ripple

No, it does not. In fact you should not touch that particular setting at all. http://www.creationkit.com/INI_Settings_%28Papyrus%29#iMaxAllocatedMemoryBytes OP: uninstall the mod associated with the plugin that causes the 'out of memory' error.

1) Replace your load order with a BOSS log (including the SKSE information in the log). Copy/paste the list of plugins not recognizes by BOSS if one is generated. Enclose them all in a set of spoiler tags so they won't clutter the screen. 2) When did this start happening and what was the last thing you did outside of the game before it started happening (installed a new mod, uninstalled a mod, made an ini tweak, etc.).

1) Replace your load order with a complete BOSS log (include the SKSE information in the BOSS log). 2) Describe your CTDs in much greater detail: when/where/what were you doing or what was going on.

Get the 'Brawl Bug Fix' (search for it on the Nexus).

SKSE's 'clearyinvalidregistration' function will address broken onupdate events. But it won't fix the other issues (and there appears to be multiple issues with your save game, based on the Papyrus log). Your best bet is to delete your existing save games and start a new game, don't remove any more mods mid-playthrough (uninstall any mods you do not deem 'essential' before you start the new game, and do a bit of 'load order maintenance' to clean stuff out), and don't use any 'save game cleaners' anymore (because they are just as likely to further damage save games they purportedly attempt to salvage).

There is no assurance that the memory patch will allow everyone to run a stable game with ugridstoload above default game value, and this is not counting any potential issues that might arise resulting from scripts triggering too early due to a higher than default ugridstoload value. If running above default game ugridstoload value generate instabilities on your modded setup even with the memory patch, then you should stick with the default value, and just benefit from the removal of ILS.

Try going back to the default ugridstoload value.

1) Yes, there is a "HUGE difference." Suspensions and expulsions are permanently registered on the student's academic records. It shows up on the transcript--you know that thing which records the student's cumulative grades, that institutions of higher learning require as part of their admission process. 'Getting kicked off campus' could just be being told by the janitor to not to loiter on school grounds at the end of the day. It's even less of a 'punishment' than detention. In this case, they apparently voluntarily choose to leave the school, rather than face suspension, and rather than turn over their shirts or hand over their bandanas. They had choices, and they made them. The smartest choice would have been to not deliberately attempt to troll for reactions and force the school administrators to act to begin with, given what happened the previous year. 2) I already told you, I am not interested in indulging in your off-topic imaginary scenarios since I am not interested in derailing this thread. 3) You keep thinking this is about the US national flag--it's not really about the US national flag. It's about some stupid kids doing things with malicious intent that could have serious ramifications. If instead of wearing those flag shirts, they had ran down the school hallway yelling racist remarks about Mexicans in order to agitate some of their fellow students, they would have been 'punished' for that as well, and (not) strangely enough, the grounds for an attempt to legitimate such actions would be exactly the one they used in this 'case.' They are not 'courageous', they did something stupid, and hid behind a flag when they did it. There is nothing 'patriotic' about what they did. 'Rah rah patriotism' are meaningless gestures.

Ugh, fine they were not expelled. They were, however, suspended. Being sent home from school against your will for disciplinary reasons is a suspension, regardless of what it was "registered" as (whatever that means). I hope you feel better now, but my use of the wrong term (expelled vs suspended) really doesn't validate anything substantive that you have said, or invalidate anything substantive that I have said. No, they were not suspended either. 'Suspensions' and 'expulsions' are both formal disciplinary actions, meaning they permanently mark a student's academic records, and will show up on their transcripts when they submit their transcripts as part of their applications to whatever. Suspension isn't getting 'sent home for the day', but more like 'you don't need to come to school for the next few days.' In their case, they apparently went home in order to avoid being suspended (thus, they were not suspended). Source Also, I don't feel 'better' or 'worse.' I mere correct misinformation and criticize fabrications based on a political agenda. I don't have some vested in interest in making anyone 'look bad' on the internet....

I guess this is yet another example of your keen ability to read and absorb information. Where did you find the source that stated the students were "expelled from school"? They were sent home for the day. It wasn't even registered as a 'suspension', let alone 'expulsion.' They were not expelled from the school. In fact, some of them have since graduated from that school.

I don't know what you mean by 'attitude.' I noted that you opened up duplicate topics in different forums, and asked why you did that. If you made a 'mistake', then you should have PMed a moderator to close one thread so support can be focused on the other thread.

