Question regarding the rules in chat channels

[illwieckz]

Cherry-picking. Diversion…

You forget I'm actually paying for a server hosting some parts of the infrastructure (secondary master server, European CDN mirror, the landing page when the primary server go offline…), it is just unfair that I get more things to do, and at some point I'm free to decide I should not do that. Or something bad and unexpected can also happen to me, so the less people there are, higher the risk is.

[Sweet]

Have you yet muted the person who was attacking me?

[Gireen]

I'm not a fan of muting in the middle of unresolved drama but illwieckz cant (and shouldn't have to) babysit the chat all the time and the forum offers a way to take a bit heat out of the discussion.

Maybe if the situation calms down a bit and other Mods offer to help the mute could be lifted earlier. I can help on Matrix side and kai could on the Discord if thats possible.

There is much to unravel and i dont want to write much. So starting with the oldest and most recent one Viech wrote his clarification and had a discussion with Kai which i found very insigtfull in understanding his POV

It's mental gymnastics to claim buildtime was disliked when players experienced a hijacked version of it that had the opposite effect of what it was designed to achieve.
In the initial few days when it was tested, people found matches too unforgiving (that is, short).
I took note of that and of other feedback and incorporated it in a patch; version 2.
This patch was never tested; I didn't get a chance to react to player feedback at all.
Pretty difficult to make any significant change like this; it's not like stuff works out perfectly right from the start.
But this isn't what I take a big issue with.
Sweet wasn't in any way forced to help me test if he didn't want to.
There would have been no drama or excess sourness if he just reverted to vanilla and relayed any feedback I didn't already have to me.
But instead, he altered both code and relevant cvars in a way that made players absolutely hate the long and campy matches that resulted.
Players told me repeatedly, I experienced it for myself, and I couldn't do anything about it.
I was rather diplomatic about this, and talked to sweet mostly in private, but couldn't stop him from, in fact, sabotaging my idea.
People still appear to hate buildtime for the very thing that it successfully prevents, because they confuse it with sweettime.
This in combination with the extreme toxicity at the time (not from sweet) is 100% of the reason why I became inactive again.
So I wasn't scapegoating him earlier; I was reacting directly and honestly to him "demanding proof" of "sabotaging this game."
Or how illwieckz better put it, "sabotaging the relations [he] built with people for years now."
He did sabotage my attempt to undo my own mistake (the BP recovery queue/negative BPs mess) and improve the game with a cleaner system.
And this is part of what drove me out.

@Sweet i think Viech is complaining that you continued testing with a modified version back then against his wishes.
so whats your response to this, or general complain about his statement.

i know this did happen a while ago but it feels like this drama contributed with other unresolved issues to the current situation, especially since you did mention it already a few days ago in a side note

[XReaperX]

How is a complaint about something that happened 2 years ago relevant to now?

[illwieckz]

It is not. That discussion already ended anyway, there is nothing I can do anymore.

At this point muting Viech will not change the fact this discussion happened when I wasn't there to say to not feed it.
Its not like when I'm actually asking someone to stop and he actively refuses.

Note that muting is an action to enforce something. People can “take a short break” without being muted, kicked or banned. Muting, kicking and banning happens when people refuse to take the break by themselves.

For example when I kicked people in the past, if they had come back, I could have banned they. Unless I'm wrong they didn't came back after the kick, so I didn't ban. If my memory is wrong and that I banned, then you know I may kick without banning, like I can mute without kicking. It's all about escalation. First it is asked to stop, then other options come in line if that's not enough.

I asked Viech to not add more to this conversation.

There is no double standards here, if you had stopped when I asked you directly to do so I would not have muted you.

If people feeds that discussion again I will then act, either ask to stop, or mute if it's refused. This applies to anyone.

Anyway all of this drama is sterile and just harmed too much people. I would have preferred to only have to say “we will chose this design and merge this”, and not get any further drama. It was all sorted out for the problem that sparked it up, and we could prepare future problems to make it better.

I now also ask to weight it 7 times before posting in that thread, please weight if that can lead to something constructive, and that will apply to me as well.

