Moderator ban Notice, raises some questions

[UhuruNUru]

Just read this in the Mod Organizer Posts Tab/Forum

 

The only assistance given to game pirates is a quick way off of NexusMods. :pirate:

When you have purchased Skyrim through Steam then submit an unban request with Steam proof of purchase.

NexusMods Staff

 

Which got me thinking about an hypothetical situation, I could easily find my self in, but first let me make it clear I'm not actually doing this, just posting the question.

 

The above Statement got me thinking.

Recently I bought a disc, first in over a decade, Homeworld Cataclysm, but I'll not run any game from a CD, I wouldn't when I was at HDD speeds, no way is that happening with SSD's even faster now.

A quick search for a No CD exe later (Nostalgia trip that one). I could play what I morally own (Which trumps the legalese of EULA's, in my book), on my own terms, on my PC, how it will always be. No "Games are Services rubbish allowed there.

Full user control of the content, defines modding in my opinion, without that you get restricted modding, Workshop is restricted Modding

If the restriction goes as far as selecting what content is available, by excluding any mods made by a user, the content is Publisher DLC, and not a mod at all.

So Valves "Paid Mods Works" flagships, of DOTA2, CS:GO and TF2, have no mods at all, just Valve DLC, made by users.

 

Having raised the spectre of paid mods, lets deal with that one, price has nothing to do with defining a mod, it's not the for sale sign, that excludes Valves DLC, it's the selection, price is irrelevant to what is and isn't a mod, only content control defines a mod.

 

Mods are all user made content, made available online, to all users, with the base game every other user, but only the user downloading gets to control their selection of all available content.

A publisher, can only select DLC, and the restricted availability of such a selection, excluding just one other mod for whatever reason (available means online anywhere, not just on Steam, so banning adult material from Skyrim Workshop is not selection, because it's available on LoversLab).

Valve's games are selection, non selected mods are not allowed anywhere online so what is allowed is DLC, it's clear and obvious, what the problem is.

 

The recent Bethesda Console mods plan, may result in the same content, being a mod on the PC, but Bethesda DLC on consoles, if they select what's allowed.

 

I decided at the start of this year that online clients, were no longer acceptable to me, for SPG's, even MPG's I expect a dedicated Client designed for the game, like Star Citizen does.

But can live with a client for MPG modes on SPG's, because I never even look at such Bolt-on Multi-player, basic PvP Arenas for SPG's are an insult, wasted dev time, and not worth the effort.

XCOM 2 was my last client exclusive SPG. Since Then my Steam Library has gone from 130 games to 86

 

Given those facts and reading the above Moderator comment set my mind racing.

No-CD Exe's or No Client Exe's, what's the difference, I recall seeing there was a Russian cracking group, called "No-Steam".

 

So with all the above swirling around my head, the question that rose up was, what's Nexus policy to No-Steam Exe's if proof of ownership can be provided.

[UhuruNUru]

How would I know what the Nexus regards as proof, it was the moderator words I referred to

When you have purchased Skyrim through Steam then submit an unban request with Steam proof of purchase.

NexusMods Staff

What I asked is, if I can provide proof of ownership, in whatever form is acceptable to the Nexus, as mentioned in the quote.

 

Would it be acceptable to use a version of say Skyrim, for example, with the Steamworks DRM removed. It isn't piracy, while the assumption that such a DRM free no Steam exe would come from such a source, is the most likely outcome.

I made no reference to what the source would be, I could be making my own exe, I'm not, but unless the source of the exe, would change the answer. I see no conflict.

The question remains, is Proof of ownership good enough for a legitimate owner to use such an exe.

Clearly it's OK in the reverse, get caught using such an exe, then prove ownership, is allowed.

Which led to my asking if the reverse is also allowed, proof then crack, instead of crack then proof.

 

I wont break the Nexus Rules, but see no ruling for this, I'm asking for clarification, so I don't make a mistake,.

This is something I would jump at the chance to do to every game I mod that is on Steam.

GOG versions would be even better in my eyes, I will buy every Steam games I own, the moment it appears on GOG, then I destroy the Steam version, Valve wont let me give them away, or I would.

My long term aim is to remove Steam, Origin and Uplay, etc from my PC, GOG Galaxy is the only optional client, so it's not on my PC already.

