[Dr. Greg House]

Hello moderators of this forum, admins, readers, dev-teams, coders, users, server-operators, fennecs,

I find the direction in which all of this is going worrisome. In this post I will point out the things which have caught my attention to my dismay, without any name-calling (as this is unnecessary and everyone knows or everyone who should know knows). I will also present a list of proposals to contain and manage this, because I'm not a Grinch.
The situation as-is is very dire in my opinion. It has reached a point to which I question the purpose of any form of contribution.
Now without further ado...


The current situation:

As many of you know, behind the reach of these forums, there is a huge private sector. It is represented by coders here, as everyone "in the biz" has an alliedmods account. In this private sector, people are being scammed, and licenses are being violated.
Scamming happens either in form of over-payment, or by claiming authorship of a plugin. Plugins written are almost all badly coded and riddled with the following flaws:
-Prone to errors and crashes, particularly race conditions, but beginner mistakes in general
-Reduced readability (making it hard for an actual coder to fix things, if things are salvageable, which they are usually NOT)
-Bad coding style

Many times plugins are being distributed without their source code, which violates sourcemod's license.

Clients/Server-ops, unable to code by themselves (why they rely on help in the first place), are unable to verify the quality and origin of the plugins, and depend on the coder in question. This need of trust is being abused to the point where sourcemod has evolved into a platform where the ones profiting are not the community in general or the player base, but those few con-artists who openly laugh about the current situation and rub their hands in excitement, thinking of how dumb (not my words) the mods must be to let this happen.

This goes beyond the reach of the private sector, and delves into these forums in many aspects.
One is that even here, plugins are being (mass-)uploaded under incompatible licenses. Now I understand that the term of "derivative work" is somewhat hazy and complicated, but to my point of understanding the legal violation itself happens as soon as the plugin that carries the incompatible license is being compiled. Interesting enough, this makes the forum compiler and therefore Alliedmods an accessory to the violation of their own license.
The second example is that those con-artists have some public plugins uploaded here. Many of them, while not nearly as flawed as their private counterparts, are still insanely flawed to the point where they deserve unapproval. Unfortunately this currently does not happen, giving those people a reputation that is invalid. A reputation they abuse to scam further clients. Moreover, the recent approval changes, why completely understandable, good and justified, make this worse, implying that plugins are basically approved of by default (this is how it looks to the reader).
The third example is that a lot of drama is happening here due to this and a lack of moderation. Most moderators are somewhat inactive over the years, some of them have been offered jobs based on the reputation they had here, and are therefore unavailable. As a result of this, a lot of trolling happens, and resolutions, if they may ever happen, are unjust, un-reflected upon and are more like immuno-suppressants work for an infection: They make things appear better for a very short time until they take a turn for the even worse.

Furthermore, elaborating on the lack of moderation, violations of the forum rules are not being pursued. If so, even permanent bans are being lifted (I know of one particular instance where a mod told me it was purely based on not wanting to be molested anymore by the "banee"). Some users here are on their second and third accounts, and some even admit this publicly. The moderation knows about this (usually long before official statements are being made) and decides to not follow the rules. The same goes for intentional(!) license violations not being pursued at all or improperly. As many cooks ruin the dish, everyone seems to act on their own behalf, and posts and proof is often being deleted or lost in the flamewars that emerge from unresolved issues.


Proposals:

Signing of plugins
Signing of plugins can verify their origin. I would like to see the forum compiler sign every plugin that is being uploaded, if it is in the "approved section" (Needless to say, the current "Plugins/Plugins"-subsection). Ideally, pre-compiled plugins should not be allowed to be uploaded, and the author should have the ability to upload missing includes necessary for successful compilation.

Sourcemod's plugin blacklist should evolve into something more. Sourcemod should check for plugins that are not compiled by the forum compiler and are thus unapproved. In case of unapproved plugins being found, the server op should be notified by a warning. The warning should contain a link to an article on the forums which explains the danger of running unapproved plugins, and elaborate on the complicated nature that are private requests.
"Private request" seeking should also be disallowed (and not only advertising of turnkey plugins). If people want to see a public plugin being made that profits the entire community, they should be allowed to come forward.