For example a topic that is welcome but would be better discussed in another thread, is: how to coordinate the merging of Sweet's work? What Sweet achieved is incredible, it is not fair that it is not merged, it is not what was planned. I still encourage Sweet to do his work. I already said more than once this is very sad that such drama just has negative impact on things like contributing and moving the game forward while the root cause is just human dissensions (I'm not saying this is not painful, but a different problem). So we may still have things to sort out.

On my end it's already the night, so good night folks, tomorrow will be another day. Take a brake. Focus on other topics, either solving complex technical problems for the game, or do totally other things in your life. Let some days pass and everything will be better for everyone.

If I muted Sweet for 1 week, it's because I believe that with such drama 1 week of break is now the minimum to cool down. I'm even not sure this is enough but we'll see. I first asked the other day to “wait the other day”, but one week after I asked to “wait for the other day”, it looks like a single day break wasn't enough. So I recommend 1 week of break to anyone, and that includes me.

[Gireen]

i just leave a quick answer before i ignore the topic for a week

How is a complaint about something that happened 2 years ago relevant to now?

idk, but independent of what truly happened my guess be that there is still something lingering about it

from the beginning of this topic

I tried to defend myself against the accusations of a council member / project head, which have been going on for two years now.

bold highlighted by me

and last week in the lua drama

I can vividly remember a time when a project head was working on a branch to replace the mining BP system. That branch increased the time a building takes to build exponentially with time. At that time, I seemed to be the only one actually caring to test this branch. I used it on my server for several weeks, and tried several adjustments. Eventually, I went back to the mining system. Instead of thanking me, the project head has accused me of not testing their branch enough. Why have I been blamed, and not everyone else in this world who did not test the branch at all? I do not know. The only viable conclusion is that this project is not managed properly.

[Sweet]

I have read this again after having slept over it. There is some context I would like to add before I move on.

you threatened to publish pornographic material on the server (with an ultimatum) and so (as effect)

I did indeed. That topic is disussed here: viewtopic.php?t=2511

That was a thing between Ishq and me. I requested my account to be deleted from his server within a week. Soon after the incident, I have apologized. It is not, and never has been, my intention to damage this project. You have known me for years now, and should know this.

you falsely accused a project head of abuse of power

I did not. I said that a project head is impeding the development with a stalled server side Lua branch. Nobody except me is crazy enough to try to propose an alternative to a proposal from the powers that be. Effectively, any progress on server side scripting was blocked for a year. A decision on the directions in this regard should have been made long ago. That is very bad management.

you leveraged that to blackmail a project head to get him step down

I did not. That accusation will not become true, even if you continue to repeat it.

you challenged the last remaining project head, me, on my ability to be an admin and to do admin actions

Well, you are doing a great at that, aren't you.

For example a topic that is welcome but would be better discussed in another thread, is: how to coordinate the merging of Sweet's work? [...] I still encourage Sweet to do his work.

Your musings about the relation between your project and my own work seem too incoherent to discuss in detail. However, anyone can see that you did not care about my work at all, until I started to complain in public a week ago. You could have approved any of my pull requests on github at any time. But you chose not to do so. By your own rules, I was not allowed to merge without approval.

I appreciate the sudden interest in my work. What changed your mind?

You can follow my work on server side scripting here: https://github.com/sweet235/unvanquished-map-scripting. If you want to merge it into your project, I suggest we discuss that there. I cannot be bothered with this project's defunct github repository management.

[illwieckz]

Sweet is now unmuted on chat.

I will answer the previous message later.

[Sweet]

You can follow my work on server side scripting here: https://github.com/sweet235/unvanquished-map-scripting. If you want to merge it into your project, I suggest we discuss that there. I cannot be bothered with this project's defunct github repository management.

It seems to me you are speaking empty words. Do you want to merge this or not?

[illwieckz]

I want this to be merged.

