Compatibility Popup Blocker

[regex]

Toxicity stems from feelings of entitlement in excess of what one is actually entitled to.

When the toxicity is sealed in because no one is countering these inflated expectations, this appears to work just fine. Like most race conditions.

Sometimes you need to vent it to keep it from building up. I think this thread may constitute a healthy dose of reality check.

So, basically what you're saying here is that someone writing code for free and sharing the results with the community at large is feeling entitlement in excess of what they're actually entitled to by ... adding a nag screen for updates in order to add a preventative support measure and doing so in a fashion that not only works with other mods but reduces the nagging to a single screen? And that modders shouldn't feel entitled to reduce their support burden and that attempting to reduce that support burden is ... toxic?

I fail to see your point. I do, however, look forward to what you think is the "underlying problem here".

[Alshain]

So, basically what you're saying here is that someone writing code for free and sharing the results with the community at large is feeling entitlement in excess of what they're actually entitled to by ... adding a nag screen for updates in order to add a preventative support measure and doing so in a fashion that not only works with other mods but reduces the nagging to a single screen? And that modders shouldn't feel entitled to reduce their support burden and that attempting to reduce that support burden is ... toxic?

I fail to see your point. I do, however, look forward to what you think is the "underlying problem here".

You shouldn't feel entitled to control what other people do on their computers. You are perfectly within your rights to add the pop up, others are perfectly within their rights to remove it.

[regex]

You shouldn't feel entitled to control what other people do on their computers. You are perfectly within your rights to add the pop up, others are perfectly within their rights to remove it.

Oh, no one is arguing that.

But, since the accepted method of a unified update alert system has become completely unreliable, users should be fully prepared to accept the various solutions that attempt to reliably address the issue.

E: Point being that alerting a user that a mod may not be compatible with the version of KSP is a preventative support measure and should not be considered "entitlement" (I'd call that sort of characterization "toxic" and, quite frankly, highly insulting) when the service/product is being provided for free. As always, you are free to discontinue use of the free service/product if it no longer fits your needs.

Edited October 24, 2014 by regex

[Alshain]

Oh, no one is arguing that.

But, since the accepted method of a unified update alert system has become completely unreliable, users should be fully prepared to accept the various solutions that attempt to reliably address the issue.

E: Point being that alerting a user that a mod may not be compatible with the version of KSP is a preventative support measure and should not be considered "entitlement" (I'd call that sort of characterization "toxic" and, quite frankly, highly insulting) when the service/product is being provided for free. As always, you are free to discontinue use of the free service/product if it no longer fits your needs.

Ah mountains and molehills. 100% of your users aren't going to see the pop up so that must mean the entire world is coming to an end.

[regex]

Ah mountains and molehills. 100% of your users aren't going to see the pop up so that must mean the entire world is coming to an end.

You can bandy the point around however you like but the fact remains that a unified, community-driven and -accepted feature that authors of free things have come to rely on has become completely unreliable. This will get sorted out one way or the other, but claiming that authors are "entitled" or exhibiting "toxic" behavior because they seek a preventative solution for support is utter hogwash.

[Alshain]

You can bandy the point around however you like but the fact remains that a unified, community-driven and -accepted feature that authors of free things have come to rely on has become completely unreliable. This will get sorted out one way or the other, but claiming that authors are "entitled" or exhibiting "toxic" behavior because they seek a preventative solution for support is utter hogwash.

It's only unreliable because you think it will be. It's all in your head. I never claimed anyone was toxic.

However I have one question, if the feature is so community-accepted, why do you suppose someone felt the need to make this mod?

[regex]

if the feature is so community-accepted, why do you suppose someone felt the need to make this mod?

I should have clarified that as the "modder community", as that was what was intended.

[Alshain]

Well that just brings us back along the full circle. Some users don't want to use your mod the way you intended it, which is exactly the same thing you are doing for Squad by making a mod for KSP.