I took a quick look and didn't recognize any more serious issues. My only concern is that when you uninstalled a mod, you made sure all resources from that mod were removed and no loose script files were left behind (which would normally be the case if you did all your un/installs via a mod manager). If you are sure that is the case, then it's probably not necessary to reinstall your game and mods. You can play a bit in your new game and test to see if the game is more stable. Keep your Papyrus logging enabled for a few days and see if you have any more issues propping up. If not, and you feel your modded setup is reasonably stable, then you can (and should) turn off Papyrus logging so it isn't siphoning resources that would otherwise be used by the game engine.

I am not going to read any more of your silly imaginary scenarios, where you try to inject items that are irrelevant to the discussion or the case example (like whether 'trolling' is 'illegal'). Just one thing that needs to be pointed out, since you are so confident in your ability to read things carefully... The school officials stated there were violent altercations in the year -prior- to the incident during the Cinco de Mayo celebrations, which is what prompted the school administrators to act and pre-empt the possibility it may occur again, -not- that any of the trolls were "attacked" in the subsequent year, when this incident took place, as you mistakenly stated.

What I really love about this is the way that you segue directly into a "theme shift" of your own, in which you compare people who dare to display the US flag to the WBC protestors.... That's because it's an 'example' and I did not structure further arguments on that as if it was a 'premise' and as if those examples were equivalent, unlike your lengthy appropriation of 's**t-shaming' and 'rape victims' as some perfect analogy for what these trolls did. In fact, since you obviously didn't understand, let me spell it out for you: the 'comparison' is not so much illustrating the actions of one group of 'trolls' as exactly equivalent to another group of 'trolls', but intended to illustrate the ridiculousness of your analogy between the 'trolls' and 'rape victims.' "Trolling" is not illegal. Violently attacking someone is. Therefore, they became victims the moment that they were attacked by a violent street gang that, apparently, is running the school. You are basically saying "they were asking for it", which again correlates closely with the "blame the victim" attitude that some people apply to rape victims. 1) 'Trolling' is not 'illegal'--and here you insert yet another 'imaginary scenario' which does not apply at all in this case. There was never any government legislation that made the display of the US national flag 'illegal.' There were -school policies- that authorized school administrators to restrict certain student actions and activities if they might be disruptive to the school environment. Deliberately doing things that would agitate fellow students definitely fall into that category. 2) No one was attacked--again, another 'imaginary scenario' to suggest that anyone was physically assaulted and necessitated criminal charges that were never laid. Perhaps these students *might* have been involved in physical altercations with other students--we do not know that. But there is zero evidence to suggest they were ever attacked.

It doesn't matter which mod manager you use. BOSS will sort your load order regardless. However, if you are new to Skyrim modding, you should use -a- mod manager to exclusively manage the un/installation of mods.

Pretty much what the message says. You are using a CoT compatibility plugin that requires another CoT plugin as a 'master' (which is missing from your load order), and by the naming scheme of that missing master, you would also need the Dragonborn DLC (which is also missing from your load order).

The order of uninstallation does not matter, as long you remove or otherwise fix the mod that is dependent on Frostfall as a master. But basically, yes. It could just be a dynamically generated compatibility patch that needs to be rebuilt (although I didn't see any in the load order) or an optional support plugin for Frostfall from another mod.

