Are We Really Fighting Bad Plugins, or the Fact That People Can Now Create Them Without Years of Programming Experience?

[BUGICH]

Are We Fighting Bad Plugins or AI-Assisted Developers?

Hello everyone!

I've recently read Codefling's guidelines regarding AI-generated plugins, and I'd like to raise a question about their commercial use.

I'm a Rust server owner, not a professional programmer. I have many ideas for gameplay mechanics, progression systems, and events. Thanks to AI, I can finally turn those ideas into working plugins.

But developing with AI isn't always about typing "make me a plugin" and uploading the result.

Sometimes it takes weeks or months of designing mechanics, testing, fixing bugs, improving performance, and changing entire systems until everything works as intended.

And eventually, you create something that could be useful to other server owners.

So why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it?

According to Codefling's guidelines, creators who depend on AI to write, understand, fix, or maintain their code cannot sell predominantly AI-generated plugins.

I understand the concerns. AI can produce poorly optimized code, security vulnerabilities, and bugs. Some people may generate plugins without testing them or understanding what they do.

But human developers can also produce poorly written plugins.

Shouldn't the quality of the final product matter more than the tools used to create it?

Imagine two plugins offering the same functionality. Both are stable, optimized, regularly updated, and properly supported.

One was written manually by an experienced programmer. The other was developed by a server owner using AI over several months.

Why should only one be eligible for commercial sale?

I'm not saying AI replaces programming knowledge. Experienced developers have valuable skills, and AI-assisted creators may lack the expertise to identify serious technical problems.

But couldn't Codefling introduce additional requirements for AI-generated commercial plugins?

For example, mandatory AI disclosure, stricter technical reviews, performance testing, and clear support obligations.

I'd especially like to ask Codefling's administration:

Could predominantly AI-generated plugins ever be allowed for sale under stricter quality requirements?

Why does relying on AI for maintenance disqualify an author if they can consistently provide working fixes and updates?

How does Codefling determine whether someone understands their code sufficiently?

Could a creator who designs, tests, and maintains complex plugins using AI qualify as a commercial developer?

And one final question for the community:

Are we really fighting low-quality plugins, or are we also uncomfortable with the fact that people without years of programming experience can now create and potentially sell them?

I'm not asking Codefling to abandon quality standards. I simply believe there should be room to discuss a fair way for AI-assisted creators to sell reliable products while remaining responsible for their quality and support.

After all, customers pay for functionality, reliability, and support — not for how many lines of code were written by hand.

[Death]

Nowadays, AI-generated code isn't the main problem. It's the people who crank out content to make a quick buck, with no intention of long-term support. The typical AI submission we get is extremely lazy slop, with little thought put into the idea and often lacking any human input, down to the file description and tags.

The definition of AI slop is not linear in this case. It's when something is created with little to no input from the user. While I agree that not all slop is equal and people spend a lot of time on things they are passionate about, even if they lack the technical ability, applying this policy selectively introduces inconsistency and natural bias.

At the end of the day, our priority is our human creators. We can both appreciate how advanced generative AI has become, but we also need to recognize that it got to this point by exploiting the very people who shaped modding into what it is today. After all, we're forfeiting easy profit by not letting this content be sold, but if we can protect both consumers from unpredictability and creators from competing with models trained on their own work, we'll choose the latter.

[BUGICH]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I understand your concerns, especially regarding low-effort submissions and the protection of both buyers and developers.

However, there's one thing I'd genuinely like to understand better.

Where exactly do you draw the line between AI-generated content and AI-assisted development?

For example, imagine someone who independently designs an entire plugin, understands its mechanics, functionality, and how its systems interact, spends weeks testing and improving it, and takes full responsibility for maintaining it.

However, that person relies on AI to write the actual C# code and assist with debugging.

Would you consider that an AI-generated plugin or a human-created plugin developed with AI assistance?

And what level of technical understanding or direct involvement in writing the code would be sufficient for Codefling to recognize someone as the actual developer rather than simply a person generating AI content?

I'm not trying to challenge your decision. I'd just like to better understand where that boundary lies in practice, especially for people who genuinely invest time and effort into their projects but aren't professional programmers.

[Death]

As per our upload guidelines

We do not accept vibe coded files, except for the limited free submissions described below. “Vibe coded” means content mostly generated through AI prompts with little meaningful understanding, control, or authorship from the submitter. If you depend on AI to explain, repair, or maintain the file, it does not meet our standards.

Testing does not make an AI-generated submission acceptable. A file may still be rejected if AI replaced human authorship, even if it works, has been tested, or only contains some AI-generated sections. There are no exceptions for paid submissions.

AI-generated files may only be considered when they are:

[BUGICH]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position and provide such a detailed response.

I understand your reasoning and respect Codefling's decision to prioritize its developers and protect the community.

I appreciate your openness and the opportunity to discuss this topic. It was interesting to hear your perspective.

Thanks again for your time!