[Boomerang]

The problem is that in order to circumvent an absolute minimum amount of annoyance for players, someone's created a mod that a: is going to cause at least some further confusion when it comes to mod authors providing support to users having problems and b: from now on, authors can't count on CC warnings being seen by users, as has been documented previously in this thread.

Is this the end of the world? No, but it's using a cannon to kill a mosquito - the problems created by it, even if they only exist for mod authors, are far greater than the initial 'problem'. The intent behind this was good, just not well-thought out. And unfortunately it's probably going to be the people who need CC notifications the most who are going to end up using this because they thing said notifications are useless.

[Khatharr]

I should have clarified that as the "modder community", as that was what was intended.

I suggest to you that this dichotomy may be the very root of the issue.

[Alshain]

The problem is that in order to circumvent an absolute minimum amount of annoyance for players, someone's created a mod that a: is going to cause at least some further confusion when it comes to mod authors providing support to users having problems and b: from now on, authors can't count on CC warnings being seen by users, as has been documented previously in this thread.

You really can't make generalization like that (or rather you can, it's just not wise). I don't find it that annoying, but I can't say it's the minimum amount of annoyance for players everywhere. Just because it doesn't annoy you, doesn't mean it has the same level of annoyance for everyone.

Is this the end of the world? No, but it's using a cannon to kill a mosquito - the problems created by it, even if they only exist for mod authors, are far greater than the initial 'problem'.

This is your opinion, it apparently isn't everyone's opinion.

The intent behind this was good, just not well-thought out. And unfortunately it's probably going to be the people who need CC notifications the most who are going to end up using this because they thing said notifications are useless.

Complete conjecture. I can't counterpoint conjecture because it has no basis in fact or reality.

[Autochton]

I should have clarified that as the "modder community", as that was what was intended.

I suggest to you that this dichotomy may be the very root of the issue.

Khatharr, if there was no such dichotomy, anyone who took issue with a mod using version checking to try and ensure compatibility and correct function could simply recompile their own version from source at trivial expense of effort. Clearly, this is not the case. Hence there are A) people who make mods, and people who do not make mods. The former category are expected by the latter category to support their mods, judging by how many posts are made to the tune of "Stuff doesn't work, fix it" in the threads in this forum. (Those posts are typically followed by "What doesn't work? Describe your problem, then maybe you can be helped!" with varying degrees of exasperation. Some times, the person even manages to describe a problem in a sensical manner that can be used to track down the problem, but not always.) So it seems evident that, as with any case where you have people who make software and people who only use it, the interests of the former group may well end up at cross purposes to the interests of the latter.

This is a well known pattern, and has been observed positively everywhere software development (or any other skill-requiring and/or arcane discipline) is done.There are many ways in which those conflicts can be resolved. Usually, pissing off the people with the ability to create the things you use is not the most productive way to go about it.

[MaHuJa]

I note that you quoted the exact part I warned about being potentially hurtful. No comments about the rest?

E: Point being that alerting a user that a mod may not be compatible with the version of KSP is a preventative support measure

Alerting the user is GREAT! up to a point. Did you see the part about how I'm unlikely to notice an addition to it now?

Nobody ever contested the "alerting the user" part. The problem is HOW it does it. And this whole thread is the result of bad handling of that issue on the part of several people.

and should not be considered "entitlement" (I'd call that sort of characterization "toxic" and, quite frankly, highly insulting)

entitlement/ɪnˈtʌɪt(ə)lmənt/

noun

the fact of having a right to something.

Let me say express the exact same thing again, with words you hopefully don't have a loaded relationship with:

Toxicity stems from people believing they have more rights than they actually do.

When the toxicity is sealed in because no one is countering these inflated expectations, this appears to work just fine. Just like most race conditions appear to work fine.

Sometimes you need to vent it to keep it from building up. I think this thread may constitute a healthy dose of reality check.

when the service/product is being provided for free.

A product being "free" is a red herring. It does mean you have no legal* obligations for support or warranty, but that was never the issue here.

It does not extend any intellectual property rights to include non-interference.

