Ramifications of BSA Extraction in Mod Organizer

[z929669]

This will graduate to wiki guide format once we get sufficient community input ...

---

 
I am creating this thread to address some important information about BSA extraction and related modding concepts that come up over an over again with respect to STEP's use of Mod Organizer (MO) and MO/STEP critics that disagree with STEP's general advocacy of BSA extraction and MO's BSA-extraction functionality. In order for this to be meaningful to all users, I am providing some background information required for understanding the ramifications of BSA extraction and why STEP advocates it while other respected modders do not.
 
WARNING: Extracting BSAs deviates from the intent and expectation of the respective mod provider, so it is fair to expect that once a user extracts a BSA supplied with a given mod, that mod's author has every right to refuse support on the basis that the user implementation is no longer the same mod. Further, if a user extracts vanilla Skyrim BSAs, ALL mod authors and the modding community at large have the right to refuse ANY support to said user!
 
NOTE: The STEP community follows Wrye's cathedral model of modding, and since we advocate experimentation and an open modding approach, we also try to encourage 'creativity' (but not flagrant stupidity, TYVM) and users are welcome to support each other in this community, and we'll do our best to help as we are able, particularly with regard to what we advise in any of our guides. After all, modding is a largely creative endeavor and a learning experience!

---

 
Executive Summary
 
STEP provides instruction for a range of methods to mod Skyrim. Novice users can follow the STEP Guide, which is pretty straight forward and adheres to conventional modding methods. More advanced users or users that want to take it further can follow the additional guides and employ some more advanced and less conventional techniques (like BSA extraction and texture optimization) that we have found to be viable and optimal for the 'perfectionistic' or 'adventurous' modder. Some of these techniques are traditionally the jobs of the mod providers rather than the mod users, but we encourage and empower our community to take on these tasks if they wish, because many mod providers do not optimize their mods, and we advocate customization of mods by the user.
 
STEP advocates BSA extraction because it allows for more granular control of the modded Skyrim (but see 'cons' below). Critics object that this practice 'breaks' the fundamental standards of install-order and load-order methodology that many mods and modding utilities are built around. Nevertheless, I and many STEP staff and members have not found this to be the case and propose that these concerns likely stem as a result of Mod Organizer users having problems and complaining and blaming the mod authors on mod threads like the USkP when something goes wrong with their game. Why MO users? Because MO is the only mod manager that exposes BSA extraction to any user that installs a mod with a BSA in it (basically, all MO users).

• STEP advocates BSA extraction (given the user understands the ramifications!)
  • It is a prerequisite to texture optimization (NOTE: repackaging vanilla BSAs is possible with CK's Archive.exe but problematic with BSAopt)
  • Used properly, it does not cause any load-order issues at all
  • It allows more granular control of a modded setup
  • It can theoretically lead to excess disk fragmentation (HDDs only, not SSDs)
  • It can theoretically reduce in-game performance if most/all game assets are loose files under a heavily-modded game
• BSA extraction is not 'bad' (NOTE: it can alter the intended behavior of a mod's interaction with other mods if used improperly)
• BSAs are not 'bad'
  • simplify mod distribution
  • simplify user maintenance (NOTE: particularly for manual installation and traditional mod management ... but NOT for Mod Organizer users!)
  • simplify support by mod providers
  • BSAs are the future trend in Bethesda modding, so best to get used to them

---

 
Install Order vs Load Order
 
A word about game assets: Game assets are any files (resources) that get used by Skyrim. Plugins (*.esm & *.esp) are special assets that are used by Skyrim to call upon other assets and to provide instructions for their use. Thus, plugins are the 'brain' of the game. The only plugins needed to play Skyrim are Skyrim.esm &  Update.esm. Other plugins are from the DLC add-ons or other mods made by the modding community like the USkPs, etc.
 
Install order: The order of mod files installed onto disk. If two mod packages contain the same file names along the same file paths (e.g., textures/blah.dds), then the last installed version overwrites (i.e., overrides) any previous version and is thus the version that will be used by the game if it is called upon by the game (via a plugin). These mod files can be anything at all (e.g., text, images, ... whatever), but only certain file types are used by the game: textures, meshes, scripts, plugins, etc. Therefore, install order affects what resources the game will use.
 
