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

[Sadi89]

52 minutes ago, Mushroomancer said:

I do think there was enough nuance to some of the threads for them to have stayed split, but I also think that keeping that firestorm form spreading out across the entire board was the goal and it certainly was doing that. Unfortunately that kind of means that more technical discussion has been merged with the emotionally charged 'debate' here. Though if I recall, it was already leaking into that thread at a slower pace, too.

Yeah I was trying to get away from the emotionally charged posts with that in the first place. Gives me the mixed signal I was being viewed the same way with my topic.

[Diff]

Hey I put together a thing tonight because I was getting more curious about why ConfigLib wouldn't have crashed playerlists. Still investigating it, but on my way I made this:

https://mods.vintagestory.at/notconfiglib

It's a mod that will print in chat when you join whether or not the current loaded set of mods would have crashed with Config lib on a multiplayer server. If you check the Git history you can see it came from a file that was basically just AdditionalStuff.cs stuffed into a ModSystem. Since that initial commit, it's been stripped down, defanged, and spruced up, but still contains the same checks.

Test it out if you're curious, let me know if anything blows up. On my machine it properly aggros at CNC and URL Radio but oddly doesn't aggro at playerlists... That kind of aligns with the total lack of crash reports for that mod, but I don't know why that would be yet.

EDIT: PlayerLists doesn't crash because it's actually not obfuscated enough. Added some debugging to NotConfigLib and it reports that PlayerLists only has 20.8% short names the way ConfigLib calculates it, not the required 22%. For reference, CNC is 29% and URL Radio has 35%.

That opens the question back up, is it a different playerlist mod that crashes? None of the other forks I checked had any obfuscated code at all.

Edited yesterday at 01:03 PM by Diff

[Thorfinn]

7 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

And nobody is doing that here.

Now let's not be hasty here. I think it's, um, what's less than a "nothing burger"?

A game in early access crashes when you add a bunch of user-created mods? Say it isn't so!

Sure, most of the time, that's just a mistake in coding. not something intentional, but so what? Why aren't we all fired up about people negligently releasing code that crashes the game? At least this was crashing the game for a good reason, albeit the net was cast a bit wide.

Edited yesterday at 03:37 AM by Thorfinn

[Handbananasplit]

A lot of the people ardently defending Anego have thousands of posts on this forum. It's like making a single game a huge part of your identity makes it hard to have perspective on this. Y'all need to look at things from the more casual players of VS perspective. VS isn't a major part of most of our lives. Sure I've played several hundred hours, but I don't think about VS every day. I love the game and it sucked to think I might never play it again, but depending on how Anego handled this situation I might not have.

Personally I think the initial statement was pretty milquetoast and intentionally omitted the fact that there were innocent mods caught in the crossfire. The recent additions have mostly solved my problems with it. I'm not going to try to get a refund for the 4 pack I bought for my family though one of my family members has already completely written the game off over this and I can't blame them. If Anego had just condemned Maltiez's actions and behavior outright instead of trying to minimize what happened they would have been satisfied. No one needed to be fired. Just a clear communication that his actions were wrong, and Anego does not agree with them.

Some of you cant even imagine a future where you don't play VS. There was no chance you would put the game down. Whatever Anego said. You're more worried about how the next update might come slower if there is one less modder turned dev working on the game. Try to understand the majority of VS players don't have this same perspective.

[Stralgaez]

9 hours ago, troyus23 said:

This could very well be the end of Vintage Story for a lot of older Players. Which is a thing, probably, that no one cares about. This kind of behaviour is no longer accepted by many players.

Possibly so.

I did issue a refund because, along with the current situation regarding this and how its handled, there are certain directions of development I do not find agreeable. 

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, Handbananasplit said:

A lot of the people ardently defending Anego have thousands of posts on this forum. It's like making a single game a huge part of your identity makes it hard to have perspective on this. Y'all need to look at things from the more casual players of VS perspective.

Oh, so that's why I don't care about this very much. /sarc

Please don't pretend you can read minds. You have no freaking clue who I am or what I think. That's as asinine as me saying you, with your piddly 10 posts, have no valid opinion on the subject.

