ID24 - a new feature set standard

[Andrea Rovenski]

8 minutes ago, LexiMax said:

I would give Dynamo's most recent post a looksee, he actually answers this question in his post.

dyslexia alert, ty :)

[Ralphis]

9 hours ago, Trov said:

You first. If you knew all along that the id24 bit is about item stay and not respawning then nobody would have had any need to spend this whole page explaining why items respawning is good (it's a completely irrelevant discussion)

 

I'm done with this discussion, it's clear that this thread is too emotionally charged for anybody to believe that anybody asking questions about the id24 specs are doing so in good faith.

 

For what it's worth, I immediately understood the confusion you had based on the language of the spec re: pickups always stay vs respawning items. I had a similar thought as you and wondered what type of scenario that would be useful beyond weapons.

[neubejiita]

Finally, we can use Doom Alpha props and textures without the hassle of converting odd-sized patches to work with modern Doom versions. This is amazing. Finally an official huge texture pack for making PWADS.

[Panzermann11]

All right, so can someone please explain to me like I'm 5 years old on what was going on? Seems like there was apparently some fiery shit happening here.

[Endless]

20 minutes ago, Panzermann11 said:

All right, so can someone please explain to me like I'm 5 years old on what was going on? Seems like there was apparently some fiery shit happening here.

A smidge of:

 

and a bit of:

 

Spoiler

sorry

 

[Ferk]

Personally (even though I'm mostly just lurking here), I mostly agree with the approach of letting people loose (so long as there isn't a blatant and intentional malicious purpose), because attempting to silence them might just have been either futile (considering the scale), or counterproductive if it would have caused issues to fester. But I feel the thread was so heated that even valid questions on the spec were interpreted as having emotional baggage / ulterior motives. So there was little space for hearing about technical discussion on the spec.

 

I feel the initial idea of splitting the thread was a good one.. if only the separated thread would have been given a less controversial title and had not been locked (at least while the tension was looking for an escape), because locking that one made all non-technical concerns/criticisms (whether valid or not) ultimately continue in here. I guess an explicit "technical" vs "non-technical" set of split threads might have helped. But well... it's just an idea/feeling I had. I'm no moderator. Maybe that wouldn't have worked either...

Edited August 15 by Ferk

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

1 hour ago, Panzermann11 said:

All right, so can someone please explain to me like I'm 5 years old on what was going on? Seems like there was apparently some fiery shit happening here.

Huge oversimplification, and possible (not intentional) misrepresentation, read the beginning of this thread and the id24 split and make up your mind: 

new official port and mapping format dropped during quakecon, people had questions and concerns, but for various reasons, those weren't getting satisfying answers. Questions like: 

The new engine runs on consoles which means it can't be gpl but it's based on ports that are gpl, so how did that happen? The new mapping spec has a dependency on a new resource by id, is that copyrighted, is that free, why is it an explicit dependency? The spec also has a clause to ensure doom's profitability, so does that mean bethesda's gonna try to pull the paid mods routine again? The spec seems pretty final, where did that come from, who was consulted? Is it coming from bethesda to get its fingers into doom, or was it pitched to them by the community and kept secret? And so on. 

Only a few answers were given because people involved didn't know if/how/what they can talk about, or they were busy at the con, or had health issues, all sorts of problems. And people stated noticing their comments of questions and concerns started disappearing. The thread was split with the concerned ones in the new titled something like "id24 misinformation split" (there's a comment of someone asking that to be changed.) And as people had nothing tangible to work with, they started speculating, straying further and further from facts, being met mockery and scorn, all that followed by personal attacks and it spiralled into nonsense shit flinging really fast after that. 

 

At least, that's my read of the situation. I'm not picking quotes, you should definitely read it yourself to get the true picture of what actually happened. It's just a few pages, piecing it together with the split. 

