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?

[ Chiming in (late) as a sometime programmer and copyright holder. ] The "best way to ameliorate the situation is..." to get permission from the authors to use their works. If you don't have permission, (either already provided in the documentation, or explicitly provded seperately) then don't use. Simple, really. All the other discussion seems to center around, "Well, I didn't/couldn't get permission..." Sorry, at that point I really stop listening to the argument because it almost always becomes self-serving. Usually boiling down to: "Here's why what I have done/want to do, (which I already know is wrong) should be permitted "for the greater good." Thandal, please cool your boots. If you are going to provide a response to this discussion that immediately states that you have stopped listening to the argument, it helps absolutely no one and creates an unreasonable atmosphere. If you actually read what I say, I do not contest the issue of permissions being given. I was naive in this matter, thinking that people wouldn't mind so long as I gave credit. That was a mistake. I accept that - even though to my knowledge not ONE of the contributors to the patch complained. End of that particular episode. Now please, if you are going to contribute to the development of the discussion, try to be constructive and reasonable instead of jumping down people's throats. It really does not help.

No problem sesom, just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. I know that this is a highly emotive area of discussion and understand if things can get a bit heated sometimes. Please, check this thread later for suggestions as I think there is an interesting discussion to be had and I would welcome your input, as I said :).

I think it's the difference between "looking after author's rights" and "giving authors new rights that they shouldn't really have" that is fundamentally where we disagree here, Robin. I think I've made the case for why giving authors undue additional rights is bad for the community, and you don't seem to have disagreed with any of my points. Is this simply not something you are willing to discuss? Kal, whilst I appreciate and agree with many of your points, and am much appreciative of your support, it is simply the case that Dark0ne owns and runs this site, and for the most part does this incredibly well - his decision is final, and that is that. I respect the nexus sites and use them frequently, so I do not just want to upload the patch somewhere else, as this would be disrespectful and actually damaging to the modding community. The best way to ameliorate the situation is to find a way to improve how the site works with regards to permissions. The recent additions are the first step towards this, but more balance can be achieved. Moving the discussion in this direction is the best way forwards now.

Hi sesom, I'm sorry if you think my attitude has been bad throughout this, I've tried my best to be civil and reasonable, and play nice as you put it. Perhaps you think that the post I made in which I stated that I hadn't asked permission for all the fixes included was made with a bad attitude. I don't know if you've read the post so I will reproduce it: I don't really think that anybody could construe this as indicative of a bad attitude - but this may not be the reason for why you say I have one, so if it's not please let me know. Nowhere have I said "I don't care about permissions", so please do not try to defame me by putting in quotes something that has never been expressed by me. Surely the effort I put into crediting and providing links shows you that I care very much about the modders who have contributed. I don't want to make enemies here. I have been depicted as some kind of thief, my contribution to the community has been denigrated (you called it a 'borg' patch, for example), and none of this is fair. I will post my ideas towards combating this kind of situation later today. I would welcome your input. Zen

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules#uploading End of story. Kal, your last post is one of the reasons why we have a rule like that. To avoid having to sort that kind of thing out, and not have to go thru the "he said, she said". I wasn't aware compilations were not allowed full stop. Is this rule overridden if there is original content alongside the compiled content, for example, Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul? If this is the case, there is original content in the compilation patch (mine and modders who have personally submitted fixes not found anywhere else). So technically, it is not a pure compilation anymore. The only issue I have in all this is that the archaic and time-consuming (in terms of waiting for and monitoring replies mostly) 'PM for permission' system is at odds with how much emphasis is placed on gaining permission. Not all modders are on the nexus every day, and not all modders set up their permissions when releasing a file to accurately reflect whether they allow use or not. Before anyone responds that I am being lazy and impatient, I have actually written down some ideas for how the site could not only go some way to automate the permissions process, but also actually reward modders who have their work integrated into someone else's, encouraging co-creation and community rather than jealous guarding. I believe the endorsement system as its stands has a great deal to do with some people jealously guarding their work - they do not want someone else to gain credit through their own work because as it stands the nexus does not recognise mods that are useful as resources to other modders. I will post my detailed thoughts on this when I get back from work as it's in a text document on my laptop.