z929669

Glad to provide some entertainment ... I have to remember now to be a bit less critical of those that ask the seemingly dumb questions :P

@aaltair See prev posts with links ... RE the implementation of the pay-for mod system on SW: I am merely bringing this up in hopes that this sort of thing will not happen again in the future ... What is not really getting any mention at all is the ?fact? that certain members of the TES/Fallout modding community were privy to this implementation for the past several weeks (?months?), and the decision was made (presumably Valve's stipulation) that it should be kept under wraps (i.e., 'secret'). Those that allegedly knew about this beforehand seem to only have been mod authors like chesko, Isoku, Arthmoor and whomever else had a paid mod up, but not necessarily Dark0ne or other leadership within the modding community. From what I have heard, Valve appears to have solicited select MAs to opt into the now defunct system and asked them to keep a lid on it. I for one don't appreciate that the larger community was kept in the dark by Valve and all MAs in the know. Why would they do this if they all believed in a pay-for mod implementation and felt it was the right thing to do? I think this all could have been avoided if select members of the modding community refused to keep secrets and demanded Valve be transparent. This would have allowed for a more thoughtful 'wading' into this new paradigm in a more informed (and successful) manner. I personally support content creators' right to distribute their mods in any way they wish, but I personally felt slighted after learning that some modding community members kept the facts hidden from the rest. (no worries, all is forgiven from my POV ... I feel bad for participating MAs now) Secrets of this magnitude within the community create social disparity and lead to further division, so I hope that mod authors, mod utility developers, and mod users can remain more open in the future with regard to changes affecting all groups ... and I know that many mod users may deserve such treatment based upon their past behavior, but each one of these groups can claim its share of nasty, vocal members. Mod users just have a louder voice because there are more of them ... but obviously, the majority of each of these groups are good people with either nothing, little, or lots of good things to say. Getting a bit of flack from a minority when things are transparent certainly beats getting a ton of flack from the majority as a result of keeping secrets and springing a huge change unexpectedly upon the entire group. Hopefully lesson learned and moving forward we can all band together rather than forming cliques with questionable motives ;)

petitions require name and address, so 95%+ of people won't sign for that reason alone ... make up a fake address!

Exactly. The only issue is that the donate code will only be available for mods that activate it and set it up properly. Tannin could easily do a few sanity checks if there are markers in the API or wherever Tannin scrapes mod info at this time. There is only one string (the source ID for Paypal) that is required, so Tannin should be able to create a link in any manner he chooses using regular expressions, fe. to scrape the code and place it into his own context. The point is to make MO attractive to mod authors by facilitating donations where applicable (which may be why Tannin added an endorsement button long ago). We could simply add some boilerplate text to all mod pages advising our users to consider donating to mods/projects that they use and enjoy. Similarly, we could add a reminder in the guide. It is still hard to find, and requires more clicks, which is less convenient and less likely to increase an MA's donation rate. Thanks!

Yes, that is the question, but I assume it is in the Nexus API along with all of the other mod page data.

hmmmm, no ... maybe THAT's the problem EDIT: Yep, that was the problem >

I am unable to submit a feature request or enhancement via the bug tracker. When i click 'Submit', I am presented with a js error in the top bar: ("error":null) Applies to FF and Chrome

OK, I wasn't sure if that was the best place to do it. thanks

Does anyone know if there is an existing feature request to add a Donate button for mods in MO (similar functionality as the Endorse button)? If not, I'd like to make such a request and add it to the appropriate queue. Rationale The late, failed, aborted pay-for mod Steam Workshop "marketplace" fiasco really brought mod-author donations to the forefront as a 'better' means for providing MAs with opportunity to earn some compensation, freely given, for their work, freely given away. Making the option to donate more prominent would be a boon for mod authors, which would reinforce the health of the community overall and provide some potential added modding 'fuel'. More importantly for MO, including a donation feature would set MO apart from the competition. It would be a great selling point to MAs as the only mod manager that provides this feature. Let's face it, attracting MAs increases MO's exposure and thus attracts MUs. It may well positively affect MO's rather diverse reputation in the modding community. Thanks, z

