Bethesda.net Mods is revising its port rules, we would like your feedback.

[Cartogriffi]

 

but surely bethesda didn't help themselves along, not one bit - because they made it so difficult for mod authors who were victims of very obvious theft, to rectify the situation.

 

 

We tried to make DMCAs as quick and easy as possible, including a template and instructions on its use. (If there are further steps you think we should have taken with DMCA, please let me know.)

 

Since DMCAs weren't working, we changed to our current setup.

[Guest deleted34304850]

 

 

but surely bethesda didn't help themselves along, not one bit - because they made it so difficult for mod authors who were victims of very obvious theft, to rectify the situation.

 

 

We tried to make DMCAs as quick and easy as possible, including a template and instructions on its use. (If there are further steps you think we should have taken with DMCA, please let me know.)

 

Since DMCAs weren't working, we changed to our current setup.

 

im sure you think you made it as easy as possible. however i also think you made it much easier for work to be stolen and hosted with seeming impunity for many because of the way that website was set up, was, and continues to be "moderated".

 

imagine a website where DCMA doesn't work. just imagine that. and because it doesn't work in favor of the person who did all the work and they get frustrated, you ban them off the platform. what a time to be alive.

[DoctaSax]

I wanted to thank everyone who has responded, it has been extremely helpful to get everyone's opinions.

 

We're narrowing our focus this week, and have a specific question we're looking into. I touched on this earlier and some have already answered, but just to shine the spotlight on it here:

 

When permissions are contradictory, should we prioritize the permissions as written on the mod, or unverified discussion via PM or Discord?

 

For the purposes of this question, "written on the mod" can refer to the description, mod comments, or permission tab. We also accept explicit comments may be provided as exceptions to any general permissions.

By perms being contradictory, I assume you mean perms as set on the mod (or lack of perms) vs perms given in private. A lot of people aren't comfortable asking for permission in public, so they ask for it, and may receive it, in private. It's easier. There seems to be a push here to make personal permission (as opposed to a general permission, and necessarily public) also a public one (as opposed to private).

 

So far it's been understood that proof of presonal permission, given in private or public, overrules a lack of general permission, whether closed entirely or 'ask me nicely and we shall see'. In fact, it's what it's for, and has been this age and more.

Now, you seem to want to move to proof of personal permission only being valid if given in public. This means that someone may be entirely on the up-and-up under the current system of rules and habits that we operate under, but may end up being accused of not being so, and then the proof of having obtained permisison in private is no longer valid. If the orginal modder is no longer around to set the record straight, that's a sorry reason to suddenly get branded a thief.

 

I don't quite understand the agonizing about proof of private permissionbeing unverified or possibly falsified (which as far as I know should be exceedingly rare). It's the nature of private conversation that only the people in it know what happened. If there is doubt that it happened or if there's a conflict in how that is remembered by both parties, then it is always the re-uploader/porter's job to provide proof this permission was given. If they can't they can't. If it is convincing, it is; if not, then not. On the very rare occasion that you might find against the original modder in such a dispute, you can still back down when faced with an actual DMCA if they take it that far and just remove the file - it's not the end of the world.

 

It feels a bit like the responsibility for the transparancy you're after is handed from bethnet to other sites, and from the reuploader to the original modder. Now people are gonna get anxious about having gotten permisison once but the original modder no longer being around to adjust their file page on nexus, leading to them getting crucified on beth-net or something. It's all quite unnecessary, imo.

[Crimsomrider]

I think that as a mod-hosting site, protecting yourselves first and foremost and having solidified and consistent rules is the top priority, for the sake of all the gamers who love and enjoy mods on consoles. Because hunting down ways to authenticate permissions is not only a waste of time and effort, but also a potential risk that could cause issues and who knows what else. Because we live in a digital era where anything and everything can easily be falsified and presented as authentic in less than 30 seconds.

 

So the best way to treat this dilemma would be to treat it like a real-life scenario. Just like we can't present a printed copy of our ID and instead need an actual physical valid ID, so the same should be with permissions.

• The only actual valid permission is the one on the mod page under the Permissions tab. It cannot be edited nor falsified by a 3rd party and it is by all means and purposes intended to act as an unquestionable proof.
• If a permission's authenticity is being questioned, a simple check on the mod page would destroy all doubt because it is publicly visible information, both by you, your moderators and even mod users.
• If the permission does not correlate to what the mod porter is claiming, then the mod gets taken down.
• If the mod author actually did give permission to have the mod ported somewhere else, regardless it is the mod author's duty to update the permission page so the mod can get ported.
• If the mod author updates their mod permission, the mod porter is free to re-upload the mod.
• The only absolute proof is what the permission tab says on the mod page.

So I think treating it as a real-life documentation would make lives easier for everyone and permanently solidify your rules so they can remain consistent, which then would also make the Permissions tab on the Nexus actually mean something. Because so many mod authors do not treat their mod pages properly and keep handling out permissions willy-nilly wherever they like.

 

So I see this as a win-win for Bethesda, Nexus and mod authors.