* Though the users may still expect something, making for a "social obligation" for support.

Non-interference is not a right modders ever had. They believed they had it, or at least that they should have had it - perhaps justifying it with "we're doing this for free".

When somebody (OP) violated their imaginary right, they went up in arms as seen in this thread. My only claim here that the toxicity originated from the mistaken beliefs.

Short summary of the story as I understand it - such that you can correct any misconceptions I may have.

OP wanted to fix this in the "right" way, adding a feature that makes it non-"hostile".

He was not quite told to stop, but close.

He was annoyed enough with the problem to choose to force the issue.

The rest is all in this thread.

For some of the modders who complained, this was a product of their own actions. They didn't even try to refute that.

-----------------

When I was referring to the "underlying issue", then this is all about user support.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98035-Is-it-time-for-modpacks

A modpack can be naturally locked to a particular version of the game, pulling in a ksp update only when the updated version of the pack is available.

(And thus the updated version of the mods in the pack.)

This would - except for manual updaters who should be competent anyway - entirely remove the need for Compatibility Checker and similar.

The debacle that occurred in the popup blocker thread was all over this, and modpacks could do even more to solve this problem than CC ever did.

That's why this thread appeared right now.

Most of the complaints aired by modders in this thread, could actually be history if the community went down that path.

It's a choice you can make.

If you choose to take it all on your own shoulders, then I'll respect your choice and not pity you over it.

Many of the "support issues" is with players who aren't really capable of doing the more basic things in installing them.

When it comes right down to it, they don't want to be expert computer users or modders, and they shouldn't need to be - they just want to play.

[Khatharr]

Khatharr, if there was no such dichotomy, anyone who took issue with a mod using version checking to try and ensure compatibility and correct function could simply recompile their own version from source at trivial expense of effort. Clearly, this is not the case. Hence there are A) people who make mods, and people who do not make mods. The former category are expected by the latter category to support their mods, judging by how many posts are made to the tune of "Stuff doesn't work, fix it" in the threads in this forum. (Those posts are typically followed by "What doesn't work? Describe your problem, then maybe you can be helped!" with varying degrees of exasperation. Some times, the person even manages to describe a problem in a sensical manner that can be used to track down the problem, but not always.) So it seems evident that, as with any case where you have people who make software and people who only use it, the interests of the former group may well end up at cross purposes to the interests of the latter.

This is a well known pattern, and has been observed positively everywhere software development (or any other skill-requiring and/or arcane discipline) is done.

This is true. I understand the distinction between an implementer and a user in the practical sense. I'm trying to point to the moral dichotomy where one group's convenience/acceptance is valued more highly than another group's convenience/acceptance.

There are many ways in which those conflicts can be resolved. Usually, pissing off the people with the ability to create the things you use is not the most productive way to go about it.

That one. This whole thing was started when the question, "How do I make it stop?" was posed in the CC thread and the immediate response was abuse and condescension. I'm in support of a user-friendly CC version, but I've been told that mod makers are not. That's the divisive distinction, and I have some amount of evidence that it's a false one. Some modders are clearly against the suggested changes, but I know that not all of them are. To add fuel to the fire, some of the people who are against it have basically said that the reason they're against it is that users are too stupid to have that kind of power.

Well, now they have it. That makes some people mad, but it makes other people glad. The difference is that the roles are reversed. If we can decide to treat convenience and acceptance as a common resource instead of an entitled resource then the moral distinction is gone, the problem very rapidly resolves itself, and we're all be better off. To this end I have made offers and done work toward such a solution, but in the first instance was abused in the interim so stopped, and in the second instance I have yet to receive any form of response.

[Ippo]

That one. This whole thing was started when the question, "How do I make it stop?" was posed in the CC thread and the immediate response was abuse and condescension.

Abuse and condescension, according to Khatharr's view. Meanwhile, it's his post that had to be edited for "language".*

I'm in support of a user-friendly CC version, but I've been told that mod makers are not.

