Regarding the impact of the crashcode put into ConfigLib and the needed clarification and explanation of the code for layman understanding

[tiggerbiggo]

4 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

False. It was very easy to find it and figure out what it did once people knew it was there. Maltiez did not try to obfuscate his code. That is a programming term that means to scramble variable names and properties within the code so that anyone who decompiles it will have a very difficult time understanding what the code does. That is what obfuscating code means. The code was not that. It just wasn't in the public repo. It is no more obfuscated than the code that runs Seasoned Firewood Redux, Injury Expanded, Inventory Transfer or Antique Tuning Cylinders, just to name a few mods that don't even HAVE public repos. Are you going to say those devs are obfuscating their code and thus incorporating malware into them? Because that's what you're implying here and it's provably wrong by the four examples I just gave you.

Finally a voice of reason... It's a wonder the moderators haven't come down even harder on these forums because we're not in the off-topic section. People talk of censorship, but I think the powers that be have been extremely lenient and only stepping in when things are going too far to an extreme. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing all the dissenters just getting their refunds and having the door smack them on their way out. All the negativity does is breed more negativity and in my opinion, these forums are no place for it. If people want to have a healthy discussion about the topic @icesharkk created a thread for that. All these other noisy threads filled with negativity that keep popping up just need to go. Closed, locked, hidden from sight, whatever, just gone.

But maybe I'm just salty because all this talk about he said-she said blah blah blah has drowned out my thread about the uses of flora in the game. You know... ACTUAL game discussion that ACTUALLY belongs in the game discussion forum? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Technically, he's not listed on the Discord any longer since he voluntarily left for "reasons". Clicking his profile shows that he's no longer in the VS Discord. Just wanted to make that small correction.

I don't think I need to rebuke your semantic argument because it's not even incorrect to call what it does obfuscation, and the way you're getting caught up on that definition rather than talking about the actual behaviour of the mod makes me think you're not a programmer, because even if you're right all you're saying there is that I used the wrong word (I didn't, obfuscation is correct), and you're not talking about the real problem.

"It was very easy to find it and figure out what it did once people knew it was there" - So is a landmine, if you have the tools to detect and disarm it. The fact the this code didn't kill anyone is irrelevant, and it still takes multiple steps to avoid being discovered in the first place.

"Are you going to say those devs are obfuscating their code and thus incorporating malware into them?" - That is not the definition of malware I gave, and you clearly don't understand the problem. Someone else said it pretty well above;

"Malt is able to be ideologically motivated by his own internal debates on whats right or wrong and then apply it with deliberate intent to hide it"

Malt decided he knew better than I do about how my client should act, and took deliberate steps to obscure what mod was causing said irregular behaviour. I don't care if he had my "best interests" in mind. He decided that my client should crash if I install an unrelated mod, without knowing my intentions or asking me for permission. THAT is the malicious act here, and if I did anything REMOTELY like this in my job I WOULD BE FIRED. Seriously, this would be an instant dismissal and blacklist from any other industry. PERIOD.

If you're blaming me for getting mad at a literal malware developer being kept on the dev team because it's impacting your "real" game discussion (which is precisely as real as not being able to trust running the game AT ALL) then you should be pointing the finger instead at the dev team who have chosen to keep such a bad actor.

If you're defending his actions because "It was very easy to find it and figure out what it did once people knew it was there", i'm just really glad people smarter <- (Probably inappropriate to say this, edited. Calling you stupid is not correct.) more knowledgable in this field than you are at the head of most of the computer security organisations where this would have a more real-world impact. If you think about that for a second you'll see how wrong it is.

The problem here is the deliberate attempts to hide it, the disrespect they showed community members who were concerned about LITERAL MALWARE, and the fact that they have not fired the perpetrator outright.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:50 PM by tiggerbiggo

[williams_482]

22 minutes ago, Handbananasplit said:

for some reason the Dev team is mad at the people shouting please put out this fire instead of the guy that lit the fire.

The fire is out. The dev team know that, and the chunk of the community that's been paying attention and understands the technical side of this knows that. There is no longer a fire, and the person who set the fire is not in a position where they can set more fires. The problem is that because they haven't been, well, fired, not everyone actually believes that. 

The dev team are a group of programmers who know a lot more about how to make a video game than how to best quiet an angry mob. From a cold blooded business first perspective they are surely making a mistake in retaining him, because the angry mob wants heads to roll and can make quite a lot of noise until that happens. 