(NOTE: MO does not install mods to the data directory, but rather mods are extracted into mod folders within a user-specified location. MO creates a virtual /Data/ that appears to Skyrim as the actual /Data/, and it populates this virtual directory with mod assets from the install directory as specified by the MO installation priority. Otherwise, there is effectively no difference between MO and other mod managers, but this difference is fundamental and confers a significant advantage to MO users).
 
Load Order: The order that plugins are loaded into the game. Like install order, the last plugin loaded overrides all previous plugins. Since plugins reference assets within /Data/ by file name, there is potential for two different plugins to reference the same named resource.  Additionally, since plugins provide instructions as to the use of these resources, load order can also affect game behavior. Therefore, load order affects both what the game will use and how the game will use it.
 
What are BSAs?
 
Mandatory reading: read this important background information!
 
BSA: A proprietary archive of game assets that mirrors /Data/ directory structure. Thus, a BSA file is an archive exactly like a folder that is simply packaged as a file. The same is true of any ZIP or 7z archive.
 
How do BSAs Work?
 
For Skyrim to be 'aware' of a BSA, it must either be registered in Skyrim.ini or loaded with a plugin of same name. Once recognized, the game sees any BSA as part of /Data/ itself; however, when conflicts exist between files contained within a registered BSA, a plugin-loaded BSA or within /Data/ as loose files, things are a little trickier:

• Registered BSAs: These load at Skyrim start in the order that they are listed in Skyrim.ini, last loaded BSA 'wins' in event of resource conflicts of contents within.
• Plugin-loaded BSAs: These load when a new or saved game is loaded after Skyrim starts. Each BSA is loaded at the time the plugin of same name is loaded. So any BSA with content resource conflicts corresponding to a plugin will 'win' if its plugin is loaded after the conflicting plugin. Basically, these BSAs (and all of their asset content) are referenced by their plugin and loaded according to plugin load order. Plugin-loaded BSAs always 'win' where they conflict with Registered BSAs. The only exception is with respect to resources required at Skyrim start but before savegame (or new game) load, like No Menu and Loading Smoke.
• Note about loose files: Loose files always override same files inside of registered AND plugin-loaded BSAs!

 
Summarizing in terms of prioritization and load order ...
 
Skyrim asset priority:

1. Loose assets always win
2. Plugin-loaded BSAs win all but #1 (EXCEPTION: plugins are only loaded when a new or saved game is started, so plugin-loaded BSAs have zero priority with regard to pre-game assets)
3. Registered-BSA assets lose to all #1 & #2
4. Registered Skyrim BSAs and other official content and DLCs behave no differently than "after market", mod BSAs

Plugin/BSA load order:

1. Registered BSAs load according to list order in Skyrim.ini
2. Plugin-loaded BSAa load with respect to the corresponding plugin load order
3. Plugins load according to %USERPROFILE%/Appdata/Local/Skyrim/plugins.txt, which is managed by BOSS/LOOT

BSA Pros:

• Keep the Data directory clean and uncluttered (NOTE: this does not apply to MO users though, since MO uses the virtual file system).
• Allow easy mod management, since all of a mod's files are much simpler to identify and update or remove (mitigates user error= less support burden)
• Make it easier for mod authors to distribute and maintain control over how the mod functions (mitigates user error = less support burden)
• UPDATE:
• Better performance (NOTE: a lot of loose files slows down game startup, especially when using MO)
• Less disk usage (NOTE: BSAs can be compressed; HDD fragmentation is less of an issue)

BSA Cons:

• Removes an element of user-level control ... and many mod users are control freaks (STEP especially)
• Users can no longer efficiently see contents of a mod (NOTE: although Wrye Bash does expose this information, albeit with a performance hit ... is this functionality inherent or is it off by default??)
• Incentivizes mod authors to provide BSA 'hotfixes' as loose files (NOTE: This has undesireable ramifications for MO users due to behavior of BSA extraction in MO ... BSA extracts last, so loose file hotfix is overridden by original version within the BSA! EDIT: this is fixed in the current beta and next release of MO)
• Mod authors are forced to upload all files (the entire BSA) for any updates (all files are contained within a BSA), and users are forced to either download again or deal with the issue just previous if the mod author has supplied a 'hotfix'-type update.

