[fullmoonguru]

I recently started a post which discussed the merrits of having a main repository, other than the official XBMC repo, and some other things about handling reliability and stability issues of XBMC plugins. I was informed that I could not mention a specific repo because it contained plugins related to accessing pirated content.

So I removed direct references to the repo. I was fine with that. I can understand the situation. It was the ideas I wanted to discuss anyway, not any specific repo's or plugins.

The someone else made references to the repo in question, and my whole thread was deleted! Why didn't you just delete the offending posts? If I don't like a thread for some reason & would like to see it removed, should I just post to it & reference a plugin that accesses pirated material?

Then there is this. When I got the email about the deletion, there was a link to the forum rules. I was really surprised to see the section below:

1. All discussions dealing directly with or linking to add-ons, websites, or services that violate US copyright laws ("pirated content") will be closed when a forum moderator has been made aware of them. The original poster or add-on creator may provide a link to a website not hosted by XBMC for further discussion and inquiries.

2. Discussions for add-ons that link directly to pirated content and enables the user to access that content through the add-on will be shut down.

3. All links to pirated content will be removed.

4. "Pirated content" add-ons, websites, and services typically do not include the following (to be determined on a case-by-case basis if necessary):

A. The add-on does not actually perform the act of accessing pirated content ("mistaken identity") [For example, Sickbeard, which performs no actual downloading or streaming.]

B. The add-on has the potential to access pirated content, but is potentially useful for downloading legal content as well. [For example, an add-on that downloads torrents is not, itself, a problem, since a torrent can cover a wide variety content, including legally distributed videos.]

What a surprise! It appears that I can discuss the Transmission bittorrent plugin because I can use it for puropses other than downloading pirated content. But I can't mention the name of a repo that contains some plugins that access pirated content & some that don't?

Can somone please clear this up for me?

And please don't forget my first question, which I will restate this way: If someone starts a thread and somone else posts something that breaks forum rules, is it really the norm that you will delete the OP's thread instead of the offending post?

[sapper6fd]

I think the difference here is Transmission's goal isnt to download pirated content, whereas the repo in question may have contained a plugin which was designed with the sole purpose of downloading pirated content? Just my 2 cents. XBMC walks a fine line as it is and I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would jump at the chance to shut it down because it isnt the kind of competition that they want in the market, so they just want to make sure there inst any excuse given to these other organizations to start a lawsuit.

[PatrickBateman]

I absolutely agree with xbmcs stance on this particular issue, as recently, I installed a legal plugin, that secretly downloaded and installed a repo that was full of ways of accessing pirated content.

I'm not happy with that situation what so ever! If I come to xbmc I want to know my plugins are safe, not full of analytics and tracking and most certainly not accessing pirated content that I didn't specifically ask for.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for the odd live feed of something now again that isn't broadcast in my territory but I'm not about to let plugins dictate, spy and download unverifiable content to my machines without my explicit consent.

Xbmc should keep this current stance, and keep its users safe.
We all know where to go to get access to the more questionable source, xbmchub and it's 1 repo make no bones that they have access to pirated content and even brag about it on the front page and forums etc... I would have much more respect for them if they were a lot more modest (less brazen) about it to be honest.

I don't think these discussions need be held here tbh, if you need to discuss a super repo type repository, just take it over to the hub, xbmc has a section for 3rd party repos and it's official repos, I'm happy with that.

xbmc.org = legal content.
xbmchub = legal content with some additional questionable content allowed.

[fullmoonguru]

I agree with you as well. Did you actually read what I wrote above? Now all you've done is refer to something that may cause them to delete this thread instead of answering my questions. This is the problem I had before. We'll see what happens.

Forum moderator, please note that I did not refer to anything that I think could violate forum rules. I respect whatever rules you want to apply to your forum (it is your forum after all). But, once again, someone else has posted questionable content to my thread.

I am trying to respect the rules, as set forth, and get a couple of legitimate questions answered.

[PatrickBateman]

Well, I don't think I posted any questionable content what so ever and I resent the accusation! if I'm honest.

It's not against the rules to mention the hub in passing, they openly advertise themselves on here via xbmc.org registered usernames and signatures, so by me mentioning a site that actually advertises its self in here via its xbmc.org registered usernames and signatures, can't possible be questionable? Unless discussing active usernames is now against the rules?

I never mentioned "that" repo either, I mentioned a type of repo using words of a descriptive manner (as an adjective) as there was no other way to describe it... but I never mentioned the specific repo in question directly or linked to it etc..