In short, they are unwilling to sacrifice a person who they know personally, who made a mistake they are surely not pleased with, but who they judge to be a useful contributor to the game that everyone at Anego cares an awful lot about, on the whims of an angry mob who know far less about the details of this situation than they do. 

[tiggerbiggo]

Also, if I get my refund i'll shut up and leave forever, but i'd much rather be able to trust the devs which is why i'm even here at all. If I wanted to just be done with the game I could wait for my refund and go, but I don't need the money and I want to be able to trust that the game isn't doing stuff it shouldn't. What I want is for the devs to do the right thing.

Edited Saturday at 08:44 PM by tiggerbiggo

[icesharkk]

4 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

The fire is out. The dev team know that, and the chunk of the community that's been paying attention and understands the technical side of this knows that. There is no longer a fire, and the person who set the fire is not in a position where they can set more fires. The problem is that because they haven't been, well, fired, not everyone actually believes that. 

The dev team are a group of programmers who know a lot more about how to make a video game than how to best quiet an angry mob. From a cold blooded business first perspective they are surely making a mistake in retaining him, because the angry mob wants heads to roll and can make quite a lot of noise until that happens. 

In short, they are unwilling to sacrifice a person who they know personally, who made a mistake they are surely not pleased with, but who they judge to be a useful contributor to the game that everyone at Anego cares an awful lot about, on the whims of an angry mob who know far less about the details of this situation than they do. 

By retaining malties Anego is putting their own feelings ahead of the best practice. By ignoring and erasing the impact to the victims of collateral damage Anego is proving that they prioritize PR over their paying customers. By praising the effectiveness of maltiez' operation and targeted action they are siding with the distribution of malware and lying about its collateral damage. As a result Anego has proven themselves birds of a feather with maltiez. the fire is certainly out. 

[Handbananasplit]

But the fire isn't out. THIS is the fire. They could put out the fire but they have chosen not to. Personally I don't care if they keep him as a silent dev. I'd be perfectly satisfied with him being booted off the ModDB and kept as a closely watched contributor. I believe Anego would not put something malicious in the game.

What I take issue with is the wording and tone of their official statement.  He was unequivocally in the wrong yet they defend his actions. The whole thing reads like they are doing (as a group including maltiez) what they think the community is forcing them to and they would rather not have to do it at all. They've omitted actual facts from the statement regarding false positives from his "anti-cheat".  Honestly I would be happier if they had said nothing at all. Before I could believe they also thought it was wrong, now I know they don't.

[Jhoryn]

57 minutes ago, scorives said:

I think this is a bigger issue than just Maltiez's. The whole ModDB needs some better rules and regulations and more oversight as well. I have uploaded a post last month to the Mod DBforum for the devs in regards to changes I Think should be implemented along with others that are not listed. Here is a link if interested: 

 

 

^This. While we are still trying to deal with the current smoldering fire's aftermath, a push towards a new solution is key, and maybe something that can help rebuild that lost trust.

I check the mods DB every couple of days for new things to try, and I can't imagine what would go into moderating the Mod DB, as so many new mods and updates are posted each day.

Scorives - you have a good start with pointing out the forking issue. Just today, I was thinking about trying xSkills for the first time, went to the Mod DB, searched for xSkills and found myself confused about what to install. There is a Fork, and a Fork Fork, and a bajillion forks for separate compatibility mods, and... I tossed my hands up and said no thanks. 

Edited Saturday at 08:59 PM by Jhoryn

[Diff]

22 minutes ago, Karidwen said:

Said person has shown he can and will do illegal things driven by own ego. Said person does not deny or regret doing it, in fact, has shown that they will do it again if they feel like it. Such a person should not be in a position where they have access to code of the product.

I think these are reasonable takes. He indeed never denied it... not that we'd want him to. He definitely didn't regret it in the beginning and was his usual caustic self about it when confronted. He has apologized since and I don't think we can confidently say he doesn't regret doing it. Lot's happened since, and his lack of regret isn't carved in stone.

If "access to code" is important to you, you may be interested to know he kinda doesn't right now. I understand if you just want him gone regardless. But if it's "access" that concerns you, he has as much access to the code as you or I do right now. He maybe has a tiny bit of additional read access to the small, obfuscated portions of the VS client, but no additional write access. He can't sneak anything in, even if he felt like it. Software development practices don't require trust, because trusting the wrong person can mean horribly bad things no matter where you go. It can also just mean your project slowly devolves into buggy spaghetti in the long run. From what people with firsthand experience have reported, VS has high standards before code gets approved and checked in.

