RFC: Mod approval process

[Timon of Athens]

@Sirian:

I fully agree to your statements.

@all:

As I've said before I'm not using mods and most likely will not use any in future, not at any rate for RBCiv tournament play. I was doubting the necessity of such a mod approval process in my posting before. I had this opinion until I've read Griselda's comments. There is of course one reason for starting this process I didn't think of first: Keeping the Community together. If a vast majority of players want to use mods and doing so stays strictly forbidden by rule, this could blow up the Community. So it is sensible to think of a handling process before the requests arise in plenty. On the other hand I'm sure (and Sirian's posting has strengthened that belief) that the approving process will be a lot of work - for the sake of the game and playing standards at RBCiv. Maybe it would be good to make a poll first in order to find out how big the number of players is who actually consider playing with a mod at an RBCiv tournament game. This would give further information about whether it is worth the work or not. I'm just concerned about a waste of time - but after all, it's not my time, so you're free to do what you like with it, of course .

If the mod approval process should be implemented - who should then be a member of this ominous "commitee" ? From my point of view this should be experienced players with a deep knowledge of the game as it works - but those most likely will not have time to get to these matters...

Regards,

LT

[Sirian]

If the mod approval process should be implemented - who should then be a member of this ominous "commitee" ?

Any community member who cares about mods and will reliably put in some work on the process. ... I'm not particular about anything else. I've been doing internet gaming communities for more than a decade now (almost since the start of internet gaming for PCs) and I have always found that talk is long but walk is in very short supply.

When urged to relieve US Grant of his command of the Army, President Abraham Lincoln replied to the effect that he didn't care about the drinking and other issues offending/concerning his advisors, the reply was a firm no. "That man fights." ... I need generals who fight. The rest, I can work around.


- Sirian

[Majromax]

The mod approval process will be a challenge. Part of the problem is that even a seemingly innocent mod can cause problems. In Civ3 I used a mod that would make the resources easier to find. This one caused a fog busting problem to the point that the GOTM later banned it.

With graphics-only mods, this one we can control for. The only real edge a graphics mod can provide is leaked information about the fog, and we can look for that one through dedicated screenshots. Just make sure to take the shots at several graphics (especially gamma) settings.

Some mods are easy to evaluate. Any changes via the SDK are illegal - period.

Not always. I'd support a mod that allowed Civ4 to be played via screen reader software for the blind (not bloody likely, but who knows?) As a general principle, though, SDK == no is a good idea.

Even the auto logger gets tricky. Does it report information that isn't easy to find on the screens? I know it reports a city growing in size. I don't think that shows up anywhere in the game. Is this information enough to make a difference?

The autologger isn't so tricky. It may or may not leak information, but I don't feel that it provides a positive contribution to gameplay. Its report writing benefits are largely negated by the bit about RB not wanting to encourage turnlog-style reports. In my opinion, it fails on 'benefit' grounds -- it doesn't do enough to be worth the effort.

SGs are a different story, but they're private games among the half-dozen or so playing.

Re: Sirian -- that's the Greek elements, or are those attributes from another culture and/or more widely held than strictly Greek-influenced 'alchemy'?

[Threepwood]

To get the subject back on the table:

I found the following info at Civfanatics : "The Blue Marble terrain has been updated to version 2.00. Special thanks go to Firaxis for the new Civ4 patch that now allows alternative terrain graphics in protected multi-player games under competition conditions."

Do you think this should lead to an automatical acception of the mod for RB-games or do you prefer an own approval process?


Threepwood

[Sirian]

To get the subject back on the table:

I found the following info at Civfanatics : "The Blue Marble terrain has been updated to version 2.00. Special thanks go to Firaxis for the new Civ4 patch that now allows alternative terrain graphics in protected multi-player games under competition conditions."

Do you think this should lead to an automatical acception of the mod for RB-games or do you prefer an own approval process?


Threepwood

We still need our own process. I've spelled out how I would like it to go, but it is up to a grassroots effort to see that the necessary steps are taken.

- Sirian

[pholkhero]

Since the mod review and recommendation process is ultimately aimed at gathering, processing and analyzing data on mods to be summarized for me to make the final call, the decisions will be made according to pattern number two, per above.


APPROVAL PROCESS

What I need from "the committee":

* Is a mod "Graphical"? (Affecting appearance).
* Is a mod "Utilitarian"? (Affecting player's interface).
* Is a mod "Rebalancing"? (Affecting game rules).
* Which components are modified? (World Builder, XML, Python, C++)
* Which files are affected?
* If Python or C++ are involved, the mod needs to be certified free of trojans.
* VISUAL EVIDENCE showing and explaining what the mods actually do.
* A simple "aye" or "nay" from each committee member as to their personal recommendation on whether or not to approve a given mod. (Explanations may follow but are not required.)

Graphical-only mods would be approved for all uses (or not approved).

Mods with any rebalancing elements are off the table except for specific events (codifying a given event's variant rules in to the game itself.) The exception might be if I see a pressing need to override core game rules (including possible bugs or exploits yet to be discovered) to preserve the quality of our tournament; however, in that case I will write the mod myself and try to get it tested before imposing it on the rest of you. ... Here's hoping THAT is never necessary.

Utilitarian mods are the tough calls. Stuff like Civ3 Mapstat falls in to this category. Mods that are primarily graphical in nature can turn in to utilitarian mods, by design or by accident, so that's the main hurdle they face. It is my intent to approve all graphical mods that are shown to me to have no utilitarian or rebalancing effects. (I don't care what your game looks like. I only care how it plays. However, some graphics can affect gameplay, so that is where I start to care about those.)

Most utilitarian mods will not be approved, but we'll take them case by case -- if "the committee", which does not yet exist, does the leg work of investigating.


As for the committee's process, that is up to its members. I don't care how you turn up the data or reach your recommendations. Whatever you come up will work better than what I would imagine. However, the data has to meet all the requirements I listed or I'll simply send it back as unripe.

All decisions will be made on thorough evidence carefully weighed, and then they will be final.

Beta mods will not be considered. Only mature, polished (finished) mods need apply. Post-approval, the committee will have to re-review (in total) a mod that has been updated. All mod updates are disallowed unless approved.

Originally Posted by Timon of Athens
If the mod approval process should be implemented - who should then be a member of this ominous "commitee" ?

Any community member who cares about mods and will reliably put in some work on the process. ... I'm not particular about anything else.

Arise, Frankenstein's Monster.

Okay, so here's the first step to getting Blue Marble approved.

I would imagine we should have a committe of at least 7 or so from this community, and several of them should be able to take apart a mod to see how it ticks b/c as was noted: let's not trust those modders

I, myself, can't delve into the code or analyze much of anything else, but I can play the game and post relevent screenshots and would be willing to engage in this whole process. So, I am nominating myself as a committee member. If my experience adn perspective is not considered worthwhile, i will step aside, but for now ~ i'm the chairmen of the board

just kidding.

anyway, i'm going to download the Blue Marble terrain set tonight, set up 2 civ folders (one with each) and begin capturing screenies to notate any differences in bleed-over and unforeseen tile knowledge. If other people are interested, they should do the same, but we really would need someone to break down the mod and make sure it doesn't affect anything put the terrain graphics.

That being done, the only hurdle i see the bleed-over problem ~ if there is one, that is. Anybody else??