Zenball

@Eiries - thanks for your input, shame it's based upon kneejerk, reactionary response and assumption, adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and shows a basic failure to engage in the topic with even a modicum of intelligence or awareness. No. The patch has been re-uploaded by someone else with my blessing and has all permissions gained, due to me spending far too long getting around 45 different authors to give me permission in order to get the file released from lock down. However, this was taking up all my time and I wasn't even getting any work done on doing the patch. I was not prepared to do this, so I discontinued the mod. The reason the mod is uploaded now is because I made the effort to get permissions. Even though I disagreed with this in principal. Now Dynastia has taken it over. Have a look at the mod thread, zipfile's very helpful comment dated 03:36, 17 November 2010, on page. He lists 60 mods that are candidates to go in the patch. Most of these will require new permission. 45 permissions took about a week to get, with some authors responding immediately, some within a few days, and some over a week later, most of these in the last two categories. That is hours of work, doing what? Not working on the patch, no. In fact, it is hours of work pursuing permissions for bug fixes. Vanilla bug fixes. Not creative work. I'm not saying 'all mods should be open source, no one can protect their mods, anarchy in the nexus', although this reductio ad absurdum has been levelled at what I'm arguing many times. Most of the people who are seemingly against even talking about this sensibly have had a bad experience in which someone has ripped off their mod, and so see me as the face of ripping off mods and therefore brand me as the enemy of all good modders everywhere. They think I'm endorsing people using their painstakingly created mods without permission or credit, and therefore that I'm wrong, full stop, WRONG, NO, ASK PERMISSION, THEY ARE THE RULES. Ahem? I'm not saying what you're having a go at me for, sorry. What, like here? I was doing that, before the mod got taken down. Once more you show your lack of appreciation for the matter, further rendering your opinion misinformed and therefore irrelevant. No wonder you find the proposition that the poll puts forwards 'awkward and confusing'. Anyway, there is now no point in pursuing the matter. Dark0ne has told me that he intends to take absolutely no notice of this poll whatever the outcome, and does not see dealing with this issue as a priority, despite the pages of heated debate about the subject. He has basically told me to go somewhere else, so the issue is now being stonewalled. That's what you get for questioning authoritah. So this shall be my last post on the matter. I'm off to fill in one of these.

2 or 3 can exclude it though.

Good idea PurplePigeon - added your suggestion as an option. edit: Added another option for just adding a bug fix category.

A poll to follow up the lengthy discussion here in an attempt to get some action. Added another "no" option since you didn't indicate someone just doing the same stuff from scratch with credit as a current option for those who can't or don't feel like getting permission. - Vagrant0

Really? Even just adding a new 'bugfix' category as an interim measure? You know, to show a bit of good will ;)

I think this needs to be clarified as there is a new upload of the community patch and this is directly relevant to the uploader. As far as I understand it, the following now applies: Fixes that change a variable or two in a script or data set do not need permission - and credit would be nice but is not necessary. Fixes that elaborately alter scripts may need permission (which strikes me as a bit fuzzy - would this not require the compiler to examine and compare scripts to determine if a script change is 'elaborate' or not?). Asset changes may need permission (though I imagine not things like correcting a texture path - which again requires anybody wanting to use fixed assets to examine and compare the original asset and determine the extent of the change and whether permission is necessary). Unfortunately, this approach still does not save time. You might as well just ask permission rather than examine and determine for yourself if you need to ask permission or not. And I'm sorry, anyone who uploads a fix and then goes out of their way to protect it and get in the way of other people using it does not deserve the protection. The only thing this gets over is tiny bug fixes. Which is a start at least. I do still think we need a bug fix category, and that the bug fix category should mean permission is never necessary. I have yet to hear a good argument against this idea, and I've even seen the idea independently proposed on other forums. edit: @xporc, sorry for the misunderstanding about the merge, didn't mean to misrepresent you in any way - only you said to me not to be surprised if the next version of FOOK integrated some community patch fixes, so I assumed you had done :)

Nice to see you here Arthmoor. The idea behind the patches category would be that any mod which included the word 'patch', 'fix' or other similar word would autosuggest being placed under it, which would automatically set permissions to be the loosest possible, ie for reuse without permission or credit. This would not have to be followed by the uploader, but it would 'nudge' them in the right direction, which would be beneficial to the community and allow for unofficial patches to be easily created and maintained. I don't think there's any danger of your unofficial patch being put under review, don't worry :)