[Karidwen]

7 minutes ago, Diff said:

I think these are reasonable takes. He indeed never denied it... not that we'd want him to. He definitely didn't regret it in the beginning and was his usual caustic self about it when confronted. He has apologized since and I don't think we can confidently say he doesn't regret doing it. Lot's happened since, and his lack of regret isn't carved in stone.

If "access to code" is important to you, you may be interested to know he kinda doesn't right now. I understand if you just want him gone regardless. But if it's "access" that concerns you, he has as much access to the code as you or I do right now. He maybe has a tiny bit of additional read access to the small, obfuscated portions of the VS client, but no additional write access. He can't sneak anything in, even if he felt like it. Software development practices don't require trust, because trusting the wrong person can mean horribly bad things no matter where you go. It can also just mean your project slowly devolves into buggy spaghetti in the long run. From what people with firsthand experience have reported, VS has high standards before code gets approved and checked in.

I personally dont have mistrust in vanilla game safety, for me this is not about that.

Its about cutting potential malice at root and with that shoving that no misconduct, be it with supposed good intentions or not, will be tolerated.

The issue, from my subjective perspective, is that a person who has put himself of a pedestal, somehow thinks that he is above others and can call the shots on if and how what should be punished, with no regards to what it levels in its wake either. It is a personal ego driven initiative, because he personally felt like he did not like something. No "for the greater good" excuse is valid for self proclaimed holy war no matter the methods used or consequences. 

This case in itself isnt big. The issue is not the scale it effected, the issue is the message the handling sends. 

And the message should be this: We do not accept any illegal or borderline illegal actions, no matter the scale and no matter if the perpetrator is known or popular or has done great good before or is on the dev team or if hes the president of the universe itself. 

Because currently Anego is sending the message that if the person is one of them or useful or has done some good before, their character and breaches of trust and whatever else can all be excused oh and they are trusting his story 100%. Its like when a certain president doesnt go to jail for liking little kids.

[Karidwen]

37 minutes ago, Diff said:

I think these are reasonable takes. He indeed never denied it... not that we'd want him to. He definitely didn't regret it in the beginning and was his usual caustic self about it when confronted. He has apologized since and I don't think we can confidently say he doesn't regret doing it. Lot's happened since, and his lack of regret isn't carved in stone.

If "access to code" is important to you, you may be interested to know he kinda doesn't right now. I understand if you just want him gone regardless. But if it's "access" that concerns you, he has as much access to the code as you or I do right now. He maybe has a tiny bit of additional read access to the small, obfuscated portions of the VS client, but no additional write access. He can't sneak anything in, even if he felt like it. Software development practices don't require trust, because trusting the wrong person can mean horribly bad things no matter where you go. It can also just mean your project slowly devolves into buggy spaghetti in the long run. From what people with firsthand experience have reported, VS has high standards before code gets approved and checked in.

I will afford to argue that he did not, has not and will not regret what he did.

What he regrets is that it was found out and has consequences.

[icesharkk]

Just now, Karidwen said:

I will afford to argue that he did not, has not and will not regret what he did.

What he regrets is that it was found out and has consequences.

for anyone who doesn't get this i have a world leader to sell you on.
maltiez is unrepentant and caustic. His forced remorse is just words. his actions have caused harm but the consequences heal nothing. The studio response served only to paint Anego as cut from the same cloth as maltiez by association, similar lies, ethics, and disdain for the paying user.

[williams_482]

1 minute ago, Karidwen said:

I will afford to argue that he did not, has not and will not regret what he did.

What he regrets is that it was found out and has consequences.

If this is true, then I agree he should be fired.

If Anego believe that to be true, then I think less of them for not firing him.

Is that true? I don't know. None of us really do, although I'm sure some have a better sense than others (and I fall squarely in the "others" category). This is well outside the realm of facts (which are pretty well established) and forward-looking risk assessments (which seem clean), and becomes a question of character judgement. I can't fault anyone for their own assessment there. 

[greed23]

On 9/3/2026 at 4:38 AM, Tyron said:

It's also discussed in some 3 other forum threads, on #mods-general on discord as well as on reddit. 
If someone was unfairly banned, please write us a ban appeal

So, like, why were none of the false positives addressed on the official announcement?

Why was the impact to regular users downplayed despite many, many people coming forward saying they were adversely affected by the malware?

Why was the malware actively praised for succeeding in "protecting servers" when Maltiez can be seen stating that wasn't its in intent, and when it was actively causing the inability for many servers to operate normally?