I gave you (Sweet) the permission to merge on January 10th 2023, and I proposed you to be the one deciding the merge of such contributions on February 15th 2025. In the days preceding March 22nd 2025, you removed yourself your permission to merge (this is related to your own other request you expressed on March 20th 2025 to get your other permissions removed from the server). On March 22nd 2025 I decided your work is the one to be merged despite having a competitor implementation and I renewed my will to get it merged. On the same day I renewed my proposal for you to be the one deciding on such merge and I proposed you to give your merge permissions back. You did not accept both proposals. You are free to do so, it's fine. I'm not blaming you for that.

The team being under-numbered and people being busy with their lives, things can take time to be done.
Such delay is to be expected from a fully-unpaid hobby project lacking manpower.

In the hope of facilitating the doing of it, following your message on this forum thread, on June 21st 2025 I gave cu-kai the task and the responsibility to merge it. I renewed my trust in cu-kai for being able to do it and I renewed my trust in his judgment on that topic. I renewed on this day the expression of my will to get this merged and I renewed my decision of getting your work being merged despite a competitor branch existing.

I did not gave cu-kai a deadline because I believe it is fair to give him the time he needs, since it is an hobby project and cu-kai is unpaid. Also, this is a request, not an order. cu-kai keeps his complete freedom to do or not do it, or to do it when he wants. I may ask cu-kai some news about it or renew my request but I'm not enforcing it because it would not be fair due to the hobbyist nature of the project and contributors all being volunteers.

Here is a quote from the chat:

2025-06-21 21:18:13 +0200 <overmind> [forums] Sweet posted “Re: Question regarding the rules in chat channels” on “General Discussion”: https://forums.unvanquished.net/viewtopic.php?p=19646#p19646
2025-06-21 23:05:09 +0200 <cu-kai> i for one would like to see this merged, it is now tried and very very tested
2025-06-21 23:20:02 +0200 <illwieckz> cu-kai, I hereby give you the task of merging this code. You already have the permission and the trust to do it. I already expressed the will of getting this merged. It just needs someone to do it.
2025-06-21 23:20:02 +0200 <illwieckz> So if what is missing to see it being done is that someone needs to be designated to do it, then I design you cu-kai.
2025-06-21 23:20:02 +0200 <illwieckz> To merge this we need someone who knows better both the code to be merged and the part of the target code base it is expected to be merged with. So me asking you cu-kai to do this is the best way to proceed.
2025-06-21 23:20:02 +0200 <illwieckz> I'm not proposing anymore, I'm giving you cu-kai the responsibility to do it and I'm requesting it to be done.
2025-06-21 23:24:11 +0200 <illwieckz> This applies to that bullet point of the roadmap: « Merge as much as possible gameplay things from @cu-kai and @sweet235 servers » -- https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/issues/3167
2025-06-21 23:27:02 +0200 <cu-kai> sure, i cannot verify the technical side of it, but i, a casual observer to this year's chaos (and yes, it's been 3 months now), observe something which works
2025-06-21 23:25:40 +0200 <illwieckz> I trust your judgement on the fact it works and I trust you to merge it.
2025-06-21 23:27:46 +0200 <illwieckz> If mistakes happens when merging, that's not a big deal, I assume you are able to fix yourself your own merged code and you are in good enough relations with Sweet to get his merged code fixed from him.
2025-06-21 23:29:26 +0200 <illwieckz> (this last sentence has some funky wording and probably some ugly frenchism, but I assume you get the point)
2025-06-21 23:33:46 +0200 <cu-kai> that might not be the issue, but the issue being the unresolved conflict with Ishq and his branch
2025-06-21 23:34:02 +0200 <illwieckz> I already solved this case in favor of the Lua implementation proposed by Sweet and decided months ago we will use that Lua implementation by Sweet and I didn't take back my word.
2025-06-21 23:40:46 +0200 <cu-kai> do you intend to reply to sweet's post on the forum?
2025-06-21 23:38:27 +0200 <illwieckz> Yes.
2025-06-21 23:41:13 +0200 <cu-kai> ok, ty

In the current situation, The only known obstacle for it being merged is only a matter of availability of people who can do it. I cannot blame people for not having the time to do it, in the same way I cannot be blamed for the same reasons. I believe we all of us already do the best we can, and I'm grateful for that.