a method to do this in a non-obliging, non-insulting way, while keeping the same degree of freedom modders now have with their projects. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I should copy this into the OP.

[cxg2827]

9 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

But isn't it quite a slap in the face when something like kerbalstuff gets removed? There has to be some kind of process that a modder has to follow- a whole community depends on him, right? So he can't just leave hundreds of people in chaos. There's a difference between servitude and necessity.

Not saying this is the case, but lets say mod-users are always "gimme gimme gimme", rarely show any form of thanks, then it is understandable if the mod author would just want to keep their creation to themselves and not want to hand it off for continuation to appease a bunch of entitled people.

 

Like @linuxgurugamer said,

32 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Until you have been a modder, you don't have any right to comment on what the modder should or should not do

Modding take a lot of personal time and effort. I have probably put in over 300 hours in my mod alone, and haven't received a single donation. But I don't really care about the donations, I care about the people using my mod that contribute to the discussion, are appreciative, or share their creations that use my parts. That is what drives my motivation to continue modding. 

 

I wasnt very happy with how KS shut down, but I understood that he was under no obligation to maintain it or pass it on since he was spending his own time and money to maintain it. It was his project and his final choice in the matter.

 

Your suggestion for some type of modders-agreement is a bit uninviting, and @CobaltWolf says it pretty well:

28 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You have to recognize how deep the personal commitment for a lot of these projects are (otherwise they wouldn't put so much time into them) and how uncomfortable it is to think of it being different than how they imagined, or see their hard work without them in the picture.

 

[RoverDude]

24 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

I am trying to think up a plan of action to limit the shutdown of important mods, mod distributors, or other projects, in order to avoid the endless waves of dilemma and argument hitting these forums. I am trying to think up a method to do this in a non-obliging, non-insulting way, while keeping the same degree of freedom modders now have with their projects. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I should copy this into the OP.

There is none, and that's kinda the point.  

It is the modder's personal work that they happen to share with other people.  If a modder wants to lock it in a restrictive license, or just delete the files and forbid all forks, etc. - then that is absolutely their prerogative.

There is no inherrant right of the community to the intellectual property of others.  you're free to ask nicely all you wish, but nobody is beholden to it.  

And even 'asking nicely' is irrelevant.  Just like the times modders 'ask nicely' not to do certain things with our properties (list them in CKAN, create forks that bypass Win64 causing support problems, bundling them in modpacks, etc).  This kinda works both ways.  A very vocal portion of the community has shown that it does not respect 'asking nicely' (we're told 'tough luck - you chose your license'), why should the people creating content for themselves be held to a higher standard just because they decided to share their stuff with someone?

This is a hobby.  We do it for our own enjoyment, whether it's playing the game, or using it as a creative outlet or a learning experience for modelers/coders.  While it's great that people enjoy things we share, it's still a voluntary exchange without expectation or obligation.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by RoverDude

[AlphaAsh]

I agree with @cxg2827 and I agree with what was quoted from @CobaltWolf. Perhaps something the OP keeps missing is that some modders have an ego, want to have an ego, may have a huge ego (here) and use their ego as part of their motivation to do what they do. In fact, that doesn't just apply to modders.

Ego gives me a passion to make something not just for myself but to then consider and often go ahead making it for others and finding an audience. Hell, I usually want an audience. There's been plenty of projects I've just straight-out abandoned because that reward ultimately wasn't there.

This doesn't mean I still don't mod for me first. I still do.

As for the rest, well I think what I disagree with is pretty clear by now.

Edited April 13, 2016 by AlphaAsh

[regex]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

To summarize:  I am trying to think up a plan of action to somewhat limit the shutdown of important mods, mod distributors, or other projects, in order to avoid the endless waves of dilemma and argument hitting these forums. I am trying to think up a method to do this in a non-obliging, non-insulting way, while keeping the same degree of freedom modders now have with their projects.

Convince mod authors to use more permissive licences.  That's all you can do.  It's their work, their choice, anyone else has literally no say in the matter.

[InsaneDruid]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

To summarize:  I am trying to think up a plan of action to somewhat limit the shutdown of important mods, mod distributors, or other projects, in order to avoid the endless waves of dilemma and argument hitting these forums. I am trying to think up a method to do this in a non-obliging, non-insulting way, while keeping the same degree of freedom modders now have with their projects.

There are two ways:

1) don't depend your "life" on something you can't control. And this goes FAR beyond modding. You state that Modders are no company, STILL there should be a way to force some way of handling a service. Well I can tell you: even for the big businesses, there is NOTHING that would stop them from withdrawing any service or product they offer. If Gabe N. would close down steam tomorrow for the fact that he doesn't like it any more, or just because it it thursday, nothing would stop him. There MAY be some other companies trying to take over the job, because it seems to be extremely lucrative. But there would be no way to force him to keep it up. Same with windows. or so many other things You bought a prices home automation service from nest not much over two years ago? Hooray, you can put all the stuff in the trash now! You bought a "smart" TV for a single service it offers? Well probably it is already shut down now.

2) If you need something that badly, make it yourself. Or at least try to do something other than claiming yo have the right to force someone to do you a favour and not to stop doing it. So what did you do to stop the modder from withdrawing in the first place? Where was your encouraging post in the dev threads? Did you spend some bucks for a coffee to one of them just to make sure you at least acknowledge the fact that he or she most probably pays something (tools, services etc he/she is using) besides the time he/she is spending to create this one thing/service that now means so much to you when it is taken from you, but meant so little as long as you where getting it for free?

If it is important for you, show it! And that doesn't mean only saying nice things. I think most modders would actually prefer some real, truly meant, constructive(!) critique in what could be improved over over-glorifying even the most basics things.