BSAs & Steam Workshop
Steam Workshop only allows mods that use the BSA + ESP format. STEP finds this overly restrictive and unnecessarily 'controlling'. I personally resent it and only deal with Steam because it is the wrapper for Skyrim (unfortunately, IMO). The Steam Workshop and Steam-Skyrim community are valid entities that do not deserve to be totally ignored, but STEP does not recommend that it be used as a primary source for mods or modding information. The Nexus is the STEP-preferred source for all modding needs. For information, STEP is a good primary source, and we point to the best alternative sources, but here are a few others:

• TESAlliance
• Bethsoft Forums
• Unofficial Elder Scrolls Wiki (UESP)
• SkyrimSearch.com
• Tamriel Maps 

BSAs & Mod Organizer
 
Since Mod Organizer allows users to extract BSAs during mod installation, MO potentially obviates any functionality of registered or plugin-loaded BSAs. Thus, any mod that uses a BSA is effectively constrained henceforth by rules pertaining to loose files, so its assets are no longer linked to hierarchies of BSA registration order or plugin load order. This and the fact that all or user-specified mod resources can be loose and manageable by MO confers a clear advantage to the user.
 
BSA Extraction Pros:

• MO users have a much more granular level of asset control and can prioritize BSA contents at the loose-files level
• It is a prerequisite to texture optimization (NOTE: repackaging vanilla BSAs is possible with CK's Archive.exe but problematic with BSAopt)

Other issues can arise though, so only informed users that understand the ramifications should be using this functionality (unpacking BSAs). Following are some things to be aware of when unpacking BSAs (that mod authors intended to remain packed as delivered!).
 
UPDATE: There does not seem to be any need for standard users to extract mod BSAs in MO, because once can subvert the constraints of the standard load order/asset prioritization system from the Archives Tab:

• Plugin checked, BSA checked - Follows mod priority order for conflict resolution. Plugin does not affect the situation at all.
• Plugin checked, BSA unchecked - Follows plugin load order for all unchecked BSAs. All loose file assets will "overwrite." OTHER checked BSAs will NOT overwrite, which is why unchecking BSAs can lead to unpredictable results or dificult-to-resolve conflicts (hence the warning).
• Plugin unchecked, BSA checked - Follows mod priority order for conflict resolution. Plugin does not affect the situation at all.
• Plugin unchecked, BSA unchecked - As if the plugin and BSA don't even exist in the mod setup.
• Furthermore, MO will scan all mod BSAs (aside from those in /Data/) and include these assets in the Mod > Information > Conflicts tab. So in MO, BSAs effectively behave like loose files when checked in the Archives Tab! Mod developers will still find the BSA extraction functionality handy for testing purposes during production of updates to their existing BSA-packed mods or when developing new ones dependent on assets contained within BSAs. 

BSA Extraction Cons:

• BSA assets are now given loose files priority, so this alters the mod author's original design intent and may introduce false 'bugs' that nobody on any forums will likely want to or know how to diagnose or fix ;)
• BSA extraction in MO happens after loose files are installed. This means that any loose 'hotfixes' would be overwritten by the BSA version, which is outdated. EDIT: this is fixed in the current beta and next release of MO

MO exposes BSA extraction functionality using a prompt when a mod containing a BSA is first encountered. This functionality can henceforth be "always allowed" or selective, based on user preference in response to this prompt. Users that do not fully understand the ramifications of BSA extraction on the specific mods they are using together should not use this feature. If "automatic BSA extraction" is in effect, it can be reset from Settings (click the wrench icon in the toolbar) > Reset Dialogs > click 'yes' at the prompt.
 
First, STEP recommends that users NEVER "always allow" automatic BSA extraction ... why? Because there is no need to do this at all, since the granular functionality already resides within the Archive Tab. More importantly, because many unknown or unintended prioritization issues can come into play as described previously. It is always safer to use the BSA unless it will cause a de facto undesirable result.
 
