Mod Picker: The Fearsome Juggernaut

[matortheeternal]

2. That Mod Picker plans to release bug fixes for mods.

 

We won't be doing that.

 

Regarding libel, I'm glad to finally see you can appreciate how sensitive an subject it is. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with intellectual property. They are quite different areas of law.

 

We've already stated that any instances of libel or otherwise defamatory content submitted by users to Mod Picker will be promptly removed as is the case on any public forum or website.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

I'll direct you read the original MA thread again as I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting other people out of context, especially as you seem to be insistent on not appreciating my own points of view.

You can provide an example of your own concerns.It sounds like all of your concerns related to files being uploaded to another site have been addressed and now your only concern is that Mod Picker may be breaking the law by collecting data about user's mods. I would like to see this law. That is all I am asking. Since we all agree that Mod Picker will be aggregating this data the only question is whether or not it is actually illegal. This is not a matter of "point of view" or opinion. This is a fact you have repeatedly asserted: that Mod Picker is violating the law. Prove it or shut up.

You have to take into consideration where data is being hosted and also the contracts, agreements that people have entered into. Usually caveats to some other benefit, but still. Many mod authors would possbily be able to weigh up those advantages and disadvantages and likely go for it if everything felt right. But it doesn't to many and people are not being convinced so are turning away. Problem is people are being told they cannot turn away, and this feels like a ransom.

1. What are people being told they cannot turn away? The site doesn't offer anything for modder authors, so what is there for them to turn away? The site links to their PUBLICLY AVAILABLE mod at the download sites of their choosing, but there is quite simply nothing for them to opt in or out OF.2. How is this "like a ransom" Please stop speaking in similes if you are not going to explain what you mean by them. Similes are a way to create associations in people's minds without having to actually back up your assertions. You say that Mod Picker is "like a ransom" and I am expected to say "Ransoms are bad! I don't like mod picker!" But HOW is Mod Picker like a ransom? WHAT is being held hostage? WHAT is being extorted? Complete the circle.

Youtube is a new medium, I know, so it is more like a bunch of networks. At the end of the line though is Google (or rather Alphabet) who assume certain control and responsibility for the content they store and show.

How do you get from "they have some responsibility" to "users can't even mention the name of a product in reviews or the might suffer consequences."The company's responsibility in court has not been fully determined they most certainly DO NOT have the responsibility to police every video for disparaging comments about products. Product reviews are not subject to copyright law!

Collecting data and publishing it is actually covered by civil law, as well as private, in many countries.

Please cite even one law in one country that prevents the aggregation of data about mods.

Regarding libel, I'm glad to finally see you can appreciate how sensitive an area it is.

I take libel very seriously. You're the one who has been claiming the Mod Picker VIOLATES THE LAW for several pages now, and yet you have yet to provide actual evidence!

I think everything in your post/s state enough examples of why I believe this to be an exploitive venture that looks of ways to skirt round the law.

 

I have given you my opinions and think it best you seek others to try argue your views with.

 

Cheers!

[lofgren]

 

2. That Mod Picker plans to release bug fixes for mods.

We won't be doing that.

 

I would have been shocked if you were considering there hasn't been anything to remote suggest that you would do so. It's one more case of your detractors simply throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. I really do not understand why you are getting so much opposition to a product that seems so obvious.

 

In fact I have wished that I had something like this many times as I considered downloading a new mod. Checking for compatibility issues currently consists of downloading a mod and then loading every plugin you use into TESVEdit, and maybe creating a patch if I am properly motivated (which is very rare). There is absolutely no reason that an end-user with no interest in mod making should have to do that in order to answer what appears to them to be a very basic, very simple question like whether it will work with their load order.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

2. That Mod Picker plans to release bug fixes for mods.

We won't be doing that.

 

Regarding libel, I'm glad to finally see you can appreciate how sensitive an subject it is. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with intellectual property. They are quite different areas of law.