 

One other point the No CD exe's many of us used, got round the supporting Piracy problem by only providing the exe, not the entire game, that's an option if the source is the issue.

[Thandal]

"Proof" depends upon the game and type/medium of the purchase. Consider the case you have in mind and what you think would be reasonable. Then consider other possible scenarios that other players might have, then the different formats such "proof" might take for them. Now you begin to see the difficulty with prescribing ("writing ahead of time") what's needed.

 

Great, by the way, that you pay for a second copy of the games you like that are available through GOG. I've done the same on occasion, (for technical, not philosophic, reasons.)

[SirSalami]

Thanks UhuruNUru, Thandal. Apologies if I don't touch on everything you've mentioned. There's a lot of different topics / ideas in the air here, from cracks and DRM Circumvention, to EULA's and perceptions of ownership, to paid modding and curation. Phew.

Cracking or circumventing DRM is not something that we can formally condone, for (I think) obvious reasons. However, due to the nature of what we do, our policies have to be open-ended in nature to allow us to react to situations as they arise. Our "proof of purchase" policy should not be confused with condoning these types of activities. It is simply one way for us to ensure that our community remains accountable and in the good graces of developers and authors. This does inevitably create extra work for our moderators, but it's something that we feel is important to our continued health as a community.

As our community grows, we are forming more direct relationships with the developers and publishers of these titles and we need to ensure that our community is perceived as legitimately as possible. You mention that you morally feel ownership of these products, going so-far as to say that you disregard the EULA of said products. You are doing so at your own risk and again, that is not something that we can formally condone.

I'm a bit curious as to why you are asking our position about these topics. On one hand, you seem to be quite happily skirting around the policies set by others, yet you are quite concerned about ours. Though the topics you raised were prefaced with "hypothetical", by the end of the read I had to assume that this a reality for you, and that you would like some sort of support from us on your quest to remove the various clients you listed. I'm afraid that we cannot give you such support. However, it's important to note that this our proof of purchase policy is reactionary. There would be no reason for you to provide any proof unless you we've been given reason to believe that you're using pirated software. By asking if providing proof first is OK, I'm forced to assume that you were planning on announcing that you actively circumvent DRM, which again is not something we can formally condone.

Regarding Mods (paid or not), DLC, and Curation, to be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey, but I don't think it really pertains to the proof of purchase policy.

I sincerely hope this hasn't come off as harsh, as that's genuinely not my intent. However, I see a disturbing trend regarding Nexus policy being heralded as commandments to the point that they are nit-picked and deconstructed to an extent that they are unrecognizable. Again, our "proof of purchase" policy is not the same as condoning cracking, circumventing DRM, or disregarding any EULA.

I think sometimes it's easy to forget that many of these policies are the result of years of a dedicated team making difficult judgement calls about ever-changing circumstances, some of which are open in nature to allow us to react appropriately without harm to the community as a whole. These are not arbitrary rules that were established for morality, but rather out of necessity. Piracy is not something that is we can associate ourselves with and it becomes a vague definition at the levels we are discussing which is why we have avenues to pursue if there is misunderstanding, such as the proof of purchase policy. That said however, we have no personal stake in policing your hard-drive to ensure that you are conforming to the licences of third-parties. Unless you involve us by using our website to promote or distribute such things that may be construed as piracy or otherwise against the terms of publishers or developers who may be involved by your use of their product, we would have no reason to reprimand.

[UhuruNUru]

First thanks for the reply, SirSalami. sorry I haven't got back here sooner, RL intervened. I'll try to be a bit more focused on the actual question asked, which I thought was clear, but I'll repeat it separated under the Title, "The actual Question", at the end of this post. I accept, I do tend to talk about my underlying principles, behind my personal choices, which all have as there main feature, my understanding of what the Definition of Modding is.

My choices are based on, and all derived from that definition, with my choice being the full Free and Open Modding as I will formally define it (see below). As you seem to clearly understand the basic differences, I have to the Nexus (Dark one in reality, his site, his rules, that's OK with me).

 

I can explain that difference easiest with Wrye's well known, "Cathedral v Parlour" article as, Dark one is Parlour, I'm Cathedral, but I also accept, owners rules apply. Dark ones site, his rules.

