Discussion of community management of content

[rsc204 21,855]

:edit: Firstly, thank you to @Cyclone Boom for splitting this topic into it's own thread. This conversation came about on this thread originally, but we're way off topic now.

I just wanted to add a quick preface here, since otherwise this whole thing is somewhat lacking in context.

In short, I would like to propose and encourage discussion about the oft-difficult subject of maintaining works uploaded to the exchanges. I think there are real benefits to be had for the community if we can make such a process happen, along with keeping it as simple as possible for end users. Ideally, I feel the community should have the right to maintain the files on the exchanges for the betterment of all. To be absolutely clear, I'm not suggesting we change things we don't personally like for existing uploads. Here of some of the cases where I feel a little community tweaking should be allowed:

• Fixing broken or non-functioning mods.
• Adding/replacing missing or faulty Icons.
• Grouping files together in menus properly.
• Removing erroneous files that can cause problems.
• Updating transit stations, for example add LHD or RHD paths when they are missing. Or simply linking to the correct ones if the wrong ones are used. Additionally updating TSEC / Capacity values in line with latest standards. (I'm all too aware this is somewhat covered by SLURP currently, not looking to tread on anyone's toes here).
• Possibly updating Readmes/Documentation when it's not clear.
• Repackaging of Installers/.zip files to either a more efficient format or where one or the other is not ideal.
  For example, you've a file with one dat inside it, why on earth should that be in an installer? At the very least, it would be nice for the user downloading to have the option of a .zip file.
  p.s. IMHO, ClickTeam installers need to be eradicated from the face of the earth, they are terrible in every way.
• Anything else which can reasonably considered broken or undesirable where the change is not simply a "preference".

Anyhow these are some of my ideas for situations where I feel as a community we can greatly improve the quality of the content offered to everyone. I'd love to know what you think. Hopefully this can also spark a debate, which may lead to some traction on this issue and change, in terms of how moving forwards the community manages it's #1 asset, content.

Original discussion starts here:

In the history of modding, two fundamentally flawed styles for growable buildings have been all too frequently used IMO.

In the beginning, it was the copying of a lot's properties to create new lots. As much as anything, this is down to Maxis because the LE doesn't make it clear how to make a new buildings exemplar, so many people simply didn't know how else to do it. What should be done is to open PIM and create a new Buildings Exemplar before you make your lot, rather than copying the original. This issue leads to many problems. It's also possible to alleviate if you take the time to manually adjust the properties with another tool afterwards.

The second one is the use of blank props on the lot, which are just there to satisfy the need for a buildings exemplar. In essence, it's the building that contains all the properties of the lot. It's totally fine to use them on ploppables, but should be avoided where possible for growables. Of course sometimes to make something work in a particular way, it's necessary to use them.

I also get annoyed that so many people have made competing blank models for the purpose. Even in my very well organised plugins folder, I must have 50 or more separate blank props. I think the general dependency fear is behind this, "Oh I can't include this as a dependency, when I can just make another and have less deps". Honestly, if deps bother you, so does nice looking content. I'm always acutely aware of how many I'm using, but within reason, it's a necessary evil to make the best work you are capable of doing.

In reality however, one such blank model is sufficient for every possible usage you could ever need. Not picking on anyone, but there is a pack of WMP blank props that illustrates this lack of understanding of how the game works at a fundamental level. You can have one model, but re-use it a thousand times with different exemplars. There is no such thing as a CS blank and a R$ blank, a model is just a model. How you utilise it is always down to the exemplar that links to it. So why on earth does one pack need countless duplicates of the same thing? Actually, you don't need a model at all, just null the RTK property, i.e. link to RTK 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, which causes no ill effects. Otherwise, re-use one of the existing blank props from the base game, Maxis included a couple, the most obvious ones on the park lots. I've often come across lots which used such blank props, but forgot to link to them as dependencies, giving brown boxes. Which is a little stupid when you consider everything you need to use one is already part of the Maxis files.

I think that's why peer review of lots is such a useful idea, but in these days of dwindling numbers, there is a time/skills shortage to do it. Very often, having pointed out to someone a flaw with their work, you get the impression they think you are being mean or simply that it's too much effort to fix. On one hand, allowing all content regardless of quality, does lead to more items to download. But on the other, it also leads to much faulty content, or simply content that could be better modded, a recipe for user frustration.

Once something's on the exchanges, that's usually the end of the matter. But if things can be fixed/improved, it would make much more sense to have a coordinated effort to get those fixes to everyone. So for example, say a transit stop has used the wrong paths, but the creator didn't fix it. it makes no sense that a number of more skilled users all separately make the same fixes. But despite their efforts, which is many times the work it should be, these fixes are still not available for the masses. Sure one could re-release the same lots as competing ones, but that's a bit crass. I guess it doesn't affect me, I'm confidently able to fix anything as I need. But I do sometimes wish when I fix something, there was a more reliable way of giving that fix to everyone in the process. Even those small number of fixes I've attached to the forums are not highly visible and get a very small number of downloads. Still there are no easy answers/solutions to these problems, especially considering how long the exchanges have been going.

That said, I firmly believe that we can bridge the gap towards resolving these issues. A concerted push to make it easier for users to find, install and use mods, with assured quality, would have huge gains for the community. I fear many people come to the community, full of inspiration and motivation, only to get bogged down trying to make things work. To get where I have takes a strong will to get things right. For example, half the reason I don't enjoy playing anymore, is down to the fact that nothing finds it's way into my plugins folder until I've vetted, improved, fixed and made it as efficient as it can be. As a result, I can build the networks all day long, but when it's time to make a city, I still don't have enough content to really make my cities look the way I want them to. Every now and again I have a binge of adding content, but it's so much work. One day hopefully my efforts will have paid off and I'll just need to worry about new content. But starting as late as I did (3 years ago), I've spent so long just trying to catch up with 13 years of mods.

Just as Tarkus mentioned recently (re: Gobias' mods), we as a community need to seriously think about how we are going to keep things going for the next 13 years. If we bury our heads in the sand and don't try to address these issues, we are hurting our own future. To my mind, one of the first and most important things to do here is to change the terms for uploading content. Within certain sensible guidelines, when a mod is uploaded, the community should have the right to amend/fix/distribute the content. It's the community that pays for it to be hosted and acts as it's caretaker. I'm not talking about changing props/textures or other aesthetic choices. But if something is clearly not working or stuffed full of redundant files, we should be able to fix it for the benefit of all.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

8 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Once something's on the exchanges, that's usually the end of the matter. But if things can be fixed/improved, it would make much more sense to have a coordinated effort to get those fixes to everyone. So for example, say a transit stop has used the wrong paths, but the creator didn't fix it. it makes no sense that a number of more skilled users all separately make the same fixes. But despite their efforts, which is many times the work it should be, these fixes are still not available for the masses. Sure one could re-release the same lots as competing ones, but that's a bit crass. I guess it doesn't affect me, I'm confidently able to fix anything as I need. But I do sometimes wish when I fix something, there was a more reliable way of giving that fix to everyone in the process. Even those small number of fixes I've attached to the forums are not highly visible and get a very small number of downloads. Still there are no easy answers/solutions to these problems, especially consider how long the exchanges have been going.

Hey, yes - I see a great idear here.

This site would be ideal to establish some kind of 'ticket system'. Bugs recognized as bugs could get a ticket number and tracked in a thread and everyone of us was free to pickup a ticket and make the adjustments. I think the only thing needed is this kind of management - bugs need an id to get an overview who's working on what. I myself made some fixes on some older lots and uploaded it here. The main problem is, IMHO, that there is no tracking of all those fixes and they become forgotten. If there is some administration 'who did and who has the fix' maybe it's not necessary to have central place to download those fixes. I really think the main problem is, that bugs don't get a bug number and therefore wirh many bugs and many fixes it becomes confusing. But as you say - fixing itself isn't the main task, the main task is to become organiszed..

[rsc204 21,855]

I think ideally, though it won't win favour with everyone, we should "get our house in order" and fix the content directly. After all, the fixes will almost always involve replacing the original files anyway, why make it harder?

But, if that's not viable a dedicated "fixes" forum where users who were inclined could contribute is certainly something I'd back.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

4 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I think ideally, though it won't win favour with everyone, we should "get our house in order" and fix the content directly. After all, the fixes will almost always involve replacing the original files anyway, why make it harder?

