Nice work....

[HeyYou]

I agree. If a mod author deletes a file than the mod collection curator needs to update accordingly. Simple.

That's the way it works with every other collection system...... Fail to understand why it needs to be different here.

[showler]

Because they want their system to have more functionality than any other collection system.

 

And Mod Authors have never been able to opt out of any other collection system, so why should this one be hamstrung by such a system?

[Striker879]

 

I agree. If a mod author deletes a file than the mod collection curator needs to update accordingly. Simple.

That's the way it works with every other collection system...... Fail to understand why it needs to be different here.

 

 

Nexus developed the API, Nexus developed the tool to implement the plan (Vortex). If their plan was to be just as good as the already existing tools implementing mod packs/collections they play on a level playing field.

 

Nexus does not want to go head to head with those who are already ahead of them in the race to world domination ... they want to be head and shoulders above their competition. That means that we are left with two choices, become a cog in their wheel to what they see as a new bright future for Nexus or be gone.

 

- Edit - +1 :ninja: to Showler

[xrayy]

it is my daily work to deal with it problems. i do not know how the communication and implementation was planned here.

- set the correct goal (do not speak with mod authors)

- brainstorm the solutions

- rule out poor options (like the chosen one here)

- examine the consequences (!)

- put the best solution to practice ( better before changing the tos or even without ) and implement if it works.

 

as we all know a physical file delition option extists already. otherwise the 'granted' nuke of mod author accounts within 5 weeks would not be possible. just let the authors themselves decide which mod to nuke and which not. it would save all parties a lot of work in addition with the opt out option.

[Ladez]

I can provide some clarification on that. The ToS were not changed with the announcement. When you upload your files to our site you retain ownership but you grant us a license - this is not new and it's also fairly standard (cp. Bethesda.net's ToS).

 

The ToS changes may not be new, but you've done nothing to notify users of your site that these changes ever took place. I shrugged it off at the time, but due to your recent actions I'm no longer sure I can trust you, and it smells more and more of bad faith.

 

No partnership is being cancelled, instead, we're being open and honest in communicating that we believe the change towards file archiving is necessary to ensure the collections feature can function as intended

You've been the polar opposite of open and honest, by sneaking in changes that take away users' control over their content and only disclosing it after the fact.

 

You've even been archiving old mod pages behind our backs as well, which became clear when I was notified that Dark0ne had "archived" mods I "deleted" more than a year ago while he was deleting my files. The files had presumably been deleted with only the mod page left, but I honestly don't know if I trust that this is the case anymore, or whether you've even lived up to my request for a full deletion now.

 

Right now I can still see my own mod pages in my download history, but I no longer have access to them. They still have images, a full log of actions that I took on it, as well as my name on it. I can even see how many endorsements I used to have via the API. Why was this data not deleted? You should have at least deleted the images (which are also my property), and the sensitive parts such as my username and full logs, and severed the connection to my account. And if your intent was only to delete the files, you should have left me in control of my mod page to manage the content that was left. There's no transparency in this process whatsoever and I have no idea what to think or feel, other than a sense of confusion and betrayal.

 

The fact that mod collections have been demonstrated to work elsewhere without forced file archival, and the lack of a coherent technical argument explaining why you feel archival is required, does not instill much confidence either. In fact, the whole argument that "they're just a list of mods" fall completely apart, when you say that the whole system will fall apart if a file is deleted.

 

to stop the erosion of our database at the same time. (The latter btw. creates a dev environment that is increasingly difficult to work with for both our developers as well as external, community-developers of tools, which is ultimately bad for everyone and another reason why file deletions on a grand scale are unsustainable - with or without collections in the picture).

The limitations of your database does not give you the moral right to store my content indefinitely without my approval. If your database cannot handle file deletions (which is not a database concern to begin with, but a filesystem concern. God help us all if you're actually storing files in a database), then you need to instruct your engineers to fix your database, not enforce ludicrous constraints on your users' ability to manage their content.

 

There is no reason you cannot maintain the integrity of your data while at the same time allowing users to properly manage and delete their content. There is no reason you cannot soft delete user sensitive data and maintain relational integrity.

 

I'm left thinking that you either have no idea what you're doing, or you're not being truthful about your motives.

 

We've explained how we believe the collections feature will help in making modding accessible and that is ultimately good for everyone: users, mod authors, and curators alike.

 

Far be it from me to speak for everyone, but I've seen a lot of users mentioning that they have no problem with collections. I'd wager the majority even sees it as a good thing. The thing that cost you the good will of your users is the gross overreach of taking away their control.

 

As much as you cannot, and never have been able to, "opt out" of someone writing up a list of what they think are cool mods, providing links, you cannot opt out of collections doing the same thing. There are other considerations and I've explained it in more detail here. I hope that answers your questions.