 

[River Oak]

Whenever there's an incident with a video game, or any product, that causes lots of drama, I just remember all that's happened over at Blizzard, and how despite all of the terrible things related to that company, two half decent expansion packs for WoW was enough to bring the player numbers back up as high as ever, like none of it ever happened.

None of this actually matters. Those who like the game will play the game, those who don't wont.

[MKMoose]

4 hours ago, Diff said:

Test it out if you're curious, let me know if anything blows up. On my machine it properly aggros at CNC and URL Radio but oddly doesn't aggro at playerlists... That kind of aligns with the total lack of crash reports for that mod, but I don't know why that would be yet.

EDIT: PlayerLists doesn't crash because it's actually not obfuscated enough. Added some debugging to NotConfigLib and it reports that PlayerLists only has 20.8% short names the way ConfigLib calculates it, not the required 22%. For reference, CNC is 29% and URL Radio has 35%.

That opens the question back up, is it a different playerlist mod that crashes? None of the other forks I checked had any obfuscated code at all.

Tried it with all four listed versions of playerlists, none of them tripped. Maltiez has said that it's intended to target the specific obfuscator used by the cheat client, but if it does have 20.8% short type names so is clearly very close to tripping then I have no idea how to explain this. Do we consider it possible that Anego used a more robust way to detect obfuscated code instead of using the exact same checks, or possibly just reduced the threshold for some reason? Could also try checking some other stuff like PlayerListCrashFix or PlayerListOriginalName just to be sure, or just directly ask one of the devs.

 

11 hours ago, tiggerbiggo said:

My company isn't a bad one, i'd expect to be fired at any organisation for doing something like that.

You've said this at least nine times now, and yet... I don't see why any healthy management should settle on termination as the only correct response. And especially not immediate termination prior to proper investigation. While several components of this situation, for example Malt's initial reaction to hostility over the undisclosed code, leave much to be desired, the loudest part of this whole thing can easily be boiled down to negligence. No need to even downplay anything - just interpret it as anything other than a simplistic "code shouldn't have been there => malware => fire Maltiez".

The "anti-cheat" seems to have had, as far as we currently know, an exactly 0% false positive rate at the time that it was added. When one false positive came up, Maltiez apparently contacted the mod's developer and convinced them to deobfuscate their code. Reportedly in part due to health issues, Maltiez then failed to remove the code or otherwise address new false positives when they came up. I'm not sure about "playerlist", but URL Radio (YT) released ~1.5 months ago and Caves N Caverns released almost exactly one month ago, which is relatively recent considering that the code was up for almost a year. This seems like it could be justifiably seen as an honest mistake and not punishable misconduct.

So then, the primary concerns would be:

• uploading undisclosed, risky code to ModDB => ban from ModDB, and monitor code contributions more carefully,
• public behavior after the code was discovered, and inadvertently causing a controversy => remove from Discord, presumed internal reprimand,
• failure on the part of Anego to verify Malt's "anti-cheat" => the blame on Maltiez is lessened, negligence concerns shift partially to Anego (and they've very clearly and very quickly admitted that not checking exactly what Maltiez was doing there was a mistake).

Certain lines were crossed, that much is clear - if they weren't, there would (probably) be no consequences at all - but I frankly don't see why termination should be the correct course of action. It probably wouldn't be a mistake, as long as it's done within extents permissible by law, but it doesn't seem nearly necessary to me.

For what I care and know, Anego have made a decision which lies well within the expected process and standard industry practices. I do have some concerns about Anego's public communication about the matter, but I personally see no reason to distrust their decision.

Edited yesterday at 07:49 AM by MKMoose

[Handbananasplit]

14 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Please don't pretend you can read minds. You have no freaking clue who I am or what I think. That's as asinine as me saying you, with your piddly 10 posts, have no valid opinion on the subject.

What a totally normal reaction to empathy. 

It's so asinine but you went ahead and said it anyway. Why are you so hostile?