We've already stated that any instances of libel or otherwise defamatory content submitted by users to Mod Picker will be promptly removed as is the case on any public forum or website.

Glad to hear it! Like, I've said, if people can find ways to accommodate people's fears and sense of exploitation then all the better.

 

But I am one modder at the end of the day, there are many others to try get on board with this.

 

I still think an opt-in system would solve this and most other issues. But we have been here before so I'll leave it there.

 

L8r

[lofgren]

I think everything in your post states enough examples of why I believe this to be an exploitive venture that looks of ways to skirt round the law.

 

I have given you my opinions and think it best you seek others to try argue your views with.

 

Cheers!

 

 

I provided literally no examples to suggest either thing so once again I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

OK, so far I have collated these examples of concerns from mod authors:

 

1. Mod Picker may increase the workload of modders because something something.
2. Mod Picker may be bad because paid mods something something.
3. Mod Picker may have inaccurate reviews because the percentage of upvotes required for a review to be counted might not be exactly right in order to prevent uninformed reviewers from tilting the scale.
4. Mod Picker may violate the civil law and or private agreements in some countries by collecting data about mods (actual law not cited).
5. Mod Picker implicitly claims authorship of mods by something something.
6. Mod Picker implicitly guarantees that authors will continue to support mods and release patches and fixes for users because something something.
7. Mod Picker discourages people from reading complex installation instructions because something.
8. Mod picker is like kidnapping because something something AMBER ALERT!!!!!
9. Mod Picker turns us all into plagiarists because SOMETHING!!!!
10. Mod Picker is something piracy.

Of these, I deem only #4 to be very serious and concerning. So if somebody would just cite that law, that'd be great. Otherwise, I need to have a lot of somethings filled in before I can take any of these concerns seriously.

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren

[lofgren]

Glad to hear it! Like, I've said, if people can find ways to accommodate people's fears and sense of exploration then all the better.

 

 

If you want to accommodate people's fears, I would suggest that you stop seeding panic with comments that imply Mod Picker will be using the data they collect to produce bug fixes. (BUG FIXES?!! THOSE BASTARDS!!!)

[Barbelos]

I'm a mod user, not a creator, but I understand and fully agree with some mod authors' concerns.

 

This needs to be opt-in. There is a difference between mod makers and the manufacturers of the products on PC parts picker. The latter are making a product for sale. They are creating products as professionals doing a job, and selling them for money.

 

This makes them an appropriate group for scutiny in a whole different way than modders, who share their work for the love of doing it. They have no such responsibilities. An opt-in might make your site less useful, but then again, not being able to search your home without a warrant makes the police's job more difficult as well. That comparison might be a bit much, but hopefully you see the point.

 

The review and reputation system is completely superfluous. Endorsement and download stats from the Nexus is already a good guide for mod users in that respect. I am also baffled by the idea that someone could still think a crowd-sourced review system is useful at all, that sort of internet optimism should have died with Steam reviews and metacritic. It is ripe for abuse. Also, see above about mod makers' accountability, or lack thereof.

 

Already modders are hiding their mods on the Nexus, and while it negatively affects me, I sympathise with, and understand, their reasons for doing so.

[lofgren]

There is a difference between mod makers and the manufacturers of the products on PC parts picker. The latter are making a product for sale. They are creating products as professionals doing a job, and selling them for money.

 

This makes them an appropriate group for scutiny in a whole different way than modders, who share their work for the love of doing it.

It really doesn't.

 

A bad mod is a bad mod. A mod that conflicts with your load order conflicts with your load order. It doesn't matter that you didn't pay money for it or that the person who made it did not receive money for it. There is absolutely no reason it should be wrong to share that information with other mod users.

 

The review and reputation system is completely superfluous. Endorsement and download stats from the Nexus is already a good guide for mod users in that respect.