The words I used are very close, but I used them in a "generic" context that described a "type" of repo that is currently in the process of creation over at a site that openly advertises its self on here via xbmc.org registered usernames and signatures that have been moderator approved. So If I have broken any rules, I'll be incredibly surprised...

I see no questionable content in my post what so ever.

Yes I did read what you wrote above, and my post reflects that.
My point was simple, these posts should probably be deleted... Delete them all as the content is pretty much irrelevant.
A single repo is not needed as we pretty much have one already... We also have a good 3rd party section too and finally, the repo in question does host predominantly questionable content. Threads like this just bring attention to it.

It's easier for the mods to delete the entire thread than plough through hundreds (in some cases) of posts determining who can stay and who can go... Remove the entire thing and be done with it! Simple, easy and this way everyone gets treated the same ... As if one post gets missed etc people would complain that they got removed but this guy didn't blah blah blah... Just remove the lot as its not needed any way and does no good being here and isn't part of xbmcs future (IMO of course)

A repo that hosts predominantly "questionable" plugins is different from a torrent plugin simply because not all torrents are illegal, but 9/10 of those plugins are very very questionable indeed particularly in many territories.

I think those discussions should be had on those sites and leave xbmc.org out of it. It's not needed here, just change a few letters in the address bar and discuss it else where its welcome over there.

A discussion of a single repo is not needed here, we are all painfully aware that is going on else where, and the less xbmc has to do with it the better. We have a great repo here and a great third party repo section.

We know where to go for other types of repo, and if users want that stuff its easy to find, simply by checking out some of the usernames in most of the threads on here.

Also, you make it sound like I posted something in your original thread that was removed, can you clarify that it wasn't me as it kinda reads like it was me and was directed at me.

Sorry if my post has upset you in any way, but I don't see/read it how you obviously have seen/read it?

[Ned Scott]

The thread probably shouldn't have been deleted (I don't know what the full story is behind this) but we have some technical limitations in the forum software that probably made deletion easier. Maybe. We're also a bit on edge about some of the underhanded tactics xbmchub is using, so that might also be a factor. I know I've nuked a thread when a post deletion would have been better, and regretted it. We're human, after all :) Like I said, I don't know the back story, so this may or may not be the case here.

Just know that we're not trying to get all oppressive on you guys.

[PatrickBateman]

Hey Ned,

Out of curiosity, does this mean that xbmc hub is being removed from this site? Including usernames, signatures and links etc.. Or is that not the case?

If you guys are "worried" about "underhanded tactics" can you tell us users what those tactics are what the repercussions are for this type of behaviour?

I only ask in the spirit of user understnding and clarity on what should and shouldn't be discussed, and additionally what xbmc's stance is on this type of behaviour is (for consistency purposes and open-ness etc)

[Ned Scott]

The following is a summary from my own person alone, and not a Team XBMC statement:

The short version: XBMCHUB tries to pass themselves off as an official XBMC website. We got tired of it.

They were given a lot of chances. It really wans't about piracy add-ons, but it certainly didn't help that they were defeating the whole point of us trying to distance ourselves from those add-ons.

Just look at how they word their blog posts. In some cases, they will even copy and paste our blog posts and make it seem like they are the ones making that announcement. They almost never link back to xbmc.org. They sent out a press release to all the major tech news/blog sites that make it sound like they were the ones who made XBMC for Android. They say it wasn't intentional, but realistically, I just can't see how that's true.

I don't even know what the deal is. I get the impression that Adam, the main guy, is just kind of... weird. Maybe has some kind of ego problem and wants to feel important in an existing community. I hear he's paying money out of his pocket to get add-ons made, as if he's despirately trying to impress everyone. Or maybe he's out to make money himself from site ads (if XBMC.org used site ads, we'd probably make a killing due to our high traffic). I just don't know.

Really, the whole thing is bizarre. We don't want to look like a bully to a community site, but things were getting out of hand. One of their users even posted an add-on that auto-installed the XBMCHUB repo. They try to buy out other websites who want to start their own 3rd party add-on repos. They send us e-mails even now demanding that we link to them on the wiki.

So yeah, no links to them. The manipulation and lies have gone too far. I'm sure this isn't a very good summary. It's hard to put into words just how oddly this all played out. Even our nicest most patient team members got fed up and want nothing to do with them anymore.