Why does the VS team refuse to acknowledge the malware as that, despite it fitting every common definition?

Why have we not seen an updated response despite everyone asking these questions?

Why is the reddit being actively censored just because there's an official response?

This frustration will continue to simmer.

[Zvengks]

I really didn't want this to be my first post on the forums. I don't normally use forums. I just play the game until I burn out and then come back to it. 

I've been trying to, in the fewest words possible, make one simple point crystal clear. If the reason people are mad was the what of what he did, and nothing else, then reversing course, removing him from the modding community, and a standard corporate apology would have been enough. It hasn't been. Which means a core component of what people are still mad is the WHY of what he did, because something about it smells off, based on his statements.

Primarily because of this screencap (and many others, but I think this makes the point the clearest.)

When maltiez said "It has nothing to do with protecting servers or stuff", That is literally saying "My motivation was not to improve the community in any way".

Just sit with that for a minute. What does it mean? It could mean "Putting malware into a mod, to harm another person, was the goal. everything else is post-hoc justification."  That's the least charitable interpretation though. The fact that he called it malware himself, didn't help... That's the old "No such thing as bad actions, Only bad Targets" rational that the overwhelming majority of people find offensive in and of itself. that's the same line of thinking of a school bully who decides "Oh I'll just become a cop, prison guard, or join the army, so I can beat up and shoot people, and it'll be okay because they're bad people  "

I am not trying to say that that's what maltiez actually wanted. He very well could just be terrible at speaking or working under pressure. I am saying that that's the way he sounds, and a sizable number of people see it that way. I know other people see it that way, because I did not take that screencap, and I did not underline that text. That was already there, floating around, reposted, until even reddit stopped allowing attachments in comments. Something people have felt important to highlight, even if they don't go through the motions of picking it apart to it's logical end like this to figure out why exactly that sentence is so egregious. instead they just underline it and hope others feel the same gut reaction. Me though? Reductio ad absurdum just happens to be my favorite type of argumentation. strip it to it's base logic, and then build the chain of events until you find the absurd flaw to show why the logic wasn't sound.

I don't think maltiez actually just wanted to see if he could get away with malware and ruining people's days. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. I think maltiez is just an idiot, who asked chatGPT how to stop hackers and it said to cut off the source of the attack from the target of the attack, and also target the source of the funding, and then asked claude to just do that and cobbled it together and bundled it with things he already had claude write. Given how much Maltiez has openly talked about using claude to write his code, This feels closer to the truth than any maliciousness. 

That doesn't change the perception though, he's either malicious, or catastrophically incompetent and irresponsible, but still has dev connections. and that's why people are actually angry. Not the waste of time he caused. both are reasons to fire him. they need to see that. i don't see any other way this could have happened. it's one or the other. 

 

Anyway, Sorry for beating a dead horse. 

[Diff]

45 minutes ago, icesharkk said:

maltiez is unrepentant and caustic

Undeniably caustic. Being caustic is externally viewable. Repentance comes from within.

What (if anything) would you (@anyone) accept as a genuinely repentant Maltiez? Would it even make a difference if he was somehow verifiably repentant?

It's fine if there's nothing and if it makes no difference, just trying to understand better. 

17 minutes ago, Zvengks said:

Anyway, Sorry for beating a dead horse. 

No worries, horse isn't going anywhere. Welcome to the forums!

Edited Saturday at 10:39 PM by Diff

[Mushroomancer]

2 hours ago, Handbananasplit said:

Obfuscating is an English word that means "to make hidden". It's not some word that programmers made up. It's used by programmers to describe a specific thing, "Obfuscating Code". Them using it in that specific way does not change the definition of the word.

The issue is that technicalities do matter in regards to the exact behavior of the code and are relevant to the discussion so using the two interchangeably is another factor muddying the waters. Obfuscation is the perfect word to describe the code's behaviors of misdirection and tampering, true, but given how much confused information is already swirling around and being nitpicked over, I can understand the argument for precise language.

I don't think it's actually particularly relevant, personally. The exact details of how the poison pill behaved as far as hiding itself aren't actually the issue for me because the real question is WHY it was using deceit and if that reasoning is mitigating or aggravating to the situation at hand.I think the only mitigating factor is what kind of damage and to who the code did, but even that is an argument of personal morality and not professional ethics.