[Scorcher]

The one thing I'm curious about is if you're allowed to "redistribute" the LoR monster sprites solely for major palette conversions, it would suck if we had to abide by the default palette "layout" if we ever wanted to use the new monsters with their canon designs.

[Faceman2000]

15 minutes ago, Scorcher said:

The one thing I'm curious about is if you're allowed to "redistribute" the LoR monster sprites solely for major palette conversions, it would suck if we had to abide by the default palette "layout" if we ever wanted to use the new monsters with their canon designs.

It’s been said several times to treat the assets like you would any other iwad. You can do it with an Archvile? You can do it with a Vassago.

 

This isn’t really relevant to this thread, though.

[invictius]

Can someone please link to the github example wad?  I've looked on GooberMans github but haven't found it, nor anything by googling "id24 github".

[LuciferSam86]

3 minutes ago, invictius said:

Can someone please link to the github example wad?  I've looked on GooberMans github but haven't found it, nor anything by googling "id24 github".

There is a wad here: https://github.com/GooberMan/rum-and-raisin-doom/tree/master/wads

Might be that? Latest commit date of that wad is 2 weeks ago

[Gez]

Yep, that's boomtest.wad; don't believe the filename it's not about testing Boom.

[DRON12261]

1 hour ago, Gez said:

Yep, that's boomtest.wad; don't believe the filename it's not about testing Boom.

Speaking of it, how do you run it correctly on a remaster (if that's possible)? I've tried different ways, but it always crashes.

 

Also, @GooberMan. I understand correctly that after the finalization of ID24 will be released Rum&Raisin Doom in the public access, which will fully support it? If that's true, then damn I'm really looking forward to it. I stumbled upon your port a few years back and what you did there with the renderer was incredibly cool. And realizing that this port in the aftermath will be able to support all modern near-vanilla standards, including ID24, makes it one of the most powerful and interesting ports for “near-vanilla” in my eyes.
 

And about ID24 itself. I, as a mapper and modder, am interested in this format and ready to support it with my works (and not only me), as soon as I have the tools to work with it (ie configuration in builder, additional support in Slade or Doom Tools (although there already can work with all the new things thanks to json), and of course build of Rum&Raisin Doom, or finalized KEX Doom (so far it is still in a poor state and has a lot of bugs, it needs to wait for fixes)).
 

Well, despite the not-so-perfect release, I want to say that this is a great work that has good potential. Waiting for the finalization of all this.

[ClonedPickle]

5 hours ago, Scorcher said:

The one thing I'm curious about is if you're allowed to "redistribute" the LoR monster sprites solely for major palette conversions, it would suck if we had to abide by the default palette "layout" if we ever wanted to use the new monsters with their canon designs.

 

I believe ID24 has the capacity for per-thing translations so you can remap commercial assets onto a custom palette without needing to include and distribute those commercial assets.

[Coincident]

I took the time to read the majority of this thread, including kralab's 9 posts. I'll leave them linked here for convenience:
post1 | post2 | post3 | post4 | post5 | post6 | post7 | post8 | post9
Given the content and context of these posts, I don't see enough reason to ban.
Were there other posts that were deleted? Is so, please interrupt me here. Otherwise, I will continue.
I've also read @Dynamo's two posts about this decision in full.
 

Kraflab is being very blunt and very disagreeable with the topic at hand, and is using very strongly negative language to convey his messages. Kraflab could have phrased his posts in a more likeable manner. However, in these posts he did not direct his arguments as spiteful personal attacks to anyone involved. Reading back all of his messages in a "neutral voice" in my head really underlines this. He did respond with some antagonism towards esselfortium after personal accusations of disingenuity which apparently began from the other side. Kraf could have not responded this way, yes. But we are all human, especially when provoked. And a ban based solely on this interaction feels extraordinarily overblown. Outside of that one post, he is being argumentative and assertive, sure. But not insulting.