BSAs that have optimized textures and can be overridden completely by downstream mods should stay inside BSAs (or repackaged using CK's Archive.exe). If assets from inside a BSA need to overwrite some mods and be overwritten by others, then sometimes it makes sense to extract the BSA. MO has a beautiful tool accessible from within its Archive Tab. If a BSA is present in the load order, it will appear in the Archives Tab. Leave it unchecked to allow it to behave normally and be loaded by its plugin (if the plugin is active), and check it to extract the BSA to the mod folder and effectively confer loose-files prioritization.
 
Critics of Mod Organizer and STEP (for Officially Advocating BSA Extraction) 

Some within the well-respected modding community are at odds with the idea of BSA extraction advocated by STEP and facilitated by MO. The most notable contingent is the USkP team. This is relatively old news and nothing that should be shocking, so please do not treat it that way. The reasons are not unfounded and actually valid. I bring this up solely to address the idea to remove BSA-extraction from MO that Tannin suggested if MO-detected load order issues are not resolved properly (by submitting a ticket). In fact, I created this thread to address this one issue as much as to address the knowledge gap that is the real cause of any issues associated with BSA extraction.
 
Some modders are more or less happy with MO's ability to invoke BSA extraction. Generally, mod authors who have gotten a lot of grief with respect to their mods --for problems caused by the ramifications of rampant BSA extraction-- seem to have more of a problem with MO (see note below!). This has been somewhat problematic for STEP and MO with respect to outsiders privy to the argument but not privy to STEP or MO ... never mind that the 'fault' should be shouldered solely by the unwitting mod user for invoking BSA extraction without understanding the ramifications of doing so ... and ours for not properly educating our user base to that effect (hence this thread).
 
Let it be said that the STEP modding community and the vast majority of modders are the kinds of users that use PCs instead of Macs and tend to be somewhat removed from computing 'norms' imposed by Apple and Microsoft and their ilk. In general, we do not like our control restricted in favor of provider control over our resources to make their lives simpler. We are generally in favor of digital freedom, open source software, and the honor system. Big Brother and his methods are generally unwelcome. Demonizing BSA extraction in general and removing it from MO in particular in order to enhance level-of-conrtol by mod providers would be a big mistake, as STEP itself somewhat relies on this feature (and will to a larger extent in the future). However, I think that it is very important that our users understand the ramifications of using BSA extraction, and we need to address explicitly in the STEP Guide.
 
The MO user base (not its 'critic' base) should guide Tannin's direction of MO, IMHO ... 
 
I want to explore what we do (and do not) know with regard to the ramifications of BSA extraction to our MO users and how best to make MO a broadly accepted utility among all within the modding community ... not just STEP. In order to do so, we must not dredge up combative arguments. Constructive argument is good for all respective modding endeavors, so what has been said in the past is water under the bridge. So keep it lively and fact filled ... but keep it polite and considerate!
 
Please report bugs as Tannin requests using the link above. Also please post to this thread and help us to improve the breadth and accuracy of this OP!
 

[fireundubh]

I did not say anything about putting 'crap' in /Data/.

Crap is a technical term for ESMs, ESPs, BSAs, and other files, which include the DLC.

[Kuldebar]

@Aiyen

 

You are using MO a lot differently than I am.

 

• In my data folder are only official files from Bethesda, yes they have been cleaned.
• Nothing stays in my overwrite as that's a temporary place for things like bash patches and tes5Edit backups.
• ESM's and ESP's are LOOT sorted...while in the left hand window everything is prioritized either by LOOT order for stuff that must be and the rest by override conflict preference. in regards to scripts, meshes and textures.

 

Before yesterday, all BSA's other than the official BSA's were extracted in my mod build.

 

It has been determined that doing so (in regards to the Unofficial Patches when you have all the DLC's) will lead to some issues in regards to how certain edits get forwarded/prioritized because the "Official DLC are treated 'specially'" by Mod Organizer. Yeah, don't really know the specifics, but let's just say that it isn't a very transparent mechanism from the user's perspective.