I use the same basic principle. My PC, my rules. That applies, as soon as content is on my PC, it is under my rules, no-one dictates the rules in my castle, but me.

 

I'll now give "My Definition", of modding, which I argue is determined by the basic needs and requirements of mods, not me. Though I know, no consensus exists of what the, "Gamers Formal Definitions", actually are, I see that as a huge problem, for gamers in general.

It allows Publishers, who have different underlying motivations, to misrepresent the basic terms and allows, for example. Valve to claim DLC are mods, which is the example I gave in the first post, derived from the definition of mods as I understand it, Here I give a Formal definition of modding, but it is given isolated, extracted from the greater whole, something I have been thinking about, The Formal Definitions of Gaming Terms, for gamers, by gamers. No such reference exists, and though I'm not conceited enough to think, I alone can decide these Terms, I do believe, they are actually defined by the needs and requirements of games.

So though these are my Formal Definitions, they should be the only acceptable definitions, for any gamer

 

Personal "Principles", each gamer sets in isolation, they can vary greatly and still be derived from the same formal definitions, and giving isolated definitions, does not define all the terms, just the main one. Not an Ideal situation with no public consensus as reference. Long and deep thinking is needed for formal definitions, every single term used, needs it's own definition and pulling one from a formally structured, and as yet unwritten whole, (My version is a WiP, majority consensus is required, to claim it's the "Gamer's Definitions", not just the "Uhuru N'Uru Definitions"., that's for another time, and a long term project.

Just deciding the ordinary words used, takes careful thought and cross referencing, with their formal definitions (Checking Dictionaries for each word, to confirm correct usage, isn't much fun, but it's required for "Formal Definitions", like the dictionary.

Rewrites help refine the accuracy of every word used, so though I call this Formal, it's still a WiP, and not the final version, so it's more an informal presentation, of the as yet unwritten formal version (Stop Uhuru, deep breath, tangential diversion approaching, Focus on the Topic. Approaching Hah!, this is the 4th left turn, gone full circle again), Focussing

 

Definitions should be obvious and incontestable, principles are always contestable, they are based on choices made and "lines in the sand", that you choose not to cross, no walls (Definitions), block the path, but it's a path you choose, not to use.

 

Formal Definition of Modding (spoilered to isolate it, so you know it's finished)

 

 

Only two underlying requirements, define modding. A gamers Control and Selection of Content. (Note: Gamer would be defined separately, but for now, anyone who plays the game, will do)

Control of Content

Control is clear and simple, to control the content, possession is required, not ownership (EULA's reference, as well as the obvious one).

Full Control

Full control defines, Full Modding in terms of the Control of Content, so all the available content (See selection)

Open Control

Open refers to the mod source code, Open Content is mods and Source Code. (This is the key difference, between Cathedral and Parlour (Not the only one), Cathedral must be Open, Parlour accepts Closed).

Restricted Control

Anything except Full and Open control, is restricted Content.

Nexus allows Closed Content, so it is restricted content, but Full content.

Steam Workshop is neither Full or Open Content, and more Restrictive, exactly how restrictive it is, varies inversely, to the original devs involvement. No dev involvement, means Very Restricted as Valve's motives are served, not the devs or Gamers.

EA is the Ultimate restrictions, actively trying to stop all modding.

Clearly Control can be limited and modding remains modding, no debate needed here.

Selection of Content

Full selection is the only selection requirement for modding.

Without full availability of all user made content, and selection which must remain with the user receiving the content, (not the creator), content ceases to be mods at all.

Where and how the user made content is made available, makes no difference, as long as selection remains with the end user, it's modding.

When a Publisher selects what user made content, is allowed, and more importantly isn't allowed, that content ceases to be modding content. It's Publisher DLC, due entirely to the restriction of selection.

Modding ceases to be modding if end user selection is restricted, when that selection is the Publishers it is DLC, by definition.

 

 

 

"Nightmare Scenario" of console modding, isn't modding on consoles, it's the potential conflict of user content being, "a Mod on PC, but DLC on Console".

Having defined both Valve's "Paid Mods", and possible approach of the "Nightmare Scenario" of console modding. I always feel I must male clear that the definition, has nothing to say about cost of mods, especially when I talk in terms of "Free and Open Content".

