Locking polite threads

[Gopher]

This is a 'Feedback and suggestions' forum. If a polite thread discussing the pro's and cons of a new or removed feature is locked because 'it's never going to happen' then what is the point of this forum? If that thread had been devolving into flames I might understand, but it was actually a good thread where people were actually changing each others minds. I have changed my stance on this feature precisely because of that thread and others like it. Surely that is the whole point of this forum?

 

Please note this is not a 'whine', it is a request that threads be left open as long as they are polite and not breaking any rule.

[Dark0ne]

Some threads run their course. Other threads serve no purpose because it is not going to happen. For example, making a thread about changing the fixed width of the site...not going to happen..so why argue it?

 

I want to remind people that I very rarely change major things on the sites without first giving everyone the chance to debate the issues and come to a consensus. The removal of the negative endorsements was one such issue that was debated rigorously and ultimately the decision was made to remove the feature. Everyone has the chance to debate these issues if they just keep up-to-date with the news, blogs and the more prominent forum posts. Many people did. When people then come on the forums acting like they've been slapped in the face because something got removed without consulting them, after it has already been debated to death, it gets tiresome.

[Gopher]

I understand the decision. But perhaps in discussing this a new idea will come out of it that achieves what negative endorsements were meant to, but that is less confrontations. Maybe it won't, but surely the discussion (as long as it is constructive) does not harm us.

 

And I am one of the people who did not like the old systems, so this is not about my own bias in this discussion. I have actually found people really changing my mind with their points and so while I personally do not like the negative endorsements, I now appreciate other people finding them useful. Surely this is a good thing?

 

As for people complaining at something being changed after it was debated to death, the problem there is that people who are happy with something are not on the forums defending it. People demanding change always seem greater than those wanting to keep the status quo because people happy with how things are doing it rather than talking about it :)

[Maskar]

Maybe start a new topic suggesting something new rather than debating if negative endorsements should be removed? It seems clear they're not coming back anyway.

[Yamcakes]

Maybe start a new topic suggesting something new rather than debating if negative endorsements should be removed? It seems clear they're not coming back anyway.

I'm not arguing for negative endorsements, but some people did make a good point about it serving a purpose as a warning. I had a suggestion in that thread. I know everyone keeps saying to read through every page of the comments (Which go into the hundreds on bigger mods!) if you want to find out about problems, but it would be so much more convenient with a simple system like this. A little button with a number beside it. Just reporting bugs. Not criticism, or negative feedback. Just as you could report an abusive comment, you can report a non-bug related post in there. And it would be located near the endorsements button, where everyone can easily access and view them.

 

Maybe both sides can be appeased by the addition of a feature that isn't called a negative endorsement, but still allows a way for people to share problems with the mod in plain sight for the casual viewer. The bug report idea is nice, There could be a little exclamation mark and a number next to it like endorsements. Each report would say something like "This messes with so and so's quest dialogue" "Conflicts with such and such mods", or "object is floating over such and such location". Allow the author to leave a comment on each report. The author could say something like "I am making a patch for this soon" "Thanks for the info, This will be fixed in next version" and so on. It wouldn't be a negative endorsement, and it would waaaaaaaaaaaay easier than sifting through a sea of comments like "cool mod".

[Vagrant0]

Maybe both sides can be appeased by the addition of a feature that isn't called a negative endorsement, but still allows a way for people to share problems with the mod in plain sight for the casual viewer. The bug report idea is nice, There could be a little exclamation mark and a number next to it like endorsements. Each report would say something like "This messes with so and so's quest dialogue" "Conflicts with such and such mods", or "object is floating over such and such location". Allow the author to leave a comment on each report. The author could say something like "I am making a patch for this soon" "Thanks for the info, This will be fixed in next version" and so on. It wouldn't be a negative endorsement, and it would waaaaaaaaaaaay easier than sifting through a sea of comments like "cool mod".

The problem with such a feature is deciding who can and cannot submit a bug report or even making sure it is valid. A bug report or mod review section for a mod could easily turn into the same sort of crap that we've always had... People leaving short, useless feedback like "This mod doesn't work." or "This mod sucks." or even long rants about why the author of the mod should stop modding immediately and find something sharp to push through their temple repeatedly. Yes, there might be an occasional valid bug report made... But like with the non-endorsment, most of the feedback this would likely generate would be useless to the mod author for correcting any potential issues, and be a way for people to cause other forms of grief.