But, if that's not viable a dedicated "fixes" forum where users who were inclined could contribute is certainly something I'd back.

What I was thinking about was: this ownership/copyright discussion may go on forever. And if I whe can't share certain fixes for that reason as we would harm copyright/ownership - what we could do as a workaournd was to share information who has the fix - and then share fixes in a more 'non public way'. F.e. if there was a table 'the fix for bug nr. 122113 has rsc204 and fix for bug nr. 66664 has Fantozzi - we could hand out fixes to each other this way without affecting public rules. So if we can't share the content in public we could share information instead as a workaround.

 

BTW. - you and me have a certain talent to drag threads in a new direction, don't we?

[rsc204 21,855]

Copyright doesn't apply as much as some would have you think. The second you take Maxis/EA intellectual property and re-use it, you can't realistically claim ownership.

Now of course, a texture, model and similar objects, I think creators should retain ownership rights over them. But an exemplar? If you copied something and modified it, you didn't own the file you copied and have no clear right to claim ownership of your variant. It's a matter of respect, you don't release others files unless you've changed them, so as not to tread on the toes of creators. But copying/modifying is a fundamental practice, it's similar to open-source. If you modify the code, then you give back your modifications. Everyone is free to use and further modify those files ad-infinitum. In fact for most Open Source licences, you are obliged to give back whatever changes you made.

Where this becomes a minefield is lots. But what is to stop me taking a lot and making a copy, without re-using your original, despite it looking identical? Again I think this is just a crappy way to treat others and should be frowned upon. But that's not the same as modifying faulty exemplars, removing .sav / loosedesc files and applying those changes retroactively to someone's upload. That's not copyright infringement, it's community management.

13 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

F.e. if there was a table 'the fix for bug nr. 122113 has rsc204 and fix for bug nr. 66664 has Fantozzi - we could hand out fixes to each other this way without affecting public rules.

Whilst this approach does move in the right direction re: getting the fixes to users. It doesn't help with making it simple. At the very least, such a system IMHO needs to be embedded into the STEX, so that when you download a file, you can clearly see an update/fix is optionally available. Otherwise you just end up with users not knowing and continuing to use the files that don't work.

Where it becomes more tricky is things like this thread (:edit: where this discussion began), the modding in terms of job numbers. For example, is a CO$$ lot with 7,500 jobs poorly modded? Of course it will skew things, but actually I'm happy to use such lots sometimes. Balancing lots and the stats used by them is almost always going to be more subjective than right or wrong. Because the creators all have different goals which determine the stats that they will use. I don't think it's fair to call those things errors or bugs, they are preferences.

13 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

BTW. - you and me have a certain talent to drag threads in a new direction, don't we?

Shhh... we'll get told off for going OT... maybe this is better in it's own thread? Thing is, what starts as a harmless comment easily goes off in another direction.

:edit: And now we're in our own thread here .

[Fantozzi 4,068]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Where it becomes more tricky is things like this thread, the modding in terms of job numbers. For example, is a CO$$ lot with 7,500 jobs poorly modded? Of course it will skew things, but actually I'm happy to use such lots sometimes.

In my opinion this is already solved by having the fix parallel to the original file and not as a substitution. Always - me, the player/user, should decide at the end, so fixes shouldn't dictate but offer choices. So it should be always an offer: "Fix 'x' does this: [description] you may use it if you like it. Me, don't want to be a teacher 'how to play SC4 the right way'. As you wrote: sometimes even 'divergent behavior' is wanted and you want f. e. this: only one building to grow.

So maybe the word 'fixes' doesn't even fit always. Sometimes those are only offers to play a different way. But why not share them too - even if they aren't 'fixes' in a narrower sense? It's not a question of 'poor' and 'classy' of 'right' or 'wrong'. At least not always. It's a question of having options, posibilities, choices.

It would be different - you would have to open a ticket. If no one opens a ticket - this would mean: no one has an interest in this kind of 'fix'. It would be more some kind of a market and therefore working on the basic rules of a market: demands and offers. You would take the ticket opened by someone, you would say; I have a fix for this or: I will make it. But the first step would be the demand. And the demand would determine if a 'fix' is a 'fix'. To handle this with opening a new thread everytime is just much to much work. A much easier accessible system would be needed. As IMHO there can't be an absolute decision about 'fixes' as they are mainly driven by 'needs'. F.e. I adjusted some older network mods to the capacities of the NAM. Very simple thing. It's an ajustment for a need, not really a fix for something not working. But if someone asks for the same thing - why not share. The first problem is: there is no stock exchange for all this little stuff.

[EDIT]

I'm thinking of it more as the thread 'Can't find it - ask here' works. That's also some kind of marketplace - it deals with knowledge.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Where this becomes a minefield is lots. But what is to stop me taking a lot and making a copy, without re-using your original, despite it looking identical? Again I think this is just a crappy way to treat others and should be frowned upon. But that's not the same as modifying faulty exemplars, removing .sav / loosedesc files and applying those changes retroactively to someone's upload. That's not copyright infringement, it's community management.

Sorry for double post - but this is something different. I completely agree with you. But things as respect (for the author) and responsability (for community rules, moral standards) are 'soft facts'. There are peope to see it different and there always will be. There a things in society they are under continous development. The discussion of moral limits won't have an end - for a society it's contrariwise important to prove moral rules again and again - and there are time they pushed and times they are tightened. One could regard this as an infite process of selfadjustment. Society is a car and moral is the springing and you can't fix springing to a certain state while drinving - it must be dynamic to work. So it's impossible to bring some discussion to an end - and this copyright discussion - you are absolutely right - isn't a technical (juristic) discussion it's  a mainly moral discussion. But that can't be an argument to ignore it. Even if the word 'copyright' is used as a 'fig leave' to hide moral feelings behind - that can't be an argument to blame those moral feelings. It's okay to express them. This should be always okay.

The main issue arises when it's about to take responsabilty for them. You say 'community management'. This means someone has to take responsibilty and f.e. share a rescaled modelfile of a model he doesn't own. This person takes up responsability. Well and all the discussion leads to the point to demand Dirktator or Tarkus to take all the responsability for the community - and we are demanding and taking. Community never carries responsability - the site owner will be put in charge, the site owner will be held guilty all the moral blame will always be on him. Single users may be responsable but never ever the community. So at the end it's up to you and me to break moral 'rules' and upload fixes that contains data made by others. And how far we pushing this. Or we are waiting till site owners say: yes you are allowed to do so. But at the end community can't take this responsability. And that's the point. Like little children we are waiting for some dad to give us permission. But who could this 'dad' be?   Who can be this 'moral leader'? 

[rsc204 21,855]

11 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

In my opinion this is already solved by having the fix parallel to the original file and not as a substitution. Always - me, the player/user, should decide at the end, so fixes shouldn't dictate but offer choices.

That might sound great, but it assumes users are best placed to make such decisions. If you come from a user support background like I do, you'll soon realise that often the best solution is to do what's best for end users, without their consent. Because more often than not, they don't know best. But more likely than that, they will simply not pay attention to choices and choose the path of least resistance every time over making an informed decision. People want it now, it's partially today's generation, but also somewhat human nature too.

Here's a great example, I made the Tennis Props for KOSC especially after we started talking about his R$$$ Re-Lots. Until yesterday, the only thing using them was KOSC's set. This currently has 424 downloads. Now, if you jump to my AoT dependency, which is in no way optional and is only available on the LEX, we see it has only accrued 257 downloads. This is by far and away not the first time I've seen such disparities. Around 40% of users have clearly not followed the most basic instructions, to download the dependencies. So it should be no wonder why some have problems. Of course in this case, without the AoT files, the prop exemplars don't exist, so you won't see brown boxes. Just empty spaces with sims inexplicably trying to play tennis, but then many rich sims are eccentric  I suppose.

The point being, often the best solution is to handle as much for end users as possible, this leads to less support requests and in the real world, is more cost-effective and results in a higher level of customer satisfaction. Microsoft might be driving professionals and hobbyists away from Windows, but I agree with many of their strategies for removal of control from the average user to protect them. I just wish they'd let those who do know what they are doing have the control back.

11 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

So maybe the word 'fixes' doesn't even fit always. Sometimes those are only offers to play a different way.

I think this is covered by the idea of a re-lot. To my mind I wouldn't want to start mixing fixes and re-lots/customisations. One is maintenance/community support, the other is simply an optional choice, which doesn't demand being made as prominently.