It's interesting you should mention that because just a few weeks ago we had a long, contentious thread in which many mod authors and users were requesting an area of the Nexus where they could leave more substantial reviews than just an endorsement, because they felt that endorsements did not provide enough depth. So there is a quite vocal group who disagrees with your assessment.

 

I am also baffled by the idea that someone could still think a crowd-sourced review system is useful at all, that sort of internet optimism should have died with Steam reviews and metacritic. It is ripe for abuse. Also, see above about mod makers' accountability, or lack thereof.

Metacritic's stats get abused by game companies that do not understand how the grades are collated, so they make developer bonuses dependent on their metacritic score. This de-incentivizes creativity and strong incentivizes replicating what worked before. If you will please refer to the comments by one "Barbelos" above regarding Mod author accountability, you will see that there is no corporation to give bonuses to mod authors, let alone make those bonuses dependent on Mod Picker scores. The extent to which a mod author chooses to care about their Mod Picker score is entirely up to them. You will also note that this "Barbelos" describes the existing crowd-sourced review system as "a good guide," yet asserts in the very next paragraph that such systems are not "useful at all."

 

Already modders are hiding their mods on the Nexus, and while it negatively affects me, I sympathise with, and understand, their reasons for doing so.

I predict those mods are back up less than two months after Mod Picker launches, when everybody realizes this is no big deal.

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren

[Barbelos]

 

 

I am also baffled by the idea that someone could still think a crowd-sourced review system is useful at all, that sort of internet optimism should have died with Steam reviews and metacritic. It is ripe for abuse. Also, see above about mod makers' accountability, or lack thereof.

Metacritic's stats get abused by game companies that do not understand how the grades are collated, so they make developer bonuses dependent on their metacritic score. This de-incentivizes creativity and strong incentivizes replicating what worked before. If you will please refer to the comments by one "Barbelos" above regarding Mod author accountability, you will see that there is no corporation to give bonuses to mod authors, let alone make those bonuses dependent on Mod Picker scores. The extent to which a mod author chooses to care about their Mod Picker score is entirely up to them. You will also note that this "Barbelos" describes the existing crowd-sourced review system as "a good guide," yet asserts in the very next paragraph that such systems are not "useful at all."

 

 

Ok. I see the contradiction there. My point (that I failed to properly get across) was that mod authors have themselves chosen to upload their mods to Nexus knowing about the endorsement system on this site. They have not agreed to another system on an external site. While I agree that when mods are posted on a public site, they are open to critique and linking from elsewhere. The difference between a discussion on a reddit thread and the inclusion of a mod in a massive database on the Nexus or Mod Picker is something else entirely. As for metacritic, it's not only companies misusing the site, but also users with some agenda or another, completely separate from the quality of what they're reviewing. Thanks for putting my handle in quotes, really makes you look good.

[lofgren]

Ok. I see the contradiction there. My point (that I failed to properly get across) was that mod authors have themselves chosen to upload their mods to Nexus knowing about the endorsement system on this site. They have not agreed to another system on an external site. While I agree that when mods are posted on a public site, they are open to critique and linking from elsewhere. The difference between a discussion on a reddit thread and the inclusion of a mod in a massive database on the Nexus or Mod Picker is something else entirely. As for metacritic, it's not only companies misusing the site, but also users with some agenda or another completely separate from the quality of what they're eviewing.

See to me it doesn't seem like something else entirely.

 

We agree that people have the right to review and link to mods.

We agree that mod authors should expect this to happen when they make their mods public, because that is what "public" means.

But for some reason when you put all of those reviews in one easily accessible searchable database, it becomes wrong?

 

Also, based on your description, it sounds like you think that anybody who posts a mod to Nexus after Mod Picker has launched has implicitly agreed to be reviewed there, because otherwise they could just not post their mod if they don't want it to be reviewed. (Same way they can just not post their mod if they don't want it endorsed.)

 

Thanks for putting my handle in quotes, really makes you look good.

You're welcome? I guess if quotes are what do it for ya, to each his own.