Mods can certainly be bought and sold, but I think the natural state, is Full and Open Modding, I would never Pay for mods, as I believe it would destroy the communal nature of modding.

I have no objection to a Publisher trying to introduce it, but only with a new IP, and only if that's clearly explained, before they even try to sell that franchise. Then i just won't buy that Franchise, instead of never buying anything that Publisher sells.

 

Legal or Moral Rights

I have no respect for immoral laws, and no qualms about, ignoring such laws. I respect the Moral Laws set by my conscience, and obey them, even if legally I can ignore any such morality.

Having said that, I have the right to alter any content, I own (Purchase and possession of content) in any way I see fit, for my own use.

When I used to use No CD Exe's, it was a Legal and Moral right, not certain about the Legal, now, in regard to forced clients nor do I give a damn about the law, morally I have the right and will exercise that right, on my PC.

 

However while I use the Nexus, I obey Dark One's Rules, but only out of respect, not because, some law says I must. Dark One has certain legal requirements, he must obey, or the Nexus will be shut Down

I respect his efforts, whether I agree with his rules or not, while on the Nexus. Which reminds me, when the LoversLab Ban was lifted A moderator expressed bewilderment at the fact, some of us would never report mods, that break Nexus Rules.

 

I meant to reply to explain this then, but it slipped out of my mind, it's sneaked back in, so the Answer is this.

I obey the Nexus Rules, but neither agree with them or want to enforce them, I'm a Cathedral Modder, which means mod authors lose certain rights, morally, by making the mod Public.

This can be summarised as "No Take Away's", once public always public.Sites can change, but at least one copy, must always be available (upload, so 2 are available, then remove 1).

Open Source rules apply, forks are always allowed (Due Credit is required), the Original author, should accept, this is what Open Source means.

So no I will never report a mod, as the only offense, it can commit, is not crediting the Original Authors, which can easily be corrected. Hope that helps you understand my reasons, your agreement is not required, is wanted though, nor do I try to force it from you, i expect the same courtesy.

 

The Actual Question, I need answering, (spoilered to isolate it, so you know it's finished)

 

 

Is there any circumstances, for proven legal owners (Nexus says what is and isn't proof), where use of a crack designed only to remove DRM/Online Client, would be acceptable to the Nexus (Dark One in reality).

I know No CD exe's were legal, and my understanding was, I can reverse engineer anything I buy, for personal use, if that's still true, the only issue remains, Dark One's sets the rules.

is there any set of conditions, where what is essentially, the same as a GOG release, can be allowed or not, it's a peculiar set of conditions, but I would jump through all the hoops required, to mod Skyrim without Steam, though a GOG release would be even better.

 

 

 

Hope that all helps, as you should be able to tell, I'm serious about removing all online aspects, forced into any SPG. I will no longer buy games locked into clients, but I do like supporting game devs, (Publishers can go to Hell). I crowdfund, but only if a game is Fully Crowdfunded, to keep the IP with the devs who created it.

 

{Edit} I meant to add this as an interesting and relevant side note.

 

 

Some Modding tools say my Skyrim installation has this path.

D:\The Elder Scrolls Series\The Elder Scrolls V - Skyrim\Skyrim (Steam - Modded)

 

Steam and other tools would tell you the path was the standard

D:\Steam\SteamApps\Common\Skyrim

 

Both are correct, as the Steam path is a Symbolic Link to the real location, that's something good tools understand, bad ones like Steam are easily fooled.

Also due to another reason the easily fooled FNIS (using SymLinks) reports, as an error, the fact that it isn't in the Game Folder, purely because I use Mod Organizer, from outside Skyrim, FNIS isn't actually in the Game folder.

Once Fore refused to support a legal owner using Mod Organizer, and accused the user of being a Pirate, due to this report. I was part of MO support, at the time, and once we explained to Fore how the error could still occur, with a legal game, he stopped refusing support, if MO was used, when the error occurred.

To this day FNIS still throws the error if MO is outside Steam.

 

 

[Thandal]

The answer to your one "question that needs answering" is, like Tommy Lee Jones' response to Harrison Ford in "The Fugitive" when Dr. Kimble protests that he didn't kill his wife...

 

We. Don't. Care.

 

You are welcome to your own philosophy and to your own interpretation of others' rules. Like yours above, the position of the Nexus is that what players do with their own games on their own machines is their business. But when they bring it to the Nexus they make it our business.

