New mod author comment moderation features and updated terms of servic

[TooTiredToArgue]

In response to post #10269672.

By posting it on Nexus they are making it part of the community. If they want total control of it they shouldn't post it, and should only give it out privately. If they don't have the mindset of 'everything for the benefit of the community' then why even post it here? Because they want attention? Edited November 23, 2013 by TooTiredToArgue

[DrakeTheDragon]

In response to post #10252415. #10252846, #10253003, #10253436, #10253494, #10253733, #10254612, #10254935, #10255184, #10255502, #10255579, #10255972, #10257158, #10258026, #10259323, #10259640, #10262998, #10265609, #10267157, #10268517, #10268809, #10269441 are all replies on the same post.

Quite on the contrary I have a personal example of a problem #4 would solve.

Over years of forced inactivity I've grown tired of the average users' behavior in comments and discussions everywhere. The so-called 'vocal minority' disgusts me to no end, ever since it started feeling like the majority. I cannot and will no longer share my mods with the likes of these people, if it feels like 'supporting' the wrong-doers and their crimes.

Consequentially I decided to not share any mods of mine publically with what has become of the Skyrim mod community a while ago. I'm like shunning the entire community in an attempt to prevent the wrong ones from getting my mods.

This new option now offers an alternative. I could in theory limit access to my mods to only those I'm still feeling fine with sharing with and still keep sharing publically. However, turning the Nexus into some sort of my private file share host is totally against its purpose, and I have my own hosts for this very reason already anyways.

I'm not going to use this option though. I'm still turning away from the Skyrim community in disgust and haven't yet encountered anything which would make me reconsider. Reading all those self-entitled demands and offenses towards mod authors in general about 20 times a day everywhere sure isn't helping either. And for the records, most of the comments I read in here so far also added to it.

It's just me, so it doesn't matter at all to anybody but me. Still it serves as an example of a problem this option 'could' solve.

[Noxide]

In response to post #10269672. #10269902 is also a reply to the same post.

TooTiredToArgue... :D Now there's a contradiction to action if ever I saw one. I mean no offense. I find all this quite enjoyable.

[TooTiredToArgue]

In response to post #10259907.

What's the evidence that a majority of modders asked for this?

[TooTiredToArgue]

In response to post #10257006. #10257265, #10258033 are all replies on the same post.

I don't see why "giving it time" is a prerequisite for critiquing what appears to be, at its face, a poorly-conceived system.

Yes, time will either further support or refute such criticisms, but it's not "stupidly premature" to make them known now, and such an attitude just makes it seem like you're irritated by any kind of dissent. Edited November 23, 2013 by TooTiredToArgue

[DrakeTheDragon]

In response to post #10267393. #10268372 is also a reply to the same post.

The inherent trouble with this is, the user has no right to be able to download a mod the author of which doesn't want him to have. Not even the site management could do anything against it, if there 'was' a method in place to report such abuse.

There even is no 'abuse' to begin with, because nobody's harmed. Not being able to download a mod is no more harm than not being able to use the 1st class car without having paid for a 1st class ticket. On the contrary there is no 1st class ticket entitling the user to use the car in this comparison to begin with.

Somebody 'would' be harmed, if the site management was able to 'force' authors to share their mods with people they disapprove of. However, this won't happen, because in the end the author simply won't let his mods remain on a site which infringes his rights that severely.

<tl;dr>
- Does there have to be a means such as this blocking from downloading in place? No, it doesn't. It's a feature addition, not a prerequisite.
- Does the site have to offer means to 'undo' an author's blocking of anybody from downloading? No, and it can't do. The author will always have the last say in the matter and nobody can take away his right to say 'no'.
- Is it a dick move to prevent users from downloading for no apparent reason whatsoever? Sure it is, but everybody has a right to be a dick, as long as it doesn't break any rules or harms others. And for the records, not being able to download a mod is 'not' harm.

[muzzag]

In response to post #10252415. #10252846, #10253003, #10253436, #10253494, #10253733, #10254612, #10254935, #10255184, #10255502, #10255579, #10255972, #10257158, #10258026, #10259323, #10259640, #10262998, #10265609, #10267157, #10268517, #10268809, #10269441, #10269916 are all replies on the same post.

I agree with blove blocking the user from the modpage solves absolutely nothing. I mean you have the ability to completely cut off communication from him so why would you block him from enjoying your mod. It's just a feature for people who can't take criticism and feel the need to retaliate by blocking them. It's a rather juvenile feature.

[DrakeTheDragon]

In response to post #10259907. #10270110 is also a reply to the same post.

It wouldn't be here otherwise. Dark0ne didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. And I was watching the reoccurring requests for it in the authors' forum for quite a while now.

[askfor]

In response to post #10269672. #10269902, #10269992 are all replies on the same post.

There might be a number of reasons. One might want to know how are his mod evaluated by other people, as a form of benchmark. Or might want to get new ideas for future mods. Or it just might be because it doesn't cost anything to share the mod.

Last time I checked the terms of service, the author does not give up the ownership of the mod to the community, so the mods don't belong to the community. The terms of service are the relevant criteria here, not what someone might consider "right".

The point is that it is not for the community to decide what happens with a mod.

[jimbobsquarepants]

In response to post #10255826. #10256249, #10256750 are all replies on the same post.

I don't know where or why you picked up on any sort of fear, I simply think it's flat out bad that mods can be removed from the site because a modder doesn't want to support it anymore or they have been kicked off the site, it's nonsensical.

I'm not painting anything to be a scary world, I'm simply stating that this is the sort of thing that will further discourage people to criticise a mod. Granted there are many people incapable of doing so politely, people should be able to say what is bad about a mod to save like minded people time with something they might not like and to help authors improve on something they are working on. Giving people the means to ban them from an authors mod is a terrible idea and is the sort of thing moderators should handle, not authors.