[tiggerbiggo]

43 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Tried it with all four listed versions of playerlists, none of them tripped. Maltiez has said that it's intended to target the specific obfuscator used by the cheat client, but if it does have 20.8% short type names so is clearly very close to tripping then I have no idea how to explain this. Do we consider it possible that Anego used a more robust way to detect obfuscated code instead of using the exact same checks, or possibly just reduced the threshold for some reason? Could also try checking some other stuff like PlayerListCrashFix or PlayerListOriginalName just to be sure, or just directly ask one of the devs.

 

You've said this at least nine times now, and yet... I don't see why any healthy management should settle on termination as the only correct response. And especially not immediate termination prior to proper investigation. While several components of this situation, for example Malt's initial reaction to hostility over the undisclosed code, leave much to be desired, the loudest part of this whole thing can easily be boiled down to negligence. No need to even downplay anything - just interpret it as anything other than a simplistic "code shouldn't have been there => malware => fire Maltiez".

The "anti-cheat" seems to have had, as far as we currently know, an exactly 0% false positive rate at the time that it was added. When one false positive came up, Maltiez apparently contacted the mod's developer and convinced them to deobfuscate their code. Reportedly in part due to health issues, Maltiez then failed to remove the code or otherwise address new false positives when they came up. I'm not sure about "playerlist", but URL Radio (YT) released ~1.5 months ago and Caves N Caverns released almost exactly one month ago, which is relatively recent considering that the code was up for almost a year. This seems like it could be justifiably seen as an honest mistake and not punishable misconduct.

So then, the primary concerns would be:

• uploading undisclosed, risky code to ModDB => ban from ModDB, and monitor code contributions more carefully,
• public behavior after the code was discovered, and inadvertently causing a controversy => remove from Discord, presumed internal reprimand,
• failure on the part of Anego to verify Malt's "anti-cheat" => the blame on Maltiez is lessened, negligence concerns shift partially to Anego (and they've very clearly and very quickly admitted that not checking exactly what Maltiez was doing there was a mistake).

Certain lines were crossed, that much is clear - if they weren't, there would (probably) be no consequences at all - but I frankly don't see why termination should be the correct course of action. It probably wouldn't be a mistake, as long as it's done within extents permissible by law, but it doesn't seem nearly necessary to me.

For what I care and know, Anego have made a decision which lies well within the expected process and standard industry practices. I do have some concerns about Anego's public communication about the matter, but I personally see no reason to distrust their decision.

I said it a lot because nobody ended up addressing it, but Teh Pizza Lady ended up addressing it in one of their replies and i'm happy with the outcome of that.

I do need to communicate something to everyone here since it's something only someone on my side of the debate would be able to tell you;

Anego, at least in my case, gave me a full refund while MAINTAINING GAME ACCESS.

That's something I completely didn't expect, I don't know of any precedent for that kind of show of good faith from any game company ever.

It also shows me that the company as a whole isn't taking the approach that their communications may give off to those of us who are angry about this, which makes me think they really need to hire someone who knows PR well, understands how to communicate what the people who are upset need to hear.

I still won't be playing the game for the reasons I already stated in this thread, but for 2 reasons I immediately repurchased a license;

1. I don't feel like I can stay silent about the refund situation as above, the community deserves to know about those actions from someone else since if the company tries to tell people this is what they have done, it could come across as dismissive or otherwise people might not believe / trust them, so I wanted to say it here in the forums so people have that as a fact they can communicate to others.
2. The unprecedented nature of the refund proves that they are taking this situation more seriously than I gave them credit for, and I don't think it's fair for me to reject their show of good faith.

The devs were literally going to let me keep playing for free. That's not something i've heard of any other game company doing, ever.

[Mushroomancer]

49 minutes ago, Handbananasplit said:

What a totally normal reaction to empathy. 

It's so asinine but you went ahead and said it anyway. Why are you so hostile?

You weren't being empathetic. You called people with a lot of posts on the forums sycophantic addicts and implied that anyone who had a lot of posts was one of these people. You implied that the only people ardently defending Anego were overly parasocially invested and would make up any excuse not to criticize a game that had become 'part of their identity.' Despite the fact that at least two high-involvement posters have been highly critical of Anego's response in this thread and I, although fond of VS, was not active in the forums until very recently despite having shifted over to a more defensive stance.