Actually you just argued with ferram4 in six posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6: that's literally it), then decided that his personal opinion was the position of all the modders and then immediately burned the whole thing to the ground, instead of trying to support your idea and maybe give specific details about how to improve the current CC to make it more user friendly.

* P.S: and the OP of this thread still has this line in it: "[Removed by the Moderation Team]". Can you tell me why, again? I suspect it was the part about enjoying the rage it was going to cause, or something like that. Care to correct me?

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ippo
Added PS

[Khatharr]

How convenient that the very person who was the first to dish out abuse is the one to respond. You linked NathanKell's condescending post, but your abusive post is immediately above it. That's real nice.

And yes; My post was edited for language, because I called BS when I saw BS, and apparently I didn't censor the word sufficiently. This has nothing to do with the subject matter.

After that I was told to move on. With the dialog stopped, I made my own solution.

I never implied that ferram4 is or was the representative of all modders, but he is the OP of CC thread and he certainly had a lot to say about it. When the popup blocker was released suddenly it was no longer an issue of 'no', but 'why not fork CC?'. So we're re-opening a dialog? Okay. I agreed and started work. My problem is already solved. I was catering to him. But then in the middle of that it's back to 'I don't like it' and 'I'm not responsible for it anyway'.

Why would I continue doing something for him at that point? Again, my problem is already solved.

Again, I never 'burned anything to the ground'. I solved a problem, and you're flipping out because it involves taking back control of my system from you because I don't see you handling it responsibly.

If you don't like my solution then supersede it with a better one instead of continuing to antagonize me. You have many options available to you. Why not pick a better one?

It's sad, because I was a lot happier with your style of response to MaHuJa's proposal, which was informational rather than accusatory, and eventually led to a very reasonable segway into what looks like an optimal solution. We could, and can, have that here, but I'm not disposed to cater to anyone who is intentionally trying to agitate me.

* P.S: and the OP of this thread still has this line in it: "[Removed by the Moderation Team]". Can you tell me why, again? I suspect it was the part about enjoying the rage it was going to cause, or something like that. Care to correct me?

The original line indicated that people who think users are too stupid to be allowed a choice would be angry about it. Was I wrong?

Anyway, I'm going to dinner.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Khatharr

[ferram4]

I never implied that ferram4 is or was the representative of all modders, but he is the OP of CC thread and he certainly had a lot to say about it. When the popup blocker was released suddenly it was no longer an issue of 'no', but 'why not fork CC?'. So we're re-opening a dialog? Okay. I agreed and started work. My problem is already solved. I was catering to him. But then in the middle of that it's back to 'I don't like it' and 'I'm not responsible for it anyway'.

Forking it was always an option; if you had bothered to look at the license you would have realized that, and since you had to look at the source to sabotage CC with this, you were clearly aware of the license; you just didn't care. And as I said, I don't quite see the value in the feature, besides in (at this point) making you stop sabotaging CC. But at that point, I'd be proving to people that sabotaging mods in order to get what they want works, which leads down a much nastier path than we have now.

At this point, I think the discussions are moot anyway. I'm probably going to remove CC entirely, since I can't rely on it functioning anymore. It's really good to know that the feature that was intended to not spam people with multiple messages at launch was used to kill CC. I'll just have to come up with another solution.

Again, I never 'burned anything to the ground'. I solved a problem, and you're flipping out because it involves taking back control of my system from you because I don't see you handling it responsibly.

If you had forked CC, as you were allowed to do from the start by the license, there would be no problem. If you had done it for yourself, there would be no problem. But instead, you decided to make the warning system unreliable and risk lots of extra support requests. We know that 0.26 / 0.90 is going to break mods hard because of the editor changes, and that is the situation where CC is valuable. We're headed towards a KSP update where all of those support reducing methods are needed, and you released something that makes the most valuable one unreliable.

We are not pissed that you took control. We're pissed that you made more work for us.

[Ippo]

How convenient that the very person who was the first to dish out abuse is the one to respond. You linked NathanKell's condescending post, but your abusive post is immediately above it. That's real nice.

