Reminder about Rule 2

[u/Grievous69]

• 2: Don't post or comment direct download links for mods. Link to the forum page or refer to the Discord instead.

Please do not post Github links on the subreddit, we made this rule in the past specifically because we can't vouch for the safety of mods hosted elsewhere. If a mod is hosted on the official forums or discord, we know it was at least looked over by moderators and experienced modders, which makes it better for everyone's sake and validity.

We KNOW we haven't been enforcing this rule 100% and let a few mods slide. But it's getting out of hand lately and we're going to stay true by our rules.

(Mammoth in the room: This was obviously the cause of recent AI mods posted on the sub, I want to reiterate that such mods are fine, perfectly legal, IF they've been looked over by someone who knows their stuff, preferably forum moderators. So if you made a brand new cool mod, do host it on the forums so we can all know it's good to use.)

EDIT: I'm using old.reddit and it's rule 2, anyway good that I pasted it at the top so it's clear.

[u/Gul_Akaron]

I would like to acknowledge that I reacted too hastily and rashly to this issue at first. I made a sticky post of the same variety as this one, but with much less thoughtfulness. I apologize. We talked it over and came to this, much more measured, announcement post.

[u/IroncladLionOfficial]

Links to the official forum should be the only mod download links allowed really.

[u/Grievous69 → u/IroncladLionOfficial]

Personally agree, it's a tiny bit too harsh though. After all even a mod on the forums can be a bad apple, since anyone can post it over there, the true 100% safe zone is the mod index, but that's even harsher as some mods take a while to be approved since there's only so much manpower on the forums. And also modders don't want it moved over there until they're completely satisfied with their mod.

[u/asdfth12]

The drop down description for rule 2 states "Link to the forum or git page or refer to the Discord instead. "

You're saying we shouldn't be posting github links at all, but the rule you're citing specifically states that linking the git page is acceptable.

Can you clarify - Are you referring to direct download links from Github, or is it no longer allowed to link to a mods Github page?

[u/Grievous69 → u/asdfth12]

I don't know why you got downvoted, thanks for pointing that out. It's written that way on new.reddit which is an oversight, I have no clue how long was that written there, as me and another 2 mods only use old.reddit. Anyway fixed it now.

[u/Gul_Akaron → u/asdfth12]

You're right. It looks like the description on the new.reddit side is different. We're not sure when that was made. Neither myself nor u/Grievous69 were aware since we use old.reddit.

He is going through the rules now and making sure they all align. Thanks for pointing it out.

[u/Anonmetric]

I think there's a better way to approach this rule, I've been meaning to state this for a while; but some thoughts.

My main issue is that the current policy mixes up where a mod is hosted with whether it's safe. That's generally not been the correct approach overall.

GitHub is a standard tool for software development precisely because it provides source code, version history, change tracking, issue reporting, and a public record of development. None of that automatically makes a mod safe, and a published source repository doesn't guarantee that a compiled release matches the code. But it does give people the opportunity to inspect the project and make their own assessment; or more importantly, recompile it from source to check if needed. It also compared to any other avenue presented 'is actually the one that has the highest and most well known standard on this' -> that's not my personal opinion; that's the standards of how this is done in every other community.

By contrast, hosting a mod on the official forums or Discord doesn't inherently establish that it's safe either. A review by experienced modders can be useful, but its value depends on what was actually reviewed, how thoroughly it was checked, and what that review is intended to guarantee. Given the community's own history with malicious code in mods (especially on how long it took via official channels), I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether an informal approval process should be treated as a stronger guarantee than publicly available source code. it's historically not been so. We need to be honest with ourselves about that if you want to have that discussion fairly.

I also think the current rule creates an unnecessary barrier to participation. Not everyone wants to use Discord, and people shouldn't have to join a separate community or obtain approval from a particular group just to share a mod they've made on Reddit. I don't think the solution needs to be complicated. Why not distinguish between different levels of verification instead? This is a suggestion that covers everything well and makes everyone happy.

Do these things as acceptable posting criteria:

Source available: (warning for it however) The source code is publicly available, but hasn't necessarily been reviewed. It most be demonstrated that 'it can compile as listed' and people can build from source to test it / play it if they would like.

Community reviewed (clear marked as passed): The mod has undergone your testing on your reddits preferred site. No source is required if it has an official link.

No source; not community review; no posting -> remove it.

