Steven's Ban on 3rd Party content

LeviathanSummoner's concern for their friend is valid. However, I think everyone is missing an important consideration. 'When and why would the punishment come up?'

Steven wants to exclude 3rd party apps. There are a number of ways it could come up and ways to properly deal with it.

Possible problem cases:
1. Some kind of drm
2. Players reporting who don't know the differently abled players scenario or are being blatantly troll
3. Auto detect and reporting

Possible solutions:
1. Intrepid could provide their own in house controller support and tune it to the needs of the community in question.
2. Intrepid could develop a whitelist with strong guidance from the differently abled community(the most reasonable low resource solution)
3. Case by case positive flagging of players who get exceptions implemented by appealing to the mods.

As Noaani points out, its unreasonable to expect a small company relative to the large project to devote something so resource intensive as 'catering to all.' However, I would personally be disappointed if there was no controller support in the long run, which is the main way to solve this particular issue and make able bodied controller users happy as well.

Drm of some kind will probably be implemented, making it more likely to cause problems (as intended) for 3rd party apps. This makes white listing difficult to garuntee. The whitelist will become a constant political mindfield and take up hr and dev resources. Endless whining from able bodied people to boot about 'why cant I have x tho'. Not having one cuts off a lot of toxicity routes and doesn't pose a resource drain. Still, theres plenty of available free software that helps a lot of these problems out there and in use. If dev resources are scarce, white listing existing solutions is the cheapest solution in the short term.

If a reporting or detection system is used I would hope mods would be trained to be sensitive towards the topic and would hope they had a system for prioritizing based on this type of case to get appealed to a human mod so it gets resolved quickly (no one likes a youtube copystrike type scenario.) Mods cost money, and are expensive. But necessary any way. Might as well implement a way to manually flag exclusions to your detection software so they aren't constantly handling repeat cases of things that are case by case approved of. This is probably the 'kindest' way to handle the problem without adding too much dev time. But its the most reliant on company culture and human judgement.

In reality a lot of these scenarios and solutions will probably be considered and probably closer to beta. The ban is probably not going to be so cut and dry. And if it is, there's still solutions.

This is more nuanced than that. Your proposal would quickly stigmatize the above noted use case. Are you comfortable with creating an environment where non-able bodied people just trying to play the game have to defend themselves from being considered 'cheaters'?

@Marcet probably. My point is that until they come up with a cohesive policy irt the differently abled community, calling certain things cheating before they specify could pigeonhole Intrepid and make it difficult for that community. IS doesn't give me the impression they will be insensitive about it, but the policies are more likely to be implemented/finalized during the beta than the alpha. So as a community I feel we are 2 years too early to be making such an assumption as to call it 'cheating' for now, you know?