Not being able to critique a resource in the reviews.

[GoldenBear]

So I purchased this.... https://www.mc-market.org/resources/475/ a long time ago.

My computer was stolen not long ago (a Christmas break in) so when making a new server set up, I came on here, to download the config that I know I have purchased in the past only to find that my licence has been removed because now it has been changed to a 4 month licence.

To be clear. When I purchased my licence, the licence length was permanent. I only paid my money based on his promise that I would have access to the resource for life. The 'dev' then revoked everyones licence and made the money that they had paid now irrelevant because he switched to a monthly licence length.

I left a review on the resource and was contacted by a staff member named Majored who told me that, (even tho I explained my point of view to him) that I was not allowed to post this review because "Your review must be about the product itself or the support that the author has provided along with it."

My problem with this is 2 fold:
1) Me saying that the 'dev' had removed my licence and been extremely rude to me is 100% about the product. When you purchase something, the definition of the product that you purchase is not specifically just the item, but it's also the whole process including the sales experience and any support that you may receive in relation to the product.

2) The review section is supposed to be for other potential buyers to seek the opinions of previous customers to decide if they should buy it or not. It therefore is 100% relevant for them to be able to see the opinion of a previous buyer who was not happy with their transaction and why as they may agree that this does not show the 'dev' to be the type of person that they would want to purchase from.

I understand that this website may have rules and that the rules allow for the 'dev' to do this but that does not mean that the website should suppress any opinion that differs from this as a lot of people (some contacted me after seeing my review) would agree with me that this is not okay.

I think that the rules should be changed in the following ways:


1) To keep public confidence in this websites buying process: Once someone purchases an infinite licence, it should remain so, even if the developer changes to a monthly payment system, the people who paid for infinite, should keep it.
2) People should be allowed to voice their opinion and even if a specific staff member does not Agee, that opinion should still be relevant. If it contains info that most people don't know and it effects the way someone would purchase a product on the site then it is 100% relevant as a review. Censoring is not an okay response.

 

[Norska]

MC-Market only guarantees one download, I don't think you'd win any case against this.

 

[ItsSniper]

I have to agree with you 100%. I had the same issue with the exact same developer where he borderline scammed me by revoking my seemingly permanent license. Out of the hundreds of plugins I bought between this site (and others that will remain unnamed) I have only had this issue with this one rude dev.

I saw your review personally and in my opinion I can’t see how what you did was wrong in any way, and seems unfair your review was taken down.

I respect mc-market, but it seems like they tend to side with the developers, from my experience with this case.

Definitely a vouch for this idea.

 

[GoldenBear]

MC-Market only guarantees one download, I don't think you'd win any case against this.

I know the point you are trying to make is 'technically according to the terms that no one reads you are only entitled to 1 download' but we know that in reality, barely anyone would purchase anything under those conditions. The whole reason people make purchases on website like here and SpigotMC is that you get the ongoing updates and support and 99.9% of developers supply with with no issues and its safe to say that this is the standard way of doing things.

 

[Norska]

I know the point you are trying to make is 'technically according to the terms that no one reads you are only entitled to 1 download' but we know that in reality, barely anyone would purchase anything under those conditions. The whole reason people make purchases on website like here and SpigotMC is that you get the ongoing updates and support and 99.9% of developers supply with with no issues and its safe to say that this is the standard way of doing things.

I agree, there have been cases where I myself would base my decision to revoke a license purely on that "1 download guarantee" but that was in order to protect my resource from leakers. In this case it really is just the developer being arrogant.

 

[Anvity]

mh, yes... I think people should have access to the product they bought, if they bought it without renewal, they should keep having it without it, but if you accepted the terms and conditions it used to have, it depends then,

about the second rule, at this moment everyone has their own opinion, and I’m thinking you think that staff members agree or disagree opinions because they don’t think alike, but it’s all about rules, you have rights to say everything you want. But it doesn’t mean to are allowed to say “don’t purchase this product” just because you don’t like, you have to be more specific, like adding information about and talking about the product (included in the resource) and the support the seller provided to you. I don’t know how to explain myself better, I don’t know if you will be able to understand me... And I think you are currently misunderstanding the rules thinking MC-Market staff censores you, lol. Just read what Majored replied, "Your review must be about the product itself or the support that the author has provided along with it."

 

[GoldenBear]

I agree, there have been cases where I myself would base my decision to revoke a license purely on that "1 download guarantee" but that was in order to protect my resource from leakers. In this case it really is just the developer being arrogant.