11 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

It would be different - you would have to open a ticket

I dunno. I think a dedicated thread where people can report problems is sufficient for that. I'm really thinking bigger though, a select group of those who have proven skills would be invited/able to offer fixes officially and patch existing files. This could always link in to requests for fixes also. But when one user fixes something, no one else should ever have to duplicate this work. Over time we'd end up with a higher standard of content available to all and less work for those inclined to fix stuff too. It's win/win, provided you don't take the opinion that the creator is the only person with the right to do such things.

11 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

As IMHO there can't be an absolute decision about 'fixes' as they are mainly driven by 'needs'. F.e. I adjusted some older network mods to the capacities of the NAM.

Hmmm... thing is, I do consider that a fix. Because if a new NAM version breaks a mod, someone, somewhere is no doubt going to do something about it. It only makes sense that such things could be passed back to others. Of course, sometimes you may wish to keep legacy versions. Although the NAM team would prefer everyone kept up to date with the latest version of NAM.

10 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

This means someone has to take responsibilty and f.e. share a rescaled modelfile of a model he doesn't own.

Firstly, you aren't re-scaling a model, just the LOD. It's perfectly acceptable to distribute these, provided you don't distribute the textures from the rendered model. Although I know of examples where it's been done. A little care making the duplicate S3D files is all it takes to ensure the original FSH files are referenced without overriding the original.

But I can also demonstrate how it's possible to remake a LOD anew using the original model file. That won't help me texture something, but if someone tells me I copied their LOD and they had a problem with it, I'd just make a new "identical LOD" and export it as my work, problem solved.

Once  again though, I feel re-scaling models is not really connected with the idea of fixes. It's very important, if we are thinking about fixes/patches, to have an extremely clear set of guidelines for when that is acceptable. If it's more of a preference change, then that shouldn't be considered as part of this at all. Doing so would only muddy the waters. I'm not saying such things aren't useful, but I feel it necessary to focus on serious issues if you are thinking about this is the context we're discussing.

10 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Single users may be responsable but never ever the community. So at the end it's up to you and me to break moral 'rules' and upload fixes that contains data made by others. And how far we pushing this. Or we are waiting till site owners say: yes you are allowed to do so.

Well I for one wouldn't want to get involved without explicit permission. Any patches I do publish (I think I'm one of the most prolific for this), follow very strict guidelines in line with the community rules. However, I do sometimes play things a little loose. For example, my SEN mod contains resources built from a mod by Magneto for the GLR textures. I never actually used his textures without modification, but I never felt 100% comfortable not getting permission. By the same rationale, TGN uses textures from Gobias, but again all are modified, including some that are duplicated by automation, but technically they are not the originals, just a digital representation. Given the time both these mods took me to create, I made the decision that I'd rather release and deal with any complaints, than sit on two mods I knew would transform users games in such a total way.

So there is nothing wrong with 99.999% of them, they are my textures. But, every now and again you have a texture that I need to replace that is simply a full grass tile. If I use an application (GoFSH), which reads the 0's and 1's and makes a new one from scratch, have I really stolen Gobias' work? This is a tough one, because technically you could argue I have. There are a handful of such textures amongst a mod with 3250 textures overall. But, the entire effect of the mod is ruined if you don't have them. If I release the mod, with a list of the IDs for these textures and told users to copy the originals and give them the new IDs. Well, I think you know it simply wouldn't have been practical.

Quote

:edit: Thinking about this some more, these days I would probably look to automation as a solution if it came up. No doubt some bright spark - I'm thinking of you @rivit, without your tireless efforts, none of the advanced automation would have been possible - could resolve the issue. Its probably possible to make an app that scans for the textures needed and auto-generate the copies with new IDs based on a script. Of course that would have added a small barrier, but again such things could be bundled into an installer and be hidden from end users. This would totally bypass any potential arguments against re-distribution in this context. I hope however, it would not be considered necessary though. 

Without blowing my own trumpet too much, if you install TGN and SWN, you will have 100% completely unified textures with the exception of RHW. In all the years before me, no such mod even came close to what I've done. As SWN is getting wrapped up, I can dedicate myself to releasing the repositories for both (actually, in preview form I've done this already). Now they aren't even my mods, they are there for the community. But make no mistake, between them I've poured 1,000's of hours of work into it. If for one moment I thought I couldn't release them, I simply would have made them for me and saved myself a ton of effort. In the case of both, the eventual goal here is to offer a repository anyone can use, not just to make a custom version. But as in the case of the Veredas Santiaguinas mod by @matias93, release for others who maybe wouldn't be able to run such scripts to use. This goes as far as a ready to pack installer to ease the simplicity of installation. So you use my work and click run, out comes a mod with an installer. I update the repositories (although I'm open to others helping), but because my processes mean every mod is identical except the sidewalk and grass choices, I will even support your mod for you. You just click run and upload it.

Now weigh the benefits of that against the tiniest of potential infringement against Gobias, have I done something bad? I did everything I could to get explicit permission, but simply received no answer. If I had waited for explicit consent, none of this would have ever materialised. Lots of people would ask me how my game looks so nice. I'd probably pass it on to select members who asked nicely, but the community would have lost out hugely. But I do worry sometimes that one day a complaint will be made and that will be that, thousands of hours of work down the drain.

And this ties in with the discussion here. Sometimes we need to be enabled to do what's right for the community, not what's right for one individual. In an ideal world, we'd always get explicit permission, but that's simply not a reality. A change in the agreements for uploaded content, which can totally be retroactively applied, would allow the community to manage the content within for the benefit of all. I'm not for one moment asking for a free-for-all, just for consideration to manage things for the betterment of everyone, where appropriate. But, I think we need very clear and precise rules for what we can change here. We can't just be free to mess with people's work however we like. But if we start with broken/badly modded content, it's by far the most justifiable cause. Sure some will object, but you know what, stuff them. I am absolutely certain that morally speaking what I propose is in the best interests of everyone. Sometimes, we need the courage to ignore the dissenters and do what's right. Anyone who feels their rights are violated because someone fixes something they made that was broken, is simply in the wrong. At least that's my opinion and for once I don't feel scared to state it publicly.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

16 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Sometimes we need to be enabled to do what's right for the community, not what's right for one individual.

[matias93 7,535]

9 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

BTW. - you and me have a certain talent to drag threads in a new direction, don't we?

There should be a custom badge for that .

By the way, it's a very interesting new direction. Talking about the use of content without authorization, my main strategy is to try to create everything from scratch (of from free content) before recurring to the original files; for example, my upcoming sidewalk mod will include grass textures that match the TSC pyrennean mod grass colour, but that were created independently with a noise map on Paint.net: the match is definitely not precise but it will look very seamless once I get the time to calibrate the colours correctly.

[catty-cb 4,412]

If Simtropolis insisted on a standardized common copyright notice

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/157968/how-to-manage-a-copyright-notice-in-an-open-source-project

Granted the problem with that is so many people have disappeared that you could really only apply it to new plugins, it would mean the STEX would have too be split between those plugins that used a common copyright notice and those where the creators insisted on a individual copyright notice or couldn't be contacted, in that case maybe there should be some kind of time limit in the individual copyright notice that will apply if the creator is missing ie if someone hasn't been near the site for five years and you can't get hold of them then they become a common copyright notice.

The problem with all of the above is that needed to be decided back with the first SC4 Plugin was created, now its like trying to plug a dyke (levee) that's full of holes.

Just as an aside to this I'm a Banished player, and Banished was going down the same path of multiple mods and websites, but its now started to head in a different direction of merging all the different mods into one complete package, MegaMod as its called is still in beta and already is 2GB in size, so starting Banished with it can take some time

http://colonialcharter.com/index.php/forum/mega-announcements/3253-banished-megamod

[rsc204 21,855]

1 hour ago, catty-cb said:

Granted the problem with that is so many people have disappeared that you could really only apply it to new plugins

Not so, in the real world, such contract changes occur all the time...

For example, you take out a contract on a new shiny mobile phone. You agree to pay X per month for the duration of the contract. However, your phone company within the period of the contract has the right to increase the monthly cost/change the overall terms of that contract. Way back when, I cancelled a contract less than 6 months in when the phone company tried this, using breach of contract as my right to do so, I even kept the phone. However, since then the phone companies included clauses that allow them to usurp your rights to cancel. In many countries, this has been tested in court and provided the increase is considered "reasonable", there is nothing you can do anymore. However, that goes against the very idea of a contract, if you want to lock me in for a period of time, you should accept that the terms are as both parties agreed. Despite this being a fundamental part of contract law, it's being ignored in favour of big business.