I have never understood why Bethesda never approached the SKSE team (and sheson) to offer them jobs or compensation for massively extending the game and its capacity and then incorporating these mods as integral patches. Definitely will happen, but only after they get their heads around it this time ... and they will bring in key community members to help, I'll bet. THIS ... I think this should be a MO feature request if not already ... everyone go and vote that up! The community is definitely thinking about donations to contributors right now. STEP even got a spike of donations in the last few days (but we still don't regularly get the $/month we need for hosting, and I always cover the diff myself ) As I posted on his latest article ... improving the donation system and making it much more prominent will buy the loyalty of MAs who may well get more compensation freely given than via required purchase. There would be at least as much incentive to supply one's mod on Nexus same as on SW. STEP will explore some ways to improve donation rates for MAs as well. We can see about providing links to donations for accepted mods and mention donations to MAs more prominently in general. See top of forum, top of wiki main page, and top of wiki STEP guide ;) ... we also have one hiding somewhere on our Nexus page I also posted as much on Dark0ne's most recent blog post: MAs should have a structured payment system for mods that meet objective, clearly-defined minimum criteria. A pay-for system and/or a good donations system would be good, but the former needs to be implemented in such a way that it does not cause significant reactive panic and rancor. The half-baked recent attempt at implementing was just scary and probably did lasting damage for some key members of the community that probably will never again be members of the TES/Fallout modding community as a result.

I neglected to mention that users of both systems will also be quite different: Pre-built PC users [& maybe Mac users :P] (like Steam Workshop users) will be relatively inexperienced and ignorant of a lot, thereby potentially giving SW an 'iffy name (and the guffaws of the modding community)Home-built PC users (larger modding community of yesteryear) are more technical and informed, and somewhat self sufficient. ... THIS ... not to mention that a very large proportion of mods available today would not be viable without your memory patch and Boris' work! Arguably, these 'patches' have facilitated Bethesda's ability to even make this stuff happen at all. You should be getting a 1-5% cut of ALL profits as far as I'm concerned ;)

FYI: here is the web page that leads to much of the current and relevant information on this topic. Follow the links and read the main articles. I am starting to think that it may be possible that pay-for mods (and Steam Workshop in general) will follow the analogy of the pre-built PC versus the home-built PC ... The pre-built (Steam Workshop mods) is all packaged up and (supposedly) ready to go, but ... there is always bloatware and proprietary configuration relics that are more tailored to the provider than to the user (e.g., to decrease the support burden to the provider).Subsequent upgrades and customizations are often not possible or extremely limited .... compatibility often sucksThese are usually rinky-dink machines that on the surface look clean and professional, but underneath the hood are just a mess of garbage.The home built (open, freely-available mods) ... is the product of research and testing.Optimal configurations and compatibility are primary drivers. Upgrades are relatively easy, and the user is almost always happy and in a position to make pragmatic changes if necessary with relatively little outside helpThese are usually more powerful systems that fit the user (and the user range) beter and ultimately have much longer longevity and relevance.The Steam Workshop may have (or may acquire) a few good mods, but many of the best WIPs and customizable mods and modding utilities are (will be?) on the open web.

Yep, Gopher gets it and so do others ... wonder why Valve and Beth didn't get it? My guess is that they just wanted to start making $ as quickly as possible that felt that it would all work out after the initial pandemonium. Never mind about alienating select MAs and MUs forever.

The problem about pay-for mods is not that MAs want to get paid for their work, but rather the behavior of MAs and MUs, given this new information about mods being sold as opposed to being given away freely. Some MAs are pulling their mods off of Nexus to prevent a-holes from stealing them for thier own credit to make $ on Steam.Some (many?) MUs are downloading mods like crazy before they are pulled.Some MAs are sabotaging their Nexus mods (heard this about SkyUI, but not sure if it is true) or creating different versions on free sites versus Steam (as if mod versioning was not confusing enough already in many cases).Some MUs are slandering MAs for opting in to the pay system on Steam. The problem is and will be more related to outright reactive panic by the modding community. It is pandemonium, and it could change everything, albeit unnecessarily. I can't say much for the Beth/Steam implementation or timing either. This is a real mess, IMO, and the blame lies solely on Valve and Bethesda for not implementing this in a more piecemeal or controlled fashion. They should know more about market reaction than they seem to and that they could possibly taint the very opportunity that they are interested in. Very unprofessional at this point. Hope it gets cleaned up fast, but it is a fire drill right now.