 

As for @Dynamo's posts; given the importance this topic has for the community, I think we all have to be extra understandable that discussions get very heated in this context (hence the amount of posts and reports). This only means one thing: we care about doom. We care about this community (in many different ways). We care about what will happen next. And this sentiment absolutely applies to Kraflab, and the intensity in which he wrote his posts. I don't believe acting on this sentiment should be punished.

 

Specifics: I don't see Kralab "contributing towards anarchy". I don't see any attack towards GooberMan; kraf was criticizing the financial-bias situation in general. I don't see anything about blackmail (am I missing something? was any post deleted?). The animosity between kraf and essel is obvious, but I couldn't care less about "discord leaks" which apparently happened on both sides (is this what is being considered as blackmail? how?). Anyway, banning one side of this conflict is not a solution. I don't interpret kraf's mention of the number of likes in his posts ("soulspheres") as an "I'm right", but rather as a "there are more people with this opinion"... which brings me to:

 

Personally, I don't agree with many of the arguments Kraflab presented here. I've had more disagreements over dsda-doom's direction than agreements. But all that is irrelevant, because his understanding of the situation is correct: there are many people with the same concerns but whose opinions are not being voiced here. This includes a lot of people in the speedrunning community, but not exclusively there. This is what fuels part of his intensity in writing. And then he gets banned after speaking on their behalf. I'm really sorry but this is not a pretty picture, and it is being talked about outside of DW. I chose not to talk about this elsewhere, and instead post here, because I believe I can reach out to the staff in the hopes of leaving all these incidents from the past in the past, and then rethinking this decision of today.

 

About the decision making process: I believe that the previously occurred conflicts from the ENDOOM thread, and the leaks of objectively insulting stuff from discord shouldn't have as much a bearing on this decision as they did. I do run a community that is much smaller than this one, but I've never thought of banning someone over talking trash about me on another medium. I understand that the doomworld team choses to take into account things that happen offsite. But banning someone here because of some trash talk in private that happened years ago feels exaggerated. And what happened in this thread in the last few days doesn't feel like enough.
 

Also, if you're taking external factors into account, there's a big one that was forgotten: how much responsibility and quality work Kraflab has contributed to doom and to this community over the years. I don't consider him as a leader of anything. But he works, he worries, he thinks, he fixes, and he contributes, for all of us. Sure, the good does not erase the bad. But the coefficients used to weigh the ENDOOM + discord trash talk factors are clearly out of balance if the outcome is a 1 year long ban. Is this negociable in any way?

 

TL;DR In summary, I'm fairly disappointed that this ban was issued. I'm not the only person in the community feeling that it was an unfair decision. I kindly inquire the doomworld staff to reconsider the ban. We're all busy; I tried not to write a lot but this is important; thanks for reading.
 

[neubejiita]

Someone should mod a new Pain Elemental that spits out Banshees.

[dew]

39 minutes ago, Coincident said:

I took the time to read the majority of this thread, including kralab's 9 posts. I'll leave them linked here for convenience:
post1 | post2 | post3 | post4 | post5 | post6 | post7 | post8 | post9
Given the content and context of these posts, I don't see enough reason to ban.
Were there other posts that were deleted? Is so, please interrupt me here. Otherwise, I will continue.
I've also read @Dynamo's two posts about this decision in full.
 

Kraflab is being very blunt and very disagreeable with the topic at hand, and is using very strongly negative language to convey his messages. Kraflab could have phrased his posts in a more likeable manner. However, in these posts he did not direct his arguments as spiteful personal attacks to anyone involved. Reading back all of his messages in a "neutral voice" in my head really underlines this. He did respond with some antagonism towards esselfortium after personal accusations of disingenuity which apparently began from the other side. Kraf could have not responded this way, yes. But we are all human, especially when provoked. And a ban based solely on this interaction feels extraordinarily overblown. Outside of that one post, he is being argumentative and assertive, sure. But not insulting.