The reality is that most of the people active on the forums in this particular topic are probably the most invested in it, yes, but to pretend that it's only high posters defending and low poster casual players criticizing is ridiculous. There is no clear polarized archetype of who is and isn't a defender or critic in this situation. Most of the people who don't care about this, are mildly upset about this or are moderately on Anego's side/content with the response will never post on the forums. Ever. Because that's just the nature of the forums. 

I had to reread your post a few times to get any sense of empathy out of it and all I see is a bad faith 'call out' of people who 'can't imagine their future without VS'. I understand being disatisfied with Anego's response, and the situation. I understand being so upset you feel you need to move on from VS. What I don't understand is pretending that you are the only one who has a genuine perspective on this and everyone else is either a plant or an addict jonesing for the Crafting Survival fix.

[Handbananasplit]

21 minutes ago, Mushroomancer said:

I had to reread your post a few times to get any sense of empathy out of it and all I see is a bad faith 'call out' of people who 'can't imagine their future without VS'. I understand being disatisfied with Anego's response, and the situation. I understand being so upset you feel you need to move on from VS. What I don't understand is pretending that you are the only one who has a genuine perspective on this and everyone else is either a plant or an addict jonesing for the Crafting Survival fix.

Interesting take. All I was saying is the people who can't fathom the angry peoples reaction might benefit from looking at the situation from a different perspective. I said nothing to imply parasocial attitudes or addiction. I'm just asking people to try looking at things from a different perspective. I did not mean to imply that having a lot of posts is bad. Just that that level of engagement with the game gives them a different perspective from people who do a playthrough once or twice a year.  Nothing in my post is a "call out". My post is a call for people to think about the other side's perspective and some of my thoughts about where I feel like other peoples heads are at.

Honestly I feel like I'm being parasocial, because I'm so invested in what the dev team's reaction to this incident is

Edit to add more thoughts: I'm not criticizing people who can't imagine their future without VS, honestly I'm a little envious. I seriously love this game and wish that I hadn't spent the last week worrying that I might have to give it up. If anyone is addicted it's me.

Edited yesterday at 09:23 AM by Handbananasplit
Edit to add more thoughts

[DarkGold]

 I'd like to provide another perspective, since I've been thinking about this post since I saw it:

On 9/8/2026 at 3:05 AM, Stellarbone said:

And wanting it to improve is being met with insults, demands I and those like me leave, or simple silence. We'll probably never know the full extent of the damage here. 

 

10 minutes ago, Mushroomancer said:

Most of the people who don't care about this, are mildly upset about this or are moderately on Anego's side/content with the response will never post on the forums. Ever. Because that's just the nature of the forums. 

When a topic like this is so hot, and some mud is being flung, I have an inherent desire not to walk into the middle of it and potentially get caught in the crossfire. I'm also just not likely to comment in the first place because I'm not likely to add anything new to the conversation. I'm sure lots of people probably feel the same, regardless of their feelings on the issue at hand.

 

12 hours ago, hellmother said:

I don't really think browbeating them about the failure is productive or elucidating.

I (and probably many others) come at this from a perspective of "what does my posting add?" and think about "what is within my control?" in a situation like this. The studio's actions are unlikely to change based on anything I add to the conversation, so what is within my control is continuing to play, or getting a refund and not continuing to play. Given these are the options within my control, I appreciate that Anego's response has focused on providing facts, and has offered players a refund. I don't see offering refunds as a request to leave, but supporting players given their options. Like hellmother said, I'm thinking "is it productive or elucidating?"

 

I've appreciated the posting of people like @Diff who have provided more information so that people can come to an informed decision. I understand that either for ideological reasons or because of their risk assessment, some people will not want to continue playing. Some people (especially the ones who remain on the forum) are likely to still want to continue playing, because they have a different view or risk assessment. I believe there is enough information available to decide one way or the other now.

 

I personally would be poorly equipped to handle the situation Anego finds themselves in right now, and I think it's great their team is going to skill up to deal with the community challenges they will inevitably continue to face in the future as they grow.

[VANTABlack2000]

3 hours ago, tiggerbiggo said:

I said it a lot because nobody ended up addressing it, but Teh Pizza Lady ended up addressing it in one of their replies and i'm happy with the outcome of that.