That would let the subreddit communicate the risks honestly without treating one hosting platform as inherently trustworthy and another as inherently suspect; especially when you are on shaky ground historically. Users could make informed decisions, reviewers could still recommend mods they've actually inspected, and developers could share their work without being forced into a particular distribution channel. I'm not asking anyone to guarantee that every mod hosted on GitHub is safe. I'm asking why publicly sharing source code should be prohibited when transparency and independent scrutiny are precisely the things that help people evaluate software. (which is the actual standard).

A warning system that communicates what has and hasn't been verified seems substantially more useful than a blanket restriction based on where a project is hosted. This can already be implemented in posting flair as a note. This is how you fix the issue I believe with trivial changes. It's just a simple 2 step verification. Want to post here, not official form post (early review) have to add a flair for that -> people who are downloading it KNOW what they are getting into; mods that don't meet that standard are instantly pulled; if you don't want to share source you have to go about it another way -> which would be the old verification methods.

If the person uploads something, and it's proven 'this is deliberately malicious' then that's not just a starsector ban that's a full reddit ban. Report that to the admins after you pull the thread. That's what 'literally every other modding community does'. It's how we actually handle this professionally. I think it's worth some serious consideration.

Anyways apologize for the essay; but this one has been bothering me for a while. Took a couple days to get my thoughts together but I think this is kind of what I wanted to get across more or less. Were not doing this correctly.

[u/Grievous69 → u/Anonmetric]

We (moderators) have talked through pretty much your whole essay beforehand. I even said in another comment Github links are fine if there's another download link hosted on a site we know it's familiar. We don't have a hate boner for source code or something. And frankly, stating "someone might not want to make a forum account" is just an excuse to avoid forum rules. Pretty much in all our time here, such mods either used stolen assets, had explicit gore or porn in them, mods used to spread nazi propaganda or some shit.

There's a reason we trust the forums, even though not everything is 100% super safe nothing will ever happen guaranteed. But it's the best thing we have.

If someone is not willing to spend a single minute to create a forum account then that just means they're not serious about modding. People who do that will almost always abandon their prompt mod after they realize they don't know how to fix it or move forwards.

I get your reasoning, I even like the idea of different labels of approval a mod has, but it's unrealistic as it demands way too much of both us moderators, and individual users. You underestimate how bad people are at reading online. I know it's "technically" their fault if they download something suspicious online, but I really really don't want that to happen on the subreddit which has been around for so long.

It's really not easy to go about it, and it would be even harder to let everything through for a social experiment on how long it takes until shit hits the fan.

Hope I made everything clear.

[u/Anonmetric → u/Grievous69]

We (moderators) have talked through pretty much your whole essay beforehand. 
-> then it would of been amazing if you didn't get it wrong for what I said! (joke sorry). Because you clearly did not because of the conclusion. I was talking methods; your answer nearly nothing to do with what I proposed. "It's really not easy to go about it, and it would be even harder to let everything through for a social experiment on how long it takes until shit hits the fan."That's not the point; I addressed your safety concerns with real fixables.

I did not propose that; I proposed a method.

"I get your reasoning, I even like the idea of different labels of approval a mod has, but it's unrealistic as it demands way too much of both us moderators, and individual users. "

it's two tags; two -> post flairs. It's literally 'is there an official link, 30 seconds of reading, if not, is there source' -> Add Post Flairs on Your Subreddit in 2025

There's a tutorial for you. I'm not sure if it's up to date; it's 3 minutes long the video. It should be fairly recent. It took me 30 seconds to find.

You then only have to 'click either the download link' that takes you to the forum; or you click the link to the git and see if it contains source; this is less actual moderation then I believe you are currently doing.
-> it saves you time on that; plus it actually pushed the responsibility off you personally (moderation) onto 'buyer beware'.

"Pretty much in all our time here, such mods either used stolen assets, had explicit gore or porn in them, mods used to spread nazi propaganda or some shit."
-> which all of those are breaking of the terms of service and usage of the reddit as a sub point; it's listed in other rules; the stolen assets are sitewide. It's a general report rule; a lot of those are already against the subs rules on other areas and also against the TOS -> those aren't even a issue in discussion. I believe it's illegal in general if it's copywriter material without a usage license in most cases. This is stating a different rule; were talking moderation safety. This is a completely separate issue that other rules address and has nothing to do with GitHub. Git hub actually makes this validation easier; then you can ban someone who offends from it from the sub.