 

 

Also I'm really glad that Bethesda Modding is still going strong, as gamers deserve the beauty of modding regardless of their platform.

[Cartogriffi]

I understand why many Nexus mod authors would prefer to keep to "Nexus standard" for things like port approvals. At minimum, tracking multiple standards is a bother. But there's far more tension around porting on Bethesda.net than here on Nexus.

 

Bethesda.net struggles with two outdated reputations - mod theft and false reporting. Attempts to educate away these has had limited success, which is why we've moved towards more substantive change.

 

Requiring the transparency of public approvals has it's downsides, but should do a lot to tackle these reputations, lower overall tension, and free up moderation resources for other areas (including edge case scenarios).

 

No final decision has been made, although I am hoping to have something in place before the end of the year.

[HeyYou]

In the end, it simply doesn't matter what you do, some percentage of the population is going to think you made the wrong decision, and take you to task for it.

[Wolfstorm]

Bethesda.net struggles with two outdated reputations - mod theft and false reporting. Attempts to educate away these has had limited success, which is why we've moved towards more substantive change.

 

 

Would not be much easier to change the EULA for the SDKs of these games, and apply mandatory open-source to every nif and plugin? Or is there a legal impediment for it?

[Lollia]

I know this suggestion probably will not be very popular because it would put more work on the Nexus staff, but perhaps a new tab just for mod author-sanctioned ports could be placed on the mod pages?

 

I know we already have the Permissions and Credits section--I have made good use of it on more than one occasion--but that particular area can become very cluttered rather quickly, depending on the inclinations of the mod author.

 

Personally speaking, I like to be very detailed and reiterate the list of creators I owe credit to. If I received permission to use their work, but there were conditions attached, then I am obligated to be very transparent about those conditions. It can get lengthy. I have seen other creators use the Permissions and Credits section to set up a type of contract and advanced instruction list for other potential authors in case they wish to use any of their mod's resources. Trying to wade through all of that would quickly become taxing for someone who simply hoped to find out if the proper permissions had been obtained for a ported mod.

 

If there was a specific tab for this function, then all one would have to do is click on it and see the list. I realize that this would not help out with older mods whose creators are no longer active, but if visual proof (like a screenshot that had been officially validated in times past) were still readily available, perhaps some sort of exception could be made in such cases?

 

Please accept my apologies if any of this has been suggested or debated before. I have not had time to read the whole thread.

 

 

Edited to include a missing word and to (hopefully) add fuller clarity.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Lollia

[84Cronos]

 

Hello, I’m Andrew, and I help oversee our modding initiatives at Bethesda Game Studios. When it comes to community interaction I mainly keep to 1-on-1 or small group discussions, although some of you may know me from the official BGS Discord, or previously on the official Bethesda forums (as Cartogriffi or, for the oldies, Hungry Donner.)

I'm posting today because we’re working with the Bethesda.net Mods team to revise the rules for 3rd party ports to that service.

Since most ports come from Nexus, we’d love to get input from Nexus authors. We are also very aware that porting was an acute issue when Bethesda.net Mods launched, and while these problems are largely behind us, an open dialogue here still felt prudent.

So, we are looking for any general feedback to improve or clarify our existing rules.

We are also looking to solve a particular issue with closed permissions:

When someone receives permission to port a mod, this is usually done via Nexus PM or Discord, and demonstrated via screenshot. Unfortunately, if these screenshots are called into question there is no easy way to confirm. The moderators’ only option is to have me, or a CM, manually reach out to the author.

We need to simplify this process, and remove all of the uncertainty these screenshots cause.

One proposed solution:

We could require that approvals be made in a public, linkable space, on the mod host itself. For Nexus, this would mean someone approving a port would need to state this in the (original) mod description, mod comments, or forum. (I suspect mod comments are the easiest of these three.)

We’d love to hear what mod authors feel about this, or if they have alternative solutions. When testing the waters, some authors have raised concerns, feeling this would be onerous or at least inconvenient. Others don’t check Nexus frequently, and worry requests will get missed.

I'll be tracking this thread, and have also started a temporary channel on the official BGS Discord for discussion.

Thank you so much.

 

Thank you for at least considering to come up with an idea/system to help with this problem.

 

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy solution for this problem, since name spoofing and different usernames between Bethnet and the nexus will always cause problems.These problems aside, I would suggest two realistic/unrealistic solutions:

 

1. Add a "port permission section" tab to mod pages here on the nexus which can be linked to from Bethnet.

2. Integrate Nexusmods into Bethnet - which is unrealistic, I know - but this would completely eliminate the problem. The nexus is better for modders anyway, more options to post updates/fixes/track things and the possibility to at least earn a few bucks.

[HeyYou]

 

Bethesda.net struggles with two outdated reputations - mod theft and false reporting. Attempts to educate away these has had limited success, which is why we've moved towards more substantive change.

 

 

Would not be much easier to change the EULA for the SDKs of these games, and apply mandatory open-source to every nif and plugin? Or is there a legal impediment for it?

 

I think that would have the effect of dramatically reducing the number of folks willing to publicly release their mods......