The point being, contracts are always evolving and this is an accepted fact that everyone goes along with. If we get bogged down asking "should we do something", rather than asking "how can we improve it", we'll ultimately be harming ourselves.

At the level we're discussing though, it's much more simple. I propose simply providing notification of the changes, those who are really aghast at such nefarious plans would retain the right to remove their content, just as they do now. I think provided we don't run roughshod over what we're allowed to change/fix, there should be little cause for complaints.

Another sensible safeguard would be rules as to who's content we could change. For example, it could only be done where the user could not be contacted or was no longer active within the community. Those who maintain a presence upon the site could be asked to fix any problems, otherwise if a third party has such a fix, offered the fix so they don't have to duplicate it.

The fundamental premise here is not to inflict a minimum standard on all uploaded content. But to try our best to make the content all work as best as possible, for the highest standard of user satisfaction and ease of use. Ultimately, it's Simtropolis (and those who fund it's existence) who should really own the content you upload, i.e. the community. Jeez, the entire world will give away their life story and photos to online web services. In that context, asking for the community to manage content so it works well is hardly taking the piss. I know some will inevitably find a reason to object, but perhaps for the greater good we need to accept the risks of upsetting a few here. For one, this is all just theory and conjecture right now, to do it would be a never-ending task. But to simply establish the will to make things better is an important first step.

Times are a changing, this is punctuated by the recent decision re: Gobias' mods on the LEX. We have to face facts, this is a dwindling community these days. It's great to see a healthy stream of content continuing to be uploaded to the exchanges though, it's encouraging and helps dissuade me that we're all simply flogging a dead horse with SC4. But new users come here all the time, new players pick up SC4 still, I'd imagine for the age of the game, the sales are pretty decent. What I think we must do to survive or even thrive into the future, is make things better and easier for those new players to use mods. The very thing that has kept the SC4 community alive all this time in the first place. If we do this, hopefully we will retain a higher percentage of these players as we move into the future. Without new players, there is less new content. Without new content, there is less activity and life around here.

People say that ST and SC4D aren't going away any time soon. But both need money to survive and stay online. If content is what drives the community, we would be stupid not to consider how we can improve the management of our key assets to protect and strengthen the legacy we have created throughout all those years.

[rsc204 21,855]

1 hour ago, catty-cb said:

Just as an aside to this I'm a Banished player, and Banished was going down the same path of multiple mods and websites, but its now started to head in a different direction of merging all the different mods into one complete package, MegaMod as its called is still in beta and already is 2GB in size, so starting Banished with it can take some time

I agree that if we could think about such packages, we'd make life so much easier for newcomers. The sheer amount for work to build a plugins folder is not exactly the best motivator. The issue comes however, what to include and what not to include.

That said, I agree the idea of being able to re-distribute files as best fits the community is another good point.

[catty-cb 4,412]

42 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I agree that if we could think about such packages, we'd make life so much easier for newcomers. ...

I think country-specific or city packages would prove popular with new users, as most people have an idea of what they are trying to build and going thru the STEX looking for say New York specific plugins can be daunting

[rsc204 21,855]

Absolutely, it would be a great help if ready to go packages like this could be assembled. Of course I think dependencies might need to remain linked. But just having a bundle would make things so much easier for the average user.

[matias93 7,535]

In fact, to compatibilize both dependencies and themes, it would be very logical to begin around BAT teams' creations.

[Tarkus 6,933]

First off, thanks to Robin for again bringing these vital matters to everyone's attention, and to Cyclone Boom for separating this out here.  As someone who cares quite a bit about ensuring the things that made SC4 great remain available and accessible, I think this is one of the most important discussions we can have at this point in time as a community.  There's been a lot of points brought up in here already, but there's one I'd like to highlight:

17 hours ago, rsc204 said:

• Repackaging of Installers/.zip files to either a more efficient format or where one or the other is not ideal.
  For example, you've a file with one dat inside it, why on earth should that be in an installer? At the very least, it would be nice for the user downloading to have the option of a .zip file.
  p.s. IMHO, ClickTeam installers need to be eradicated from the face of the earth, they are terrible in every way.

This is indeed one of the biggest issues out there, particularly with dependencies.  A couple of the really brilliant things that @CasperVg did with his revamp of the LEX software at SC4 Devotion were to give the exchange a Dependency Tracker feature, and to create an open API.  The Dependency Tracker, for those not intimately familiar with it, is a site tool that can be accessed from most LEX download pages, which brings up a list with links for the dependencies.  The really great feature of it is that for dependencies that happen to be on the LEX, the tracker actually compiles all the ones you happen to be missing (based on your download history) and puts them all in a single zip. 

However, the one caveat with this is that it only picks up the files as they exist on the LEX--most of the dependencies have ClickTeam installers, and the tracker can't pre-run the installers.  While the process of gathering is simplified immensely, it's still up to the user to plow through installer tedium.  Due to the way the BSC custodial agreements have worked over time, the SC4D staff have essentially become the caretaker of those files, which allows us to repackage them.  We have been discussing how best to do this.  For certain, ClickTeam would go away.  There's been some discussion of actually merging some of the packs and megapacks into "ultrapacks", though no real decision there yet.

That would streamline the SC4D side . . . but there's lots of instances of files on the LEX requiring STEX-hosted dependencies, and STEX files requiring LEX-hosted dependencies.  Additionally, the STEX does not yet have an on-site dependency tracking system.  Speaking as upper management at SC4D, if there is interest from ST staff, we would be very much interested in collaborating on a cross-site solution.

17 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I think that's why peer review of lots is such a useful idea, but in these days of dwindling numbers, there is a time/skills shortage to do it. Very often, having pointed out to someone a flaw with their work, you get the impression they think you are being mean or simply that it's too much effort to fix. On one hand, allowing all content regardless of quality, does lead to more items to download. But on the other, it also leads to much faulty content, or simply content that could be better modded, a recipe for user frustration.

Once something's on the exchanges, that's usually the end of the matter. But if things can be fixed/improved, it would make much more sense to have a coordinated effort to get those fixes to everyone. So for example, say a transit stop has used the wrong paths, but the creator didn't fix it. it makes no sense that a number of more skilled users all separately make the same fixes. But despite their efforts, which is many times the work it should be, these fixes are still not available for the masses. Sure one could re-release the same lots as competing ones, but that's a bit crass. I guess it doesn't affect me, I'm confidently able to fix anything as I need. But I do sometimes wish when I fix something, there was a more reliable way of giving that fix to everyone in the process. Even those small number of fixes I've attached to the forums are not highly visible and get a very small number of downloads. Still there are no easy answers/solutions to these problems, especially considering how long the exchanges have been going.

Indeed, and that's part of the reason we switched over to the tiered open system on the LEX.  The candidacy process we had on the LEX for upload permissions just ended up frustrating both the would-be uploaders and the scrutineers to a considerable degree.  And slow.  The number of people who made it all the way through to full upload rights can probably be counted on one hand, and it caused some of the more prolific BSC types who oversaw the process to become completely burnt out.

That said, ensuring that files don't break the game minimizes frustration, and allows people to enjoy the game more.  The initial idea behind the BSC was simply to act as a sort of certification body--the acronym itself actually stands for "BATT Squad Certification" (the extra "T" being a product of ST's "squad" days).  I think having some sort of independent, cross-site certification like that could be worthwhile.

-Tarkus

 

 

[Fantozzi 4,068]

6 hours ago, Tarkus said:

 

The initial idea behind the BSC was simply to act as a sort of certification body--the acronym itself actually stands for "BATT Squad Certification" (the extra "T" being a product of ST's "squad" days).  having some sort of independent, cross-site certification like that could be worthwhile.

-Tarkus

 

 

 

Things have worsen again since then - me, I think since then props/textures became spread out again. Long time no megapacks anymore.
When they consolidated dependencies they invented something extremely helpfull - to pack all those prop packs by different authors into one.
Where have this days gone? Again dependencies list grows longer and longer for me and every author has his own small dependencies pack again.

That's what I'm a little bit disappointed how this discussion took direction. There's a talking about a 'we' and a 'us' I'm not shure who is meant with this words? Something political?

