Trying to understand

[HadToRegister]

 

 

The idea is, the collection author will put together a mod list that plays nice together, including conflict resolution 'stuff'. Trouble is, just because it plays nice on one machine, does NOT imply it will play nice on EVERY machine. Also no different than the situation we have now. For the most part, a single mod that works for one player, should work for every player. (assuming they have the hardware to run it.) It's when you have more than one mod that things start getting interesting.

 

 

Here's a scenario that's DEFINITELY going to happen, I just wonder who will get the brunt of it, the Mod Author, or the Mid list maker?

 

Somebody is going to install a mod list, and they're going to assume, that "since all the mods on the mod list work together, then surely I can install some more mods that I've been interested in because those will all work together as well"

 

"UR MOD (OR MODLIST) BROKE MAH GAME!!"

 

Isn't that what I already posted?

 

 

 

I didn't see anything that was worded the way I worded it.

I was giving an example

 

I didn't realize that if someone else says something, you're not allowed to say something similar.

[Adonsa]

Hello,

Why wasn't there a pilot project - as a "test bed" for users, developers, and beta testers to do

dry runs on a test web site?

 

Pelosi's most famous quote comes to mind,

"We have to pass the bill, to find out what's in it!"

 

Will users be able to download a mod the old/present way?

Read description

Read Requirements list.

Read comments

Read bug reports

Read file content list and look for .esp files.

Download manual or to choice of mod manager

 

all without messing with whatever collections functions are there,

or will the use of collections become mandatory?

 

Clueless novice user John Doe shows up, builds a collection list

and becomes a collections manager "curator or whatever."

Jane Doe logs in, and doesn't want some

files in the collection list, or just wants the master. Will Jane Doe

have to download and add it all to the game?

 

What if a mod developer is harmed by some clueless novice user

who put his mod into an arbitrary collections list?

 

Seems like a pilot project would have been useful to ferret out

undesirable outcomes. I dunno. You guys are 1000x smarter than

I am on all this, so I defer to your comments.

 

Thanks

[showler]

Found this interesting tidbit on a legal website:

Â

If the Terms of Service agreement includes a unilateral provision which states the company can change the agreement without notifying the customers, the agreement is entirely unenforceable

Â

Interesting, eh?

I've seen similar, including court cases in California that found this way. But, apparently, it's not enough for it to be settled law yet and that doesn't even take into account the international nature of the subject.

[Zanderat]

 

 

 

The idea is, the collection author will put together a mod list that plays nice together, including conflict resolution 'stuff'. Trouble is, just because it plays nice on one machine, does NOT imply it will play nice on EVERY machine. Also no different than the situation we have now. For the most part, a single mod that works for one player, should work for every player. (assuming they have the hardware to run it.) It's when you have more than one mod that things start getting interesting.

 

 

Here's a scenario that's DEFINITELY going to happen, I just wonder who will get the brunt of it, the Mod Author, or the Mid list maker?

 

Somebody is going to install a mod list, and they're going to assume, that "since all the mods on the mod list work together, then surely I can install some more mods that I've been interested in because those will all work together as well"

 

"UR MOD (OR MODLIST) BROKE MAH GAME!!"

 

Isn't that what I already posted?

 

 

 

I didn't see anything that was worded the way I worded it.

I was giving an example

 

I didn't realize that if someone else says something, you're not allowed to say something similar.

 

Sorry. Guess I am a little cranky this morning.

[NexBeth]

Found this interesting tidbit on a legal website:

 

If the Terms of Service agreement includes a unilateral provision which states the company can change the agreement without notifying the customers, the agreement is entirely unenforceable

 

Interesting, eh?

Yes, but now the Nexus has sent everyone notice of TOS changes and given mod creators until Aug 5 to get their files off the platform otherwise, if you keep your files here, then you "agree".

[SkyLover264]

I don't think it matters if they send a notice. All that says is if the TOS states that it can be changed whenever, it can't be enforced.

[showler]

I don't think it matters if they send a notice. All that says is if the TOS states that it can be changed whenever, it can't be enforced.

No. As long as they send notice it is legal.

 

UpCounsel (the website in question, which appears to exist to connect people with lawyers) has in their own terms of service that they can change the terms at any time at their own discretion and that they will either send an email or post a message on their homepage. If they post a message, the new terms come into effect 30 days later, if they send an email the new terms come into effect the moment the email is sent.

[HadToRegister]

They sent notice AFTER they changed the ToS though, surely that's a factor

[showler]

They sent it around two years after the change in the TOS and several days after they implemented the change.

 

But, they provided a way for anyone who did not agree to leave the site without being affected by the change. They could still remove their files for 30 days. And they will continue that option for anyone who misses the notification. Effectively, they shuffled the implementation of the change down the road to August 5th and that will likely work in their favor.

 

But, either way, simply having the TOS say they can change it does not negate the entire TOS. It would simply have negated the changed portion.

 

And that assumes that it even applies to a British company. Every ruling I've seen on the matter has been an American court.

[Raptilize]

They sent notice AFTER they changed the ToS though, surely that's a factor

Sure, if you can find a law that says someone can't do that it'll be a factor....after you file suit and take it to court in the proper jurisdiction. To what end?

Good luck finding a law that says someone can't make a decision and then tell you about it later. You're probably more likely to find one that says its their guaranteed right than something that says its illegal.