It is linked, though: check again. Do you also want me to link the post where I threaten to sabotage your mod Gregtech style? Not that I'm proud of it, but I ain't trying to hide anything. It's all public.

And yes; My post was edited for language, because I called BS when I saw BS, and apparently I didn't censor the word sufficiently. This has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Fair enough: what about the removed part? Was that equally non-provocative? I remember it, you know.

Why would I continue doing something for him at that point? Again, my problem is already solved.

But the solution to your problem has a great potential to cause problems for others, and that's why you should have acted a lot more careful than this.

[...] you're flipping out because it involves taking back control of my system from you because I don't see you handling it responsibly.

This is something you keep saying, but it makes about as much sense now as it did the first time (not much). Taking control of your system? Why would I want to do that!?

If you don't like my solution then supersede it with a better one instead of continuing to antagonize me. You have many options available to you. Why not pick a better one?

Because no one has made it, including you.

It's sad, because I was a lot happier with your style of response to MaHuJa's proposal, which was informational rather than accusatory, and eventually led to a very reasonable segway into what looks like an optimal solution. We could, and can, have that here, but I'm not disposed to cater to anyone who is intentionally trying to agitate me.

He's not the one who was rejoicing at the thought of modders getting angry over his proposal, though.

He didn't say "hey, all those pesky modders want to coerce you into unzipping files, and a mod pack would make them real mad", you know.

The original line indicated that people who think users are too stupid to have a choice would be angry. Was I wrong?

Regarding me? Yes. I got mad at you because of your behaviour, which is really poor and hostile towards all the rest of the community.

P.S: you are going to dinner, I'm going to sleep. How about I wake up and find out we can now work on fixing this mess, uh? That would be cool.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Ippo

[slumpie]

Wow... what mess is going on here?

It could be so easy to find a compromise that would be ok for both parties.

(unless we fall back to the "only my way of doing things is right and others are stupid" mode...)

• Setting a timer, as example 10 seconds was never an option?
  No KSP in the world starts faster than that.

• Automatically close the window as soon as it switches to the main menu?
  

• Force the warning window whenever KSP got updated (for all mods), an unsupported mod just got added (only that particular mod) or simply the first time the game gets started after a fresh install with mods.
  BUT
  , then show an addtional checkbox to confirm "I am aware of the compatibility issues, no longer alert me of this mod (no support)".
  *Except if previously stated conditions are true*

  
  

[Khatharr]

It is linked, though: check again.

Ah. My mistake. You labelled them oppositely to what I would have.

How about I wake up and find out we can now work on fixing this mess, uh? That would be cool.

If you're sincere about it, then sure. The option of taking away the popup blocker is not on the table, but I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to consider revisions when not addressed with malice.

• Force the warning window whenever KSP got updated (for all mods), an unsupported mod just got added (only that particular mod) or simply the first time the game gets started after a fresh install with mods.
  BUT
  , then show an addtional checkbox to confirm "I am aware of the compatibility issues, no longer alert me of this mod (no support)".
  *Except if previously stated conditions are true*

That was my proposal. People who clearly don't want to work with me are saying they don't want it. I'm amenable to it, but I'm not forking CC for it. CC forks require adoption, but any modder who decides to use the fork has to deal with the possibility of social or practical retaliation by the "I'd rather just destroy everything than come to a compromise" group. That brand of malice has actually been expressed here.

This is why I proposed opening a dialog with Majiir. He's not done anything against me, and If he's willing to talk to me without malice then I can give him solutions that would involve a scant minimum of work on his part. I trust him to handle the code better than I would, since C# is not one of my commonly used languages. I'd much rather let him handle integration since he's the coder for CC, and I think it might reduce the risk of retaliation if he's the one presenting it because it would signal at least a token level of acceptance from the people directly involved in CC.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Khatharr

[peachoftree]

The way I see it, the big problem with this mod is going to version changes. So why dont you add something that the first time ksp starts in a new version, a window pops up that says something like (insert condescending tone here) "COMPATIBILITY POP UP BLOCKER HAS DETECTED A NEW VERSION OF KSP. ANY AND ALL ISSUES WITH INSTALLED INCOMPATIBLE MODS WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEVELOPERS. THIS WARNING WILL NOT BE DISPLAYED AGAIN" and the window only shows up the first time a new version starts up.