Why does that make my example moot? A gang of violent white supremacists are racially motivated to attack a student who is wearing a Mexican flag on their shirt. The school administrators, concerned about the threat of hostility and disruption to the school, decide to ban such shirts. There is no political agenda or conspiracy. They only want to "cover their ass". Is this acceptable to you? Is the school doing the right thing in this example? Why should the school capitulate to the will of the gang instead of protecting the victim? The whole thing reeks of the same kind of victim-blaming that is done when a rape victim is told that they invited the rape by dressing provocatively. There is no valid excuse for a person to commit violence against another person. It does not matter how abhorrent, detestable, obscene, repugnant, repulsive, ghastly, creepy, disgusting, distasteful, foul, repellent, yucky, hideous, horrid, outrageous, objectionable, obnoxious, dysphemistic, nauseating, provocative, or offensive the clothing of the victim is to the attacker. If a gang of serial rapists were violently attacking other students, and the school administration's response was require all of the girls in the school to wear burkas so as to not provoke the gang to violence against them, would this be acceptable to you? I would prefer that they address the problem by removing the violent gang instead, and allowing the students to dress and express themselves as they please without fear of violence. Right... This form of 'flawed reasoning' is what is referred to as a 'theme shift.' It's when the person substitutes one concept with another concept of different meaning and proceeds to build a string of fallacious arguments as if those two concepts are equivalent. When did trolls become 'victims' (of what, exactly?) The three kids conspired to collectively perform an act, on a very specific day of the year, that they knew would agitate some tensions among the student body and lead to potential violence. They were trolling for reactions. Calling them 'victims' is like calling the Westboro Baptist Church 'victims.' They are not 'victims.' Second, as I keep stating, the example you cited is actually not about -a- flag, and does not substantiate or counter the OP's question in any meaningful way. It's not 'proof' that the US national flag was singled out as the one flag that offends people (while no other national flags does). The motive of the school administrators was to diffuse any tension before they escalate. If some students conspired to show up that day with French flag shirts, and told the other student that the French army should have killed a lot more Mexicans during the Battle of Puebla, the school administrators' reaction would likely have been exactly the same. The OP's question is whether there are people inside the US who are offended by the US national flag--this is a no brainer. Invariably, there are. Just as there are people inside Russia who are offended by the Russian national flag, including those who are apparently responsible for the spectre of 'terrorism' at the Sochi games. There is nothing new or unique about finding someone in your country that is offended by the country's national flag, for whatever reason, because there is no country in the world in which this would not be the case. However, what is implied in the OP's post is that there is some wide-spread phenomenon of 'anti-Americanism' in the US now being officially supported by the policies of companies and institutions, and there is no evidence of that. Yet, you've managed to use that as a platform to spin a number of imaginary scenarios. In your imaginary scenarios, high schools in the US hold classes on national holidays, trolls are 'rape victims', and school administrators hate the US national flag.

PM the site moderators and explain the situation. They will help you out.

No. The Bashed Patch primarily addresses conflicting leveled lists. The other compatibility patches (whether manually made or dynamically generated) address everything else.

The 4th of July is a holiday in the US. So your 'example' is moot. However, one of the student was interviewed and said she would never wear a Mexican flag shirt on the 4th of July because she felt it would be disrespectful. In your imaginary scenario (you seem to use a lot of those to try and substantiate your claims, like your deliberate confusion between 'correlation' and 'example'....), it would be perfectly 'consistent' for the school administrator to tell the students to turn their Mexican flag shirt over, or go home--if there was a likely threat of hostility and/or disruption to the school, because, as I have been trying to tell you, the administrator didn't act out of any political agenda or conspiracy, but only to cover their ass.

To answer your question, I can attest that some Americans and people who are from the US or are of US parentage, in countries outside of the US, do in fact celebrate the 4th of July.

The 'correlation' is in your head. There is no 'correlation', there is an 'example', intended to illustrate the fact that the three students intended to provoke hostility by their conduct and acted irresponsibly. If someone was to tell me that they don't understand why waving an Albanian national flag during Serbia's national holiday celebrations might lead to a beating, I would say that person is probably ignorant. But it doesn't mean I think either one of those flags must necessarily be worse than the other. I also previously used the 'example' of wearing a shirt with a swastika. That 'correlation' didn't bother you as much as the example of the rebel flag?

If three trolls showed up at a Martin Luther King Day Service with confederate flags, the 'right thing' would not be to cancel the entire service. Feeding the trolls is not the 'right thing.' In this case, taking steps to ensure the safety of the kids in the school with the least amount of disruption, regardless of who they are, was the 'right thing.'

The school prohibited students from wearing US flags. while allowing other students to wear Mexican flags. You could perhaps argue that they did not actually draft a policy, but if a school administrator is making a student do something under their authority it is fair to describe it as a de facto policy of the school, even if it is not official or written policy. I didn't see any 'reputable' source that stated the students were allowed to wear Mexican flags, only that they did so -after- this incident during a protest in which they marched off of the school's property. But as much as some people would like to seize on this one shinning example from 4 years ago as a rally point for...something, the judge's ruling is totally consistent. The point made by the judge, is that it doesn't matter what the students were wearing. If wearing a 'I Heart Justin Bieber!!!!!!!' shirt on that day presents a likely chance that a violent disruption could ensue, then the school administrators had the authority to 'act.' The school administrator explained that they acted not because they had some phantom disdain towards the US national flag, but because they were concerned with safety issues, as colourwheel explained. It's totally consistent with how these institutions and their administrators operate--which is to ensure they would not be blamed and held legally liable for not doing anything if the crap hits the fan. Just like how the ALCU is being 'consistent' in firing off a letter to the school protesting their censorship.