I do need to communicate something to everyone here since it's something only someone on my side of the debate would be able to tell you;

Anego, at least in my case, gave me a full refund while MAINTAINING GAME ACCESS.

That's something I completely didn't expect, I don't know of any precedent for that kind of show of good faith from any game company ever.

It also shows me that the company as a whole isn't taking the approach that their communications may give off to those of us who are angry about this, which makes me think they really need to hire someone who knows PR well, understands how to communicate what the people who are upset need to hear.

I still won't be playing the game for the reasons I already stated in this thread, but for 2 reasons I immediately repurchased a license;

1. I don't feel like I can stay silent about the refund situation as above, the community deserves to know about those actions from someone else since if the company tries to tell people this is what they have done, it could come across as dismissive or otherwise people might not believe / trust them, so I wanted to say it here in the forums so people have that as a fact they can communicate to others.
2. The unprecedented nature of the refund proves that they are taking this situation more seriously than I gave them credit for, and I don't think it's fair for me to reject their show of good faith.

The devs were literally going to let me keep playing for free. That's not something i've heard of any other game company doing, ever.

Thanks for the update on the refund. That is good to know that they are maintaining game access to people who refund even if it is just a show that they do actually care about the players. Maybe just this whole situation isn't doing a good job of portraying they care, but THEY DO care.

I know whether or not Anego cares about the players is something I mention a lot, but with so many games where the devs don't act like they care about the players it is refreshing to see when a game does. It's also that much harder if a dev you thought cared about the players turns out to not care.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

4 hours ago, tiggerbiggo said:

nobody ended up addressing it, but Teh Pizza Lady ended up addressing it

Nobody addressed it because it wasn't pertinent to the matter. I only said something about it because after repeating it so often, it made me realize that it was something weighing heavily on your mind and you didn't feel heard on the matter. So I paused, let you speak your piece, acknowledged it, and moved on. I have to do this all the time with my 9-year-old because he will beat a topic into the ground until you think it's dirt if he feels like no one is listening to him. So I listened. What I didn't do was change my mind. I still don't think it has anything to do with how Anego should have treated Maltiez.

 

4 hours ago, Handbananasplit said:

Interesting take. All I was saying is the people who can't fathom the angry peoples reaction might benefit from looking at the situation from a different perspective. I said nothing to imply parasocial attitudes or addiction. I'm just asking people to try looking at things from a different perspective. I did not mean to imply that having a lot of posts is bad. Just that that level of engagement with the game gives them a different perspective from people who do a playthrough once or twice a year.  Nothing in my post is a "call out". My post is a call for people to think about the other side's perspective and some of my thoughts about where I feel like other peoples heads are at.

Honestly I feel like I'm being parasocial, because I'm so invested in what the dev team's reaction to this incident is

Edit to add more thoughts: I'm not criticizing people who can't imagine their future without VS, honestly I'm a little envious. I seriously love this game and wish that I hadn't spent the last week worrying that I might have to give it up. If anyone is addicted it's me.

The reason we have so many forum posts is because we've been around long enough to see the different perspectives and discuss them in a healthy manner. Implying that we haven't looked at or considered other perspectives is a pretty big miss on your part. The problem with those other perspectives is that they rely on personal emotion getting mixed into the matter and thus those perspectives, while valid to the person seeing things that way, are not relevant to the issue at hand, which demands that personal emotion be removed from it entirely. That is why we reject your opinions and substitute our facts.

We've seen it all, experienced it all, and can probably explain it to a 5 year old, which is Neil DeGrasse Tyson's litmus test of true understanding of a topic. And reframing your "call out" as a call for people to think is exactly what a call out does. You think you're being nice and having good intentions, but you came in here with the preconceived notion that everyone with a bunch of forum posts wasn't capable of thinking about others and hearing their thoughts when the exact opposite couldn't closer to the truth. If anything you were projecting.

Anyway I hope this helps you understand why some of the forum giants around here aren't all that amused with what you said.