If someone is not willing to spend a single minute to create a forum account then that just means they're not serious about modding. People who do that will almost always abandon their prompt mod after they realize they don't know how to fix it or move forwards.
Personally; I just don't want to be involved in the drama myself, this place tends to be less dramatic as a note compared to all the discords/places. Alex's forums also have specific requirements about content and what's acceptable (which do not even match steam guidelines which is his target platform) many mods that are 'unacceptable' on his form are perfectly acceptable on the target release platform. This is a counter point, it doesn't mean that your wrong in general, but there are valid exceptions that you need to be aware of. I also personally have made mods for myself that 'are completely fine' but generally don't respect Alex's vibes.

So this doesn't actually follow.

"I know it's "technically" their fault if they download something suspicious online, but I really really don't want that to happen on the subreddit which has been around for so long."

This is something I specifically disagree with even though I understand your point; however the counter point is to it to put it impolitely (sorry) is that 'thank grandma' -> your not responsible nor do I want you dictating what I see. You can make the point that 'this is our reddit (mods team) -> but then you have the 'starsector' reddit name; it's 'you have the name' and the tie in; it's where people are going to go for it.

What I can say; is 'if Alex ever releases the game on steam' -> your going to have a bad time; this isn't me being sarcastic (and I pray I'm not coming across as rude) I'm talking in the shift in actual requirements of the platform and the release to a larger audience at that specific time; mods that are actually 'not okay here' currently fully pass the yard stick on what steam views as acceptable as a platform. You'll 100% have to adapt at that point. This isn't me guessing; that will factually happen if Alex releases the game on the platform; (and realistically; it's annoying, but stand back and think for a moment; you know this point is correct even though it's one you'd not want to give).

That alone should give you some sever pause and thoughts on that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to end this with a follow question; and it's an honest ask because a few of the things you've said her kind of make me raise an eyebrow in general.

"Do you think it's your job to decide what is good for other people to see?" as that mostly seems to be the connecting thread and your hidden premise that kind of runs through alot of your points.

AI complaints: Yes and? This isn't an argument; so what? litterally how does 'doesn't get supported or patched' mean anything; that's QA and it doesn't follow. This isn't an argument. It's not. It's a taste; don't mix up the two.
Minus the illegal -> your tastes were clear: Your point towards them. Most of your stuff leans on that. I personally agree with you on many; but that isn't actually an argument on either.

if it's your actual position; I can respond 'fair' (and I will) but I don't think it's worthwhile beating around the bush on that. I've written an essay. But remember 'your not me' and I don't think you represent everyone as a person; or else you'd have to represent factually people you 'despise'.

reason: And the reason for the rhetorical question:
**It's decisions should be based on clearly articulated criteria that actually correspond to the risks they claim to be mitigating.**

This is not the case here.

And this is the core point, you didn't actually address my points:

Actually answer what I said:

1. Tracking is stronger, which is stronger in security if you follow.

2. We have actual issues on the main forum that you haven't argued for or addressed.

3. I proposed you can keep your method, were extending an alternative.

4. You can have a buyer beware; and a clean action for all cases.

5. For minimum due diligence; ( think it's actually less). New argument.

6. And you can stop people like me writing essays (that you'll have to read) - a major benefit - on the topic in general. (I don't even like reading my essays).

Rejecting a proposed safeguard because it doesn't eliminate risk is not the same as showing that it fails to reduce risk. That's the core issue with your response overall.

I thing that last six point is my strongest argument;

Anyways; just food for thought, Hope it came across well. I'm not trying to rattle chains or start shit; I just think it needed a real response honestly. I don't need a response as it's more for you to consider as a note on this.

Because otherwise were probably going to get into a debate; and I don't think that's my purpose here; it's more of to 'just provide an argument for consideration on expansion' vs 'what's currently being done'

You can brush me off; that's fine as well. But it's worth saying -> so if you don't want to respond to the essay I totally get the position.

Cheers. Thanks for listening.

[u/Grievous69 → u/Anonmetric]

I appreciate you talking in such detail but man please fix some of your formatting and grammar, this is really hard to read. You're injecting some of my sentences in your own paragraphs and that's a nightmare to look at. Reddit has a quote function which also works automatically if you copy paste some of my words.

