New mod author comment moderation features and updated terms of servic

[TheCoincidence]

Blocking people from DOWNLOADING MODS is terribad in practice. Oversensitive people will just block people for the slightest amounts of criticism and just encourages the Nexus to have a hugbox mentality going on.

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #10252415. #10252846, #10253003, #10253436, #10253494, #10253733, #10254612, #10254935 are all replies on the same post.

Respond to what? You haven't given me a useful argument to respond TO.

[BarbasTheDog]

In response to post #10252176. #10252894, #10253016, #10253371, #10253416, #10253430, #10253473, #10253502, #10253525, #10253564, #10253731, #10254191, #10254460, #10254546, #10255438 are all replies on the same post.

I have nothing against banning users from the comments section (in fact, I think it's great).

My problem is with blocking users from the mod entirely.
It is true that users will be discouraged from trolling, but people think quite differently from each other, so something that might sound offensive for one of the parts may sound inoffensive to the other.

Also, often I've seen non-native English speakers comment things that, if out of context, sounded rude just because they didn't dominate the language.

As stated above, I think it'll mainly discourage people from posting their opinions because they don't know how the mod author will react to them. Edited November 23, 2013 by BarbasTheDog

[Goldeathorus]

In response to post #10250210. #10250238 is also a reply to the same post.

Just because a mod author may be a colossal douche doesn't mean that their work is bad. People shouldn't be stopped from downloading a mod just because its author doesn't like them; at the very least, let people choose whether they want to stop supporting them.

An example of something like this actually happening would be that on New Vegas Nexus, the author of URWL was banned. Does this mean his work was bad? Of course not. Is it fair to stop people from downloading a mod just because its author is a bit of a douche? It certainly isn't.

[blove]

In response to post #10252415. #10252846, #10253003, #10253436, #10253494, #10253733, #10254612, #10254935, #10255184 are all replies on the same post.

Hiding posts, mostly good.

Blocking posts, maybe good. You know I read that thread in that place talking about those posts that they make in those threads in that other place. This has little chance of being used responsibly most of the time.

But, blocking downloads?

It serves no purpose to the community. The only purpose it serves is enable the uploader to give one final FU to someone the uploader does not like for whatever reason. Is not blocking posts enough? Do we really want to let uploaders send FUs? Why add another bit of drama to the Nexus?

Do you really need more reasoning? Or are you just anxious to get to the FUs?

If we actually had a problem, or potential problem, with blocked post users abusing the download servers, I would be all for it.

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #10252415. #10252846, #10253003, #10253436, #10253494, #10253733, #10254612, #10254935, #10255184, #10255502 are all replies on the same post.

But, blocking downloads?

It serves no purpose to the community.

This is where your argument is breaking down though. This feature was not added as a service to the community. It was added as a service to mod authors.

Nexus even had the forethought to separate blocking into two types - one for just the comments and one for the download itself. Most other places offering these features treat "block" as a total block that's equivalent to banning said user from anything to do with you at all.

I suspect blocking the downloads won't be something that gets used much, so all the hype over "this is immoral" rings hollow to me. Why not wait until something actually happens before claiming it's being abused to hell and back?

[jimbobsquarepants]

I agree with everyone else who has said that blocking people from a mod is a terrible, terrible idea. That modders can hide and withdraw mods from the community and that banned users automatically have their work removed from the site is already disappointing enough, we don't need another feature open to abuse and mis-use from the more irrational members of the community. This feature alone is asking for trouble but to outright state you will not deal with anyone asking to be unblocked? This is a good way to scare away the community.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2013 by jimbobsquarepants

[JimboUK]

It's a shame it's come to this but I'd rather have modders be able to block people than have modders leave because they're sick of some of the nonsense that goes on in the comments. Some of the BS modders have to put up with from self entitled users beggars belief. Where are the new terms of service? clicking on the "Terms of Service" link under this box takes me to this article.

[robsmith]

I like the idea of blocking comments, but whats to stop a author from going completely 1984 and blocking every comment that's in any way negative or criticism. Eg bob the author blocks freds comment where fred said he has ghastly clipping on a popular body mod. Fred should be allowed to tell people what will happen to their games, especially with a mod with scripts, but Bob is petty and blocks the comments.

 

The only thing I can see coming from this is people will be afraid to say anything that is not "OMG I love your mod, can I have your babies!!!!!!!!!!" and really hamper to abilities of the down loader to separate good mods from bad ones when all the comments are being 'Big Brothered'. Its like giving a company control over what reviews from the people can go up on Amazon. Seperation of this power is needed for the site to make any sense in regards to quality.

[JimboUK]

In response to post #10255885.

If the mod author is deleting comments to hide bugs then no doubt that author will be dealt with, the comments aren't actually deleted, the staff can still see them and they'll know if an author is abusing the system.