[RockerC]

Is there any need to include the words "3rd party"?

* Regardless it should be written "third-party" (not "3rd party").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party

Remember all the people who don't have English as their first language.

It does not help if you start write in 1337 h4x0r speech


PS: "3rd Party" was a one-hit wonder 90s pop-group if you Google it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Party

Yes I'm getting old

[Atreyu]

"If you use an add-on that accesses content otherwise than with the consent of the owner of that content, you will not get support from the Kodi team. There is a list of the add-ons that violate that rule here -LINK- It is constantly being updated, so don't assume that because it is not on the list it is ok."

Constructive discussion.
Seeing some really good suggestions.

Concerning 'The List' i would say why publish such a list at all?

[DoubleT]

may have been mentioned before, but cant we just have a forum bot that just deals with anyone mentioned a banned addon?
IP block should suffice...

[DarrenHill]

Automated IP blocks are risky, as they aren't always unique to a given user nor permanent. They're better done by hand, as we currently do.

[bilgepump]

Concerning 'The List' i would say why publish such a list at all?

So that people can look at it and maybe not go ahead and publish their request for help using one of those on the list?

[Atreyu]

Concerning 'The List' i would say why publish such a list at all?

So that people can look at it and maybe not go ahead and publish their request for help using one of those on the list?

But...wouldn't common sense normally take care of that? And maybe where common sense is absent, a general description could replace the neverending lists?
I have seen recommendations to check out the banned list on the wiki to know what to go after.
I might be wrong, i dont know. Just a thought.

[bilgepump]

Concerning 'The List' i would say why publish such a list at all?

So that people can look at it and maybe not go ahead and publish their request for help using one of those on the list?

But...wouldn't common sense normally take care of that? And maybe where common sense is absent, a general description could replace the neverending lists?

How could "common sense" tell you that a program/addon that somebody has installed on a device that you've bought is not legitimate? Somebody has to tell you or you have to find it out. If somebody's request for help is going to be binned, they should have every opportunity to avoid that happening. Believe it or not, some people do read information provided to them and we're talking about people who may not have understood that there are different types of access on the internet, some of which are ok (content owner provided) and others that are not (unlawfully copied and uploaded material). If you know something, you pass on that knowledge, you don't just keep it to yourself. There are SO MANY services/providers/sources that keeping up with them all would take a lot of time. Why expect people to reinvent the wheel (when they may not even know there's a problem) instead of pass on the info?