As me - I could do many of those things mentioned here without to settle a catalogue of rules for my own first without waiting for a supreme court to make decissions. I wonder how the BSC-team could have been existing the same way - waiting for someone else except of 'me' - simply making it, starting it. The rules - well, they can be settled when It becomes a necessarity - but this is a political thinking: first there need to be rules, then we can act in 'community interests'. Never heard a team began this way.

Lately I saw someone posting pictures of a fix he'd made for his personal use. But he didn't share. As if he wants to show: "Look what I can do. If you're as clever as me you can do the same thing." As if community was an audience instead of a 'give and take'. And I wonder if this 'we' in this discussion isn't the same: some kind auf audience to teach and preach to.

So what's this 'we' apart from idealistic thought, apart from intentions?

Most of the things discussed here don't need much thinking. They need much more some doing. Maybe - to settle a 'fixing management' some support from the simtropolis staff would be needed for the start up. But then there have to be people running it. Including: me. But I'm afriad this 'we' is almost void - the sc4 community is weak, not strong.

I can't see much asking neighbours 'can we put our props together into one bigger pack'. As if they were waiting - as if they were too proud to make the first step. Don't know the reasons - can only observe. But it seems everybody is waiting for someone else to begin. As if this 'we' doesn't include 'me' - it's always a talking to 'other people'.

Everybody is waiting for somebody else to make the first step, to take the demanded action. The same: asking for an authority to bring changes.

At the end - there aren't any people I'm talking to. There is no 'team' I'm part of - there is no 'we' on the level of practice. Me - I only for a short time had my own texture pack. I always asked other authors if they can include my stuff into their packs. There's some content around people never will know or recognize that me was the author or co-author. Just this fact makes me laugh sometimes when it comes to this ownership-discussion. I took so many idears from the community so many stuff, had much funny times - me, myself I didn't give that much back to the community to turn it into something 'honorable' or 'important'. 

This 'we' is a complete construction as long as my own acting doesn't fill it like this 'we' was a bowl of water an 'me' some sugar to be dissolved within.

I can't see that all this good idears, all those kind words will have any consequences this way. Just talking and dreaming. As long - this thread is for amusement only.

The BSC-team - this was a 'we', a real existing 'we'. But the 'we'  @rsc204 and me were talking about first simply doesn't exist. Look - what we did share: thoughts. We didn't put anything together for real, he does his stuff, I do mine. No megapack thrown together, no united forces on a project. Zero 'community' on the practical level between us. Only on the idealistic level.

And others pick upt this 'we' as they don't realize that it was only an imagination, a mind play quite from the start - as if it was something real - but if this 'we' is uncovered there may be standing two or three people wo are willing to do the work.

Most of the things have to be done by me first. I have to begin. It would be nice if the Simtropolis staff would establish some kind of bugfix forum or some kind of bugfix catalogue - but what can be contributed by me doesn't need a 'we' to wait for. So this 'we' is all about 'me', about my own behavior. It doesn't exist if by 'we' is meant - those others except of me, and me, myself, I keep waiting for them to take the action and then I might join. At the end: these are times without heroes, we're living in. And without heroes the word 'community' looses its sense. As both need each other. And all what is left from both of them is this goopy 'social-network-pasta'.

 

[EDIT]

Most (okay, all) posts I read here, in this thread, show to me insight, made up minds, clear thoughts, much clearer than mine. So I'm really in doubt there is still need for making up minds. Look above - all contributors here already made their mind up and know pretty well what they want.

If I got it right: a more community-interests-driven dealing with content, less shielding of individual interests (as those individual interests even is unknown for most part of abandoned content)?

So maybe it's more to do this question now: how can I contribute?

[rsc204 21,855]

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Things have worsen again since then - me, I think since then props/textures became spread out again. Long time no megapacks anymore.
When they consolidated dependencies they invented something extremely helpfull - to pack all those prop packs by different authors into one.
Where have this days gone? Again dependencies list grows longer and longer for me and every author has his own small dependencies pack again.

Well I think there are many reasons for this. Take for example the increase in HD content, mega-packs don't always work for these, because the file sizes quickly get out of hand. My AoT package runs about 12MB and includes around 50 props. Compare that to one of the BSC Mega Packs which could have hundreds of items in just a few MB. But I agree, consolidation where appropriate is a good idea.

10 hours ago, Tarkus said:

A couple of the really brilliant things that @CasperVg did with his revamp of the LEX software at SC4 Devotion were to give the exchange a Dependency Tracker feature, and to create an open API. 

One of the reasons I like to use the LEX for my dependency packages exclusively, is the Dependency Tracker. Not only does it keep track of which files you have, it also knows which revision you have too. So if I update a package, users can easily tell they've an out of date version. I've no idea how feasible it would be, but some sort of cross site support for linking dependencies would be really great IMO.

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

That's what I'm a little bit disappointed how this discussion took direction. There's a talking about a 'we' and a 'us' I'm not shure who is meant with this words? Something political?

We and Us can mean many things, their definition is not always clear from context. For example, my wife really struggles with this, often I refer to people, groups and such without defining absolutely who that group includes. It's second nature to me, in my head, it doesn't occur to me it might not be obvious to others who or what I'm talking about. Perhaps this is an English thing?

So We and Us can be we are discussing something, you and me or a group. Or, if you feel a sense of belonging, I might say we but mean the larger community here at ST.

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

As me - I could do many of those things mentioned here without to settle a catalogue of rules for my own first without waiting for a supreme court to make decissions.

Yes, there are lots of pro-active things we could do. For example, seeing the BAT Essentials tutorials were suffering from a series of site upgrades, I wanted to do something about it. It was instrumental to me getting a handle on the BAT and I really felt it was an important resource. In this case, a quick message to a moderator and I was able to gain access to and update these documents.

But, if we are talking more generally about a fundamental shift in how the community manages content, I don't think anyone can simply go it alone. Sometimes it's necessary to get permission, not from politicians, but ultimately from those in charge. A recent example, when some unhappiness at the prize awards for the challenges was aired, swiftly led to a public debate and action from the team running ST. Similarly, we can decide anything we want to here, but to actually enact some of these things, someone in charge needs to "push a button".

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Lately I saw someone posting pictures of a fix he'd made for his personal use. But he didn't share. As if he wants to show: "Look what I can do. If you're as clever as me you can do the same thing."

Hard to comment without knowing more details. It's also possible that this was something that the user was annoyed about and therefore elated about fixing. I often get a small buzz when I fix something that's bugging me, showing it off because I'm proud of my achievement. Perhaps, as per this discussion, if there was a more transparent way to get that fix to others, the user in question may have considered it? It could be worth a PM and asking if the user would consider attaching the fix.

But here is something I picked up on yesterday and feel very strongly about. If each one of us as individuals takes the initiative, we could end up with a real mess. Sometimes, by coordination and planning together, we can implement things in a vastly more beneficial way. I agree, bureaucracy can inhibit progress if you are not careful. Sometimes it takes one person to do something to get it done, rather than a committee to decide how to do it.

However, I do believe in the first place it's necessary here to establish what the rules of the game would be. Coming back to your example, many users/modders are often fearful of releasing certain works. No one wants to violate the rules and end up in trouble for having done so. I think some may not have the confidence, i.e. be enabled, to post such fixes, without explicit permission. For the longest time I would not consider mentioning those textures from Magneto/Gobias publically, because I too feared I may have broken the rules, which have consequences. But I wanted to share that example, because I believe it helps to make a point about how sometimes as a community, people are not enabled to do things that are beneficial for all. Rules can protect us as well as harm us, but sometimes they also need to have a degree of flexibility or they just constrain everyone. Two groups of people may disagree wildly over any given matter, hence sometimes, we need reasoned debate before jumping right in.

It is much easier to freely discuss such things when you have some standing in the community. I feel less vulnerable because I hope people see my contributions and won't judge that one action alone. But rather, see it in the context of why I did what I did and believe it was the right thing to do.

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Most of the things discussed here don't need much thinking. They need much more some doing. Maybe - to settle a 'fixing management' some support from the simtropolis staff would be needed for the start up. But then there have to be people running it. Including: me. But I'm afriad this 'we' is almost void - the sc4 community is weak, not strong.

I can't see much asking neighbours 'can we put our props together into one bigger pack'. As if they were waiting - as if they were too proud to make the first step. Don't know the reasons - can only observe. But it seems everybody is waiting for someone else to begin. As if this 'we' doesn't include 'me' - it's always a talking to 'other people'.

