Mod authors abusing control granted to them

[gnarly1]

Careful, this topic will be locked.

 

I already had this out with someone, when the previous thread was locked and my criticisms cited as having been reviewed by Nexus someones, and being something THEY would have blocked or deleted too.

Actually the thread was locked because you started hurling abuse and ranting incoherently because your previous post was shown to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you think you are the victim here is ridiculous given your immature reaction to someone disagreeing with you.

 

I just don't understand the point of the thread.

Neither do I.

[Apis4]

 

Careful, this topic will be locked.

 

I already had this out with someone, when the previous thread was locked and my criticisms cited as having been reviewed by Nexus someones, and being something THEY would have blocked or deleted too.

Actually the thread was locked because you started hurling abuse and ranting incoherently because your previous post was shown to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you think you are the victim here is ridiculous given your immature reaction to someone disagreeing with you.

 

I just don't understand the point of the thread.

Neither do I.

 

There was nothing incoherent about my post, and had the thread remained open I could have proven it, yet there was no need to, as the closer acknowledged that a Mod author HAD indeed deleted comments I made.

 

Additionally, warning someone of skating towards foolishness, at best, or blatant hypocrisy at worse, is NOT abuse. Sorry. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fragile sheltered privileged entity that really has no right being on any kind of public forum.

 

If you think that I am speaking about you, that just reinforces my point.

 

You certain come across as aggressive and defensive at once, as well as very arrogant. This thread had nothing to do with you, so it doesnt matter one JOT if you understand the VERY obvious point being made by the OP. Yet as you did right through the previous, now locked, post on the same issue, you wander in, go on the attack, then play victim when warned your arguments risk making you look foolish, or worse, a hypocrite.

 

But you have the audacity to accuse ME of such?

 

You are making trouble, and for NO valid reason.

 

The OP made their post SPECIFICALLY because a thread on the subject of Mod Author abuses of power, was SHUT DOWN, by Nexus, and essentially, we were told 'This doesnt happen, Mod authors have rights, it is a toold for the bullshit they deal with, and if you dont like it, lump it"........

 

.......Vulcan witnessed that.

 

Lo, behold, less than two days later, his own experiences demonstrated quite clearly this was still an issue.

 

Hence the point of the thread since it seems to have gone over your head.

[Apis4]

Why wouldn't Nexus side with modders. They are the only reason the Nexus exists. It is here to provide the means to share mods and nothing else. I am sure if you want to discuss mods, there are other forums you can join.

 

As for the start of this thread, the OP got just what he deserved. The OP started out with "I am dissatisfied with ..." If it were me, I would have told the OP that I would have no intention to help alter a mod I uploaded and if the OP didn't like it, don't use it.

 

I just don't understand the point of the thread. The mod author did not abuse any power. The authors make the mods and make the pages and have the right to refuse access to their work. If you don't like the policies here on this private website, you are free to leave at any time. The site owner will set the policies here. Again, if you don't like it, leave.

Just watch the door as you leave, it swings fast, don't let it hit you in the a**.

 

 

It's exceptionally poor form, in ANY forum, public, private, digital or material, to see dissatisfaction as insult or injury. Sorry, simple as that. When a person offers something for the consumption of other's, the public... which even on this site, we users ARE, then irrespective of the Site's owners, or the modders, or the arbiters between, or any other users for that matter, there will always be, no matter what, an implied prerogative of reply.

 

That's human nature. And indeed, we see more and more even in digital mediums by private entities, real world courts setting precedent on this.

 

If you offer something, and I accept it, and am then dissatisfied, your obligations are wholly dependent on the nature of the transaction, and in some jurisdictions, there is an automatic implied warranty on any "commercial" transaction (which I understand this is not, just exemplary), so even then, irrespective of parameters of the transaction within your own, or a third parties, policies, THAT is an obligation, HOWEVER, there is NO real world jurisdiction, which dictates that a 'Provider' be it seller, a gifter, or otherwise, can suppress critique by impinging upon the expression of the recipient/user/customer.

 

In fact, in some jurisdictions, it is criminal for a third party host, to conspire with service providers, to edit, remove, hide, or otherwise tamper with critique... like a review website for example as it is deemed in the public interest for legitimate critique, favourable or NOT, to be accessible by consumers.

 

Therefore, it is unreasonable to declare in this space, there can be no negative critique or expression of dissatisfaction with any 'Product", and to do so seems draconian and tyrannical.

 

In fact, we have case precedent for websites being told by courts once a user who had the money expertise and time, decided to sue, that their ToS cannot trump certain given real world rights.

 

I wonder why so many here are so scared of users being able, and more, allowed and encouraged, to express negative opinion about something they're procured from here?