Yeah if you need to revoke a licence to a specific person because you suspect them of leaking then thats deffo understandable and you should be entitled to protect your work. This rule should just apply to blanket changes like this dev did. He removed the licence for literally every single person who had purchased his work, for purely financial reasons.

 

[Ewans_XD]

I completely agree with this! I purchased the configuration a few months back and recently went to re-download it, only to find out that my licence had been removed. I purchased it with the understanding that the licence was permenant and I have not broken any of his rules which would result in my licence being removed. This is comparable to a big company such as Apple charging for updates on your iPhone!

 

[jaygim]

lol this mandem is bear triggered but he spit facts init this man is basically scamming yh bmt kmt scummy tings

 

[MarkElf]

The only reason I have yet to respond to this thread is that I wasn't aware it was posted and probably because it didn't show up as I blocked GoldenBear for being extremely toxic and rude. Clearly this is directed at me more than anyone else yet no one tagged me which is a shame as actions should always be justifiable - we all do something for a reason. I really didn't want for it to be dragged to a thread for others to endeavor, but why not? I'm just curious what GoldenBear thinks that he's gaining by attempting to publicly shame me after his own behavior and actions - not that I have any intent to unblock him.

I have justified my reasons to shift from a permanent license to a 4-month basis license in my auto-reply but I'll paste it here for the people who can't be bothered to find it:

Whoo! We hit the 4-year mark! Thank you to everyone that continues to support me in the development of this resource. In order to continue development though, I do feel that it is necessary to switch towards a license renewal system rather than a flat payment, one-time payment. To be fair, I put hours into testing new checks/changes, reproducing bugs, resolving those same bugs, and replying to your messages with detailed responses usually within the same hour and with a flat payment, I had a hard time justifying my time being spent that way. For long time users, I'd like to mention that my resource started off as just a configuration and now it offers a custom fork that's actively worked in every regard you can imagine - bypasses, performance, new checks, bug fixes, etc - and offers additional plugins. It isn't an underwhelming configuration nor has it been the goal to leave it as so when I began 4 years ago.
As of today, licenses will last for 90 120 days (4 months) and can be renewed whenever so long as the user had a license before. I had hoped to grandfather all previous buyers by allowing them to keep their licenses till January 1st but this doesn't appear to be possible, especially without access to the manage license page to do it myself or Justis R doing 1,600 license changes by hand, so instead I will temporarily lower the renewal cost and take note of any renewals to extend them by hand when the option is available. Any purchases made in the last month are welcome to send me a message to have update 5.3.1 set to them via mediafire - I apologize for the huge inconvenience while sorting this out.​

First and foremost, my resource is a configuration in the configurations section. I have hardly done any changes in the past year - I say this being well aware that my most recent update did include 2 minor changes - to my configuration. The same configuration you bought when you and others first contacted me is pretty much the same configuration you got when you and others renewed their license. I think the part that you're actually upset over is the fact that I made contributions towards development and primarily support for NCP part of the resource - part of the reason this is such a unique situation and likely why we've yet to see other resource authors make the shift to a license renewal system. By no means what so ever do I force anyone to renew their license nor contribute towards a cause I predetermined. Anything outside of that configuration - like add-ons, patchworks, or any plugins for that matter - are fully my gift to you as I enjoy exploring and working with anti-cheat developers and their plugins (NTAC, PNCP, WatchCat/Horizon, anything involving ToonBasic, Spartan, to name a handful) to provide my customers the best experience I can, even when it goes beyond my expertise.

Onwards to the false claims of being supposedly toxic and providing poor support. GoldenBear, I still don't know what kind of support you expect from me but I apologize for being a human being and having a personal life rather than being your personal assistant who you have to triple message because you didn't get a response in an hour. Quite simply, if you're being toxic and rude to me, is there any reason why you shouldn't expect the same back? I don't think my responses were that rude compared to the nonsense you pull off and I'm more than happy to share our conversations publicly again to anyone interested. As mentioned above, you were by no means force or required to renew your license but you chose to do it anyway to bash my work and critique a system you're unhappy with. I'd offer to take this to PMs where we can discuss these like mature adults but you're not someone who can be reasoned with like a mature adult.

ItsSniper, I'd like you to share your messages with me publicly - as I'm pretty sure I left the conversation clearing out my messages - and point out a single time I was rude. I surely can't recall it and took extra time picking my words to your response about your license expiring after responding to GoldenBear because it was clear that you're associates and are under his influence. You'll just follow the sheep.

Edit:

I only paid my money based on his promise that I would have access to the resource for life.

I'd like to see where this is stated as this is never a claim I made, nor is it ensured anywhere on MC-Market to my knowledge. MC-Market ensures a single download to my knowledge and you surely did download it as you needed me to be your personal, on-demand, assistant to help you with it.

