New mod author comment moderation features and updated terms of servic

[rai4shu2]

This site isn't just modders and users, you know. A lot of us are modders, and these new rules will just escalate all the mod wars going on between modders. Especially modders who have conflicting mods. People start accusing each other's mods of causing crashes or corrupting saves, and that just becomes impossible to properly resolve, I would think. I mean, how do you determine where the abuse is really coming from in that situation?

 

The ability to block users is just begging to be abused in a troublesome situation like the above.

[ZeroKing]

In response to post #10278861. #10278918, #10281171, #10284723, #10288106, #10288965, #10292436, #10292470, #10295660, #10295701 are all replies on the same post.

+1 kudos Edited November 26, 2013 by ZeroKing

[Lisnpuppy]

 

In response to post #10303615.

So if a product is free and you give it away yourself you have more rights. And if it is sold and you have someone distribute it you have less rights?

 

I can almost buy into this, but...you have the same rights in either case. One you manage and one, in the case of the Nexus now, that you are allowed to manage. Both are retribution and in the case of the Nexus and the first bullet item of the Terms of Service something that the Nexus should not be about.

 

There is no question of legality since the user already has the mod. Unless...the Nexus Mod Manager remote kill switch feature is added...nah, even then a little ToS addendum would take care of that.

 

How about a twist?

 

How about advertising free cookies, giving the user the box, but not the key to unlock the box? That would be control that the baker legally has, but something that the distributor usually does not allow. Are password protected files a viable Nexus option now? Surely the uploader has the right to restrict access to whomever they choose.

 

I was responding to someone else's ideas (which in fairness they did rethink) and so I stand by my statement. My opinion again is wait and see how this turns out. I feel no need to try and imagine and overthink a thousand different scenarios when I can simply wait for a short period and see how it is. I believe that your opinion of this feature has been duly noted.

[blove]

In response to post #10303615. #10305937, #10306513, #10307330, #10307593 are all replies on the same post.

Do I need to start numbering the obvious?

Blocking a user from downloading is the point and it is predicated on the copyright holder having the right to do so. Now the distributor has the right to do so and has the right to enable the copyright holder to do so. But is it right? The answer is no, it is not.

It is mean and vindictive.

The Nexus Mod Manager copyright holder remote mod kill switch and right to upload password protected files do not exist yet clearly they fall under the same predication.

[blove]

In response to post #10309334.

There is no need to wait. The ability to block a user from downloading is only mean and vindictive. The only way to measure that is how mean and vindictive. There is no good thing to wait and hope for.

I have been unfairly chided and reviled. I find nothing appropriate about the way my opinion been noted.

[Lisnpuppy]

Blove...I believe you are taking my comment personally and it is not. I do apologize if you think it so. However you have noted your objection to this in multiple posts. I personally don't see any reason to continue to object without additional information by simply making up scenario after scenario.

 

If it isn't working or making such waves on the site that it is ultimately harmful you can rest assured I will be the first person to speak up on it. But until such time as it actually happens...I reserve judgement.

[blove]

In response to post #10309855.

I am not taking your comment personally, but responses overall are disheartening.

It took a lot of whining to get a block the user from downloading feature and I assume that it will take a lot of whining to get rid of it.

[lifestorock]

In response to post #10309855. #10309960 is also a reply to the same post.

No not really, You are just to small-minded and hardened on your opinion to accept other arguments and the trial of this feature. In fact you are posting over and over again the same stuff with small variations.

You ascribe "mean and vindictive" bearings to every mod author who use / will use the new tools. But you simply forget that a user caused this consequence by his / her own misbehaviour. An author who put a lot of time and love into his mods and is kind enough to share it, doesn't need to take ass kicks in form of rude and insulting comments.

So is preventing a user from downloading a file some kind of retribution? Maybe. But the Elder Scrolls and Fallout community did always respect the authors and their work. Independent of the legal term the mods are seen as THEIR creations. The German community on Sharesoft composed a "Modder Kodex" to ensure a fair togetherness.

If a user shows misbehaviour in form of (previously mentioned) rude or insulting comments, why should I as author let him use my mod? Totally uninteresting how you call it. I'm fine with retribution, but you can see it also as protection for the user. The user was so offended by the mod which forced him to write such feedback, so he earned protection from the mod. Doesn't want him / her to get a heart attack.



Edited November 26, 2013 by lifestorock

[Dark0ne]

In response to post #10309855. #10309960, #10311677 are all replies on the same post.

See, you've been arguing the same point for so long you've forgotten what was written in the OP. Quote:

It’s something that has divided opinion among mod authors over the years; some wanted to be able to directly control what posts were and weren’t allowed on their file pages while others wanted control to remain with our moderation team. Each school of thought has its pros and cons. While I’ll always skew towards the latter school of thinking, once we open up the Nexus to all games and, potentially, a lot more files I think keeping a strict moderating stance among a small, close-knit group of volunteer staff will be an untenable situation.

So while I still think that a system whereby moderators deal with all the moderation is the best system we're moving in to a new era at the Nexus where such a system becomes untenable for me, and the volunteer moderation team here. As such we've made changes.

If anything the incessant requests from some corners of the community for these tools are what delayed their introduction for so long. I don't do well with people going to crazy extremes and using radical left field hypotheticals to try and get their way. Your concerns have been noted, as has the fact that opinions seem to be split 50/50 at this time.

You can continue to argue your point, if you so wish, but like the people who continually argued it before for the other side it really won't help to sway my opinion in the other direction.

[emieri00]

This feels threatening, like, the block feature. It sounds a bit extreme, but yeah, when someone is being a pest, they deserve it.

 

I was cut apart by someone for being "too helpful". [not telling the name. No need to expand that] Basically, the "thanks for meddling" after i tried to help was communications cut off almost everywhere. Thankfully I can still access the files this person sent, but with that feature up, i'm sure i can be blocked at any second.

 

I got my small share of kudos and just thanks for helping people here and there with complicated mods like some of the ones with patchers. I seriously can't understand the line of thought the person followed there for not accepting any help.

 

Either way, i'll try to give a run though the new terms of service just to be sure. I'm far from skimpy mods, so i'll probably be safe regarding content. I hope.