In the spirit of "it ain't getting done unless someone does it," and "if you want something done right...", I'd like to start discussion about the eventual RB Community mod approval process.
From the perspective of the RB Community, mods (approved for tournament games) should improve the overall flexibility of Civ4, but not change it substantially (or, indeed, at all). Some of the most popular mods seem at least marginally useful, and already we've had someone finish Adventure 4 with a shadow game because of the use of Blue Marble.
As I see it, mods broadly fall into 4 categories:
With these categories in mind, we need some sort of approval process to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Once a mod is submitted for approval (by the submittor starting a thread in the approval forum), the community should use a rigorous standard to judge the mod:
Most importantly, does the mod give the player any edge over not having it? Graphics mods would probably pass this standard easily, but it's important to note that terrain mods could possibly make it a lot easier to see the squares at the "edge" of the fog, based on the tile blending -- that would be enough to exclude it.
The general principle is that the mod should not give the player information he should not otherwise have -- the foreign affairs advisor mod that included the "gold available for trade" would explicitly fail this test.
Secondly, is the mod useful? Does it benefit enough players in some way, and is it a benefit to the RB community that players use it? Blue Marble would almost certainly also pass this check, since many players[1] would say it makes the terrain a lot prettier. Autologger might not pass this test, actually, since there is quite a bit of opposition to its use as the "bulk" of reports.
Finally, does the mod bring something new? If we already approve ($DEITY help us) ResourcesAsNFLIcons 1.1, we don't also need ResourcesAsNHLIcons 0.98c.
Regardless of what procedure we use to get mods approved for use, any RB Torunament player that uses a mod in a tourney game should be required to list all mods used, and their exact versions. This gives a bit more accountability to the process, and if a mod ever gets approved wrongly (such as would be the case if there was an unknown 'cheating' feature), we'd know what games to retroactively shadow.
[1] -- I haven't used it myself, so I have no opinion on the matter.
Opinions?
From the perspective of the RB Community, mods (approved for tournament games) should improve the overall flexibility of Civ4, but not change it substantially (or, indeed, at all). Some of the most popular mods seem at least marginally useful, and already we've had someone finish Adventure 4 with a shadow game because of the use of Blue Marble.
As I see it, mods broadly fall into 4 categories:
- Entirely cosmetic mods change or otherwise replace some of the stock Civ4 graphics with custom ones. Blue Marble is the supreme example of this: it doesn't make any gameplay changes, but entierly replaces the terrain sets. Also, (before, I believe, the latest patch), the commerce-icon mod would fall under this category.
These mods, in theory, don't make any new information available to the player, and are there primarily for aesthetic reasons.
- "Presentational" mods change, in some way, the interface of the game -- generally speaking, they'd make some aspect of the game's interface easier to use or more informative. The "improved" city management screen is one example, as is an "improved" foreign relation screen.
These mods can correct preceived flaws in the game's interface, but they are on a much shakier ground -- it is easy to reveal more information than the player should actually have. For example, at least one version of the foreign advisor mod allowed players to see how much gold an AI had for trade, even when the AI was in a "refuses to talk" stage of war declaration.
Mods which enchance the Civilopedia would probably also fall under this category, as would a hypothetical mod that changes (in some way) the combat odds display.
- "Utility" mods don't change the game itself, but provide some sort of additional functionality to the game player. The Autolog is probably the most popular example of a mod in this category. Likewise, anything that alters the "blue circle" advisor recommendations would fit here.
- "Content" mods change, in some basic way, the game's content. Anything which adds or changes a civ, tech, unit, terrain feature, improvement, resource, AI, or anything else actually used in Civ rules resolution would fall under this category. Since playing with one of these mods is, in a very fundamental way, not playing the same game of Civ as everyone else, these sorts of mods should be categorically banned. The only exception would be if some RB Torunament game actually requied one, such as the Civ3 epic that ran on "one food/square" rules.
With these categories in mind, we need some sort of approval process to sort the wheat from the chaff.
- I recommend that mod approval discussion take place in the RB forums. Ideally, this would be as a subforum of the Civ forum, perhaps "Mod approval forum" or some other snappy name.
- Mods should always be submitted for approval by a member of the RB community (possibly, and preferably, the mod's author, but maybe not always.) The onus is on the submittor to show that the mod does not change the game in any substantial way. It is the responsibility of the submittor to answer any reasonable questions from the RB community about the details of the mod, including (and especially!) posting screenshots illustrating its behaviour. Any questions (up through and including examining the mod's XML, Python, or (post-SDK) C++ code) are fair game.
- A mod submitted for approval should already be a relatively popular mod. If someone tries to submit "Bob's Civ4 Mod 1.521111one" and nobody here besides the submittor uses it, it's unlikely that there will be enough information to reach an informed decision.
- A mod will only be approved by the universal acclaim of the community. I don't see a need for a "manager" here, since I anticipate that the approved list will remain short (under a dozen mods, or so?)
- Mods will only be approved in specific versions -- if "Bob's Civ4 Mod 1.52" gets approved, "Bob's Civ4 Mod 1.53" will still need at least a lookthrough. Approval should only be routinely granted for bugfix releases, since new features might very well change whether the mod is appropriate.
That being said, generally only the latest version of a mod will remain approved; once 1.53 gets the Okay, 1.52 is deprecated and verboten in all new games. This should keep the list of approved mods even smaller.
- "Amalgamation" mods -- those that combine, say, "Bob's Civ4 Mod," "Joe's Civ4 Mod," and "Jerry's Super Pizza Icon Mod," should generally not be submitted. We should go for small changes, folks.
Once a mod is submitted for approval (by the submittor starting a thread in the approval forum), the community should use a rigorous standard to judge the mod:
Most importantly, does the mod give the player any edge over not having it? Graphics mods would probably pass this standard easily, but it's important to note that terrain mods could possibly make it a lot easier to see the squares at the "edge" of the fog, based on the tile blending -- that would be enough to exclude it.
The general principle is that the mod should not give the player information he should not otherwise have -- the foreign affairs advisor mod that included the "gold available for trade" would explicitly fail this test.
Secondly, is the mod useful? Does it benefit enough players in some way, and is it a benefit to the RB community that players use it? Blue Marble would almost certainly also pass this check, since many players[1] would say it makes the terrain a lot prettier. Autologger might not pass this test, actually, since there is quite a bit of opposition to its use as the "bulk" of reports.
Finally, does the mod bring something new? If we already approve ($DEITY help us) ResourcesAsNFLIcons 1.1, we don't also need ResourcesAsNHLIcons 0.98c.
Regardless of what procedure we use to get mods approved for use, any RB Torunament player that uses a mod in a tourney game should be required to list all mods used, and their exact versions. This gives a bit more accountability to the process, and if a mod ever gets approved wrongly (such as would be the case if there was an unknown 'cheating' feature), we'd know what games to retroactively shadow.
[1] -- I haven't used it myself, so I have no opinion on the matter.
Opinions?
. As you know I'm the Blue Marble Mod Shadow Game Player 
so you canbe sure to have my voice.