Everybody is waiting for somebody else to make the first step, to take the demanded action. The same: asking for an authority to bring changes.

I think if we can simply establish, with some sort of credibility and commitment here that what was proposed is the right idea, that's really a great start.

It's not a good idea to simply unlock the STEX and pass editing rights to everyone. So for this to work, there probably needs to be some official agreements and a suitable structure/processes set up.

However, in the meantime, you are right, we can be proactive about it. I just want to see that any such actions are handled in a way that makes them manageable and transparent in the longer run. I could open a new thread for fixes right this minute, but, it that becomes a free for all with no organisation and stuffed full of comments, it will quickly descend into an unholy unorganised mess. If we do that, then I don't feel we would have achieved anything here.

Similarly, people can't just package groups of files and start uploading them, this will need to be managed to really work. Sadly this takes time and resources, two things that this community has less and less of. Part of being proactive can just be lobbying, making sure the issue doesn't get forgotten.

10 hours ago, Tarkus said:

I think having some sort of independent, cross-site certification like that could be worthwhile.

Agreed. A team of willing members who can rubber stamp an upload. Perhaps a little logo creators could add so it's real easy to find certified content too?

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

So maybe it's more to do this question now: how can I contribute?

Firstly don't despair. I'm not a site moderator here, merely a contributor also. But even with all the potential roadblocks, I'm hopeful we can gain some traction on this issue.

How about this:

I will put together a thread dedicated to fixes for content that exists on the exchanges. But it might take a day or two, since I want to do it right. This will mean that everything can hopefully be consolidated into a few easy to reference posts. We need to make it super-easy to find these fixes, or this is doomed. But in the spirt of being pro-active, hopefully we can make a start, establishing how best to proceed along the way. If in future we can go one step further and update the files, great. If not, we try to at least keep these things in one place and organised.

However, there is one caveat here that simply must exist. We can NOT upload works that are protected. That's against the rules. So there will be limits in the first instance as to what we are able to offer. Which is precisely why this debate simply must happen for the idea to get anywhere. Unless agreement to change things can be made, we don't have the flexibility needed to really maximise the benefits of this idea.

[tigerbuilder 131]

For "protected" works, maybe there could be a thread that has the names, and a formatted list of things to modify to fix them yourself for people who can. Knowing which are the out of whack lots would be a big help.

I agree that sometimes we think about the few who hold their work as some golden creation, over the community as a whole. I would bet that the large majority of creators are giving back, or enjoy sharing their work, actually not caring about their "rights".  People often say "use freely", like I've seen  rsc do. I would bet most creators would actually appreciate having fixes applied to their work so it works better in the game. A BAT expert does not mean modding expert, usually the opposite. 

This is a really important topic, with great points by all

[Tarkus 6,933]

18 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Things have worsen again since then - me, I think since then props/textures became spread out again. Long time no megapacks anymore.
When they consolidated dependencies they invented something extremely helpfull - to pack all those prop packs by different authors into one.
Where have this days gone? Again dependencies list grows longer and longer for me and every author has his own small dependencies pack again.

It's interesting how the megapacks came about.  Part of it was indeed about consolidation, but it was also the result of some BSC research.  The BSC used to conduct internal, large-scale experiments with the game--the two main experiments were codenamed "Miramba" and "Shosaloza".  Miramba was actually about how the manner in which plugin files were assembled affected game performance.  The finding was that having one larger file led to better game performance than several smaller files.  This also led to the development of wouanagaine's SC4DatPacker tool.

In many cases, the way the smaller packs came about was as just-in-time releases, when creators needed to get certain props out for use in other downloads.  The way the STEX operated in those days also had a major impact--it used to be there was a strict 10MB limit on all STEX files, so creators generally had to work around that as well.  We no longer have those limits, but curiously enough, and in spite of that, you are right that there hasn't really been any file consolidation going on like that for several years now, aside from the NAM Team's new approach from 2013 onward.  There's probably a few different factors that play into this, such as not wanting to have to update older files to redirect users to the new consolidated dependency, or even continued worries about bandwidth, but the biggest one has to be simple inactivity.

The main reason the "ultrapack" idea surfaced was because of the fact that there is a lot more "binge downloading" now (particularly with people coming back to the game and wanting to get back up and running), but also, because some creators in our LEX catalog had already accumulated quite a number of megapacks.  bixel has 24, ks_jpn has 11, jestarr has 9, and there's several others in the 6-7 range.  One of the key arguments against doing that is bandwidth consumption, and people potentially not wanting everything in those 24 megapacks. 

However, now that we have the Dependency Tracker over there, it's not really as necessary, because it can compile everything that is needed on demand, and it would be in ideal working condition once the ClickTeam stuff is gone.   The average user also isn't there to download dependencies for the sake of downloading dependencies, either--they're getting them because they want to use someone's BAT that requires them.  I would say the only reason to do the ultrapack now would be if the installers were to be retained, but I don't know that such a thing is really desired now.  The main reason ClickTeam became such a fixture was to mitigate the "where to install" questions, but it seems that most folks nowadays already have that figured out--or could figure it out in the time it takes to run the installers.

 

14 hours ago, rsc204 said:

But, if we are talking more generally about a fundamental shift in how the community manages content, I don't think anyone can simply go it alone. Sometimes it's necessary to get permission, not from politicians, but ultimately from those in charge. A recent example, when some unhappiness at the prize awards for the challenges was aired, swiftly led to a public debate and action from the team running ST. Similarly, we can decide anything we want to here, but to actually enact some of these things, someone in charge needs to "push a button"

. . .

However, I do believe in the first place it's necessary here to establish what the rules of the game would be. Coming back to your example, many users/modders are often fearful of releasing certain works. No one wants to violate the rules and end up in trouble for having done so. I think some may not have the confidence, i.e. be enabled, to post such fixes, without explicit permission. For the longest time I would not consider mentioning those textures from Magneto/Gobias publically, because I too feared I may have broken the rules, which have consequences. But I wanted to share that example, because I believe it helps to make a point about how sometimes as a community, people are not enabled to do things that are beneficial for all. Rules can protect us as well as harm us, but sometimes they also need to have a degree of flexibility or they just constrain everyone. Two groups of people may disagree wildly over any given matter, hence sometimes, we need reasoned debate before jumping right in.

It is much easier to freely discuss such things when you have some standing in the community. I feel less vulnerable because I hope people see my contributions and won't judge that one action alone. But rather, see it in the context of why I did what I did and believe it was the right thing to do.

Well, you do have one of the folks with button pushing capabilities at SC4D right here, so that's a start.

On the "fear factor", that definitely is a real thing, and there's been a couple of small things that people have begged me for that I didn't feel justified in letting out there.

On 10/11/2016 at 2:12 PM, catty-cb said:

Just as an aside to this I'm a Banished player, and Banished was going down the same path of multiple mods and websites, but its now started to head in a different direction of merging all the different mods into one complete package, MegaMod as its called is still in beta and already is 2GB in size, so starting Banished with it can take some time
 

 

On 10/11/2016 at 4:49 PM, rsc204 said:

Absolutely, it would be a great help if ready to go packages like this could be assembled. Of course I think dependencies might need to remain linked. But just having a bundle would make things so much easier for the average user.

There's a ton of demand for these sorts of things out there.  You don't see it quite so much on ST and SC4D (mainly as people are essentially conditioned not to ask for it), but on other sites where SC4 is discussed, it comes up regularly.  Part of the reason for the NAM repackaging was prompted by this, and while I think it's impossible to get anyone to a unanimous agreement into what would go into a 2GB bundle, since we're quickly get into dealing with buildings and matters of taste, there is already a potential solution at hand.  With the way the Dependency Tracker and Custom Group options work on the LEX, it is possible to rig them up such that curated "playlists" of plugins could be put together.  There is some assembly that would be required on the user end at present, due to file architecture (installers), but the groundwork is there.

-Tarkus

 

 

[Fantozzi 4,068]

43 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

However, now that we have the Dependency Tracker over there, it's not really as necessary, because it can compile everything that is needed on demand, and it would be in ideal working condition once the ClickTeam stuff is gone.   The average user also isn't there to download dependencies for the sake of downloading dependencies, either--they're getting them because they want to use someone's BAT that requires them. 