I don't believe I have the messages anymore

Oh, how oddly convenient for you and your claim.

 

[ItsSniper]

I don't believe I have the messages anymore, and I'd prefer if you'd not tag me this far in the future. Clearly nothing is changing due to this thread, which is unfortunate but likely true, so I am no longer going to keep fighting it. You can continue practicing your business in shady ways, I just won't work with you. Simple as that.

As for GoldenBear, I am not "associates" with him, nor do I have any clue what you're talking about when you say "You'll just follow the sheep." Sounds like random bullshit in my opinion. I just had the same issue he had and contacted him regarding it. Therefore when he made the thread, of course I was going to voice my opinion on the situation and the experience I had.

Again, it's been so long and I'm over it now. I'm ready to move on, and I know not to buy your products anymore. So the issue has been resolved for me. Have a nice day.

 

[GoldenBear]

The only reason I have yet to respond to this thread is that I wasn't aware it was posted and probably because it didn't show up as I blocked GoldenBear for being extremely toxic and rude. Clearly this is directed at me more than anyone else yet no one tagged me which is a shame as actions should always be justifiable - we all do something for a reason. I really didn't want for it to be dragged to a thread for others to endeavor, but why not? I'm just curious what GoldenBear thinks that he's gaining by attempting to publicly shame me after his own behavior and actions - not that I have any intent to unblock him.

I have justified my reasons to shift from a permanent license to a 4-month basis license in my auto-reply but I'll paste it here for the people who can't be bothered to find it:

Whoo! We hit the 4-year mark! Thank you to everyone that continues to support me in the development of this resource. In order to continue development though, I do feel that it is necessary to switch towards a license renewal system rather than a flat payment, one-time payment. To be fair, I put hours into testing new checks/changes, reproducing bugs, resolving those same bugs, and replying to your messages with detailed responses usually within the same hour and with a flat payment, I had a hard time justifying my time being spent that way. For long time users, I'd like to mention that my resource started off as just a configuration and now it offers a custom fork that's actively worked in every regard you can imagine - bypasses, performance, new checks, bug fixes, etc - and offers additional plugins. It isn't an underwhelming configuration nor has it been the goal to leave it as so when I began 4 years ago.
As of today, licenses will last for 90 120 days (4 months) and can be renewed whenever so long as the user had a license before. I had hoped to grandfather all previous buyers by allowing them to keep their licenses till January 1st but this doesn't appear to be possible, especially without access to the manage license page to do it myself or Justis R doing 1,600 license changes by hand, so instead I will temporarily lower the renewal cost and take note of any renewals to extend them by hand when the option is available. Any purchases made in the last month are welcome to send me a message to have update 5.3.1 set to them via mediafire - I apologize for the huge inconvenience while sorting this out.​

First and foremost, my resource is a configuration in the configurations section. I have hardly done any changes in the past year - I say this being well aware that my most recent update did include 2 minor changes - to my configuration. The same configuration you bought when you and others first contacted me is pretty much the same configuration you got when you and others renewed their license. I think the part that you're actually upset over is the fact that I made contributions towards development and primarily support for NCP part of the resource - part of the reason this is such a unique situation and likely why we've yet to see other resource authors make the shift to a license renewal system. By no means what so ever do I force anyone to renew their license nor contribute towards a cause I predetermined. Anything outside of that configuration - like add-ons, patchworks, or any plugins for that matter - are fully my gift to you as I enjoy exploring and working with anti-cheat developers and their plugins (NTAC, PNCP, WatchCat/Horizon, anything involving ToonBasic, Spartan, to name a handful) to provide my customers the best experience I can, even when it goes beyond my expertise.

Onwards to the false claims of being supposedly toxic and providing poor support. GoldenBear, I still don't know what kind of support you expect from me but I apologize for being a human being and having a personal life rather than being your personal assistant who you have to triple message because you didn't get a response in an hour. Quite simply, if you're being toxic and rude to me, is there any reason why you shouldn't expect the same back? I don't think my responses were that rude compared to the nonsense you pull off and I'm more than happy to share our conversations publicly again to anyone interested. As mentioned above, you were by no means force or required to renew your license but you chose to do it anyway to bash my work and critique a system you're unhappy with. I'd offer to take this to PMs where we can discuss these like mature adults but you're not someone who can be reasoned with like a mature adult.

