Jump to content

theblackman

VIP-Supporter
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

theblackman last won the day on September 3 2021

theblackman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Good

About theblackman

  • Rank
    Thane
  • Birthday June 18

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Zealand
  1. I can't help but feel that this is rather uncharitable and a tad reductionist. I followed and engaged in much of the discussion around NM's policy and ToU change and one thing I noticed above all else was the willingness of people to make comments that showed how little they appreciated and understood the various nuances that exist in the domain. Walk a mile in another person's shoes and all that..... I was rather scathing of BigBizkit's announcement about the deletion policy change in GMAD (Nexus Mods mod author forum), not because of the change itself, but because of the objectively underhanded way NM went about implementing the changes and communicating them to the group of people that creates the free content that they use to generate revenue. I understand the reason why NM had to implement such a change. Unfortunately it represented a total about-face in Robin Scott's previous comments about mod authors' sovereignty over the content they upload to NM - Axonis exposed this on a number of platforms, if you're interested. Consequently, I requested NM delete one of my mods which contained my original writing, but all my other mods I left on NM. Double standard? No, because the other mods were mostly made in response to requests from the community and therefore I thought it appropriate for them to remain on NM. So 'hate on the Nexus'' mischaracterises Arthmoor's (and many other mod authors' responses) when the prevailing opinion was more: NM should have acknowledged the nature of the relationship (NM generates revenue from free content provided by hobbyists) and engaged with mod authors in a far more ethical and responsible manner. I think NM acknowledged this by then allowing mod authors to request deletion of their mods within a month of the policy change. It isn't a double standard to chastise for wrongdoing but still want to contribute positively/continue to do the most good - that's a clumsy way to phrase it but I'm sure you take my point.
  2. My point was rebuttal to Tech's comment about trust, not to relitigate whether or not to clean the ESMs per se. But that is good news nonetheless. I admire your optimism.....
  3. I'm not confused at all. You distinguished between reliability and feasibility and you specifically used AFKMods as an example in the context of reliability. If AFKmods is not in question, then perhaps you could've used a different example. But that's not the only thing in question regarding reliability, as I was alluding to essentially this: I'm fairly confident we can rely on AFKMods to not arbitrarily, cynically and unethically modify its Terms of Use (ToU) to the point that it alienates mod authors, resulting in many reconsidering whether to continue to use it as a mod hosting service and it no longer being considered the mod author-friendly hosting site it once was. Yes, modifying one's ToU without first notifying the userbase is unethical. And that's what NM did. And being seen as, and actually being a mod author-friendly hosting site is an aspect of reliability. Perhaps you're not speculating, but I feel I am due to the absence of any hard data/analysis - but you did provide some analysis in your reply - thanks. And I didn't ask you to post any private conversations. Perhaps the last three words of the STEP Mantra will answer both your questions quoted above. And it did occur to me, after reading your question above about trust, that even though I've been a member of the modding community since 2006 and have financially supported STEP, I wasn't trusted enough to be believed when I pointed out a while ago that cleaning the DLC esms was likely unnecessary. But I didn't mind posting my research..... The reason you're having to pay for things out of your own pockets is that you don't actively ask for donations. Please de-bias your mind from this way of thinking. Last time I got a message from STEP that you needed some cash, I gave you some, along with many others. I'm sure things would improve if you set up Patreon and KoFi accounts but even if that doesn't happen, asking for things often gets you the things. If you feel uncomfortable asking for donations, 'volunteer' someone else to do it.... What about if the STEP community thinks it is a good idea.....?
  4. We do know the 'reliability' of AFKMods. Arthmoor has been a productive, committed member of the ES modding community for more-or-less two decades now. Longer than the Nexus, I believe. And NM is personally owned as well - by Robin Scott. So your point regarding reliability, with regards AFK at least, is largely irrelevant. Your point about feasibility is pertinent, however, but doesn't it come down to traffic volume? Do we know what the bandwidth limits are and if current traffic volumes are close to exceeding those? Rather than make a decision based on speculation, if would be better to make an informed decision. Is it feasible for STEP to provide some form of limited file hosting, perhaps as a mirror for any files stored on, let's call them, second-tier distributions sites, like those you listed? Likely you'll mention cost as an issue but last time(?) you issued a call for donations, the response was fairly overwhelming, IIRC. Lastly, it has been proposed that the second-tier hosting sites be more-or-less blacklisted due to bandwidth issues except for when they're used by a mod author with a proven track record. That's a tad contradictory. The bandwidth issue exists independent of reputation. I'll refer back to my earlier point - I think STEP should be supporting any responsible, sensible moves to ensure a more diversified mod ecosystem.
  5. Between bulk emails and FB, I'd posit that bulk emails is the lesser of the two evils. In addition to what Tech wrote, I'd tend to view emails from STEP more like a newsletter I've signed up for. You might find that some bulk email services offer a free subscription to non-profits, which means you'll have all the compliance stuff automated, in addition to the features usually included. Just a thought.
  6. z929669 split from unrelated topic Why is that?
  7. On one hand I can't believe we're having this conversation - and that's not a dig at anyone, btw. We've all been a bit spoilt over the past decade or so with NM being the dominant hosting site for mods for Bethesda's game franchises. I remember when (cue collective groans) mod users had to peruse multiple sites (PES, FileFront etc) to get the mods they wanted, although I can't remember if registration for each was mandatory. On the other hand, it is good that we are seeing what users prefer here. However, from various posts on the NM forums and elsewhere, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon which I've termed Nexus Mods Myopia, where: 1. because a mod has been deleted from NM, that mod ceases to exist entirely in the minds of some users; and/or 2. because some mod authors have deleted their mods from NM, that means the modding community is in a hopeless downward spiral. So in the mind of some portion of the community, mods for Bethesda's games exist only on NM and NM constitutes the entire domain of the modding community. I don't think STEP should be taking an action that tacitly entrenches that view. Rather it should be encouraging a more diversified ecosystem which will benefit the entire community rather than tacitly supporting a monopsony. So I agree with z929669. Also, I would've appreciated getting a headsup email about this poll - I'm sure others would too.
  8. theblackman