Along with that, plugins should be unapproved directly if they have any flaws (and not still non-unapproved for a time frame to allow the author to correct mistakes). This is to allow for transparency towards the user, as the plugin in that very moment is one worthy of being unapproved.

Furthermore, I propose more unapproval criteria:
-Plugins having race conditions (i.e. clientIDs and entity indices in timers)
-Decreased maintainability unjustified by a plugin's complexity (i.e. very bad coding style, naming and comments being written in a language that is not English)

Also, a few plugin-types I would like their approval status to be thought about:
-Ads (Word is, in order to get support from third party source engine games, ad companies try to bribe the devs with percentages of ad revenue to get proper motd support, annoying users with ads - keep in mind, not many know how to disable the motds. If you can use windows update manually, you are a wizard. However, currently playing ads to users gets AM's stamp of approval. I either see a source of income here or a reason to unapprove of these plugins)
-MOTD enforcers
-Violations of Valve's Policy Of Truth
-Anything that screws with players (i.e. disallowing lobby votes as a means to force people to stay on the server in l4d(2)) or Valve (and their economy)

In the end, I also see a few forum and moderation changes to be necessary:
The subforums are a bit confusing. The "Off-Topic" section is in the AMX forums, and the "Plugins"-subforum has a "Plugins" forum. Adding to that, it would be nice to have active moderators. I fully understand that some people have moved on with their lives and hobbies, but in that case we deserve new staff additions.
Needless to say, please follow the rules (and their penalties) you have written yourself. I think the name of this community should truthfully remain "Alliedmods", not "AnarchyMods". This includes permanent bans for license violations, and dis-allowance of ban evasion and multiple accounts.



Thank you for your time reading this.
House

[Potato Uno]

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Proposals: Signing of plugins

I do agree with not uploading smx files although that would break the Lysis thread. I also don't know how you can "sign" a plugin anyway?

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Sourcemod's plugin blacklist

This is an awful idea. Why do I need to compile my plugins on AM in order for the VM to whitelist it? This only screws over server operators who write plugins for their own servers. It also unnecessarily burdens AM's infrastructure:

- Plugin compilation is not cheap (CPU-intensive)
- Download/upload costs for the sp/smx
- Spams and burdens the gamedata updater with the hashes of whitelisted plugins (which is another bandwidth cost) - this is even worse if people then spam the AM compiler non-stop to spam up the whitelist hashes table AND waste CPU time on the compiler
- A total pain in the fucking ass where you have to recompile on AM for every update you make - even worse if you have numerous sp files and inc files lying around

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House -Decreased maintainability unjustified by a plugin's complexity (i.e. very bad coding style, naming and comments being written in a language that is not English)

This is very highly subjective. What other people find to be pleasing coding style may not match mine. For one example I consider all code that put braces at the end of a line (as opposed to their own line) to be an instant winner of "disgusting code".

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Also, a few plugin-types I would like their approval status to be thought about:

I think AM has been pretty compliant with most of this. As a case in point, they moved all Valve-frowned plugins to the unapproved section and the attachables circumvention for TF2 is not to be spoken about (though it still can be found here in some dark corners).

Really, smx files should be removed and the VM should directly run off of sp, with the compilation being done on server startup. This will terminate license violations (and makes it somewhat easier to manage too) and I read BAILOPAN saying it will make plugins run 2-3x faster too. The problem is you pay the compilation price on every server startup.

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Thank you for your time reading this. House

Thanks for posting the wall of text to read over.

[Dr. Greg House]

Originally Posted by Potato Uno I do agree with not uploading smx files although that would break the Lysis thread. I also don't know how you can "sign" a plugin anyway?