 

As for @Dynamo's posts; given the importance this topic has for the community, I think we all have to be extra understandable that discussions get very heated in this context (hence the amount of posts and reports). This only means one thing: we care about doom. We care about this community (in many different ways). We care about what will happen next. And this sentiment absolutely applies to Kraflab, and the intensity in which he wrote his posts. I don't believe acting on this sentiment should be punished.

 

Specifics: I don't see Kralab "contributing towards anarchy". I don't see any attack towards GooberMan; kraf was criticizing the financial-bias situation in general. I don't see anything about blackmail (am I missing something? was any post deleted?). The animosity between kraf and essel is obvious, but I couldn't care less about "discord leaks" which apparently happened on both sides (is this what is being considered as blackmail? how?). Anyway, banning one side of this conflict is not a solution. I don't interpret kraf's mention of the number of likes in his posts ("soulspheres") as an "I'm right", but rather as a "there are more people with this opinion"... which brings me to:

 

Personally, I don't agree with many of the arguments Kraflab presented here. I've had more disagreements over dsda-doom's direction than agreements. But all that is irrelevant, because his understanding of the situation is correct: there are many people with the same concerns but whose opinions are not being voiced here. This includes a lot of people in the speedrunning community, but not exclusively there. This is what fuels part of his intensity in writing. And then he gets banned after speaking on their behalf. I'm really sorry but this is not a pretty picture, and it is being talked about outside of DW. I chose not to talk about this elsewhere, and instead post here, because I believe I can reach out to the staff in the hopes of leaving all these incidents from the past in the past, and then rethinking this decision of today.

 

About the decision making process: I believe that the previously occurred conflicts from the ENDOOM thread, and the leaks of objectively insulting stuff from discord shouldn't have as much a bearing on this decision as they did. I do run a community that is much smaller than this one, but I've never thought of banning someone over talking trash about me on another medium. I understand that the doomworld team choses to take into account things that happen offsite. But banning someone here because of some trash talk in private that happened years ago feels exaggerated. And what happened in this thread in the last few days doesn't feel like enough.
 

Also, if you're taking external factors into account, there's a big one that was forgotten: how much responsibility and quality work Kraflab has contributed to doom and to this community over the years. I don't consider him as a leader of anything. But he works, he worries, he thinks, he fixes, and he contributes, for all of us. Sure, the good does not erase the bad. But the coefficients used to weigh the ENDOOM + discord trash talk factors are clearly out of balance if the outcome is a 1 year long ban. Is this negociable in any way?

 

TL;DR In summary, I'm fairly disappointed that this ban was issued. I'm not the only person in the community feeling that it was an unfair decision. I kindly inquire the doomworld staff to reconsider the ban. We're all busy; I tried not to write a lot but this is important; thanks for reading.
 

Funny how "GPL launderer" does not qualify as an insult to you, even as kraflab uses it repeatedly to insult Gooberman's integrity since his initial reply. Oh how I wish people had the same understanding for the passion and assertiveness of my posts for which kraflab banned me from the speedrun discord and then demanded in DMs that I abdicate as a moderator. Where were the passion understanders and community split preventers back then, sigh sad face.

[j4rio]

2 hours ago, dew said:

Oh how I wish people had the same understanding for the passion and assertiveness of my posts for which kraflab banned me from the speedrun discord and then demanded in DMs that I abdicate as a moderator. Where were the passion understanders and community split preventers back then, sigh sad face.

 

If you mean that cringy mapinfo crusade, I was basically the only one standing behind you, and even that was out of pity. The passion understanders and community split preventers were all feeling sadness that you go through when you unfortunately have to put your rabid puppy to sleep.

[Benjogami]

5 hours ago, Coincident said:

I don't see anything about blackmail (am I missing something? was any post deleted?). The animosity between kraf and essel is obvious, but I couldn't care less about "discord leaks" which apparently happened on both sides (is this what is being considered as blackmail? how?).
 

This is the one thing that had me scratching my head as well. I've been following along the whole thread out of perverse interest and even went back to re-read kraflab's posts to see if I missed something, but still couldn't find anything blackmail-y or creepy.