[tiggerbiggo]

21 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Nobody addressed it because it wasn't pertinent to the matter. I only said something about it because after repeating it so often, it made me realize that it was something weighing heavily on your mind and you didn't feel heard on the matter. So I paused, let you speak your piece, acknowledged it, and moved on. I have to do this all the time with my 9-year-old because he will beat a topic into the ground until you think it's dirt if he feels like no one is listening to him. So I listened. What I didn't do was change my mind. I still don't think it has anything to do with how Anego should have treated Maltiez.

 

The reason we have so many forum posts is because we've been around long enough to see the different perspectives and discuss them in a healthy manner. Implying that we haven't looked at or considered other perspectives is a pretty big miss on your part. The problem with those other perspectives is that they rely on personal emotion getting mixed into the matter and thus those perspectives, while valid to the person seeing things that way, are not relevant to the issue at hand, which demands that personal emotion be removed from it entirely. That is why we reject your opinions and substitute our facts.

We've seen it all, experienced it all, and can probably explain it to a 5 year old, which is Neil DeGrasse Tyson's litmus test of true understanding of a topic. And reframing your "call out" as a call for people to think is exactly what a call out does. You think you're being nice and having good intentions, but you came in here with the preconceived notion that everyone with a bunch of forum posts wasn't capable of thinking about others and hearing their thoughts when the exact opposite couldn't closer to the truth. If anything you were projecting.

Anyway I hope this helps you understand why some of the forum giants around here aren't all that amused with what you said.

Great, of all the people here you've been the least respectful to me, and now this? Nobody else has spoken to me like you have, so glad you don't speak for the studio. Incredibly disrespectful to someone who just has a different opinion. I tried to detail my thought process to you as succinctly as possible, and now you're effectively comparing me to a child even though i'm now more on-side with the approach the studio is taking? What a joke.

At least the other people here engaged with my arguments in good faith instead of trying to make out like I wanted someone to literally be dragged through glass. I bet you'll claim that was just an analogy, right? You were the one arguing with me in bad faith the whole time, and you're doing the studio a disservice by acting this way. It's pretty disgusting someone that claims to be on the studio's side is throwing so much vinegar.

Edited yesterday at 02:30 PM by tiggerbiggo

[tiggerbiggo]

23 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Nobody addressed it because it wasn't pertinent to the matter. I only said something about it because after repeating it so often, it made me realize that it was something weighing heavily on your mind and you didn't feel heard on the matter. So I paused, let you speak your piece, acknowledged it, and moved on. I have to do this all the time with my 9-year-old because he will beat a topic into the ground until you think it's dirt if he feels like no one is listening to him. So I listened. What I didn't do was change my mind. I still don't think it has anything to do with how Anego should have treated Maltiez.

 

The reason we have so many forum posts is because we've been around long enough to see the different perspectives and discuss them in a healthy manner. Implying that we haven't looked at or considered other perspectives is a pretty big miss on your part. The problem with those other perspectives is that they rely on personal emotion getting mixed into the matter and thus those perspectives, while valid to the person seeing things that way, are not relevant to the issue at hand, which demands that personal emotion be removed from it entirely. That is why we reject your opinions and substitute our facts.

We've seen it all, experienced it all, and can probably explain it to a 5 year old, which is Neil DeGrasse Tyson's litmus test of true understanding of a topic. And reframing your "call out" as a call for people to think is exactly what a call out does. You think you're being nice and having good intentions, but you came in here with the preconceived notion that everyone with a bunch of forum posts wasn't capable of thinking about others and hearing their thoughts when the exact opposite couldn't closer to the truth. If anything you were projecting.

Anyway I hope this helps you understand why some of the forum giants around here aren't all that amused with what you said.

Mayeb you could have listened from the start instead of immediately deciding that I literally want someone to die. And you talk as if you're the reasonable one here... You started out by mocking me, and then compare me to a child because you wouldn't simply argue properly. 