 

Normally I'd agree, but conventional mod lists don't tend to have their own file host from which you cannot remove your content. If they did, we would have rightly called it piracy. And isn't this the excuse torrent sites use? That they're not, in fact, hosting your content, just facilitating the sharing between users. But you are.

 

To be clear, I'm not against mod lists or collections and I'm not calling what you're doing outright piracy, but it does raise some similar concerns. I gave you my permission to host and distribute, but I did so under the terms that I could revoke my permission and delete my content at any time. That right was unceremoniously taken away from me without notice or consent, and you made backend changes to your site, meaning that content I had in good faith deleted was in fact still there.

 

So tell me, why should I trust you with my content?

 

And tell me, why should I work for free to produce content for your site, when I have no control over it, and you're going to make money off it via a feature that will allow anyone to download it without even visiting my page?

 

Honestly, as I'm writing this stuff out, I'm becoming more and more dumbfounded at the absurdity.

 

Your link is not particularly persuasive either, by the way, as you took away my access to read it. (I'm assuming it is a GMAD thread)

[Gummiel]

 

Your link is not particularly persuasive either, by the way, as you took away my access to read it. (I'm assuming it is a GMAD thread)

 

 

His link is indeed a GMAD thread, and the particular post he links is him using a million words as usual, to basically explain that they don't want to inconvenience the "casual" mod collection authors that use 5-10 minutes to set up a collection, by making them maintain that list, so yeah doubt it would be very persuasive even if you could see it

Edited July 8, 2021 by Gummiel

[euph]

 

You've even been archiving old mod pages behind our backs as well, which became clear when I was notified that Dark0ne had "archived" mods I "deleted" more than a year ago while he was deleting my files. The files had presumably been deleted with only the mod page left, but I honestly don't know if I trust that this is the case anymore, or whether you've even lived up to my request for a full deletion now.

 

Right now I can still see my own mod pages in my download history, but I no longer have access to them. They still have images, a full log of actions that I took on it, as well as my name on it. I can even see how many endorsements I used to have via the API. Why was this data not deleted? You should have at least deleted the images (which are also my property), and the sensitive parts such as my username and full logs, and severed the connection to my account. And if your intent was only to delete the files, you should have left me in control of my mod page to manage the content that was left. There's no transparency in this process whatsoever and I have no idea what to think or feel, other than a sense of confusion and betrayal.

This. I have the same thing happening to my mods. Still there, images and all. It's very cute. Also very cute, is how I will not support those mods in any way. Enjoy the fun if you (Nexus) put them in packs.

 

Also, cute to link GMAD threads to people that you (Nexus) took the access from because "no popular titty mods" published.

[HeyYou]

 

 

You've even been archiving old mod pages behind our backs as well, which became clear when I was notified that Dark0ne had "archived" mods I "deleted" more than a year ago while he was deleting my files. The files had presumably been deleted with only the mod page left, but I honestly don't know if I trust that this is the case anymore, or whether you've even lived up to my request for a full deletion now.

 

Right now I can still see my own mod pages in my download history, but I no longer have access to them. They still have images, a full log of actions that I took on it, as well as my name on it. I can even see how many endorsements I used to have via the API. Why was this data not deleted? You should have at least deleted the images (which are also my property), and the sensitive parts such as my username and full logs, and severed the connection to my account. And if your intent was only to delete the files, you should have left me in control of my mod page to manage the content that was left. There's no transparency in this process whatsoever and I have no idea what to think or feel, other than a sense of confusion and betrayal.

This. I have the same thing happening to my mods. Still there, images and all. It's very cute. Also very cute, is how I will not support those mods in any way. Enjoy the fun if you (Nexus) put them in packs.

 

Also, cute to link GMAD threads to people that you (Nexus) took the access from because "no popular titty mods" published.

 

Yeah, staff seems to make a habit of linking discussions (where they should be continued....) to closed threads, or threads we can't access. That's just oh-so-helpful......

 

What is really happening is, they are attempting to do damage control, and limit airing their dirty laundry in public.

 

 

I had seriously considered making a mod that ALL it does is, give women larger breasts. I should have 1000 downloads before the end of the day. :D

[Guest deleted34304850]

i put a post up in the vortex support forum asking them to restore some mods that were deleted because i think we all know, now, nothing is deleted here.

can't wait for them to restore the mods so i can install them, or maybe i'll just make a "collection" and directly pull them down via the impossible to crack api..........

[showler]

 

His link is indeed a GMAD thread, and the particular post he links is him using a million words as usual, to basically explain that they don't want to inconvenience the "casual" mod collection authors that use 5-10 minutes to set up a collection, by making them maintain that list, so yeah doubt it would be very persuasive even if you could see it

He did actually give a scenario where a casual user would want to make a Collection and NOT update it. Perhaps you skimmed too much?