 

Very telling.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Apis4

[gnarly1]

BTW the title of this thread is entirely inaccurate. However, it can easily be remedied by the deletion of two letters:

 

"Mod authors abusing control granted to them"

[Apis4]

BTW the title of this thread is entirely inaccurate. However, it can easily be remedied by the deletion of two letters:

 

"Mod authors abusing control granted to them"

 

You're right... they are using them. Using them to block, delete, edit, or otherwise manipulate, tamper, or suppress VALID negative commentary, which the OPs was, is USING their powers.... it does not mean it might well constitute abusing them either.

 

Nexus have a lot of users PAYING for this service. I am glad I did not now. That needs to mean something. It's not LONGER a FREE service, when you offer privilege for purchase, and then have customers who do so. THEY are now PAYING you NOT to have to be compromised by silence concerning a bad upload, or dissatisfaction with something.

[Reneer]

It's exceptionally poor form, in ANY forum, public, private, digital or material, to see dissatisfaction as insult or injury. Sorry, simple as that. When a person offers something for the consumption of other's, the public... which even on this site, we users ARE, then irrespective of the Site's owners, or the modders, or the arbiters between, or any other users for that matter, there will always be, no matter what, an implied prerogative of reply.

 

That's human nature. And indeed, we see more and more even in digital mediums by private entities, real world courts setting precedent on this.

 

If you offer something, and I accept it, and am then dissatisfied, your obligations are wholly dependent on the nature of the transaction, and in some jurisdictions, there is an automatic implied warranty on any "commercial" transaction (which I understand this is not, just exemplary), so even then, irrespective of parameters of the transaction within your own, or a third parties, policies, THAT is an obligation, HOWEVER, there is NO real world jurisdiction, which dictates that a 'Provider' be it seller, a gifter, or otherwise, can suppress critique by impinging upon the expression of the recipient/user/customer.

 

In fact, in some jurisdictions, it is criminal for a third party host, to conspire with service providers, to edit, remove, hide, or otherwise tamper with critique... like a review website for example as it is deemed in the public interest for legitimate critique, favourable or NOT, to be accessible by consumers.

 

Therefore, it is unreasonable to declare in this space, there can be no negative critique or expression of dissatisfaction with any 'Product", and to do so seems draconian and tyrannical.

 

In fact, we have case precedent for websites being told by courts once a user who had the money expertise and time, decided to sue, that their ToS cannot trump certain given real world rights.

 

I wonder why so many here are so scared of users being able, and more, allowed and encouraged, to express negative opinion about something they're procured from here?

 

Very telling.

^{[citations needed]}

 

Citations are needed for your claims. Which specific jurisdictions are you referring to in each of your statements? Is Nexus Mods even bound by the laws of those jurisdictions? If not, why would outside rules they apply to Nexus Mods? And which courts and which decisions, exactly?

[VulcanTourist]

Social ethics that value the Common Good must always apply. Tyranny of one sort or another takes root when they don't. There exist little tyrannical fiefdoms here because they don't.

 

The people who argue in favor of this favoritist tyranny are those who are benefiting from it in some fashion. Their sucking at the tyrannical teat and complacency from others is why it continues, not because there aren't explicit laws preventing it. Laws only codify the most extreme antisocial behaviors, while leaving the door wide open for a lemming herd of others.

 

If more people took action like Peacebringer and cancelled their Premium subscriptions in response to this, this would all end without a single "legal" challenge.

[Apis4]

 

It's exceptionally poor form, in ANY forum, public, private, digital or material, to see dissatisfaction as insult or injury. Sorry, simple as that. When a person offers something for the consumption of other's, the public... which even on this site, we users ARE, then irrespective of the Site's owners, or the modders, or the arbiters between, or any other users for that matter, there will always be, no matter what, an implied prerogative of reply.

 

That's human nature. And indeed, we see more and more even in digital mediums by private entities, real world courts setting precedent on this.

 

If you offer something, and I accept it, and am then dissatisfied, your obligations are wholly dependent on the nature of the transaction, and in some jurisdictions, there is an automatic implied warranty on any "commercial" transaction (which I understand this is not, just exemplary), so even then, irrespective of parameters of the transaction within your own, or a third parties, policies, THAT is an obligation, HOWEVER, there is NO real world jurisdiction, which dictates that a 'Provider' be it seller, a gifter, or otherwise, can suppress critique by impinging upon the expression of the recipient/user/customer.

 

In fact, in some jurisdictions, it is criminal for a third party host, to conspire with service providers, to edit, remove, hide, or otherwise tamper with critique... like a review website for example as it is deemed in the public interest for legitimate critique, favourable or NOT, to be accessible by consumers.

 

Therefore, it is unreasonable to declare in this space, there can be no negative critique or expression of dissatisfaction with any 'Product", and to do so seems draconian and tyrannical.

