New mod author comment moderation features and updated terms of servic

[blove]

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967 are all replies on the same post.

Yes, since blocking a user from posting in a file discussion thread resolves every issue the uploader could have other than hurt feelings. Hence it is retribution and a fact.

[normalmember2]

In response to post #10303615. #10305937 is also a reply to the same post.

Your analogies are shockingly poor, blove.

How about advertising free cookies, giving the user the box, asking for constructive criticism on the cookies, being very rudely treated and then removing access to any more free cookies to that individual.

There, I fixed your analogy for you.

Are password protected files a viable Nexus option now? Surely the uploader has the right to restrict access to whomever they choose.

No, because the ToS says they aren't.

[normalmember2]

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967, #10305983 are all replies on the same post.

Because every act is retribution. Deleting a comment? Retribution. Removing your files? Retribution. RETRIBUTION I SAY!

[blove]

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967, #10305983, #10306530 are all replies on the same post.

You are right, all of the new uploader options can be used as retribution, but only one of them can ONLY be used as retribution.

[blove]

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

Fixed how? That analogy is no longer about password protected files, but is now about a baker giving away cookies from their place of business and deciding to refuse further service to a customer. That is something I completely support. If you are going to attack an analogy, at least pick one that is referencing your target.

Now what I think you were trying to say with that edited analogy is that that the Nexus giving out cookies from the baker should let the baker decide what customers should not get any future cookies.

The Terms of Service does say "Do not upload files that are password protected or contain password protected sections", but clearly that is at odds with the perceived justification for blocking user downloads based on the uploaders distribution rights.

[normalmember2]

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

You analogy did not seem linked to your next statement regarding password protected files. It was superfluous at best to the original argument and ergo I took it as two separate, bemusing, "twists".

Your point is moot considering the Nexus rules specifically stipulate against one action while sanctioning another. The rules state you cannot upload password protected files, but the site functionality allows for the banning of users from modder's pages based on a mod author's wishes. You can try and start a whole separate thread asking for password protected files to be allowed, I guess, but I think it'll be a waste of time. Once you get to this sort of silly nit-picking you start asking silly questions like "Why does the file section allow nudity while the Image Share section does not". Which is a whole other argument altogether.

[BloodrendX001]

My thoughts:

 

I think that authors should able to choose whether they merely wish to block a user from commenting or block them from visiting their mod pages altogether. For example, an author may wish to prevent a rather troublesome user from commenting on their file pages, but still wish to let them download their files. However I believe it's possible that such an approach may somewhat weaken the incentive to not be a troublesome idiot.

 

The concern that authors will abuse this power is I think unfounded. Most people aren't petty, vindictive sadists, and even if there may be some authors (I know of none myself) who are, they would make up a very small minority- not nearly large enough to warrant denying the privilege to the overwhelming majority that are decent people.

Edited November 26, 2013 by BloodrendX001

[lostami]

In response to post #10307870.

Ya they can unblock people.
However I am worried about these features becoming to much of a go to by authors, who may start throwing it around willy nilly blocking access to major and popular files quicker then they should.

I'm worried they won't think about it clearly as some of us can be a bit childish in times of stress in our lives.

[BloodrendX001]

In response to post #10304675. #10305749, #10305863, #10305967, #10305983, #10306530, #10307194 are all replies on the same post.

Or a way to discipline troublesome users. An author may lift blocks if they will to. For example, if I decide to release some mods and a user who was previously helpful and amiable started causing rather serious trouble with another user on one of the comments pages, then I may block them from my files for a while until I feel that they would no longer cause trouble (provided the trouble they caused doesn't warrant a ban). Edited November 26, 2013 by BloodrendX001

[BloodrendX001]

In response to post #10307870. #10308345 is also a reply to the same post.

Yes, I just finally noticed that part about lifting blocks before reading your comment. If I was into face-palming, I would have done so a few times.

Anyway, even in such a situation, I imagine most people would likely lift the block afterwards when they calm down, seeing that it was rather unjust.