He is aware of the thread and is aware of the fact that I have made some suggestions as I PM'd him and told him about it. He didn't reply so I can only conclude that he has either decided to ignore the issue or wait until the debate had reached some sort of conclusion. As I think we have probably got as far as we can with this, and that the people who have responded to some of the ideas have been fairly positive and not offered any alternatives or developed any of the points, it is probably now best left in his hands what to do.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's a corner case, but a significant one. Absent of some bug fix uber-modder like Quarn (who we were very, very lucky to have), it makes sense that the resources of the community can be easily pooled with regards to an unofficial patch, and also unofficial patch patches, such as with the the once-existing FWE Unofficial Patch Patch and with FOOK. FOOK for NV has actually merged many of the fixes from the Compilation Patch into the latest version - lucky for them I got most of the permissions - xporc mentioned to me he intended to do this so there's no problem there as far as I'm concerned. The current policy is directly in the way of such patches being easily produced, maybe because we have been spoilt by Quarn's patches and therefore have never had to have a tailored policy regarding this before.

A bug fix section was one of the suggestions earlier on in the thread. I think this makes sense. If permissions were automatically set to their loosest possible when mods went in this section, and the section was autosuggested (with a note about impact on permissions) if the user used the word 'fix', for example, this would tidy up the site as well as providing a valuable community knowledge base and resource. I'm sure most fix uploaders would be fine about other people integrating their fixes. However, there is the issue of recognition and reward, which was covered earlier with the community points idea.

I didn't call anyone stupid. I said that much of what is being said is ridiculous. That is an important distinction. Read my ideas. I posit a 'community point' system that will benefit mods integrated into other mods, even little fixes. Modders will get recognition and ego will be taken care of. What do people think of the specific ideas I have come up with? If we talk concretely about these, and develop them we might get somewhere. If we keep the discussion mired in generalities, defending positions etc, we will go nowhere. edit: missed out a word.

Ok - I don't know if anyone has actually read any of my ideas, since not a single person has fed back on them, it seems not. I thought the ideas were quite sensible as well, but it seems impossible to have a sensible discussion about anything on this topic. A lot of what is being said here strikes me as totally ridiculous. Good luck in getting sorted out on this issue.

I am afraid I have run out of patience now and decided to discontinue public work on the mod, and update and use it for myself. I will not be uploading this to any mirrors, so please do not ask me. Admins, please permanently remove the Community Compilation Patch from your database.

Try to keep on topic here - what do you think of the ideas I outlined above?

The experience of making the Community Bug Fix Compilation Patch has made me reflect upon the possibility of structural changes to the site that allow permissions to be more streamlined and integrated into the upload and endorsement process, in particular the permissions section. There are a number of possibilities towards this end. 1. A new category, fixes, which would automatically set permissions to the loosest possible enabling people to use the resource without seeking permission. This category could autosuggest if the user includes the words 'fix', 'bug' or 'bugfix' in their filename, with a pop up explaining that the fix category allows re-use without permission. This is the quickest and dirtiest fix. 2. For more general purposes and streamlined permissions: if an uploader integrates any other mod with their mod, they should have to enter the url/file ID of the mod into the permissions section. This will send an automated alert to the author of said mod, asking them if it is ok if the mod in question is used. Each user can choose to either manually give permission for that mod to be used, or set permissions to be automatically given. Automated return permissions could send back a form detailing the limits of how the mod may be used. 3. Endorsement integration. If a mod is included in another mod, that mod should receive some kind of recognition, perhaps a separate rating (community points?), displayed next to endorsements. This could be received incidentally as a ratio of endorsements received indirectly through other mods (in other words mod A makes a resource, mod B integrates it, mod B receives an endorsement, mod A automatically receives a community point, or perhaps to make them rarer, 1 point for every mod that integrates them). A new tab in the mod information could show a list of other mods which integrate it and which other mods it integrates. This would also help prevent users of the mod from having unnecessary esp files in their load order and therefore reduce the risk of mod conflict. The above additions to the site would, I believe, do the following: 1. Streamline the permissions process, making mod cross pollination easier, more productive, and more fun, leading ultimately to a more integrated, networked and harmonious community and even perhaps better mods. 2. Encourage modders to upload resources to the site in order to be used by others, by directly giving unique recognition for it and providing them increased feedback, protection and control. 3. Since it it mutually beneficial (non-zero sum for game theory fans) for people to credit and reference included mods, it should be no skin off anyone's nose to make the effort to do so, nor to allow permission (for nexus use only of course as this would be a closed system). Those who integrate, adapt or use other people's mods who do not observe this etiquette should not be surprised when their mod is removed. This is a basic brainstorm and requires more thorough discussion, but what are people's initial thoughts?