 

In fact, we have case precedent for websites being told by courts once a user who had the money expertise and time, decided to sue, that their ToS cannot trump certain given real world rights.

 

I wonder why so many here are so scared of users being able, and more, allowed and encouraged, to express negative opinion about something they're procured from here?

 

Very telling.

^{[citations needed]}

 

Citations are needed for your claims. Which specific jurisdictions are you referring to in each of your statements? Is Nexus Mods even bound by the laws of those jurisdictions? If not, why would outside rules they apply to Nexus Mods? And which courts and which decisions, exactly?

 

 

Well it depends on the angle too.... there's a few here.... mostly only because there is a paid service.

 

Let's start with Jurisdictions.

 

No. Nexus Mod's probably is NOT, as I believe they are Europe based?

 

Yet I would not imagine in the UK, EU, or other EEC countries, similar laws would NOT apply in relation to minimum expectations for a paid service. In this instance, we're talking about anything from data security and handling of personal information, through functionality, based on reasonable expectation. I am sure that would differ from sovereign State to another, but there would more than likely BE laws, even if only via precedent and not code, though again, depends on how that works in jurisdiction, and there would be definite differences say between France, which uses Codified Law, and Britain which uses Common Law.

 

As for things such as speech, again, it would come down to determinations of a reasonable expectation. Is there an established precedent that a consumer or customer, has a prerogative to use a medium provided for comment, to make justified adverse comment? Is it in the public interest for a host/market/retailer or other third party facilitator 'selling'...which is what a strong argument can be made that Premium Membership is.... a 'Product'...not enable, or support makers, manufacturers, providers, etc to suppress adverse comment in channels provided for commentary. Would this apply here? I am not sure on specifics. Yet I feel if it has not been established, it has grounds to be tested, and as I said, in other instances, Courts HAVE ruled in the negative, NO. My example of a food service sector review page, was based in a real case.... I will need to find the details, though I believe it was in the US, however, the general ratio of this specific platform and such concepts is not so far removed that it is not within possible purview of legal analysis.

 

Again, yes, we are talking about slightly different cases in different jurisdictions, but the choice to moderate or enable an agency to do so, on a site, even one like this, can even be an issue... for example, and I am going back a way now.... but I believe there was precedent setting formative case going back almost 30 years now in the US, regarding free speech, hate speech, libel and such.... specifically, I think it was two providers, maybe AOL and Yahoo....{??}....essentially being sued for defamation. One company avoided an adverse finding because their policy was they did NOT moderate, or allow such, comments made by users.... whereas the other was not so lucky, because they DID, and that established not only responsibility, and but additional obligations, and was also then a focus for legal dialogue regarding these very issues we speak of.

 

I will need to find the full details of all the cases......straight up though I can tell you in MY Jurisdiction....anything you 'Buy" new, has an implied warranty, and our department of fair trading and our consumer watchdog the ACCC, have repeatedly established the specifics and extent of this on a case by case basis on multiple occasions in the last 40 years. That one I can give you. The degree it applies to services is dependent on more complex issues, and it's still much more fluid than the precedent already set and well determined in relation to more concrete 'Good'.... however, this is also because it ties in with other legal and ethical considerations and often is related to sectors governed by two or three other codes and bodies relating to other aspects of their operations.

 

Nevertheless, the weight of such might not legally apply, as you rightly demand to know, but it does give serious support to ethics of the position.

 

I have not idea why so many of you are so incapable of seeing that.

[anjenthedog]

I was banned by Arthmoor for having an argument in an open forum about renaming save files using underscores. I said you could he said you can't, things got a bit heated. I told him he was being immature. He subsequently banned me from his mods.

 

Some of you are suggesting that posting ugly or inflammatory comments in a mod page is sufficient reason. Ok.... sure. Ok... But I was banned not for posting crap in his mod page but on an open forum post where I simply said you *can use underscores when renaming a save file (something which is undeniably true. I do it all the time). And a forum post he didn't even start.

 

Where does the line stop? If some mod author recognizes someone outside nexus and they decide they don't like the person, and at some point the person has posted to their mod page with a non-derogatory comment or question, is that also sufficient? Is it sufficient if someone discovers that a Nexus user is from a faith or political party or a race they don't personally like?

[BigBizkit]

I don't think calling out mod authors publicly for blocking you is going to achieve anything, nor is it something we're going to tolerate. That's why I am going to close this thread at this point.

 

As far as we are concerned: it is the mod author's prerogative to decide to block you from interacting with their mod page and comment section. If you did not feel their action was justified, then you are free to contact them and try to resolve the issue in a respectful manner. I know that many such cases do actually get resolved amicably.

 

Calling authors out publicly is only going to fan the flames and work against you, however.