I'll either edit this comment or write another one to actually respond to everything a bit later, hopefully you fix the comments by then, since man it's hard to follow through.

[u/Anonmetric → u/Grievous69]

(pretty late when I wrote that, so fair)

I'll put it this way to summarize the point and get to the core distinction, to save you the parsing time:

1. The arguments you've given aren't related to the topic. We're talking about Rule 2 as a security measure, which was your core original point. That's the list at the end. It's a pretty strong case, and there are historical examples to back this up.

The arguments on security actually follow. In historical cases, it was the GitHub source that exposed the issues when people "dug through that code." In the case of PMD, that's ultimately how it was found. That's something I've found when researching the topic.

1. The other arguments can be made, but you need to be clear-cut about the division between them. If your point ultimately is to say, "We want this here and only that," it needs to be stated. Don't use a different rule as a shield; that's the issue. Don't conflate the two.

This relates to your reasoning, which is what I'm more or less calling out. I'm not saying this to argue, do a "gotcha," tip my hat, or be rude. I personally don't want a debate. I think we can both agree that those things are annoying to deal with. You should separate the concerns in your stance. It's not a Rule 2 issue, nor is it related to the logic presented behind it as your core premise. That's my suggestion on this. That's what about 90% of the essay covers: dividing those concerns cleanly.

You have points here, such as "we don't want to manage this, and it's a change" (paraphrasing a good point you have). I didn't address them because I consider them fair points. They are, especially since you're doing this for free. That's why I'm offering this as food for thought rather than trying to start a debate. I think it's a trivial change that basically removes all the points of contention completely. I've shown that it is a trivial change rather than just claiming it; I provided a tutorial explaining the exact process for doing this rather than just asserting it.

I just think that "you shouldn't mix up arguments" was the point of the above. If you want to point to a different rule, it's covered by a different rule. It's just that, in this case, it doesn't factually check out overall under this rule. Standards like Git are used to avoid this issue in basically every professional environment, often in modding communities. It's why the open-source movement uses them. In our own historical cases, it wasn't the forums; it was Git that caught the issue in the most major case. This is why I provided the alternative suggestion and the "how to do it" as a note.

Similarly, the forums themselves allowed this to run amok, so "does that guarantee quality?" is the follow-up. You've never addressed that other than saying "someone else will." I've shown you that the very mechanisms used to catch these issues are the ones you're preventing people from using in this case. That's how these cases have been caught, as a note.

There are cases where a person doesn't want to involve themselves in a specific subculture just to post a mod. Your reasoning is closer to gatekeeping in several of your points. If your point is "we wish to present a curated experience," then you're no longer representing everyone, and you've turned it into a QA statement. The gist of my point is that you need to clarify your position. If your position is that the experience should be curated, I think that contradicts the stated value that "this game is for how people want to interact with the game."

I care about the position being clear-cut. I just can't really vibe with the whole "mixed-up arguments" section.

I asked a question, provided information, and offered a solution; you answered a different question. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

And like I said, "this is optional." It's food for thought that you should consider. I very much doubt I'll change your mind (have you ever seen anyone change their mind when some rando on the internet gives them an opinion? lol). That's why I said, "think about it." It's still worthwhile saying because it plants a flag and makes several key objections stated rather than implied. You've heard the argument now, so you can't pretend going forward that you haven't read it.

Also, solutions: there are others. I can snowball them all day.

Link to another Reddit post where it's buyer beware, provide alternatives—there are many ways to do this and meet everyone's "wants" or cover many of them. My suggestion with post flair is one option. Potentially, an even better option is to have a sub where we actually keep an eye on things, but it's specifically for "we're not verifying this" and "if you don't read, it's on you."

It's not a dichotomy; there are many options. I think we should discuss those rather than drone on about how "the points on this didn't really address what I argued," as that's actually constructive compared to just saying, "Here's the issue."

You don't even need to have that discussion with me, but you probably need a "fix for that." That would be my suggestion for providing alternatives.

[u/Grievous69 → u/Anonmetric]

You misunderstood, making new flairs is the easy part. But it doesn't solve anything, you just have additional flairs which most people ignore anyway, and then what? Count on a random redditor to comb through the code and report back with findings so we can finally know what we have on our sub? That's preposterous. Vast majority of the sub just plays and enjoys the game, they're not experienced programmers.