[Mushroomancer]

1 hour ago, Handbananasplit said:

But the fire isn't out. THIS is the fire. They could put out the fire but they have chosen not to. Personally I don't care if they keep him as a silent dev. I'd be perfectly satisfied with him being booted off the ModDB and kept as a closely watched contributor. I believe Anego would not put something malicious in the game.

What I take issue with is the wording and tone of their official statement.  He was unequivocally in the wrong yet they defend his actions. The whole thing reads like they are doing (as a group including maltiez) what they think the community is forcing them to and they would rather not have to do it at all. They've omitted actual facts from the statement regarding false positives from his "anti-cheat".  Honestly I would be happier if they had said nothing at all. Before I could believe they also thought it was wrong, now I know they don't.

I don't think that retaining him was the right thing to do and I don't think their statement was perfect, but I also think that parts of the community are intentionally engaging with their public statement in bad faith, or at least letting the emotional height of the entire controversy leave them with the least charitable interpretation. Given the closing section of the statement, I think it's clear that Anego recognizes that wrong was done and they carry a portion of the burden for that fact. I also think that they could have been clearer with laying out the reality of the situation but I suspect that they were attempting to strike a diplomatic tone and explain their reasoning for what they believed were mitigating factors to Malt's actions (I.E. not believing he is a further threat to the community because the intended targets of the code were themselves malicious actors). 

That diplomatic tone has clearly backfired, but I suspect the team is in a very heightened state of their own. The community has not exactly struck a reasonable and constructive tone of criticism over this and it has been a lot of fervor and fury on both sides.

[Zvengks]

12 minutes ago, Diff said:

No worries, horse isn't going anywhere. Welcome to the forums!

incidentally, although I don't have much experience coding (mostly with game maker and fake languages in zachtronics games), I do have a few ideas for how a fully open source, server sided, anti-cheat, could theoretically function, and function because of being open source, rather than in spite of it. I just don't think now's the time to talk about it since it's such a controversial topic at the moment. 

[icesharkk]

39 minutes ago, Diff said:

Undeniably caustic. Being caustic is externally viewable. Repentance comes from within.

What (if anything) would you (@anyone) accept as a genuinely repentant Maltiez? Would it even make a difference if he was somehow verifiably repentant?

It's fine if there's nothing and if it makes no difference, just trying to understand better. 

No worries, horse isn't going anywhere. Welcome to the forums!

Good question. Honestly im not sure there is, i would like to simply forget about him. All most all of my frustration has shifted to Anego for retaining and defending him. I just cant easily explain why im frustrated with Anego without framing maltiez actions since that is the core everything else stems from. I have been making an effort in my posts to either focus on or connect this to Anego's stance and how they are representing themselves now.

if you ask me what Anego could do to for me to accept their [repentance] or sincerity? My answer is three things remove the malware dev, be honest about the actual ramifications of his actions instead of praising them and omitting the victims, and make a commitment to improve the available certification pipeline for the moddb (no garuntee of safety but protections against sideloads is a big start and much less problematic to tackle).

[genderBiohazard]

I've been watching the drama surrounding Maltiez, mainly on the subreddit, and through all the claims being thrown around, there's a detail I'm curious about. I keep seeing people say that Maltiez's hidden code affected more than just cheat mods. Apparently several innocuous mods were affected as well, but I haven't heard people name any of the mods affected, so I was wondering where I can find proof. I've even heard a rumor that Maltiez harbors a grudge against a specific (unnamed) modder and was intentionally sabotaging their mods. If that's true, it's a very serious accusation, but again I've only seen vagueposts, not any specifics.

Please don't take this post as picking a "side" in the drama.  I don't intend to beat a dead horse by making yet another thread about it, but I'm hoping for a productive discussion regardless. There's plenty of other topics where people are currently discussing to death what constitutes malware or how severe Maltiez's punishment should've been. I just want to get away from that talk and clear up a small point of confusion for me.

[Mushroomancer]

4 minutes ago, genderBiohazard said:

I've been watching the drama surrounding Maltiez, mainly on the subreddit, and through all the claims being thrown around, there's a detail I'm curious about. I keep seeing people say that Maltiez's hidden code affected more than just cheat mods. Apparently several innocuous mods were affected as well, but I haven't heard people name any of the mods affected, so I was wondering where I can find proof. I've even heard a rumor that Maltiez harbors a grudge against a specific (unnamed) modder and was intentionally sabotaging their mods. If that's true, it's a very serious accusation, but again I've only seen vagueposts, not any specifics.

