Proposal to be more explicit in naming of ModConfig.Type

[ThatGravyBoat]

Description of issue:
Currently as of writing this ModConfig.Type has the following values:

• CLIENT
• COMMON
• SERVER
• STARTUP

They all are different but similar in how they work but one is extra special and that is SERVER it on connection of a client the server will read all server configs and send them to the client. While this is helpful this can also lead to issues where if a developer does not know that the SERVER config type is automatically synced they could unintentionally leak information such as passwords (this has been seen in production) as such I propose the following.

Proposal:
With the issue above described I think that changing the name of the type to better represent what it does explicitly would be good.
Changing the name to something along the lines of SERVER_SYNCED would be best and possibly making 2 separate types one that is synced and one that isnt would probably be even better as SERVER type still has the property that its per world/server and not global.

[TelepathicGrunt]

An idea floating around in chat is to split off the syncing as a separate option and then print a dev warning if you set sync to true for a config type that does not support syncing.

Some pros and cons with that but it is a thought