I happened to stumble across this whole message exchange and I’m really not in the mood for this so I’ll probably be too hostile, but here - see these as personal opinions at best as I try to stay out of any actual executive action in these regards:
What would you consider ‘proper enforcement’ here?
-
Not giving a grace period: not ‘proper’, people start community raids and attacks overloading both our support staff and volunteer community moderators.
-
Giving a grace period: not ‘proper’ because of you considering it ‘not properly enforced’, also much higher conversion rates over time.
If your concern is something else, however, it’d be helpful to explicitly state that.
Patreon has a 7% fee for new accounts, plus some payment processor/conversion fees. This is more than the Tebex fee (which makes up less than half of the 15% advertised), and more than the payment processor fees, as well.
Other than that, this specific argument is a bit of ‘if nobody gets caught, why should I not abuse either?’, which is generally a non-argument: the answer should be because not abusing is the right thing to do in any case, in any context.
Migrating existing subscriptions across payment processors is a near-impossible operation, and doing so just to placate some people who are going to use it as a ‘justification’ to not read what they can and can not do is wrong.
We’re planning on rewriting the ToS page to be more readable and show examples of what is/isn’t accepted sometime in the near future, however. Think something like the Xbox Community Standards in readability.
The particular ‘project’ mentioned seems to just rely on brand-awareness of ‘look, this is a proper defense!’ to convince ill-informed people that ‘their’ project is ‘better’.
The open (EOS) version of EAC doesn’t actually have any game-specific detections, all it does is some handle hardening and slightly more enforced HWID bans without requiring game developers to implement these.
Looking at cheating forums, there’s actually more free public cheats for the project you’re naming than for FiveM.
Given it’s game-specific, and we use some novel methods for HWID bans - one of the main features of these ‘kernel-mode anticheats’ - that aren’t generally supported by popular ‘spoofer’ drivers, I’d say pretty much on par.
These files are actually not downloaded from any servers we control and are rather from a P2P environment, in part due to bandwidth costs, in part due to these being more complete sets of game files than FiveM’s (which are delta patches), which may be questionable legally.
It is confusing that the UI looks the same as it does on FiveM, however, yes, and it may lead to the expectation that this is downloaded from some shared servers.
If you don’t launch in ‘monitor mode’ (i.e. if passing a +exec
argument), ‘txAdmin’ does not run at all.
However, I personally do agree the way Tabarra et al. are handling the relationship between the main project and their ‘sub-component’ has a lot of room for improvement, since we also often have to correct some perceived odd choices performed by them.
I’m surprised a paragraph like the following wasn’t included:
In addition to that, we have been working on top fixes for RedM issues (including ones related to OneSync), but due to current world events affecting our main RedM developer, not much has happened for the past month.
Also, RedM still runs on a shared codebase with other Cfx.re platform modifications, so many improvements in FiveM also apply there.
This is the one of the two parts about ‘txAdmin’ here that I’ll reply to, but I feel it having its own ‘official representatives’ is somewhat… problematic.
The other is that a missing access control feature can not remotely be seen as anyone’s ‘fault’, and blaming anyone here is counterproductive: both blaming @chrislenga for ‘giving someone permissions to kick people with any reason’ - people may violate trust unpredictably and take a complete 180, and blaming the txAdmin maintainers for not instantly prioritizing a feature to mitigate any abusive user input, do not help this discussion at all.
I don’t know if any other server owners had issues with staff writing inappropriate text in ‘ban reason’ fields, but if not, I can see why this feature wasn’t prioritized, and I can also see why @chrislenga wants to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, as that is a typical human response to sudden immoral behavior on the part of any individual, especially one that was considered trustworthy before.
The escalation about ‘I’ll talk to my lawyers!’ below is rather silly and even more so counterproductive. If you want to take legal action against anyone, why not do so against your abusive ex-staff member?