ItsSniper, I'd like you to share your messages with me publicly - as I'm pretty sure I left the conversation clearing out my messages - and point out a single time I was rude. I surely can't recall it and took extra time picking my words to your response about your license expiring after responding to GoldenBear because it was clear that you're associates and are under his influence. You'll just follow the sheep.

Edit:
I'd like to see where this is stated as this is never a claim I made, nor is it ensured anywhere on MC-Market to my knowledge. MC-Market ensures a single download to my knowledge and you surely did download it as you needed me to be your personal, on-demand, assistant to help you with it.

Im not wasting anymore time on you. You keep giving the same excuse even though they make 0 sense. This thread was not made to spark an argument with you but more to highlight what you did to the wider community as I believe (and have been proved right) that most people will think that what you did was wrong. I am not wasting anymore time speaking to you directly as you are rude and continually dodge the point.

 

[lokka30]

GoldenBear Thank you for informing me about this license! This was in my 'definitely purchase' bucket list until I found this thread. I assumed it was a permanent license as many other resources on this site are. I'll be more conscious of these in the future. I appreciate it man.

However, I understand MarkElf's requirement of such license as he can't afford to give extensive support and updates for a cheap, one-time payment. Yep, it's an inconvenience that you don't get downloads forever, but it's the only way that Mark can keep the quality alive.
Although, I believe the license period should be extended by a month or two. Looking at your updates, they are definitely important patches, and it wouldn't be a good idea to renew the license once a year.
I, and many other small server owners, couldn't nail $15 USD (more than $20 AUD) per year to cover the costs of an AntiCheat. There are definitely cheaper alternatives which would probably yield a similar result, not to mention having an unlimited license period. If the license period is increased then I'll definitely consider the resource as I know the time that went into perfecting the NCP config.

Best of luck to the developer and customers. I'll keep searching for AntiCheats for 1.15.2 but the scope is very narrow.[DOUBLEPOST=1580217528][/DOUBLEPOST]

GoldenBear Thank you for informing me about this license! This was in my 'definitely purchase' bucket list until I found this thread. I assumed it was a permanent license as many other resources on this site are. I'll be more conscious of these in the future. I appreciate it man.

However, I understand MarkElf's requirement of such license as he can't afford to give extensive support and updates for a cheap, one-time payment. Yep, it's an inconvenience that you don't get downloads forever, but it's the only way that Mark can keep the quality alive.
Although, I believe the license period should be extended by a month or two. Looking at your updates, they are definitely important patches, and it wouldn't be a good idea to renew the license once a year.
I, and many other small server owners, couldn't nail $15 USD (more than $20 AUD) per year to cover the costs of an AntiCheat. There are definitely cheaper alternatives which would probably yield a similar result, not to mention having an unlimited license period. If the license period is increased then I'll definitely consider the resource as I know the time that went into perfecting the NCP config.

Best of luck to the developer and customers. I'll keep searching for AntiCheats for 1.15.2 but the scope is very narrow.

I apologise, I thought the renewal price was the same as the initial purchase price. Unfortunately the edit button runs away pretty quickly. facepalm

 

[MarkElf]

GoldenBear Thank you for informing me about this license! This was in my 'definitely purchase' bucket list until I found this thread. I assumed it was a permanent license as many other resources on this site are. I'll be more conscious of these in the future. I appreciate it man.

However, I understand MarkElf's requirement of such license as he can't afford to give extensive support and updates for a cheap, one-time payment. Yep, it's an inconvenience that you don't get downloads forever, but it's the only way that Mark can keep the quality alive.
Although, I believe the license period should be extended by a month or two. Looking at your updates, they are definitely important patches, and it wouldn't be a good idea to renew the license once a year.
I, and many other small server owners, couldn't nail $15 USD (more than $20 AUD) per year to cover the costs of an AntiCheat. There are definitely cheaper alternatives which would probably yield a similar result, not to mention having an unlimited license period. If the license period is increased then I'll definitely consider the resource as I know the time that went into perfecting the NCP config.

Best of luck to the developer and customers. I'll keep searching for AntiCheats for 1.15.2 but the scope is very narrow.[DOUBLEPOST=1580217528][/DOUBLEPOST]
I apologise, I thought the renewal price was the same as the initial purchase price. Unfortunately the edit button runs away pretty quickly. facepalm

I appreciate the feedback and did take this into account when first making the transition. I began with 3 months, which I thought was okay at the time, and since shifted it to 4 months to essentially remove one payment cycle less than a week after the initial shift.