 

I don't have any strong feelings about the issues at hand here, just sad and maybe disturbed that it got so heated, and disapproving of tone here and there. I sure wouldn't have banned anyone, but I also wouldn't be a good moderator so who cares what I think.

[dew]

2 hours ago, j4rio said:

 

If you mean that cringy mapinfo crusade, I was basically the only one standing behind you, and even that was out of pity. The passion understanders and community split preventers were all feeling sadness that you go through when you unfortunately have to put your rabid puppy to sleep.

I'm glad we were able to establish that you guys aren't really interested in any sort of compromise and just require that everyone bows down to kraflab's whims. Went faster than expected.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

7 hours ago, Coincident said:

Given the content and context of these posts, I don't see enough reason to ban.
Were there other posts that were deleted

I don't know if you've read the thread that got split with many, many of people's concerns around this being essentially hidden away. So trying to understand the whole situation without all the context is very difficult in my opinion - the comments that remained here can be easily (wrongly) interpreted as a few trolls trying to stir up a controversy out of nothing. Because reading this thread only shows the aftermath, not the initial spark, what were the questions and issues on people's minds. Many people only said one or two things that are now locked up in there and people coming back months or years from now will have no idea what happened. 

 

To be fair, nothing Kraflab said is there, and i 100% agree with your assessment. 

 

Appendix:

The way i understood Kraflab's gpl laundering accusation was made in ethical way than a legal way. Yes, the new code is clean room implementation, thus legally in the clear. I already tried to ask that but didn't have the balls to have people answer to the core of the question. Do we as a community want people to re-engineer gpl code to license it away to a 3rd party? 

Edited August 16 by Sneezy McGlassFace

[LuciferSam86]

1 hour ago, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

Do we as a community want people to re-engineer gpl code to license it away to a 3rd party? 

I mean , being a developer, I don't see any problem. The code isn't under patents, and the license permits that ( that's the beauty of GPL ) . Really, I don't see any problem on that. Calling someone "GPL launderer" , IMHO, is just disrespectful. 

 

Of course if you have doubts about how licensing works, in that case I'm happy to answer to your questions :)

 

Blocking someone to re-implement code I think it's even illegal? 

 

Edit : and, for me, just doing that you're going against the core idea of such licenses. 

Edited August 16 by LuciferSam86

[Gez]

1 hour ago, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

Do we as a community want people to re-engineer gpl code to license it away to a 3rd party? 

Stuff to consider:

• It allows people to play more classic Doom mods on consoles and other closed platforms. From what I've understood, this was the motivation behind the whole thing.
• The re-engineered code is not a perfect recreation and there are several discrepancies. I've read about NPO2 textures getting cut oddly, friction not working the same, a vertical texture scroller that became horizontal, etc. Those that get reported might get fixed. But the bigger one is that demo compatibility for non-vanilla complevels is entirely missing, and that's not likely to change. At a minimum, you'd want to cover complevels 9, 11, and 21 and that'd be an absolutely gargantuan effort to get them right if you can't look at the original code.
• The risk of this new official port replacing community ports is rather low, all things considered. It doesn't have, and cannot possibly have, all the features you can find in Crispy Doom, DSDA-Doom, Eternity Engine, GZDoom, Doom Retro, Woof, etc.

[Dynamo]

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

However, in these posts he did not direct his arguments as spiteful personal attacks to anyone involved.

 

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

he is being argumentative and assertive, sure. But not insulting.

 

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

(is this what is being considered as blackmail? how?)

I am sorry, but they 100% were insulting and demeaning, and I am rather dismayed anyone would try to defend or downplay this angle. Since I have already been approached about the blackmail aspect I'll repost an explanation on why exactly that is:

 

That post is a blackmail message meant to emotionally manipulate someone else. It's one thing to have and send logs suggesting someone is not being sincere on a thread - I mean, it's not pretty or anything, but it is what it is - but the moment it turns into a threat ("oh, you don't know how much I could ruin you if I showed people this", is the exact equivalent of his words), that becomes intolerable blackmail. To be honest, the fact that anyone involved in this discussion didn't find that message absolutely disgraceful says way more about them than it does about ol' kraflab, let me put it that way.