Well, yes - no - it's something more psychological. Maybe. It's just that I noticed users love me more if I tell them they need only 3 instead of 12 dependencies - that's all. It may be some kind of believe that 3 dependency causing less conflicts/troubles instead of 12. Or maybe they are afraid of the hard work caused by clicking twelve instead of 3 download links. Or - don't know for real. Me - I don't mind about dependencies, I love all those tiny props. But I often get critics about them when I upload lots. So I think the problem is more having so many links to klick and getting confused by collecting them and not to forget one. It seems to be more some kind of an intellectual barrier - maybe - if there are more than three dependencies for a lot. So the dependency tracker is of no help here - as still the user needs to know what he wants. Well, I don't know for real - but it might be, eventually, and with no offense to users, some of them become confused if the things that have to be checked exceeds the number of three. And that is where megapacks are handy. The same way as a big can of flavour enhancer substitutes not only many different spices but also the knowledge how to use them and the knowledge about cooking

[rsc204 21,855]

1 hour ago, Tarkus said:

However, now that we have the Dependency Tracker over there, it's not really as necessary, because it can compile everything that is needed on demand, and it would be in ideal working condition once the ClickTeam stuff is gone.

Actually you raise a good point. Perhaps Ultrapacks wouldn't be ideal. I know I like to manage the contents of my plugins folder more than most. But indeed if you could group-download all the deps in one go and simply extract them and be done, that would be so much quicker than it is now.

I've started playing about with a Japanese region recently, and I'm finding a lot of Japanese content is just so much easier to install. They tend to favour .zip files exclusively and separated Lot, Model and DESC files into separate folders in many cases too. It makes building a large suite of plugins very swift.

32 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Well, yes - no - it's something more psychological. Maybe. It's just that I noticed users love me more if I tell them they need only 3 instead of 12 dependencies - that's all...

Well the debate on that one could run and run. I agree, having placed the following disclaimer on a recent upload

Quote

Warning: The dependency list may not be for the faint of heart:

This was a single lot with 10 dependencies and yet more cascading dependencies also. However, I still use all the dependencies I need to create the best thing I can, that's simply my philosophy.

Tree controllers are a good example of this problem. All too often the usual "I downloaded all the dependencies argument!" is given, but a brown box means you simply don't have everything you need, there is no other explanation. So either the creator missed one, which does happen, or the user did. These users often want others to work out for them what is missing, and dislike intensely when you explain how this is usually an unrealistic expectation.

Actually, I can use your Big Paeng Theory download as a good example here. Unlike my 1 lot dependency hell, you could argue your dependency list is far more justified, given the sheer number and diversity of lots you created. However, I quickly flicked through the list, maybe 60-70% of them I simply knew I already have, they are fairly standard stuff. Another 20% after some simple Windows file searching were either in my plugins folder or in my stash ready to be installed. Then I needed to go off and download a small handful of them to complete the set. I wasn't bothered by this process at all, after all, your work simply would be constrained if you didn't use these files. And one thing I love about that pack (and many other works), is that you've just given me a ton of diverse lots that allow me to greatly expand on the variety of my favourite parks set.

But, we have to accept also, that some users lack the basic skills/understanding to be so concise and organised. So for them, if they could click a button "dependency tracker", see everything in one list. One which kept track of what had been/had not been downloaded, then enabled them to get the rest with one click and install them seamlessly. That's obviously going to make both their lives easier and yours as a creator. Since it's now less likely you will get complaints or support queries. Actually, you can pretty much do this if you upload your pack on the LEX tomorrow (although in the context of this discussion, the installation part could be made easier). But, I know myself, if I want my work to get to a wider audience, I need to upload it to the STEX too.

Purely because I like the dependency tracker, I prefer users to download my work on the LEX, but I can't control such things. However, all my dependency-only files are exclusively on the LEX. Without offense to ST, partially to push users towards the LEX. See below, but having this functionality available to STEX downloads would seriously improve this area for all.

1 hour ago, Tarkus said:

...I think it's impossible to get anyone to a unanimous agreement into what would go into a 2GB bundle, since we're quickly get into dealing with buildings and matters of taste, there is already a potential solution at hand.

Absolutely, we're all after different things really.

1 hour ago, Tarkus said:

With the way the Dependency Tracker and Custom Group options work on the LEX, it is possible to rig them up such that curated "playlists" of plugins could be put together.

I like this idea a lot.

It's pretty much what you can do with C:S on Steam. So users would be able to compile lists, perhaps a dedicated thread compiling the best/most popular ones would help to get them noticed? Or maybe it's possible to go further with it's own section on the exchange?

So I could for example make a huge list of all the UK content I consider to be essential. Then if someone wanted to quickly get a UK region going, they could in theory just download everything, dependencies included in one go. Again with installers out of the equation, installing everything with a smart tool like 7zip, could be no more than a few clicks. Obviously such suites of plugins wouldn't be optimised, but it sure would enable new or returning players to get going with minimal fuss.

Actually, depending on how far a user wanted to go, you could do more than that. Imagine the above, with a gigantic cleanitol file and many custom replacements. Not only could you now get all the UK content in one go, very swiftly you could remove everything no longer required and patch it with a group of replacement files. For example, I'm re-lotting/modding all my UK content, mostly new textures, prop adjustments and replacing all trees with seasonal ones. Of course said "patch" would be optional, users could choose the original style or to use the replacement one. There is so much potential here.

However, that all sounds really great, but whilst these features remain the exclusive domain of the LEX, there is a flaw. To truly make this work, we need some way for the STEX/LEX to work together in harmony. No disrespect to the smaller sites, but I don't feel that's so important. Sure, you might end up having a few manual downloads from say toutsimcity, simcitypolska or capitalsimcity say, but realistically the bulk of the commonly used dependencies are on the STEX and LEX. But much content resides on only one or the other, or even where it resides on both, there are often discrepancies between the two.

Obviously the LEX has an Open API, but I do worry knowing a little about how ST is setup, that those in charge here may simply not have the flexibility to integrate such a solution, even if they wanted too. Lets be honest here, some of the site bugs are just simply being ignored, one of the hazards of relying on third parties to manage the codebase that the site runs upon. 

I know it's only had a few days to run, but it would be nice if someone from the ST staff were to pop up with their 2cts at some point.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Well the debate on that one could run and run. I agree, having placed the following disclaimer on a recent upload [...]

I just try to remain open minded, even with simtropolis-friends who might be 'faint of heart' (what ever this means). Don't want to exclude nobody from having fun with my stuff. Also those without sc4-diploma are wellcome. It's always the same point, you and me disagree - where there is a debate there is always a need, a desire, a fear - a basic human emotion behind. If there is no need, people won't discuss. And even if the discussion is nonsense, the emotion behind, the need should always be taken serious. You know, no one - as you are an intelligent person - would start a discussion with you by saying:I'm too stupid to use dependencies. Why would people degrate themselves before your eyes? They have their pride too. They would always complain about the dependencies themselves, not about their problems with them. Most of the time people don't name their personal problems in public - and I can fully understand them. Me, I wouldn't shout my personal problems neither in public places. So many of this public discussions are placeholders for other things, more subtile, more sensible. The 'dependency debate' points mostly to something else - just try to see those things with eyes of a player competely new to sc4. To learn about the dependency tracker, to learn about plugin-folder organisation, how to set up sc4 on modern pcs, config settings, startup commands, using the NAM ...  - you get the impression you've inscribed at the sc4-academy. But every new user may become a new batter after one or two years. So we should be as much friendly as we can with them. And to explain things is only the second best solution. The best solution is to make things that simple that they don't need any explanation.

[EDIT]

Now I had to remember how it was for me, some years ago. I'm playing on the german version, so it is impossible to guess abbreviations from the game. And they were talking about those MMPs here - "just use MMPs' - and my thought was: those people are crazy. ... Mother ... Music ... Mastodon ... Pasting ... Posting ... Pressing .... ???????????? Was I to shy to ask? Shure I was.  

[rsc204 21,855]

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

The best solution is to make things that simple that they don't need any explanation.

Absolutely. For me that is the whole point of this discussion, to try and find better ways around these problems. Because at the heart of this matter are a few very simple points.

• If we make content easier to access and simpler to use, more people will have a better experience.
• If we can remove as many barriers and roadblocks of custom content as possible, we will retain more players in the long run.
• If we retain more players, we grow the community, rather than watching it shrink.
• Growing the community leads to more content and more users who may help keep the community alive and evolving.