As I posted to Arthmoor at AFK: Posting snippets from other forums out of context not only increases the rancor, but it throws both threads off topic. Let's go to the relevant communities/forums to post within context. The OP is fine but it does invite criticism here and elsewhere (particularly due to the reference to the external forum and snippets from there), so I am not surpized that the old arguments are resurfacing :P

Just FYI, You could always download the optimized textures that I have already optimized from the Nexus site, or you could use Tony971's. Side note: OP updated

I abhor the 'like' system, as it does not provide the functionality that the other system provides (no member reputation perk, no thread highlight), and it is more akin to a popularity contest. I am actually leaning towards either a less abuse-prone version of the current system (daily voting caps) or a positive-only system. The image and phrase on the thread highlight can and should be changed, but that is a nice feature that visually flags posts of particular interest in all forums in addition to best answer, etc. This is nice for those browsing the forums. I enabled this feature to provide an example and will see about changing the image. EDIT: I changed the post highlight using CSS. Would rather not fret about the image or the text, but could be done as well. The important thing is that it stands out without looking gaudy or 'busy' ... also, we can certainly consider opening up the system to staff; however, keep in mind that our staff do a lot of 'work' around here in addition to 'play' and 'fun', so keeping the staff morale up as much as possible is important. Adding staff to any rep system (positive or both), might be depressing ... just in terms of not having positive ratings as high as other staff or certain other members. It could also bias staff behavior to be more lenient in moderation, and we are already pretty lenient around here.

Adding a button is not really an option, as it will not transcend skins or IPB updates (it is part of the editor interface, which will likely see an overhaul in IPB v4). This is something to post about on the IPB forums as a software enhancement. Spoilers are pretty common on all forums, and the BB code is pretty simple. We have a custom spoiler here, and you can point people to this thread (it is already in this forum, so I have pinned it).

I like the idea of up votes = "informative post" (as opposed to "I agree with this post"), or up vote = "thanks for posting this". However, remember that people will often vote emotionally or abstain emotionally ... rather than objectively. So any system will ultimately be contaminated to some extent by +1 votes and abstinence non-votes, regardless of definitions. There is also the point about being able to remove a positive vote, which is same as current system without allowing a negative result (hard limit at zero), unless one can only remove one's own vote if previously voted (which makes no sense at all, unless it is emotionally driven based on something unrelated to the post in question). I will look and see if there is an easy way to change the messaging and the definitions in an obvious way and to what extent the built-in system can be configured. I'd like to see more votes/opinions though, so let's see what happens over the next day or two. EDIT: I also forgot to mention that you can see any member's reputation details from their profile page (see left nav bar: Reputation). This will list each post that has a vote up/down, and the total equals their reputation as seen when hovering over their user name anywhere on the boards or at top of their profile. This alone is useful for finding potentially useful content (or poking around to find drama). The IPB reputation system is either positive only, negative only, both, or the 'like' system (as FB, which I agree rather 'sucks'). What I cannot determine without making the change is if up voting under the positive only system allows removal of one's own up vote, removal of anyone's up vote or no removal at all. The current system does not allow removal, but it does effectively allow cancelling out of up votes (one reason I like having negative myself). I assume that vote removal is not possible, but I am also afraid that if I change the system, I could wipe out whatever polarity of votes are no longer allowed in the event I want to switch back (need to test in my VM if I can get it up and running). Here is some info on the built-in system. EDIT2: I also forgot to mention that one can see rep posts for given and received from the user profile. Also, I did lower the number of post up votes required to highlight the post with a tag (see example from our most splendorous member), so this addresses one of Keith's wants, I think. I also turned on the display for number of votes a post has recieved, so a bit more informative. There is no simple way to change the definitions or behavior of up/down voting though (besides up/down versus 'like' system). I could change the hover-over popup text though with some minor annoyance by changing the built-in template, but that is less than ideal.