 

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

About the decision making process: I believe that the previously occurred conflicts from the ENDOOM thread, and the leaks of objectively insulting stuff from discord shouldn't have as much a bearing on this decision as they did.

It's a good thing then, that as I made sure to specify fully, they had zero impact on the ban. Once again I touched upon this aspect so I'll repost my words:

I made (or well, I had hoped I'd made) it extremely clear in the post this is NOT what the ban was for, so I think you have misunderstood. I simply brought it up to explain how, even back then, separatist sentiment was present and encouraged in kraflab's corner of the community. I don't need to look at current discussions being had over there (which means I *am* in fact agreeing that they shouldn't have any bearing) to know that this same sentiment has been brought up again, unless you expect me to believe in mass-epiphanies. As for me, for years I've been telling people to let the past be the past (e.g. forget past drama) and work with kraflab in this community. People would mockingly call him names and I would tell them to be quiet and respect the fruits of his labor (EDIT: just to avoid potential misunderstandings: I was far from being the only one asking people to continue working with kraflab) I don't hold a grudge against kraflab over anything that happened in the past. But. The sentiment that Doomworld is a rotten place, that it was best to be separated from it came from his side of the community, so I refuse to have any blame pinned on me for trying to kickstart a separation, when even years ago they gleefully threw the option around even when hostility has never been reciprocal. Doomworld's ties to the speedrunning community go back a long time, to the days of Opulent and beyond, and I don't think at any point anyone suggested that ties should become strained or severed. Well, anyone except kraflab and some other people that is, as they have precisely decided to treat the rest of the community as disposable through their words and their actions. I hope they will have a change of heart.

 

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

Also, if you're taking external factors into account, there's a big one that was forgotten: how much responsibility and quality work Kraflab has contributed to doom and to this community over the years.

It wasn't forgotten, it was in fact the most important one taken into account. But right now, what you are essentially saying is that I'm supposed to ignore the toxicity coming out of said statements only because they come from the author of one of the most popular ports on these forums. He is then allowed to try and chase away other developers (Night Dive or not), promulgate conspiracy theories about so-called ring leaders against him and, well, double down on insults or make completely ridiculous assertions just because he is kraflab, while anyone else would be banned without any kind of public fanfare. Sorry, but I have never been a fan of this kind of two-tier approach. Taking this into account is precisely why I think a ban is most called for, because if not the message that is sent across is that we ought to give the keys of the entire kingdom to the currently most popular person, regardless of who they are, and regardless of what they do outside of source port development.

 

10 hours ago, Coincident said:

I chose not to talk about this elsewhere, and instead post here, because I believe I can reach out to the staff in the hopes of leaving all these incidents from the past in the past, and then rethinking this decision of today.

I appreciate your attempt at trying to mediate this dispute from as neutral a perspective as you tried to achieve, but it is a situation where no mediation is needed, to begin with. Re-reading kraflab's posts has only cemented my belief that what he did is absolutely outrageous. But like I said, I hope I've made it clear that past events in themselves had absolutely no bearing on the ban - merely on the context of just who was and is gleeful at the idea of community separation, and it ain't me - and also that I do hope there will be a change of heart on this. Otherwise, I think I've said everything that needs to be said about this topic and I hope there won't be any need to repeat the points touched upon today. Believe it or not, there are people trying to make sense of the spec itself too in this thread, maybe after 10+ pages it's fair to give them some time in the sun.

[Altazimuth]

I've been poring over the ID24HACKED stuff (as I anticipate it'll be the biggest hurdle for EE) and had a few notes on the hashing formal spec.