[slavguy]

I'm only just becoming aware of the situation, and a few things are apparent:
1. The community is pretty clearly reacting too harshly on the dev team themselves, although, I can ABSOLUTELY understand the criticism towards Maltiez himself.
2. These ideas that this guy could somehow slip malware into the actual game itself is honestly pretty insane. Do you guys really think the developers don't check their own code?
3. I find that refunding the game is probably a little far, considering how murky this entire situation is. 
4. It's rather bold for anybody to make any big statements about this (except the devs themselves), because in reality, it has had relatively little time to develop. All this 'discussion' is doing, is ramping up the apparent misinformation, misunderstanding, and over exaggeration of the situation itself.

to be honest, I only read through the first 8 or so pages of this because it's rather ridiculous to expect me to read 35 pages of arguing. I've tried to research the situation, but there just isn't that much I can say about it, except the community's response itself. I can understand the security concerns, I can understand the 'breach of trust', but so far, most of what I'm seeing is a bunch of people completely jumping the gun. 

Sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. On the other hand, this could have been WAY worse, and this controversy basically ensures nothing like this ever happens again (assuming you guys don't kill the entire project). 

I apologize for any misunderstandings or assumptions born out of lack of information in this message. I don't intend to argue or even disagree with anyone's concern and anger, I just feel like the community is WAY too polarized and making BIG conclusions about the dev team way too quickly. Feel free to correct me, or inform me. Above everything, I want to know what the actual HELL is going on.

Edited yesterday at 02:55 PM by slavguy

[Thorfinn]

7 hours ago, Handbananasplit said:

It's so asinine but you went ahead and said it anyway.

Exactly. To make the point explicitly. I recognize your right to have an opinion. Why can't you recognize that I have that same right? Instead, if my opinion differs from yours, your "professional" diagnosis is that my monomania is the problem.

You speak of empathy, but obviously have made no attempt at all to try to see a different perspective as valid.

[EDIT]

I should have read all the posts to the end before replying, as both @Mushroomancer and @Teh Pizza Lady covered it a bit more tactfully.

Again, I'm not saying your perspective is wrong, or that there is something wrong with you for holding it. I'm just saying I do not share it. 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:08 PM by Thorfinn

[genderBiohazard]

47 minutes ago, tiggerbiggo said:

Great, of all the people here you've been the least respectful to me, and now this? Nobody else has spoken to me like you have, so glad you don't speak for the studio. Incredibly disrespectful to someone who just has a different opinion. I tried to detail my thought process to you as succinctly as possible, and now you're effectively comparing me to a child even though i'm now more on-side with the approach the studio is taking? What a joke.

At least the other people here engaged with my arguments in good faith instead of trying to make out like I wanted someone to literally be dragged through glass. I bet you'll claim that was just an analogy, right? You were the one arguing with me in bad faith the whole time, and you're doing the studio a disservice by acting this way. It's pretty disgusting someone that claims to be on the studio's side is throwing so much vinegar.

Don't even bother trying to reason with the kind of person who uses an AI slop avatar. Just block and move on.

[DarkGold]

46 minutes ago, slavguy said:

I'm only just becoming aware of the situation [...]
I apologize for any misunderstandings or assumptions born out of lack of information in this message. I don't intend to argue or even disagree with anyone's concern and anger, I just feel like the community is WAY too polarized and making BIG conclusions about the dev team way too quickly. Feel free to correct me, or inform me. Above everything, I want to know what the actual HELL is going on.

I think the best summary at a glance is on page 6:

The embed from reddit includes the updated info that came later.

Certainly the thread is very long now, and it's hard to catch up from scratch.

Edited yesterday at 03:32 PM by DarkGold
Correcting typos, shortening quote.

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

Certainly the thread is very long now, and it's hard to catch up from scratch.

 

45 minutes ago, slavguy said:

to be honest, I only read through the first 8 or so pages of this because it's rather ridiculous to expect me to read 35 pages of arguing.

Incidentally, the reason the thread is so long is that it's not one thread so much as it is 10+ threads all merged into one. While it is a little annoying, it does keep the conversation in one appropriate topic, rather than have the Discussion page cluttered up with several different threads about the same thing(and thus drowning out threads discussing the actual game itself).

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, tiggerbiggo said:

Great, of all the people here you've been the least respectful to me, and now this? Nobody else has spoken to me like you have, so glad you don't speak for the studio. Incredibly disrespectful to someone who just has a different opinion. I tried to detail my thought process to you as succinctly as possible, and now you're effectively comparing me to a child even though i'm now more on-side with the approach the studio is taking? What a joke.

