New mod author comment moderation features and updated terms of servic

[Lisnpuppy]

Actually none of that is applicable. If I stand outside my house and give away cookies I made to people that walk by...and decide only to give them to folks who smile and say thank you....then I can. If I stand outside my house and sell cookies for money and decide after taking the money that only the people that smile and say thank you get a cookie is a different story. Taking money and then refusing the service is illegal. Last time I checked we don't may these hard working mod authors a darn thing.

 

Again this is something being tried for three months...if it doesn't work out it goes.

 

There are always folks that will try to abuse any system and there isn't much to do with that. We will still have record of the comments removed so if someone tries really to make trouble with this we can look at it.

 

You all also seem to forget that we are mod users also. We play these games. Do you think we aren't going to to if mod authors are using this in such a wide way to simply be arsehats that we won't know? I don't think it will even be a feature that is used except in the most dire of circumstance. Regardless....lets try it out and see what happens instead of whipping ourselves into a frenzy over what may or may not ever come to pass?

[bben46]

If the ability to cut idiots off from using their mod does result in abuse by the mod authors, then that ability will be rescinded. But not until it ha a fair trial. The staff will be watching closely to monitor for abuse - by both authors and users. :cool:

[Lucyloves]

In response to post #10301101. #10301283, #10301505, #10301510 are all replies on the same post.

But unless others read the feedback on the mod page (which I usually think is a faster medium then getting admins involved), then some may not be aware there is even an issue with the mod before it is eventually pulled.

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #10301101. #10301283, #10301505, #10301510, #10304712 are all replies on the same post.

There's always the first person who gets bit, and believe me, that takes very little time. It's not even a given that the first victim will comment to warn others. Malicious files get taken down VERY quickly here and people who upload them never last long.

[JimboUK]

In response to post #10301101. #10301283, #10301505, #10301510, #10304712, #10304839 are all replies on the same post.

By blocking the user they've done that user a favour, I wouldn't want access to the files of someone who posts malicious stuff. Yes they could hide comments, what they can't do is stop the file being reported.

[blove]

In response to post #10304675.

It is a fact that blocking a user from a filepage is an act of retribution. Will the threat of a blocking censor a user's posts? How do you measure the efficacy of that?

No, given the posts that I have seen, this is not a trial. It is a wrong turn.

[normalmember2]

In response to post #10301101. #10301283, #10301505, #10301510, #10304712, #10304839, #10305659 are all replies on the same post.

Ignoring the fact you need to be a recognised mod author to do this, ergo you'd have to upload a legitimate mod/mods that get enough downloads to become a mod author, and then throw it all away by doing this. Seems quite elaborate just so you can add the extra element of deleting the comments of people reporting the file is a virus...

[normalmember2]

In response to post #10304675. #10305749 is also a reply to the same post.

It is a fact that blocking a user from a filepage is an act of retribution.

A fact is it? :D

[blove]

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.

[Lucyloves]

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

I think so, if it were not a fact, would not that imply mod author's are randomly blocking access to their files for certain members just because. I think a user must be blocked as a response to some act committed by an individual, hence, retribution.