 

Here, it's Dark0ne's rules. On the Nexus; don't talk about cracks, don't talk about bypassing or removing DRM, don't talk about circumventing EULAs, and don't claim, "I credited the author, which is all I need to do to use someone else's work."

 

So, without obtaining the author/creator's permission (which includes that of the commercial ones when appropriate)...

 

Don't. Upload it. Here.

 

It's simple, really. :geek:

[UhuruNUru]

OK fair enough, my point was a moderator said a ban would be removed, in relation to Piracy, if proof of ownership was shown.

 

Which implies if ownership is proven, cracks are OK, but it didn't actually specify such a thing.

 

AS GOG releases (of previously Steam exclusive games) are essentially no different to any other means of removing the Steam features.

 

I'm perfectly aware and capable of hiding such usage from anyone else if I choose to do so, including the Nexus, but have no intention of doing so.

 

The key difference is I want to promote the benefits of Legal DRM free Offline installers, and so a possible avenue to use such features openly on the Nexus, as I do with GOG releases.

 

I obliviously have a controversial motive, but a legal one (Maybe?),, knowing such a thing is so controversial, I just wanted clarification, because all the rules you quote are about illegal methods.

I just wanted clarification, whether it also applies, in legal cases of removal of DRM/Online clients, if it doesn't that's fine as long as I know.

 

So are you saying GOG releases are not OK either, i think not, also just because I believe all mods should be open source, doesn't mean I act on that belief, without considering the authors concerns.

If you've read Wrye's Essay, you can clearly see the open view is intended to preserve an authors work.

 

Wrye believed as I did, and withdrew from modding anything, due to this issue, he disagreed with the prevailing viewpoint, that never made him a mod thief. He thought when an author vanishes, the mod should be updated with patches and full credit.

Active authors, do it themselves, there's never been need to patch for the active authors, I also believe as all mods should be open source, once public, they can't be withdrawn (though lost sites can cause it). Indeed if all mods uses an open source license, that would happen now.

 

I know these are tough and difficult topics to raise on the Nexus, and don't act on my belief's, I came here to this quiet part of the nexus, so I could raise these issues and discuss them calmly and with respect for the Nexus Rules.

 

SirSalami an ADMIN, also responded calmly and asked me to explain my points more clearly, which I did.

 

Honestly, Thandal your type of overreaction, spouting what I can and can't upload, (Nothing to do with my query, i know and follow those rules here), is what I wanted to avoid, but i wasn't expecting the staff to overreact, please can you let SirSalami know I've responded.

Leave the rule quoting for those trying to break them, I'm bending over backwards, to follow Nexus rules, but this issue has changed, now GOG releases do indeed exist, and are DRM/Client free Exe's. That's a fact.

I have Dying Light on GOG, which I used to own on Steam, anything that promotes more games to do that, is great for modding as a whole.

I will obey the rules, but after the recent unbanning of LoversLab, raising a Taboo subject, showed sensible discussion pf controversial issues, is possible, if done discreetly and with respect.

Dark one stepped in then, to curb the, enthusiasm and loyalty, of overzealous Nexus Moderation, which was threatening to derail the open and well argued debate, on both "sides".

I hope, a similar attitude will prevail in this thread, I know the rules, I'm a lifetime Premium member, I would never upload anything to the Nexus, that broke the rules. Nexus Rules end on the Nexus, other sites have different rules.

[Lisnpuppy]

First let me say this is my look on this based on the eight years I have been here and my experience as a very former moderator. I do not speak for the Nexus and only post this to give some more dialogue and consideration. I am not here to argue the specifics of my beliefs but again, to give some alternate view and dialogue.

 

I have a question here and I wish to quote you, Uhuru- (and forgive my lengthy post)

 

You state this:

Is there any circumstances, for proven legal owners (Nexus says what is and isn't proof), where use of a crack designed only to remove DRM/Online Client, would be acceptable to the Nexus (Dark One in reality).

I know No CD exe's were legal, and my understanding was, I can reverse engineer anything I buy, for personal use, if that's still true, the only issue remains, Dark One's sets the rules.

is there any set of conditions, where what is essentially, the same as a GOG release, can be allowed or not, it's a peculiar set of conditions, but I would jump through all the hoops required, to mod Skyrim without Steam, though a GOG release would be even better.