See:

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

The problem with those other perspectives is that they rely on personal emotion getting mixed into the matter

You can read whatever you want into it. I was just literally saying that I recognized that you seemed like you weren't being heard so I took a similar approach that I take with my kid which is to stop, back up, listen, acknowledge, and then move on. It's a sort of "reboot" tactic that is used with people of all ages to get them out of their rut and help them move forward with their thoughts and emotions. You chose to read it the other way by being emotional about it. I can't really help you with that except to acknowledge that you feel strongly about this and I'm sorry that you've decided every response of mine to you is a personal attack. I'm just trying to be logical about this so if my rejection of emotion feels like a rejection of you, then I have no words except to again, say I'm sorry and try to move on.

1 hour ago, tiggerbiggo said:

Mayeb you could have listened from the start instead of immediately deciding that I literally want someone to die. And you talk as if you're the reasonable one here... You started out by mocking me, and then compare me to a child because you wouldn't simply argue properly.

I just followed your arguments to their logical conclusions as a literary point to demonstrate the absurdity of what you were saying. That's a debate tactic called reductio ad absurdum in which you provisionally accept your opponent's premise, then trace out its logical implications until you arrive at a conclusion that's obviously false, self-contradictory, or absurd, which shows that the original premise is flawed and must be rejected. The whole field of glass argument was the same reductio ad absurdum with a rhetorical-question delivery. I took your stated principle ("Maltiez must be punished", which you then declared wasn't enough when he got his hands slapped) and pushed it through to asking "What would be enough, this extreme that obviously won't ever happen?" It served a dual purpose: First to expose the absurdity of wanting someone's life potentially ruined for a mistake and second to expose the shifting goalposts you have had throughout your entire arguments.

Turns out I was listening from the start. I just tend not to engage with those who can't debate in good faith.

[Meiiolri]

[tiggerbiggo]

35 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

See:

You can read whatever you want into it. I was just literally saying that I recognized that you seemed like you weren't being heard so I took a similar approach that I take with my kid which is to stop, back up, listen, acknowledge, and then move on. It's a sort of "reboot" tactic that is used with people of all ages to get them out of their rut and help them move forward with their thoughts and emotions. You chose to read it the other way by being emotional about it. I can't really help you with that except to acknowledge that you feel strongly about this and I'm sorry that you've decided every response of mine to you is a personal attack. I'm just trying to be logical about this so if my rejection of emotion feels like a rejection of you, then I have no words except to again, say I'm sorry and try to move on.

I just followed your arguments to their logical conclusions as a literary point to demonstrate the absurdity of what you were saying. That's a debate tactic called reductio ad absurdum in which you provisionally accept your opponent's premise, then trace out its logical implications until you arrive at a conclusion that's obviously false, self-contradictory, or absurd, which shows that the original premise is flawed and must be rejected. The whole field of glass argument was the same reductio ad absurdum with a rhetorical-question delivery. I took your stated principle ("Maltiez must be punished", which you then declared wasn't enough when he got his hands slapped) and pushed it through to asking "What would be enough, this extreme that obviously won't ever happen?" It served a dual purpose: First to expose the absurdity of wanting someone's life potentially ruined for a mistake and second to expose the shifting goalposts you have had throughout your entire arguments.

Turns out I was listening from the start. I just tend not to engage with those who can't debate in good faith.

You deliberately avoided engaging with my arguments because apparently they weren't worth addressing;

"Because the rest of your post is just you reading between the lines stuff I didn't say and never meant, so the rest of your comment isn't even worth responding to. You know the saying, "Never play chess with a pigeon...""

Said in reply pointing to a post filled with nothing but arguments I stand by and were directly relevant to the topic despite your insistence they aren't.

You use the "have my cake and eat it" strategy of arguing. Ignore things you can't address, later say they weren't worth arguing with anyway, start personal attacks for no reason, then downplay the severity of said attacks later because "You chose to read it the other way by being emotional about it.".

Mighty convenient how you get to just act like I said nothing of worth as if ignoring what I said makes you right.

Edited yesterday at 04:26 PM by tiggerbiggo