papagator

I don't remember ever mentioning that we should lose a feature like blocking/banning people. I only believe that the concept of people blocking others for unfair reasons could be mitigated with some intervention, that's all. This doesn't mean everyone shouldn't have the right to block others.

I agree that modders should be able to ban people from their mods, but when authors start getting carried away with it is when it becomes a problem. It's a knee jerk reaction. Mod authors that ban for ridiculous reasons should be investigated or intervened, is that not logical enough? Also, the minute we start classifying whose mods are worth more than the other in terms of how popular it is, whos/what work was put into it, the time it took, is when a dark shadow of elitism is casted upon the modding community. We could agree that modding for beth-games is frustrating, and I'm also likely to respect someone who created a simplistic helmet as much as I'd respect someone making a collection of wearable items because of the effort they put in and the enthusiasm they had creating it. IMO putting aside all the OPs posts besides the initial, his comment on that mod is light compared to the top notch trolling i've read on other mods.

I don't believe what I mentioned to be derailment as this is a reason why people discuss this 'discussed to death issue'. If the staff looked at any cases of people crying out how unfair their situations were and intervened chances are this discussion wouldn't be mentioned so much. I also believe it's ethically wrong because it doesn't treat everyone on an even level. Are popular mod authors able to break the rules multiple times and finally be banned, whereas first offence users are more likely to be perma'd? Theres a certain mod author I remember (who i won't name for dignity reasons) who has been banned after being very toxic to the community for a long time. 1. These users would be exempt this situation because, well, they don't comment, and therefore wouldn't be liable to being blocked yes? 2. Users who provide constructive feedback are crucial to modding databases. What's a game without game testers? These people are usually key to fixing/finding issues, giving great suggestions and opinions, and most of all their thanks and positive feelings towards the mod authors. Negative feedback shouldn't be construed as abusive, not everyone will suckup to a mod author, and maybe if it seems that a negative criticism is toxic, its probably because they care and are serious about the mods success. Categories 2, 3, and 4 are almost interchangeable with varied participation. This also means they're just as susceptible to being blocked for unfair reasons by mod authors. The point I'm making is that unfair blocking should be moderated. If not, it allows mod authors to grow their egos and become the very same people they despise. 5. Mod authors; if a mod author unfairly blocked me, a mod creator, and proceeds to explain how hes worth more than I am because he published more mods than I have, and that they're 'more popular' (which is an opinion), where do I stand? This problem isn't users only, it affects everyone. I acknowledge that there's many authors that do in fact take criticisms and are hard working, but I'm hoping the elephant in the room would be addressed, the toxic mod authors. Even they should be accountable. These are my thoughts on the subject.

What exactly constitutes as abuse though? I've seen people get blocked because they offered fair criticisms, such as textures not being detailed enough, the voice acting needs improvement, there are glitches in the interior cell, the mesh isn't accurate to the real weapon, there are missing details to the model, the preset isn't accurate to the person being portrayed, etc etc. Obviously flaming others, trolling and being toxic is abusive. But so many people share their thoughts and it's promptly deleted and they become blocked because either they're being misconstrued, or the mod author wants none of it. As a mod author, if I can take criticisms why can't they?

I feel as if mod author blocks should have some type of intervention by staff. Surely there's 'acceptable' circumstances where blocking someone is fine but even I have been blocked by a mod author, and it was because I tried defusing an argument between the author and an critic on the comment section. To put it into perspective, I don't have any history of ever putting inflammatory comments on the Nexus. The whole schtick of staff never intervening in these scenarios only goes to show that the staff value mod authors over the average user; that the user is worth less than a mod author, which is wrong. Mod authors should have some sort of accountability even if it's on their own mod page. Does this website not support free speech?

Yeah, I realize a lot of you blow their brains out first hand. But for those that kill them without doing so, one could notice that some of them have strange tattoo's on their forehead on what happens to represent their blood type. I've currently seen 0+, A, B+, etc. Considering they're "professional" mercenaries and not just organized raiders with military gear, I assume they have that for easy identification when given a blood transfusion in a life threatening situation. Here's an example of a gunner that has a tattoo imprinted on her forehead. Could somebody perhaps make a mod that adds these markings as standalone tattoos?

you should make Royez look a little more unique. i'm sure he'd have somewhat of a tan skin considering hes got a hispanic sounding name like Royez, and him being a Colonel should have some other facial features like a rough beard or something along the line to make him look more like a veteran, and not like a young pale man. purely speculation though, as it would be better to see him not look like a generic male character (in my opinion). good job on the redesign though, it never felt right as an NCR sided character (or legion if you like them) to be killing ghoul versions of them even though you never nuked them, but just had an explorer perk.