• Misc section makes no mention of the "Monsters Infight" value. Is it simply not considered? I'm guessing this is the case.
• Various sections have stuff like "Thing index" as a field, is this the header, so "Thing %s"? Might benefit from being clearer that it's the block name. This might just be a byproduct of how I view the syntax of deh due to how EE's parsing code is formatted.
• "Code pointer" doesn't seem like it exists in EE. There's a "Pointer" block type, and states contain a "Codep Frame" at least.
• Be more explicit for subheadings of "Data processing orders" sections. "Sprites" could benefit from being instead "Sprites ([SPRITES])" or the like, and same for sounds, assuming that is intent. Otherwise, ports don't seem to use the "Sprite" block.

Also what sort of feature set should be considered for ports that extended dehacked back in the day and still keep support? Eternity, for instance, added "Bits2" as a thingtype fields back in 1999 and still has that code kicking around.

 

[DRON12261]

Regarding moderation on DoomWorld, etc., I have a small wish for its improvement (this does not concern in particular kraflab, but a general wish). Perhaps before such events as bans etc., it would be worth always giving a mandatory explicit verbal public warning to the offender (so that the message would explicitly say “friend, one more unnecessary move and you'll be banned” or something like that), in front of all participants of the discussion etc. 

 

This approach will help prevent further escalation of any conflict if the offender listens, as a direct word from the moderator may be enough for many. Or vice versa, if he continues to push his line, he will literally unleash the moderator and give the green light to ban him, which will be fully deserved. 

 

This formality will make the moderator's actions clearer for all forum members. There are conflicts, tied to the most common misunderstanding between people, where it is enough to calm everyone down and do without unnecessary bans (or very short-term bans for a couple of days or a week, if the conflict was very intense). And also not infrequently cases when some moments were not originally meant as insults, but for some different reasons between the parties (including ordinary observers and moderators themselves) it may not be perceived as it was in fact (never forget that from person to person different things can be perceived differently) and it is enough just to clarify some things to those people who at first glance could behave inappropriately. 

 

At least for me personally, this approach has helped me many times when administering communities, maybe there is something similar here, but I just might have missed it (especially given the volume of this thread), but it's like there was a little bit of lack of transparency before the actual banning event.

[Shepardus]

39 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

It's a blackmail message meant to emotionally manipulate someone else. It's one thing to have and send logs suggesting someone is not being sincere on a thread - I mean, it's not pretty or anything, but it is what it is - but the moment it turns into a threat ("oh, you don't know how much I could ruin you if I showed people this", is the exact equivalent of his words), that becomes intolerable blackmail. To be honest, the fact that anyone involved in this discussion didn't find that message absolutely disgraceful says way more about them than it does about ol' kraflab, let me put it that way.

Could you point to which message you're talking about? Out of the posts that Coincident linked, none of them read to me like "you don't know how much I could ruin you." The only thing I remember reading in this thread that sounded anything like that is:

Quote

I am not yet ready to discuss the fruits of my labour on Doom, but I am going to very strongly recommend anyone that agrees with this sentiment to have a change of perspective based on what I just revealed. It's not going to be a good look for you when I am ready to talk about it.

which was not kraflab's post.

[Dynamo]

Added a link to it to the main post, as I can understand it can be annoying to have to find a specific post in a thread that's 15 pages long.

[Scorcher]

1 hour ago, Gez said:

But the bigger one is that demo compatibility for non-vanilla complevels is entirely missing, and that's not likely to change. At a minimum, you'd want to cover complevels 9, 11, and 21 and that'd be an absolutely gargantuan effort to get them right if you can't look at the original code. 

IIRC the current complevels we have now are also inconsistent with the original Boom v2.02/MBF. I'd rather just borrow from what the current ports do.

[Redneckerz]

6 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

Added a link to it to the main post, as I can understand it can be annoying to have to find a specific post in a thread that's 15 pages long.

I misinterpreted this as the first post so a direct link would be welcome.