There have been thoughts about plugin signing for a while iirc.
I was also addressing release threads (if I wasn't clear). (EDIT: I actually named the section, so I was clear)

Originally Posted by Potato Uno This is an awful idea. Why do I need to compile my plugins on AM in order for the VM to whitelist it? This only screws over server operators who write plugins for their own servers. It also unnecessarily burdens AM's infrastructure: - Plugin compilation is not cheap (CPU-intensive) - Download/upload costs for the sp/smx - Spams and burdens the gamedata updater with the hashes of whitelisted plugins (which is another bandwidth cost) - this is even worse if people then spam the AM compiler non-stop to spam up the whitelist hashes table AND waste CPU time on the compiler - A total pain in the fucking ass where you have to recompile on AM for every update you make - even worse if you have numerous sp files and inc files lying around

Sourcemod already has a "blacklist". I elaborated on this concept, not its particular execution in that direction. As said a warning would suffice.
All points you made are moot because this is what currently happens anyway (as providing smx files in release threads is a total exception due to the forum compiler not supporting adding of includes). Also plugin authors could sign their own plugins, and add them to an ignore list.

Originally Posted by Potato Uno This is very highly subjective. What other people find to be pleasing coding style may not match mine. For one example I consider all code that put braces at the end of a line (as opposed to their own line) to be an instant winner of "disgusting code".

Note the words "very bad" and "decreased maintainability". There is obviously no black/white solution to this, which you should know, which makes me wonder why you're bringing this up in this way.

Originally Posted by Potato Uno I think AM has been pretty compliant with most of this. As a case in point, they moved all Valve-frowned plugins to the unapproved section and the attachables circumvention for TF2 is not to be spoken about (though it still can be found here in some dark corners).

The timeframe in which this happened was quite big. I'd like to note that initially the attachments were not removed. The response to me asking why was to actually stop it being sold behind the scenes.
Also, there are plugins floating around here which are forcing people to enable motds so they can join a team.

Originally Posted by Potato Uno Really, smx files should be removed and the VM should directly run off of sp, with the compilation being done on server startup. This will terminate license violations (and makes it somewhat easier to manage too) and I read BAILOPAN saying it will make plugins run 2-3x faster too. The problem is you pay the compilation price on every server startup.

I'm not sure how it would make the plugins run faster (I doubt he actually said that and you stated no source), but while I generally find this agreeable, it would also make signing the plugins impossible.

Originally Posted by Potato Uno Thanks for posting the wall of text to read over.

Wow, I don't know if that was you being sarcastic, but it looks like you're just being intentionally rude here.

[Potato Uno]

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House I'm not sure how it would make the plugins run faster (I doubt he actually said that and you stated no source), but while I generally find this agreeable, it would also make signing the plugins impossible.

Here's your source: https://forums.alliedmods.net/showpo...8&postcount=48

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Wow, I don't know if that was you being sarcastic, but it looks like you're just being intentionally rude here.

No I was not intentionally being rude - I was glad someone actually said something about the recent drama going on around here. And I did read the full wall of text.

[Drixevel]

Few things from me to note: (Haven't read any posts, just the thread OP)

The problem with stopping the requests of private plugins is that a lot of people these days buy private plugins for various reasons few of which involve the plugin being theirs only. It is possible for other developers to recreate what they see on a server but for the most part, It's meant to be a way a community can have their own customized version of that plugin. Some people like to request plugins that are completely new and some people like to request plugins which are customized to fit their needs. I'd suggest we embrace that sort of an agenda instead but give it a more open meaning with private plugin developer ratings and open rates to the public so we know how much money is spent where. This is also a very good way of watching out for scammers on the forum as well.

I'm behind you when it comes to good code in-general, I have OCD so I expect all code I look at the be very pretty and very efficient but putting up such high barriers for approval seems harsh considering a good number of us started coding in-general with Sourcemod. I'd suggest we do it the way you suggested it but make a section that's also open like before but just have active moderators. I'm 99% sure there's plenty of people here willing to moderate plugins.

I'm also behind you when it comes to everything related to bad coding style for money in the private sectors of plugin making as well as license agreements being violated. The problem with it though is there's never going to be any 100% way to stop it unless Sourcemod puts up a system that requires any plugins made to be set through an approval process first which would stop private work in-general and just cause a lot more drama than intended for those who want private stuff. People can do with their money that they want to and we can still make this a good community for everybody.

Might be a VERY out of the ball park suggestion from me and I'm not even sure I follow it 100% but I'd discontinue the license for private plugins and just tell everyone that private plugins are considered dangerous if not made by trusted people and just work on plugins released here under that license. We've been locked under the DMCA wall with SMAC for years now and that's not changing anytime soon so this might be one way to go but I'm not a fan of this idea as much as I am the idea above.