Please don't take this post as picking a "side" in the drama.  I don't intend to beat a dead horse by making yet another thread about it, but I'm hoping for a productive discussion regardless. There's plenty of other topics where people are currently discussing to death what constitutes malware or how severe Maltiez's punishment should've been. I just want to get away from that talk and clear up a small point of confusion for me.

Caves and Caverns was the mod affected that caused the issue to be discovered in the first place. The problem was that Maltiez's code did not target the cheat mod because of anything specific it was doing or a specific way it was acting, but because it had code that was obfuscated on a readability level. Maltiez's code was designed to target any mod that obfuscated its code (by the strict definition of obfuscation in technical language) over a certain threshold, which some other mods were doing. These mods became bycatch as a result.

The main issue of potential misinformation is that it's hard to know exactly how many mods or people were affected directly due to the way that logs and crash reporting were handled by Maltiez's code. Especially before all details were clear, there was a lot of fervor and finger pointing for potentially unrelated incompatibilities and crashes and attributions of effects that, as far as anyone can tell yet, the code could not have been responsible for. It all resulted in a very muddied and emotionally heightened discussion.
 

Edited Saturday at 11:30 PM by Mushroomancer

[genderBiohazard]

2 minutes ago, Mushroomancer said:

Caves and Caverns was the mod affected that caused the issue to be discovered in the first place. The problem was that Maltiez's code did not target the cheat mod because of anything specific it was doing or a specific way it was acting, but because it had code that was obfuscated on a readability level. Maltiez's code was designed to target any mod that obfuscated its code (by the strict definition of obfuscation in technical language) over a certain threshold, which some other mods were doing. These mods became bycatch as a result.

The main issue of potential misinformation is that it's hard to know exactly how many mods or people were affected directly due to the way that logs and crash reporting were handled by Maltiez's code. Especially before all details were clear, there was a lot of fervor and finger pointing for potentially unrelated incompatibilities and crashes and attributions of effects that, as far as anyone can tell yet, the code could not have been responsible for. It all resulted in a very muddied and emotionally heightened discussion.
 

Thank you for explaining the technical details in a way that's succinct and easy to understand.

[Mushroomancer]

Just now, genderBiohazard said:

Thank you for explaining the technical details in a way that's succinct and easy to understand.

Of course! And welcome to the forums!

[icesharkk]

1 hour ago, Mushroomancer said:

I don't think that retaining him was the right thing to do and I don't think their statement was perfect, but I also think that parts of the community are intentionally engaging with their public statement in bad faith, or at least letting the emotional height of the entire controversy leave them with the least charitable interpretation. Given the closing section of the statement, I think it's clear that Anego recognizes that wrong was done and they carry a portion of the burden for that fact. I also think that they could have been clearer with laying out the reality of the situation but I suspect that they were attempting to strike a diplomatic tone and explain their reasoning for what they believed were mitigating factors to Malt's actions (I.E. not believing he is a further threat to the community because the intended targets of the code were themselves malicious actors). 

That diplomatic tone has clearly backfired, but I suspect the team is in a very heightened state of their own. The community has not exactly struck a reasonable and constructive tone of criticism over this and it has been a lot of fervor and fury on both sides.

its not bad faith to see their justification of his actions, lies by omission, and "consequences" that are just status quo dressed up as extra safeguards for what they are. Tyron's response does not increase my faith in the company, it does not take accountability for the situation that has occurred, it covers their ass and protects the perpetrator. It shows me that PR is more important than resolution or accountability.

[Diff]

49 minutes ago, genderBiohazard said:

but I haven't heard people name any of the mods affected, so I was wondering where I can find proof

Two mods that I'm aware of. Caves N Caverns, as already mentioned. URL Radio is the other one that's confirmed. I'd be very interested to investigate any other mods.

You can get hard proof for yourself with a decompiler. If you decompile a mod's DLL files and find any with a bunch of classes, functions, and variables with 1- and 2-letter names, it's obfuscated, and it would have angered ConfigLib. There are effectively no other ways to accidentally activate it.

They don't all need to be short variable names, but about 22% of them need to be.

Maltiez was targeting a specific modder, the creator of the paid cheat mod.

Edited Sunday at 12:15 AM by Diff

[Diff]

7 minutes ago, icesharkk said:

its not bad faith to see their justification of his actions, lies by omission, and "consequences" that are just status quo dressed up as extra safeguards for what they are.

They didn't specify which part of the community is the part engaging in bad faith, but I'm going to risk putting words in their mouth and say I don't believe Mushroomancer thinks this is it.

Edited Sunday at 12:18 AM by Diff