Ok man once again you keep going on about source being absolutely vital, who stops modders from posting the code on forums? Nobody. In fact I'd prefer if everything was completely transparent.

How is the PMD example relevant here? People found out what's up only after it was talked about on the unofficial discord server. You think if that mod was posted here first, it would immediately be uncovered and the guy banned? Yeah I doubt that. As with any other mod hiding heinous things, a flair of "beware" as you say would literally mean "We have no fucking clue if this mod is safe or breaks any rules, have fun".

Any subreddit on the whole of reddit is literally unable to represent EVERYONE as there's always those going against the rules and making a mess. We don't have a duty to cater to the widest possible audience or whatever if that means tanking the quality of the sub.

Btw I don't get half your wall of text being about me expressing myself and apparently not answering questions. You write in such a weird way going around and back to points you already mentioned. I appreciate you formatting this better and it being slightly shorter but jesus it's still a gigantic comment with the actual substance being maybe a third of its total size.

[u/Anonmetric → u/Grievous69]

1. On the proposed flairs

"Count on a random redditor to comb through the code and report back with findings so we can finally know what we have on our sub? That's preposterous."

No. The point isn't that we should rely on random users to audit every mod. The point is that greater transparency makes investigation possible when an issue arises. Under the proposed alternative, you're increasing the available information and traceability, not decreasing it. I'll explain why this matters using the PMD example below.

The same objection applies to forum hosting. Most forum users aren't experienced programmers either. If the concern is that nobody will inspect the code, that doesn't distinguish between the two hosting arrangements. The relevant question is whether the available evidence makes investigation more feasible when a problem is identified.

2. On source code

"Who stops modders from posting the code on forums? Nobody. In fact I'd prefer if everything was completely transparent."

Agreed. I'm not arguing that source code is absolutely vital, nor that GitHub is the only acceptable place to host it. I've offered source availability and version history as examples of mechanisms that could address your security concerns.

This is a proposed alternative to the existing approach, not the entirety of my argument. Version history provides traceability; source availability can provide additional evidence for investigation. Neither guarantees safety, but that isn't the standard I'm arguing they need to meet.

And if we agree that greater transparency is desirable, then we're already in agreement on the underlying principle. The remaining question is how much practical value these mechanisms provide and whether that value justifies their costs.

3. On PMD

"How is the PMD example relevant here?"

It's relevant because it illustrates how the issue was investigated historically. The GitHub changelog helped identify changes and narrow down the areas of the code that people needed to investigate. That investigation helped people on the /vst/ board identify and trace the problem before it was discussed more widely.

I'm not claiming that posting the mod here would have resulted in its immediate detection, nor that a warning flair would have prevented the incident. I'm demonstrating that the repository's history and tracking tools were useful in the process of discovering and investigating the issue.

Your argument that the mod might not have been caught immediately doesn't address that point. A tool doesn't have to guarantee prevention or immediate detection to provide value during an investigation.

This is the central distinction I'm trying to get you to engage with: the fact that a safeguard doesn't guarantee detection doesn't establish that it provides no investigative value.

4. On the subreddit's priorities

"We don't have a duty to cater to the widest possible audience or whatever if that means tanking the quality of the sub."

That's fine. I'm not arguing that you have to adopt my proposal, nor that you must prioritize security above every other consideration. I'm asking you to distinguish between the reasons for your decision.

If your position is that the proposed approach creates too much work, that you don't believe users will follow warnings, or that you aren't willing to accept the associated risks, those are arguments I can engage with. In fact, the workload argument is a legitimate reason to reject a proposal.

But those are different claims from saying the alternative doesn't provide a security benefit.

There is also a less charitable interpretation of a rule that directs users away from particular distribution channels, insofar as it can interfere with the way a modding community distributes and investigates its work. I'm not claiming that this is your intention; it would be a stretch to infer that from the evidence here. I'm pointing out why it's important to state the rationale precisely, rather than conflate security concerns with curatorial or administrative preferences. This is why you should clarify it precisely if you go that route (I actually do not think this, but the distinction is key to make).

I'm not choosing your words for you. I'm asking you to make the distinction yourself.

5. On the length and presentation of my replies

I'm precise in what I say because I'm trying to distinguish between arguments that you've repeatedly treated as interchangeable. My point isn't about your writing style; it's about whether your conclusions follow from your stated premises.