There is also a thread on Spigot here about transparity and similar conversation to the one going on here, though clearly less targeted and more open minded. There is information on the right hand side of the resource but I'll try my best to make it clear that it's a single payment upfront ($7.50) then smaller contributions ($2.50) periodically. Reading all the recent feedback openly posted does have me beginning to consider increasing that 4 months to 6 months for the same price. I do hope $2.50 isn't a substantial amount for a server and it surely didn't seem to be when sampling for feedback months ago when asking 4-5 buyers if they would be comfortable contributing towards a constant creator.

 

[GoldenBear]

GoldenBear Thank you for informing me about this license! This was in my 'definitely purchase' bucket list until I found this thread. I assumed it was a permanent license as many other resources on this site are. I'll be more conscious of these in the future. I appreciate it man.

However, I understand MarkElf's requirement of such license as he can't afford to give extensive support and updates for a cheap, one-time payment. Yep, it's an inconvenience that you don't get downloads forever, but it's the only way that Mark can keep the quality alive.
Although, I believe the license period should be extended by a month or two. Looking at your updates, they are definitely important patches, and it wouldn't be a good idea to renew the license once a year.
I, and many other small server owners, couldn't nail $15 USD (more than $20 AUD) per year to cover the costs of an AntiCheat. There are definitely cheaper alternatives which would probably yield a similar result, not to mention having an unlimited license period. If the license period is increased then I'll definitely consider the resource as I know the time that went into perfecting the NCP config.

Best of luck to the developer and customers. I'll keep searching for AntiCheats for 1.15.2 but the scope is very narrow.[DOUBLEPOST=1580217528][/DOUBLEPOST]
I apologise, I thought the renewal price was the same as the initial purchase price. Unfortunately the edit button runs away pretty quickly. facepalm

Thanks for your detailed reply. It's great to see people responding in a calm and detailed way. Thats the best way to deal with these things. I do 100% agree that the dev might want to add a monthly licence as a way to gain ongoing income to incentivise himself to keep spending time on that project however I don't think that this should be at the expense of people that have already purchased a lifetime licence and expected it to be forever. If he wanted to change to a monthly licence, the people who already paid for a lifetime licence should get to keep it and not have it revoked.

Just taking away the licence from thousands of people who paid expecting a lifetime licence is essentially stealing and his logic of 'well I didn't force you to buy it again' is irrelevant. Using that logic, you could buy an iPhone from apple, then have apple take the phone from you and demand you pay monthly to keep it but say 'its okay because we dont force you to pay again'.

 

[ItsSniper]

Thanks for your detailed reply. It's great to see people responding in a calm and detailed way. Thats the best way to deal with these things. I do 100% agree that the dev might want to add a monthly licence as a way to gain ongoing income to incentivise himself to keep spending time on that project however I don't think that this should be at the expense of people that have already purchased a lifetime licence and expected it to be forever. If he wanted to change to a monthly licence, the people who already paid for a lifetime licence should get to keep it and not have it revoked.

Just taking away the licence from thousands of people who paid expecting a lifetime licence is essentially stealing and his logic of 'well I didn't force you to buy it again' is irrelevant. Using that logic, you could buy an iPhone from apple, then have apple take the phone from you and demand you pay monthly to keep it but say 'its okay because we dont force you to pay again'.

GoldenBear I think the problem is the vague rule that some devs hide behind, which is where you’re only guaranteed 1 download, under mc-market’s rules. I personally believe this was put into place so in case you leaked a resource or the staff removed a resource, so as long as you have downloaded it at least once before, you could have your license revoked without question. I believe the way that some devs do it by revoking for no reason would be abuse of that rule. (In my opinion.) (Your example really shows why it shouldn’t be allowed. You make a good point.) I think the real suggestion that is needed is for mc-market to have clarification and restrictions on this rule. So devs cannot revoke a license unless the resource has been leaked by that person, or the person broke the TOS. Obviously Mark was not breaking any mc-market rules by revoking our licenses, as what he did was allowed even though we disagree with the shady practice. But we also didn't break his terms, so in order to remove our licenses he would have to use that vague rule which guarantees only 1 download. Therefore for this to not happen again, mc-market needs restrictions on the rule. (Again, this is all my opinion. You guys are free to disagree.)

 

[VapingPenguin]

Too much epic gamer talk can you guys just fuck already.

 

[ItsSniper]

Too much epic gamer talk can you guys just fuck already.

This man is here with the solution to the world's problems

 

[VapingPenguin]

This man is here with the solution to the world's problems

Anytime.[DOUBLEPOST=1580271184][/DOUBLEPOST]However I do have to side with MarkElf on this one. Although it's a shitty situation that's really the only way he could keep supporting the plugin/configs. But that's just me.

 

[ItsShy]

LMAO That guy seems like a scammer.