[PatrickBateman]

Hey Ned,
Well I can understand all of the above.

I personally had a run in with him (as you may remember) a while back re: the particular wording on their blog regarding free ppv events etc, around the time of xbmcs new piracy stance.

He posted statements like "stick it to the man" and "ppv events for free" etc and It all became quite heated when i challenged these posrs etc being allowed on here!

Both he and xbmc denied that saying things like "free UFC ppv events" "stick it to the man" "ppv events for free" etc in the blog were promoting piracy etc? I challenged this particular type of wording, advertising and behaviour being allowed on xbmc and surprisingly... Xbmc defended them?

He continued to pm me with some unpleasant messages, which I reported and again xbmc defended them?

xbmc defended the hub back then when this started, they took a stance against me for reporting him and his posts.
I was told to stop reporting these posts and his behaviour and that basically I was "whining" as they were "friends" of xbmc and I was wrong.

Now you are banning them, months after my complaints of their behaviour for exactly the reasons I complained about initially. Hence my need for clarity on this situation

I've found the rules to be so bizarre round here lately, I just wanted clarification, I won't mention my current 2 (1 year bans on topics) but I will say this, my frustration arose at the confusion of xbmc allowing the hub to do all these rule breaches and defend them, with absolutely no repercussions imposed on them in any way, while users like me were getting reprimanded and silenced left right and centre, for what are, quite frankly, silly non rule breaching differences of opinion.

Anyway,
You answered my questions in full and with great detail and clarity, I appreciate that. I think this thread has most likely served its purpose now.

Does this mean that the likes of all xbmchub links, usernames, plugins, repos, posts, etc are/will be removed from xbmc.org amd the official repo?

Thanks in advance,

[Ned Scott]

Who is this "XBMC" that defended them?

[PatrickBateman]

Amet, He took Andys side over the entire complaint I made re: xbmchubs posts, Amet defended their wording, their practices, their "guy" etc while I was told to shut up and move on, both in the thread and in PMs.

It doesn't matter now though, it's one be I'm clear on the position overall and appreciate the info.

[Kib]

I think that the entire community would benefit from clear communication on this matter.

I am referring to an other thread, in which a community member presented his new third party repository to the XBMC-Team.
His idea was that the repo would catalog all available addons for xbmc, including the "universe" and " metaverse" part of the addons.
He wanted to colloborate with Team -XBMC to provide an better overall experience for XBMC users.

An very vivid discussion arose, with several XBMC teammembers, skinners and addon-developers giving their opinion on this new repository and website.
There were a lot of people in favor of his new repository, although some concerns were voiced as well. Some people didn't like it at all.

As far as I am concerned we were having a very open and interesting discussion, when suddenly the thread vanished.
No explanation was posted about why this happened.

In conclusion:
- I agree with PatrickBateman that the rules about what can and cannot be posted need to be clarified and upheld better. I can find loads of recent examples where addons are being presented that show content scraped off websites, which is most likely not legal. Nothing is said, no-one from Team-XBMC remarks anything and no threads are removed.
- I would like the XBMC team to discuss these things in the open, or at least explain why entire discussions are removed without notification. Personally, I put a lot of effort in my posts in that thread, because I believed the XBMC team was listening. If it is not wanted to discuss stuff in the open, then move threads to a temporary forum, grant access to people 'in-the-loop', invite a group of select people in (eg. everyone with more than 500 posts, everyone who is addon developer, etc) and keep the discussion private from the general public.

[fullmoonguru]

Patrick, no offense intended. I don't know if you posted anything in my thread that was deleted, so if I implied that it was unintentional. I was assuming the hub was in the same group of things we can't discuss.

Ned, thanks for giving us your input.

I obviously agree with what Kibje writes above. It seems really confusing to me what we can & can't say. Or at least the rules don't seem to be aligned with the actions I've seen taking place, as Patrick also indicated.

[bnevets27]

As far as I am concerned we were having a very open and interesting discussion, when suddenly the thread vanished.
No explanation was posted about why this happened.

Could not have put it any better myself (your entire post). Most importantly highlighting the above.

[PatrickBateman]

I agree entirely with everything written above from Kibje, fullmoonguru and bnevets27

I too can point to similar situations/threads etc as mentioned above, hence my initial confusion of what is and isn't allowed to be discussed on these forums and my quest for clarification on this. I think the above posters actually portrayed it in a far more understanding and easily digestible and manner that I did (much better writers/communicators than I)