When a game is released on GoG do they not have the permission of the games' maker/distributor (or whomever owns the rights to said content) to be able to brush the game off, updated it to play on the newest software without any DRM? If this is so then that makes a large difference in some ways. Does GoG get an ok for them only to distribute a DRM version? Or do we even know the conditions? If the game companies give the permission there is the crux. It is not the fact it no longer has a DRM with the GoG version but rather the permission was given for it to be so.

Skyrim was released as a Steam DRM game. Regardless of where it was purchased it had to be registered through Steam for it to be a legal copy. At least once it had to have the registration. To be able to bypass this somehow, as long as Beth says the game still must meet these conditions would be problematic based on how things are at present. As Sir Salami indicated, the rights of consumers and digital content is changing seemingly daily. And to say something here would always or never be so really can not be told. The issue you present is not just in a vacuum, it creates issues far beyond its immediate scope.

However, using Skyrim and the Skyrim CK as the ready example. Bethesda made the rule on the Steam DRM and for the Nexus to allow programs, information, and otherwise on how to play/use Skyrim in a way that circumvents the DRM would be a possible legal headache and against the very thing of which I believe, the Nexus does stand. And allow me to explain my reasoning here.

The Nexus does not only protect copyright content of big game companies or record companies or what have you. The Nexus has rules in place, perhaps at times even stronger than the laws of the land, which protect the content of every single modder that uploads content here. The same applies equally to the modder that created a new bread mesh from scratch for Skyrim as it would protect Bethesda if someone uploaded the assets of Fallout 3 weapons into Skyrim without permission. This is one of the reasons that modding still takes place here and at all (as if this was a constant source of headache for the game creators the likelihood of continuing modding would certainly be under consideration.)

You can agree or disagree with what rights a company or individual should have and digital ownership in general, at this time the copyrights exist and are immediate to the created content. If the Nexus can not be a guaranteer of the rights of those that create content not only does that put the site in possible jeopardy but also the world of modding in general. As we move toward possible paid modding (and please lets not go down this road I mention it only in respect to my point) more and more notice will be taken of whom owns what content. The companies want to know that their copyright content is being protected and the modder that makes the bread mesh may think the same. If a modder sees that The Nexus would not even protect a huge company that could squish the Nexus, how could and why would it protect the bread mesh mod author?

 

So without the permission of a game maker/content copyright holder, to show means to circumvent their own wishes on how they want to protect the content is giving away the keys of the kingdom. Your argument on the surface is something that initially seems innocent enough, you own the game why should you not be able to do this or that and you CAN. After all you did not steal the game, you own it. But the means to circumvent can be used for more nefarious means, to obtain game content that goes specifically against the content creators wishes. To keep using Skyrim and the Skyrim CK (which if some do not know is also tied to Steam) as the example, unless Beth came and said, hey we don't care anymore about the Steam DRM so go ahead. Maybe they put it up on GoG...maybe they say they don't care if people unleash their game from Steam. Then the things you propose would have more consideration. But the tool/information itself, to do these things could still be used for games whose owners still want the DRM. Now, look the tool works with Fallout 4 and Games X, Y and Z and I can buy a copy of the game from the back of a truck downtown or download it of the web illegally and make it all work just fine. You would not be able to confine it to the one place. And though I certainly miss the days when you could trade games and albums and videos to friends, copy and then return them without issue that is not how it currently is.

 

So now perhaps you see the quagmire that the staff and the Nexus would find itself. You can not put the genies back into their bottles. You can not restrict the teaching to one place and to ask the Nexus who, in fact exist in some respects only by the will and pleasure of these gaming companies, to ignore the expressed wishes of content makers/owners as it would be a slippery slope. Not just a legal one but in my opinion, a moral one. I don't want the Nexus to protect all these things from the big company to the little modder because they have some legal obligation, or legal fears if they do not. I want the rules here to reflect the desire of the community to do what is RIGHT. If someone makes content and they wish the means to obtain and use it to be protected then I feel, agreeable to me or not, that it be so because it is the right thing to do.