 

A section for mod reviews can also end up returning to that same 10 point rating crap where someone decides to give you a 9/10 because the mod didn't also do their laundry, change the oil in their car, and give them a free handjob; while we have authors throwing a fit because that 9/10 is less than perfect, so they want it immediately removed in fear that someone might get the wrong impression of their mod and now not download it.

 

If you control who can and cannot do these things, then you open matters up to various forms of bias, or atleast accusations of bias. If you don't control who can do it, you open it up to chaos and generally worthless results.

 

The discussion threads are the best place for this sort of thing. Yeah, it might mean more reading on popular mods, but it will generally tell you more about the mod than anything.

[gilith]

The problem with such a feature is deciding who can and cannot submit a bug report or even making sure it is valid. A bug report or mod review section for a mod could easily turn into the same sort of crap that we've always had... People leaving short, useless feedback like "This mod doesn't work." or "This mod sucks." or even long rants about why the author of the mod should stop modding immediately and find something sharp to push through their temple repeatedly. Yes, there might be an occasional valid bug report made... But like with the non-endorsment, most of the feedback this would likely generate would be useless to the mod author for correcting any potential issues, and be a way for people to cause other forms of grief.

 

Why u didn't let us do some automoderation and letting mod's author delete bug report they don't deserve. I mean seriously modders they like use a lot of time to do mod, generally they're not some leechers who go on nexus and throw bad endorsement when they don't managed to make the mods works. And if really one do suck, and delete every bug report on his mod we will just have to said it on the forum. and u can perhaps make a special team who test these mods to be sure they deserve this bug report.

[RunningBare]

Why u didn't let us do some automoderation and letting mod's author delete bug report they don't deserve. I mean seriously modders they like use a lot of time to do mod,

Automoderation by mod authors is a bad idea, I say that as a mod author myself, the time you put into a mod is your own choosing, no one forces mod authors to put in the time or share their mods.

 

I am genuinely surprised at the comments I've seen from some mod authors, this is supposed to be a fun past time sharing your ideas and mods with the rest of the community.

[Gopher]

For me I think a better option is not to try to police who gets to rate a file down, but to simultaneously give mod authors the feeling they can do something about it and making the down rating itself have some effect on the down rater. I realise it would not stop the odd idiot from down rating a mod because the idiot was incapable of reading a text file, but it would give me peace of mind that said idiot was not going to pop up on any of my other mods or worse: get support from me because I didnt check my 'People to ignore' list before responding.

 

Let mod authors have a 'block user' feature. Not only does it make negative endorsements more reasonable, it would probably improve the level of discource from people requiring help from a mod author. We might have a little less 'OMFG your mod set fire to my whole house!!' type comments. It's just a thought :)

[gilith]

I apparently missuse some words because english is not my mother tongue.

 

Automoderation by mod authors is a bad idea, I say that as a mod author myself, the time you put into a mod is your own choosing, no one forces mod authors to put in the time or share their mods.

 

So i will use simple words that i'm sure of their meanings for the next sentence: I totally agree with what u said. i was trying to say that because mod's author use their time on mods it's a hobby, they aren't like some leechers who put bad endorsment and shitty comments because they didn't manage to make the mod works, so we can trust the most of them (mod's author) and can let them do some automoderation.

 

 

And to keep that fun i think that automoderation is a good things, nobody wants to reads that

People leaving short, useless feedback like "This mod doesn't work." or "This mod sucks." or even long rants about why the author of the mod should stop modding immediately and find something sharp to push through their temple repeatedly

so they should be able to delete this kind of post and with automoderation they will be able to, and be able to keep only good intervention that everybody can see clearly not by reading 30 pages of comments.

 

It's like when u have to answer by true or false when u answer false u have to tell why so when u give a bad endorsement you have to say why and the mod's author can delete it if it's not revelant.

 

And we were talking about youtube earlier and on youtube u can signal comments as spam or u can delete it right ? i'm not sure about this.