As a matter of fact, I have been keeping track of the rep system for quite some time, and I have noted that we have a large preponderance of posters with positive marks, a giant number with neutral or no marks, and a scant few with negative marks (all of which are quite low). Since there is no easy way to get aggregated stats via the boards, I checked using SQL ... Across all posts: Total positive (thanks) ticks = 2497Total negative (sod off) ticks = 345 (nearly one third given by a single member, whom will be addressed elsewhere)# members gave at least one positive vote = 304# members gave at least one negative vote = 42member with highest # positive votes given = 323member with highest # negative votes given = 100rounded average # positive votes per positive-voting members = 8rounded average # negative votes per negative-voting members = 8 (just coincidence that they are the same)As you can see, these numbers do not bespeak any flagrant issues other than the single poster that attributed 100 -1 votes across 100 posts (probably all in one day, as the limit is 100 votes per member per day). Many active members vote at some frequency, and the evidence is consistent with 'good' use of the system overall. This means that rep rating (as seen on ones profile page) is probably a fair indicator of the contributions of the individual as 'good', 'neutral', or 'bad'. ;) Don't forget that administrators around here think differently than members. We look at everybody as more-or-less 'members' and put out fires here and there ... we administrate. Members look over their own and others' profiles much more frequently. They look at member actions and stats at a much more granular level than we do. The persons with positive numbers both give and receive post votes (both good and bad) more frequently than other members (

It doesn't apply to staff simply because we can easily attract lots of post 'like/dislike' (or 'thanks/stuff it') spamming. Any user can 'like/dislike' a post at any time, so rep can technically go up or down based on any historical posting behavior, but it usually applies to relatively recent posts. It definitely encourages civil posting behaviors for the most part (and also encourages helpful posting), except for a few bad apples, but that is the point. Great point about the +1 posting. We don't get much of that around here, which is highly beneficial, since it reduces worthless posting significantly as well as statistically inflated post counts. That is another good reason to keep it around, IMO.

The user's rep appears on their user profiles as 'good', 'neutral' or 'poor', and we have several people with 'good' and quite high ratings, so I think it is a good positive reinforcement, and those users will likely not want to see it go. As an example, go to the 'members' area and sort by post count. Neo, CJ2311 and Keith have very high ratings, and hishutup is up there as well. Gyro, GraphicsJunkie and BrainFever are examples of the scant few I found with negative (red) ratings, and I think this is telling and a good indicator of behaviors and who to watch out for. Octopuss even has a positive rating, since his behavior around here as improved .... the community usually speaks accurately in aggregate, regardless of minor instances of misuse. Moderators and admin are excluded from the system already, otherwise you guys would likely have 'phenomenal' ratings. s4n doesn't like it either, but I still see no indication that the system is not accurately flagging our positive contributors as well as our very few negative ones. People with no rep, or those with bad rep will prefer not having the system, but those with high rep will like it. human nature. I am not inclined to get rid of it unless the majority of our good-rep users also don't like it (that means they have to speak up unprompted or comment on the topic without being primed or biased beforehand). Only Octopuss fits this cat so far. Let's see what we get from the community on this thread. positive rep members have proportionally more weight to add to this conversation in my mind. Here is a screen of the behavior:

SGD does, depending on plugin used.

I have messed with it here and there and generally understand how it's done, but I have not worked it enough to do it fast. I did dive into localization stuff for SGD though, which is a bit of a PITA. I recently did some Git training as well, but I am not yet committed to contributing to the patches at this point. I go all or nothing pretty much, so one of these days I may take it up and train with SRB's processes.

SPM is a pretty good tool for assessing effects of ENBoost and the memory patch. I have used it for a couple of years now and never noticed that we had any doc on it.