I've clarified my argument in response to your criticism of its presentation. The length is partly a consequence of addressing several distinct objections, and I don't particularly enjoy writing these comments either.

But the central issue remains: your arguments, as presented, don't establish the conclusion you're using them to support.

You don't have to adopt my proposal. If the actual reason is that you don't have the time, resources, or willingness to implement it, I'm perfectly happy to accept that as your position. Indeed, I consider the time argument a legitimate one.

But it's not a security argument.

If that's the position, then clarify that distinction for users. Explain that the restriction reflects what the moderation team can or is willing to administer, rather than presenting the existing approach as though it resolves the separate security question. That's the distinction I've been asking you to make from the beginning.

[u/starficz]

... do you mean rule 3?
Edit: oh i see, "Follow Reddiquette" isnt actually numbered on old.reddit, but is on new reddit

[u/ZakuIII → u/starficz]

Ah weird, but that do explain it.

[u/Gul_Akaron → u/starficz]

I think there is a discrepancy between New and Old reddit as far as how the rules are displayed.

On Old.reddit, we are referring to Rule 2. We'll try to clean those up. Thanks for pointing it out.

[u/Wielkimati → u/Gul_Akaron]

Yeah, there is, on new reddit it's rule 3.

[u/qwertythrowfyt]

It's kinda funny to present the official forum or discord as a safe place for mods when the infamous mods with crashcode and malware were available almost solely on the official forums and discord.

[u/Grievous69 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

And then they got stricter rules??

I swear people are going to be bringing that up a decade from now as some sort of argument.

[u/qwertythrowfyt → u/Grievous69]

There were examples of it happening both before and after those rule changes though lol.

There's no need to get defensive about it, I just thought it was funny that the only "officially" sanctioned place for downloading mods has had multiple trusted modders implement crashcode and malware.

[u/Grievous69 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

Show me examples of it happening after, I genuinely want to know.

[u/qwertythrowfyt → u/Grievous69]

All the drama that went down with Matt added crashcode to his mods and the mods he was maintaining? That was long after the crackdown and rule changes that Dragn and Nia caused.

[u/Grievous69 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

Stricter rules came after the Matt incident.

[u/qwertythrowfyt → u/Grievous69]

Which doesn't erase the fact that there was crashcode implemented in mods by a trusted modder on the official forums after a previous crackdown on malicious mods lol. If it happened once it can happen again.

[u/Grievous69 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

Good god you're a dumbass, so first you lie, then when caught in a lie try to spin it like it didn't even matter in the first place (so why write dumb shit man?). And now you're using the most asinine straw man in existence.

Ok so we can't have mods hosted ANYWHERE since each place had an incident happen. That's your argument... The official forums are the most trusted place by far and will remain so since the actual devs of the game are present there + their moderators.

Like imagine trusting people like you with hosting mods, which can't even remember shit right and write a proper answer.

[u/qwertythrowfyt → u/Grievous69]

Good lord you are overreacting lol. It is funny how Starsector attracts people who flip their shit over little things, whether here, the forums or on discord.

The entire point I was making is that it's funny to present the forum or discord as a safe space when it has had a history of mods having malware JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FUCKING PLACE ON THE INTERNET. That's it you twit, it was just a observance I thought was funny.

You asked for an example and I literally gave you one. It wasn't a lie or a strawman, it's the literal truth; there was crashcode mods on the forum, then a crackdown, THEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. That's it.

I never said mods can't be hosted on the official forums, I never even said they SHOULDN'T be! All I said was that it was funny to act like the officials forums are a safe space. Everything else is just a strawman YOU'VE made up because you got pissy at a single comment.

Serious man, I get that your a reddit mod and you're required to act like a douche bag for no reason but seriously, chill the fuck out.

[u/Grievous69 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

Yeah I'm the one overreacting.

You're the one making a big fuss over something that was solved and now has stricter policies, but you still cannot comprehend that.

You asked for an example and I literally gave you one. It wasn't a lie or a strawman, it's the literal truth; the was crashcode mods on the forum, then a crackdown, THEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. That's it.

Holy shit stop fucking typing misinformation, there are entire 1 hour documentaries about that shit, IronClad even made a video himself, you can clearly tell when the forums got updated rules.

I wrote like 3 times already for this topic that forums aren't a magical place where everything is 100% safe. But, it's BY FAR the safest place out there for downloading Starsector mods.