    Bethini Pie

    Brilliant idea. Looking forward to seeing this develop. Did you learn Python/JSON as part of developing this or did you already know those languages?
  9. Why did you upload it to the Alchemy category? Looks good though! :)
  10. I actually preferred the previous version of the message; it was clear and concise. As it is now, you have to click through two links to see the boilerplate and at first I wasn't sure if that was to be used in the wiki only or the forum post too.
  11. I thought that might be the case, but then I wondered why you would want a DB full of rejected mods. But OK, makes sense, thanks.
  12. When posting a mod suggestion for inclusion into STEP, the 'warning' text states to consider creating a modpage on the wiki for the mod, but no reason is given as to why it might be preferable to do this. Perhaps the reason(s) could be included - it would be more persuasive, at least. Thanks.
  13. Actually I'm not sure the 'norm' was ever the quite the 'norm' we assumed it was. This is the thread (2017) that prompted me to investigate this issue more closely, specifically DoctorKaizeld's comment: "kinda a well-known thing that you don't clean master files". Note that they are specifically referring to LE, not SE, but that doesn't really matter in this context. GrantSP (2018) reaches a similar conclusion here after discussion with other mod authors although he admits "there may be some small benefit for Skyrim to do so". Then there's the anecdotal reports, some linked below: One Two Three The AFKMods discussion was bemusing to me when I first read it when I was researching this as I read Arthmoor's most recent comment to not clean the masters before I read that thread where he is passionately disagreeing with Mator and recommending they be cleaned. Anyway, as we now know that cleaning can cause issues and since we appear to not have any cases of issues caused by using uncleaned masters (assuming correct use of patches), I would say that's fairly conclusive.
  14. IIRC it was in Arthmoor's Reddit post, which I now can't find, but it was the reason I emailed him. He also confirmed it via email to me but as it is personal correspondence I can't cite it. As to why if only using USSEP, no specific reasons were given, just Arthmoor recommending cleaning for 'patchophobes'.
  15. Elminster's amusing summary from one of those GitHub links about Skyrim's DLC:
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.