 

 

[cxg2827]

6 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

If Gabe N. would close down steam tomorrow for the fact that he doesn't like it any more, or just because it it thursday, nothing would stop him.

If I ever put in my 2-weeks notice at work, I'll use this as my reasoning for leaving the company 

[tg626]

Personally, I chose the license I did for my mods based on the idea that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd want my work to carry on.  As it turned out I took a hiatus form this hobby during which the KerbalStuff shutdown occurred.  I found my fans, after some debate, and in accordance with the license placed a copy on mediafire not wanting to "hijack" my mod by posting it themselves on SpaceDock in the event of my return.

This worked out EXACTLY as I had hoped it would, tho it did require reliance on respectful behavior by my "fans".  All around I was quite pleased.

That being said, that was my decision.  I'm a big fan of open source software and all that jazz.  Others may not feel so open about their work and that's their prerogative.

[Matuchkin]

You know what? I understand that what I'm saying is still viewed as some kind of coercive, egotistic rant. I'm just trying to think of a better way of encouraging modders not to drop their projects, or to give them to another forum user for maintenance. However, I am still being considered a hubristic, self promoting, egotistic idiot, who aims to coerce modders to follow my own goals, by the looks of all the comments. I can't express anything I say without sounding that way, and I can't express my ideas without being misunderstood in ways mentioned above. Anyway, I understand now that modding projects are only under the control of the modders themselves, which I now support. Therefore, I don't even want to discuss this pointless subject.

Here's my thread. Discuss anything you want here, but just don't quote me anymore.

Oh god, I overreacted again. Why do I keep doing that?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Matuchkin

[PolecatEZ]

28 minutes ago, regex said:

Convince mod authors to use more permissive licences.  That's all you can do.  It's their work, their choice, anyone else has literally no say in the matter.

That's first and foremost about the only thing you can do.

There's a lot that comes down to personal philosophy, and that will never be resolved.  I know what's "right" to me, but others have the absolute right as well to take a more Randian approach to life.  Personally I see creating mods the same as taking up a leadership position, by doing so you take some responsibility as a public servant - including not plunging your little private empire into chaos by getting bored or liquided at a couple of rude constituents.  If you can't or won't continue your duties (that go beyond "I just made some models and code), you should at least leave some machinery in place to soften the blow of you leaving...including successors, permissive licenses, whatever.  There are no hard rules for it, and shouldn't be, its just what good leadership does.

But again, that's a personal choice.  People will be people, and some will choose to go Galt.

As for permissive license while you are actively working on a project, that's a different story.  And there is enough precedent for the branching disasters of a few mods to make the case that open licenses aren't the best in every situation, but they should be a parting solution for any mod author that just wants to walk away.

Finally though...part mods.

I've seen a lot of part mods that die for the simple love of a bracket or extra stat line in the parts.cfg.  This is absurd, as most people with a modicum of notepad knowledge simply fix it on their own computers - so no real reason to restrict it from getting an updated .cfg.  One solution I can think is to make a more open "catalog" site for distribution.

Parts wouldn't come in packs, but be individual.  Mod creators would upload their models and configs, and the configs would automatically be updated with bare minimum necessary changes to go with KSP versions.  All other aspects of their licensing choices would remain the same, just a KSP version update won't abruptly kill their mod.  .dll dependent parts would also have the .dll as another piece in the catalog and this would be noted.

[linuxgurugamer]

29 minutes ago, PolecatEZ said:

I've seen a lot of part mods that die for the simple love of a bracket or extra stat line in the parts.cfg.  This is absurd, as most people with a modicum of notepad knowledge simply fix it on their own computers - so no real reason to restrict it from getting an updated .cfg.  One solution I can think is to make a more open "catalog" site for distribution.

There are part mods which I've used which have gone away.  I'd love to maintain them, but the license doesn't allow.  KWRocketry is different, in that I am maintaining the KW Community Patches and got permission from the author to upload a revised KW to Spacedock (when I have time).

30 minutes ago, PolecatEZ said:

Parts wouldn't come in packs, but be individual.  Mod creators would upload their models and configs, and the configs would automatically be updated with bare minimum necessary changes to go with KSP versions.  All other aspects of their licensing choices would remain the same, just a KSP version update won't abruptly kill their mod.  .dll dependent parts would also have the .dll as another piece in the catalog and this would be noted.

Parts have to come in packs, for several reasons.  First, they may rely on a special DLL.  Then, a pack is usually a set of related parts, and if the parts were used separately, they wouldn't make sense or wouldn't work.  Besides, this is totally unnecessary; all that needs to be done is for the modder to have a license which allows it.  

It would be nice if old part mods were available for others to pickup, but it comes back to the license.  If I or another modder wishes to pick up a part pack, the license has to allow it in some form, otherwise I am SOL.

[RoverDude]

54 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

You know what? I understand that what I'm saying is still viewed as some kind of coercive, egotistic rant. I'm just trying to think of a better way of encouraging modders not to drop their projects, or to give them to another forum user for maintenance. However, I am still being considered a hubristic, self promoting, egotistic idiot, who aims to coerce modders to follow my own goals, by the looks of all the comments. I can't express anything I say without sounding that way, and I can't express my ideas without being misunderstood in ways mentioned above. Anyway, I understand now that modding projects are only under the control of the modders themselves, which I now support. Therefore, I don't even want to discuss this pointless subject.

Here's my thread. Discuss anything you want here, but just don't quote me anymore.

Let me quote you then

As noted above, about the only thing you can do is encourage open licensing.  That's it.  And the best way the community as a whole can encourage open licensing is to consistently respect the modder's wishes beyond the boilerplate of a license (i.e. don't fork my project please while I am still around, don't fork it just to circumvent locks I put in place or to be a jerk, don't take credit for my work, don't put it in a modpack, don't list it on CKAN, etc.).