Also this. Consider the time you invested in this, Khatharr.

Edited October 25, 2014 by peachoftree

[Khatharr]

Also this. Consider the time you invested in this, Khatharr.

I think you may be vastly overestimating the time I've spent on it. Additionally, while I understand and agree with (and indeed considered beforehand) the thrust of the XKCD strip, time-to-value is not necessarily a 1:1 relationship. I like the time I spend on the popup blocker. I don't like the time I spend clicking away a redundant warning.

Additionally, I'm considering not only the amount of time I spend on the trivial task, but the amount of time that everyone collectively spends on it. I'm still ahead of the game by orders of magnitude.

[AetherGoddess]

[...]Additionally, I'm considering not only the amount of time I spend on the trivial task, but the amount of time that everyone collectively spends on it. I'm still ahead of the game by orders of magnitude.

Yes, that's true, for a perfect condition where no one experiences a problem that could have been prevented by CC. one instance of a person getting a crash that they have to trace down to a out-of-date plugin that CC would have warned them about will push you back into negative effort:value ratio territory.

but that's kinda beside the point, since this is already incentivizing modders to recode around it, because of the a fore mentioned "CC no longer does what i intended it to" issue. So modders are going to spend time finding and implementing another version check package, developing other version mismatch code. code is harder then clicking, and let's just assume it takes 30 minutes of research, 10 minutes of code and thought, one recompile, one test, and one package and distribution pass, call it an hour for safety's sake (this is generous, i spent an close to 6 hours developing, packaging, testing and distributing a single 140 line powershell script that had no IDE, no SDK, and no dependencies). this means that, in order to break even for one modder dropping CC, you need 36,000 clicks. i have 47 mods, let's assume half of them use CC, so to break even for my install alone, everyone who uses a similar mod set would need to start KSP 864,000 times between now and when the modders release their next sans-cc version​.

[Brucey]

I've been roughly following this thread. Seems like a lot of drama over a trivial thing. My request to all parties here is to not let this blow up into a cause for modders to abandon their efforts. Khathar: You may want to consider just walking away from this. Regardless of who "wins" the debate, the thing to remember is that modders are not paid developers and we are not their paying customers. It's all stuff they do for free in their own spare time and they are under no obligation to do any of it. So really it's kind of their prerogative if they want to bundle a CC to make their efforts a little easier on themselves. As an end user, I am not crazy about CC either, but I'd rather just use the mods on the modders terms then maybe not get support at all because of unhappy modders abandoning their work in frustration. Just something to consider.

[Ippo]

If you're sincere about it, then sure. The option of taking away the popup blocker is not on the table, but I've already demonstrated that I'm willing to consider revisions when not addressed with malice.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled by the idea of working on something that I didn't make because of something that I didn't make, but I guess it beats leaving things as is.

CC forks require adoption, but any modder who decides to use the fork has to deal with the possibility of social or practical retaliation by the "I'd rather just destroy everything than come to a compromise" group. That brand of malice has actually been expressed here.

That brand of malice has actually been expressed only by me, and no one else (that I recall): so I wouldn't worry too much about retaliation, provided of course that the new version is not completely useless in the eyes of the modders...

That was my proposal. People who clearly don't want to work with me are saying they don't want it. I'm amenable to it, but I'm not forking CC for it.

I'd like to point out that the CC warning *was* the compromise. The alternative being "I'll just lock my mod on that platform", which is a route that some mods have already taken after CC was being ignored. Which is, in turn, the reason why they don't want it to be even more ignorable, because it's already very weak as it is.

The point is: I am willing to compromise, but I'm speaking only for myself. Are you willing to compromise with the others?