---

All and all, I like all the ideas you bring to the table and I'd like to see more improvements across the board. I'm also very interested in a name change but I'd rather not spam the forums over and over again for hours with a couple of bans and new account attempts just to make that happen even though I believe a simple name change is easy, people already know who I am and I'm not trying to break any rules by doing so. If you check out the latest thread by Zephyrius with the SQL snippets and my name on there, you can clearly see that people can't say my name correctly so I'd like to get this changed.

#runonsentences
#newyears2016

Anyways, that's my thoughts... have a good one.
- Drixevel (MY ACTUAL ALIAS)

[PartialCloning]

That sounds too totalitarian and it is not in the best interest of alliedmodders to get involved to such an extent. If proof is provided and the person in question is a member here, they should ban him/her if they violate the sourcemod license, but that's as far as they should go. I understand that some users are taking advantage of server owners who can not tell a good script from a poor one, however they should be expected to do their research rather than having AM do the work for them. What's a trusted user anyway? Who says someone with a ton of approved plugins wouldn't recycle very old code for a few bucks? The solution should come from the community, not from AM. Something like coderhire or scriptfodder but for sourcemod and amxmodx. AM wannabe entrepreneurs, this is your chance.

Having said that I agree that the approved section should be brought back, not only is it a better indicator for server owners to know which coders know what they're doing (thus reducing the chance of them paying for poorly coded plugins), but it's also better for new coders to know what plugins to read and learn from, and it also pushes coders to improve and make more efficient plugins to get them approved.

As for plenty of people willing to moderate plugins, that's not the problem, the problem is finding people with the right amount of knowledge and experience with sourcemod to moderate plugins.

[VoiDeD]

[Dr. Greg House]

Originally Posted by r3dw3r3w0lf [...]I'd suggest we embrace that sort of an agenda instead but give it a more open meaning with private plugin developer ratings and open rates to the public so we know how much money is spent where. This is also a very good way of watching out for scammers on the forum as well.

Sourcemod does not exist for private coders to make money. The choice of license and how turnkey advertisement is handled pretty much establish that.

Originally Posted by PartialCloning Having said that I agree that the approved section should be brought back, not only is it a better indicator for server owners to know which coders know what they're doing (thus reducing the chance of them paying for poorly coded plugins), but it's also better for new coders to know what plugins to read and learn from, and it also pushes coders to improve and make more efficient plugins to get them approved.

The change was made because of a lack of moderators to properly review each plugin. It does make sense to reverse the effort.

Originally Posted by PartialCloning As for plenty of people willing to moderate plugins, that's not the problem, the problem is finding people with the right amount of knowledge and experience with sourcemod to moderate plugins.

This is exactly the issue the server ops have. As a platform AM owes this to the effort they spend creating and maintaining the platform, as well as give those server ops a chance to inform themselves about this. Right now the scenario is that 1) you get ripped off and 2) if you maybe find out, you don't know what to do and which plugins to run. Plugin signing along with the forum compiler signing the approved plugins with a special key that sourcemod can check to inform plugin owners of the situation in general and the plugins in question attempts to do exactly that. Give owners the ability to inform themselves properly, and introducing a way to rate and compare plugins effectively.

@Voided:

Posts like this make me honestly wonder why you have any moderation rights here.

[psychonic]

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Sourcemod does not exist for private coders to make money. The choice of license and how turnkey advertisement is handled pretty much establish that.

The forum rule against advertising turnkey plugins has nothing at all to do with trying to stop people from making money. The choice of license also has nothing against that - it's not a non-commercial license. The rule is there as there tends to be a high amount of drama with the sale of them that we just don't want here.

As you've already pointed out, there's enough drama around already and we're not babysitters.

People on all sides need to just grow up and act like adults.

[Drixevel]

Originally Posted by Dr. Greg House Sourcemod does not exist for private coders to make money. The choice of license and how turnkey advertisement is handled pretty much establish that.

So you're against turnkey plugins and not work-for-hire ones or both?