cyan49

I saw him literally everywhere lol, but I think it was his way of thanking the mod authors. Anyway I know he's not a bot because he admitted before that he looks like a bot.

To me, changelogs are never optional, just like we're not allowed to upload a mod without a description. Then mod authors can add it to mod descriptions, sticky posts, mod file descriptions, or all of them as needed. Usually changelogs are in one of those places, but it's inconvenient when they're not in a place they should be. I know that changelogs in changelogs aren't effective for casual users, but leaving changelogs blank affects regular users.

End users, yes, they all look the same. Modders, yes too, lol. It's Bethesda and Nexus that are trying to define the difference between mods, creations, DLC, mini-dlcs and verified creations, not me.

UESP = The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages. Objective information is often more useful, but when quoting please refer to the BethesdaNet FAQ instead. You've proven yourself that CC and VC are different things, so I'm not sure what to add.

It's easy to misunderstand, but they are different. The former is Creation Club, which is already over. The latter is Verified Creation, which is a current topic.

But that's not what I'm saying. In this example, users can create patches, but only Verified Creators can release them to their own patch hub.

Just one raw idea, but an example of how Nexus could change their guidelines with minimal changes would be to only allow Verified Creators to upload patches. One patch hub per Verified Creation might work somewhat ideally. Patches should be provided by the authors themselves and their Discord users or something. This reduces the costs of moderating Advertising Limitations and other rules.

Sorry, I gave up. Have a nice day.

Honestly I already missed your point, but does this old quote help you? Cartogriffi said this on Discord: Q: Did we ever get an answer as to whether perms are granted for patching paid mods? A: The rules for free community creations are the same for everyone, whether they're Verified or not. So, it's not something we went out of our way to clarify. But yes, generally speaking Verified Creators can release free content that requires/modifies their paid content. Or approve such releases by others. There are potentially edge cases where things get complicated, but nothing comes to mind. If you want to see for yourself, copy and paste the context into the search bar on the Bethesda Game Studios Discord.

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't thought of that last one. The first thing that comes to mind is nude mods, they would never allow those. I don't think 1 and 2 are particularly problematic, 1 is simply their choice and 2 is a general modding rule.

Is there a problem with putting patches for Verified Creations on BethesdaNet instead of NexusMods? When it's in the same place as Verified Creations it seems to make more sense. It is still not possible to have multiple files on one mod page, but it is now possible to put them into one mod page for PS, Xbox and PC. Not so bad, I think.

A few months ago, Bethesda changed "Creations must be all-new to qualify for release." to "Your previously released free content may be re-purposed for Creations released through the Verified Creator Program." This means that they can now legally delete their mods on Nexus and sell them on BethesdaNet (although they never recommended it). Nexus would be wise to avoid getting involved with Verified Creations as much as possible to avoid all the nonsense that could arise.

Thanks to Pickysaurus for addressing this, he's the guy who made the No-Intro mods for almost 100 games and I didn't report him because I wasn't sure if he was spamming the Game Registry Tweaks mod maliciously or not. But he closed the comments on his second attempt, which makes his behavior even more suspicious.

A rare case. So far there have only been 20 cases of bans related to "Donation Point".