 

The Nexus tries to take proactive stances against these things, though the size of the site makes it sometimes difficult. They don't wait for reports (though these are invaluable due to the size) or take-down notices from attorneys from large companies. They take them down as soon as they confirm they need to do so. It is because of the rules Dark0ne made and have been fleshed out over the years, it is because this stance and hard-line taken that I believe we are still able to enjoy the benefits of this site.

 

Now though myself and many others would be in (and some are) in the front line of the battle against some senseless DRM and other forms of "anti-piracy" actions, one can not fight for the rules and laws to change and be protected by said rules and laws by ignoring the existing ones. So as you can and will do whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home and game, to ask the Nexus to facilitate such things would be, in my opinion a great error in judgement at the very least.

[UhuruNUru]

@Lisnpuppy, never any need to apologise to me (An habitual extremely long poster, for writing a long post, in response to one of my own novels.

 

You raise some good points, and I never really expected the Nexus to allow me to use (Insert Scene Name)'s crack, I ecpected a straight no, to that one.

 

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the Legal position, is I can crack any exe I legally possess, provided it's private and never publicly released.

To be honest, even if I'm correct, i expected a no from the Nexus (Dark One's right), whatever the nexus ruling is I would abide by it.

 

If I had to make my own crack, i would learn how, and do so, but regardless of the legality, Dark One can say no.

I hope he'd say, if it's legal, it's OK, but would fully understand and accept, if he said it's not.

So no I'm not expecting the Nexus to condone illegal activity, more like hoping any Legal method is.

[DrakeTheDragon]

Forgive my interference, but I'm not really seeing the issue here, honestly. (I'm also only talking as a mod user, mod author and Nexus member here, not in any way speaking for the Nexus or making an official statement, or it'd be in orange like above.)

 

First off, the ban notice you quoted was about Skyrim, as far as I know up to now still a Steam-exclusive game. That means it cannot legally be obtained in any way without at least registering and activating it through Steam. Requiring Steam proof of purchase in this context is unavoidable.

 

- In the general sense you can do all you want in the safety of your own 4 walls, the Nexus is not up to policing off-site activities in any way.

- But if you publicly talk about using cracks or a cracked game "on the Nexus", although specifically instructed not to by the ToS you agreed to when you joined, then you automatically risk being suspected to also be using a "pirated" copy of the game you're talking of. And no, not every single mention of using a crack automatically results in a ban for piracy either, but it depends on more and different things as well.

- If you happen to be banned for piracy only because you were talking about using a cracked version of a game, the very response in the ban notice you're so concerned about is your rescue rope. If you're able to provide "proof of legal purchase", the ban has to be reconsidered and your chances are good you'll be reinstated (perhaps with a warning for the forbidden talk about using a cracked game though).

- And proof of legal purchase means any kind of proof you actually "bought" the game you cracked, whether that be a link to your Steam list of games, or your GOG list of games, a bill showing you bought the physical disc in a shop, or sometimes even a photo of (yourself holding) the original box of the game you bought, while all vital details are clearly visible, a reference to your Nexus user name so they know it's really you, and not making it suspicious you just borrowed the box from a friend to show them or something, will also do, though something more substantial as proof would of course be the better choice here with the highest chance of success.

- And even if the game was only legally obtained "after" you were already banned, many of those how I call them "converted pirates" will also see their appeal work in their favor from all I know.

 

What providing proof of legal purchase does "not" do however, is excusing the violation of the rule not to talk about using a cracked game in public on here. It may provide you the way back in, due to the ban being about piracy more than crack talk, but don't be surprised when it's combined with a warning for talking about the crack.

 

So the situation should actually be really simple, and easy to understand and follow:

- Do what you want inside your own home's privacy, and nobody will care (as nobody will even know).

- But if it's against the rules, or illegal even, do "not" talk about it on the Nexus (or if it's allowed to remain posted by the website, you're risking the website to get punished for your crime).

- Back to your "actual question", no, the Nexus does not care what you do at your home. You will not be punished for what you're doing while nobody knows you are.

- But you will be punished as soon as you start "talking" about it on here, as this is against the ToS you agreed to when you joined the site. And there's no way this rule would become ineffective only by proof of legal purchase, as it's completely unrelated to it to begin with.

 

Now why this had to be blown out of proportion so spectacularly much, with all this off-topic discussion of completely unrelated topics, is beyond me. :ermm: