Difference between revisions of "Talk:Add-on rules"

From Official Kodi Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Open discussion re; page protection)
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Page protection rationale ==
== Page protection rationale ==
'''@[[User:Ronie|Ronie]]:''' Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a [[wikt:Buttinsky|buttinsky]], but may I ask why you set the protection flag on this page and at such a high level, considering that it exists in the Main namespace and isn't part of <code>Official:</code> or some other more exclusive taxonomy? Honestly I'm also rather confused at why you reverted [https://kodi.wiki/index.php?title=Add-on_rules&oldid=235813 the edit] by [[User:Te36|Te36]], which was well-sourced and informative, at least to me (though I do take vehement exception to said policy as a matter of principle), seeing as I wasn't aware that anything like it was so explicitly in effect until he brought it to light. I don't mean to be sharpshooting you here, I just think that we'd all benefit from there being more of a discussion amongst editors when these instances arise, giving those of us without special powers the opportunity to learn what was being objected to and why, rather than just letting yet another wiki page stagnate as a result of hardly anyone being able to edit it and keep it reflective of changes in the status quo. That's why these Talk pages exist, right? Just my two cents... —[[User:RogueScholar|RogueScholar]] ([[User talk:RogueScholar|talk]]) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
'''@[[User:Ronie|Ronie]]:''' Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a [[wikt:Buttinsky|buttinsky]], but may I ask why you set the protection flag on this page and at such a high level, considering that it exists in the Main namespace and isn't part of <code>Official:</code> or some other more exclusive taxonomy? Honestly I'm also rather confused at why you reverted [https://kodi.wiki/index.php?title=Add-on_rules&oldid=235813 the edit] by [[User:Te36|Te36]], which was well-sourced and informative, at least to me (though I do take vehement exception to said policy as a matter of principle), seeing as I wasn't aware that anything like it was so explicitly in effect until he brought it to light. I don't mean to be sharpshooting you here, I just think that we'd all benefit from there being more of a discussion amongst editors when these instances arise, giving those of us without special powers the opportunity to learn what was being objected to and why, rather than just letting yet another wiki page stagnate as a result of hardly anyone being able to edit it and keep it reflective of changes in the status quo. That's why these Talk pages exist, right? Just my two cents... —[[User:RogueScholar|RogueScholar]] ([[User talk:RogueScholar|talk]]) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello @[[User:RogueScholar|RogueScholar]], let me respond to your points<br>
1. The edit by [[User:Te36|Te36]] was removed because it was not correct.
* Kodi is not against porn and we simply consider it another genre. And inline with our general ethos, we will not dictate what users can or cannot do with Kodi.
* [[User:Te36|Te36]] quoted posts from 8 years ago and taken slightly out of context. Refusing to allow a porn scraper into the Official Repository is not the same as "not supporting porn". If you browse through the forum there are plenty of adult related addons and 3rd party adult scrapers that members can use. If Kodi "does not support porn" (as stated by Te36) then these forum threads certainly would not be allowed on the forum.<br>
* The reason an adult scraper is not allowed in the official repo, and why existing scrapers do not automatically scrape adult titles, is to prevent younger users from "accidentally" installing the wrong scraper and to prevent a misidentified title from being scraped as an adult title and displayed with some confronting posters and fanart.
* Contrary to popular belief, Kodi scrapers ''can'' scrape adult content by using a Parsing NFO file. Using a nfo file is something done outside of Kodi (not automatically by Kodi) which shows "intent" rather than "accident".<br>
2. Why was the Protection Flag set?<br>
* The flag should have always been set. It was an oversight that it was not set.
* Rules cannot be modified by the general public. They are rules set by Kodi. Changing rules does not happen on a whim and requires a discussion and voting by the Team.<br>
3. The Add-on rules are in the Main namespace
* You raise a valid point. This article is an Official article and should be in the Official namespace. I will move it across.
* I guess that after 8 years, nobody really gave it any consideration, until now.
Also I have just remembered your PM. Sorry I was ill for a while and forgotten about it since. I'll respond soon.

Latest revision as of 00:38, 18 October 2021

Page protection rationale

@Ronie: Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a buttinsky, but may I ask why you set the protection flag on this page and at such a high level, considering that it exists in the Main namespace and isn't part of Official: or some other more exclusive taxonomy? Honestly I'm also rather confused at why you reverted the edit by Te36, which was well-sourced and informative, at least to me (though I do take vehement exception to said policy as a matter of principle), seeing as I wasn't aware that anything like it was so explicitly in effect until he brought it to light. I don't mean to be sharpshooting you here, I just think that we'd all benefit from there being more of a discussion amongst editors when these instances arise, giving those of us without special powers the opportunity to learn what was being objected to and why, rather than just letting yet another wiki page stagnate as a result of hardly anyone being able to edit it and keep it reflective of changes in the status quo. That's why these Talk pages exist, right? Just my two cents... —RogueScholar (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


Hello @RogueScholar, let me respond to your points

1. The edit by Te36 was removed because it was not correct.

  • Kodi is not against porn and we simply consider it another genre. And inline with our general ethos, we will not dictate what users can or cannot do with Kodi.
  • Te36 quoted posts from 8 years ago and taken slightly out of context. Refusing to allow a porn scraper into the Official Repository is not the same as "not supporting porn". If you browse through the forum there are plenty of adult related addons and 3rd party adult scrapers that members can use. If Kodi "does not support porn" (as stated by Te36) then these forum threads certainly would not be allowed on the forum.
  • The reason an adult scraper is not allowed in the official repo, and why existing scrapers do not automatically scrape adult titles, is to prevent younger users from "accidentally" installing the wrong scraper and to prevent a misidentified title from being scraped as an adult title and displayed with some confronting posters and fanart.
  • Contrary to popular belief, Kodi scrapers can scrape adult content by using a Parsing NFO file. Using a nfo file is something done outside of Kodi (not automatically by Kodi) which shows "intent" rather than "accident".

2. Why was the Protection Flag set?

  • The flag should have always been set. It was an oversight that it was not set.
  • Rules cannot be modified by the general public. They are rules set by Kodi. Changing rules does not happen on a whim and requires a discussion and voting by the Team.

3. The Add-on rules are in the Main namespace

  • You raise a valid point. This article is an Official article and should be in the Official namespace. I will move it across.
  • I guess that after 8 years, nobody really gave it any consideration, until now.

Also I have just remembered your PM. Sorry I was ill for a while and forgotten about it since. I'll respond soon.