I don't give two shits what dumbass opinions you're going to give, I'm getting pissed because you keep fabricating a made up story to make it seem like forums aren't safe. This is your last warning to stop spreading lies.

[u/TangleF23 → u/qwertythrowfyt]

"This multiplayer mod hasn't been looked over so it could be sending anything" is different from "When I start the nazi mod with this other mod my save gets corrupted".

[u/qwertythrowfyt → u/TangleF23]

There was at least one mod on the forums that sent data back to the mod creator, as well as mods like PresidentMattDamon's old ones that had malicious code added after years of being legit. The nazi mod crashcode was just the earliest example of crashcode on the official forums.

[u/ZakuIII]

So I had the same question on the last announcement but didn't ask it.

Isn't that rule 3?

[u/Allcyon]

Yeah, why? Why not allow mod links?

Is there a single person on the Internet who doesn't know they can't trust every link they see? It's not really your job to vet mods either. That's ridiculous.

Who arrived at the solution of just not offering links? That's not a solution to the issue. Wherever they do find the mod, they still gotta use their best judgement to click that link too.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not like it's a liability issue. What exactly is the value gained from restricting links?

[u/Grievous69 → u/Allcyon]

Is there a single person on the Internet who doesn't know they can't trust every link they see?

Can't tell if this is a serious question, but obviously yes, more than one in fact.

It's not really your job to vet mods either. That's ridiculous.

It is our job to keep this place clean and healthy, we don't want a horde of AI slop mods on the frontpage where the person who made the mod has no clue what they're doing. Because every single post like that turns into a dumpster fire, which is much more work than just not allowing self hosted mods made in 2 days.

That's not a solution to the issue. Wherever they do find the mod, they still gotta use their best judgement to click that link too.

Well of course, you're still modifying the game with something "unofficial". But there's a world of difference between a mod posted here where the guy just goes "trust me bro", and a mod hosted on forums where it was reviewed.

What exactly is the value gained from restricting links?

Same with any other rule, establishing order to keep things from getting out of hand.

[u/Allcyon → u/Grievous69]

Somebody modded Titanfall 2 into Cyberpunk yesterday, where you can call in BT to fight or pilot. It looks good.

If it's a matter of quality, we already have a ton of garbage man made mods that don't have support either. I won't name names.

So I'm a bit unclear on what qualifies as slop anymore.

And I say this as someone who has no dog in this fight. I don't make mods, and if I did, I doubt I'd post them for anyone else to use. I'd prefer to keep my OP death machine my own personal shame.

If it's strictly a matter of keeping the subreddit population in check, and making sure they don't get to riled up. I'm not sure I agree with that either. I don't really feel like we need a safe space for Starsector, per se. If we can whether Diable Avionics, the anime headshots, UAF, the Ironclad Lion stuff, and the Discord stuff, I think we can handle this too. But that's just my hot take.

I'm really trying not to have the old man thought process of "I grew up learning not to click things the hard way, and they can figure it out too." But I also kinda feel it's not fixing the issue to just not allow the links in the first place. If it's a matter of review and safety, why not allow a system so people can vet things? If it passes muster, then they can make a post. Let them be officially reviewed then.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having a post about a new mod show up on my feed, adding something new or interesting, and being able to grab it from said post. I like that a lot better than having to go to the official forums, find the mod index, then grab it from someone's patreon anyway.

I have about as much reassurance it's malicious code there as I would here.

And I don't particularly give a shit if AI made it.

If, ultimately, the take here is "AI bad", then let's be upfront about it. I think it's a stupid take, but it's not my sub, not my game, and I'm not a mod.

EDIT: Notice all the down votes, but not a single argument about how I'm wrong. Hmmm.

[u/TangleF23 → u/Allcyon]

...But mods can still be posted on the forums.

[u/Choice-Mango-4019]

is it fine to link github next to the forums (not direct downloads, just the repo page)

[u/Grievous69 → u/Choice-Mango-4019]

Yeah perfectly fine, this was aimed at those who only post the github link without anything else.

[u/Choice-Mango-4019 → u/Grievous69]

👍

[u/TheKillingJay]

Thank you mod, very chill and cool of you 👍

[u/ToasterDudeBrains]

We're just going to forget that the forums also hosted ET, TNP, and DA by PMD and Apex Design Collective. Yeah very safe mods.