It's all one big cycle that should not be allowed to stop turning. For when it does, we'll just slowly shrink into obscurity. In fact it's worse than that, the internet is a cold mistress, if we don't pay the bills, everything will be switched off. When that happens, all too often, there is no legacy or history left behind. We simply get wiped from existence, with only the memories of those who were part of it remaining.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

Also those without sc4-diploma are wellcome. It's always the same point, you and me disagree - where there is a debate there is always a need, a desire, a fear - a basic human emotion behind. If there is no need, people won't discuss. And even if the discussion is nonsense, the emotion behind, the need should always be taken serious. You know, no one - as you are an intelligent person - would start a discussion with you by saying:I'm too stupid to use dependencies. Why would people degrate themselves before your eyes?

I think for me, one of the issues is that I have been helping people for a long time with general computer issues. I have no problem helping people, going the extra mile as it were. I could name people I've spent many hours going through things with, in hugely intricate step-by-step ways. I have immense patience for doing this.

But, when someone asking for my help and knowledge, spends more time questioning that, or expecting me to explain all the why's, that's when I can come unstuck from my usual calm and patient self. If you don't trust me to help you, find someone else to do it, because I'm not your mum. This may seem harsh, but I do have a way of saying things that others will refrain from. There is a bit of sociopath in me, I'm aware of it, but at the same time, I don't always see the same meaning in my words as others do. It's a complex problem that is my burden, but I don't hide from who I am. I might be the first to come off as a little rude or arrogant. But I'm also the first to apologise and accept when I've made a mistake.

Ultimately I believe in treating others how you wish to be treated. So if you are nice to me and appreciate my help, you are welcome to it. But rather than just disappearing when someone is perhaps not being reasonable with me, I will point it out, verbosely if I feel it's necessary.

I absolutely do not want to set some invisible minimum bar for entry. I don't think people who don't understand computers are idiots. A large percentage of people own a car or have driven one... most of whom know little to nothing about maintaining or servicing them. That's because a car doesn't have to be your hobby, it can simply be a tool you use. In the same ways, computers are simply tools, although I have become an enthusiast or hobbyist, I have no elitism about that. Most people who come here, technically inclined or otherwise, just want to play the most fantastic city builder ever created. I am motivated to enable as many people to enjoy or get more out of it as possible.

But telling me that black is white, that's not going to end well. Because I know the exact technical underpinnings for why that brown box is there. If someone will not accept that as fact, I won't pretend it isn't so, nor hide from pointing out the reality.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

Me, I wouldn't shout my personal problems neither in public places.

Well, I've never been afraid to say things as they are, although I think many confuse stating opinion with facts. I'm always open to hear the other side, not that I can promise I'll agree with it.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

The 'dependency debate' points mostly to something else - just try to see those things with eyes of a player competely new to sc4. To learn about the dependency tracker, to learn about plugin-folder organisation, how to set up sc4 on modern pcs, config settings, startup commands, using the NAM ...  - you get the impression you've inscribed at the sc4-academy. But every new user may become a new batter after one or two years. So we should be as much friendly as we can with them. And to explain things is only the second best solution. The best solution is to make things that simple that they don't need any explanation.

I agree again. See we're not always at opposites...

I believe we can and should do better at bringing new people on-board. But I also have strong views on how to achieve this. Because if we succeed in doing this well, we can make a huge difference. But if we just do it, but not properly, then all we succeed in doing is creating a lot of work for many people, without reaping the potential benefits.

It's precisely this desire to remove the barriers and technical understanding required, that is my motivation for this. After all, me personally, I am sufficiently capable of working things out. But it resonates with my experience supporting others how such barriers are all too real and potentially harming our future.

For some things, like setting SC4 up, outside of providing step-by-step instructions, perhaps with screenshots, we are limited in what we can do to ease these burdens. Actually, that's not true, technology allows us to remotely use someone else's PC (Windows) and fix it for them. But, whilst most users are happy for Google to go poking around their machine all day long, they really dislike the idea of a stranger doing so. Even if the system is so locked down that it would be impossible for me to do anything you couldn't see me doing. Ironically, such a useful tool is pretty much made useless, precisely because those with the most need for it don't understand how it works.

However, in the context of this discussion, we (the community) do have the power, but I personally, despite my motivation, do not. So what it comes down to is simple, do those who have the power and the larger community in general want this to happen. Do we as a group believe this is the right way forward. For until that simple fact is established, we can't really begin to work on the intricacies of a solution.

[catty-cb 4,412]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

...Obviously the LEX has an Open API, but I do worry knowing a little about how ST is setup, that those in charge here may simply not have the flexibility to integrate such a solution, even if they wanted too. Lets be honest here, some of the site bugs are just simply being ignored, one of the hazards of relying on third parties to manage the codebase that the site runs upon....

My site uses Joomla while there is a bit of learning curve it does mean that you can pick the best software for the job rather than being committed to the one company, if you look at the main toolbar over at CB while it all looks the same it actually represents five different programs from three different companies.

But how well it would work if I had the site traffic that SC4 Devotion and Simtropolis experience is another matter and add in a active forum with all the work that entails to keep running and I can see why Simtropolis went to using IPS as their software provider.

-catty

[rsc204 21,855]

4 minutes ago, catty-cb said:

But how well it would work if I had the site traffic that SC4 Devotion and Simtropolis experience is another matter and add in a active forum with all the work that entails to keep running and I can see why Simtropolis went to using IPS as their software provider.

Totally. Not to mention one of the biggest problems with a large number of users is remaining both scalable and secure. A third party solution can almost become necessary, but of course, the amount of control you retain is dependent on the solution you use. Not that I have enough understanding or involvement here to really make any comments about what is right or wrong for running this site.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

2 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I could name people I've spent many hours going through things with, in hugely intricate step-by-step ways.

I know. I'm amongst them. You even wrote a tutorial for me 

[Jasoncw 11,940]

ok so this thread is pretty overwhelming but I'll try to maybe add something. 

 

 

MOD HELP TEAM

A mod help team would be beneficial. I think ideally this would be a group of people with modding expertise, and this group would either be contacted by someone working on a project and needing help, or this group would proactively engage with people working on projects to make sure they are modding things correctly and also following best practices. Most of the modding problems are because this stuff is confusing, and I think most would welcome having this resource available. 

The current problem is that while this expertise exists, it's not fully known who knows what. Most people don't have the networking to be able to get help, and many people, especially new people who need the most help, feel comfortable cold-PMing vets asking for help. Having a team solves this networking/asking problem by making an accessible easy point of first contact. Someone can get engaged with the team and they'll get connected with the right person in the team. 

I would be against certification in order to avoid the eventual elitism and tribalism and cliqueness of "last time". And I can see both ways how what happened before was caused by the specific personalities involved, but I can also see how the evolution of the system naturally lead to such an outcome. But either way I don't think certification is really necessary because I think the main goal should be to help people make good content, not to be gatekeepers. 

 

 

DEPENDENCIES

First of all, I would just love it if for humorous purposes someone from the BSC could post a tree chart showing how all of the dependency packages have been combined over the years. I can't even imagine how insane it must be. 

Anyway, I avoid things with dependencies pretty strongly (I barely play the game and my play style has never been the type to require dependency heavy stuff), so I won't pretend to have a clue of how to manage the problem. 

But my possible suggestion would be to go through the dependencies and determine which of them are actually being used. I mean, scanning everything and determining what gets used and what has literally never been used as far as anyone can tell. And then removing those parts from the packages, and then creating a separate legacy version to support anything that might have been missed. Someone with more lotting experience and familiarity with the various dependencies will know better than me, but I have a feeling that the great majority of the stuff has barely even been used. 

Reducing the filesize and the amount of content in the dependencies would make an ultra pack more practical. 

 

[catty-cb 4,412]

33 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

....First of all, I would just love it if for humorous purposes someone from the BSC could post a tree chart showing how all of the dependency packages have been combined over the years. I can't even imagine how insane it must be.....

 

I'm not in the BSC Team but I do have a very out-of-date list that did just that, but I gave up updating it quite some time back I did start opening up the megapacks and creating a list of what was in the pack and adding it here

https://community.simtropolis.com/clubs/26-city-builders-website/cb-documents/16-mega-pack-plugins

I can't even say its a work in-progress as I keep getting side-tracked onto other things.

-catty