 

It isn't WYSIWYG...thus for some of us, there was some confusion and consternation over the inconsistency of the design regardless of all the good intentions of the designers.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Kuldebar

[Neovalen]

So to sum up 

1: Data dir is as it is downloaded from steam 

2: Have a cleaned version of the official .esm´s in overwrite. 

3: Load the .esm´s before ANY .esp in priority order. 

4: ALL bsa´s from mods are unpacked. Only the texture ones from official are. 

This is my method as well except I have the cleaned beth ESMs as the first mod in my MO window.

[Aiyen]

Kuldebar: 

For me it is exactly WYSIWYG... I see a properly sorted mod and load order according to the priorities they should have, and the assets are loaded according to this in a proper and logical way.. at least for me anyways. With the unpacking done as described earlier.  

 

Also like Neo says then one could make a separate mod instead of using overwrite.. but I have just been lazy in that regard. The outcome is the same, and should not matter in any way. 

 

The only thing I have in my overwrite is the cleaned .esm´s and then whatever .esp I happen to create manually for my own mods since the CK saves them there by default on my system. 

 

So really the only difference between the way you and I do things is that you use LOOT to sort (As I recall with respect to the unofficial patches then it sorts .esm/.esp , .esm/esp  instead of just having all .esm before anything else.), and I do not. Which to me would more be an indicator that the LOOT list is not a good way of doing things rather then MO having a weird issue in regards to the way it does things. 

[Kuldebar]

You copied the official esm/esp/bsa's to your MO directory and thus override the default Data Folder...most users do not do that....they leave the official files in place and use MO to take care of the mods. Thus you will not see the issue that has been much discussed and was made evident by how a particular vampire fix was forwarded when it would not have been but for a "special" treatment by MO involving how it prioritizes official DLC's.

 

You and Neo are not using MO as most typical users do, so yes, your mileage will vary.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Kuldebar

[wolverine2710]

Regardless, there could be many edge cases caused by uniqueness of MO prioritization intelligence that we are still not aware of. Modding in Skyrim is a complex cascade of conflict resolution that mods are built around, and obviously some mod builders are developing with the expectation that standards are not being circumvented. There is something to be said for following standards by default.

 

I was doing some torture testing with MO's Potential Mod Order Problem warning (PMOP) and found something I couldn't explain, Turned out there was a ticket for it by Octopuss so I added my observations there. Observed by Octopuss and myself is that MO issues warnings between two (or more) mods even if those mods don't have scripts in common. The ticket explains why that happens with the current algorithm. 

 

Tannin has said here in this thread and I quote him:

"The algorithm is very simple: If scripts from two mods conflict the scripts should be loaded in the same order as the corresponding esps.".

 

The current algorithm does the following and I quote Tannin from the ticket: "The reason this happens is this: Proudspire Manor Refurbished conflicts with Unofficial Skyrim Patch. Cutting Room Floor Traps conflicts with Unofficial Skyrim Patch. That puts all three mods into one dependency graph. MO always makes suggestions based on whole dependency graphs, even if the two mods mentioned don't conflict directly. This is why disabling one mod can make move suggestions between two other mods disappear."

 

For more info see ticket 638: "Conflict resolution feature reporting nonexistant problems".

[Garfink]

Quote:

@Garfink: I had such a button in the very first version that had the potential mod order warning but doubleyou convinced me to remove it. Don't know which thread that was in.

 

@tannin

 

Oh there was such a button... would've eliminated the need for this thread....

[Aiyen]

Kuldebar: 

 

So the solution would appear to be as simple as create that mod and/or use overwrite.. and add that to the guide. Instead of going about requiring that MO make a workaround for something that there already exist an elegant and simple solution for.

(How much simpler can a solution get then a simple copy paste?) 

 

Heck if STEP makes their own BSA´s with following .esm´s and/or .esp´s then this solution is perfect for it anyways! 

 

Even calling it a solution seems a bit odd, since it has been an option all along to begin with. 

[wolverine2710]

Quote:

@Garfink: I had such a button in the very first version that had the potential mod order warning but doubleyou convinced me to remove it. Don't know which thread that was in.

 

@tannin

 

Oh there was such a button... would've eliminated the need for this thread....

 

Don't have a perfect memory but I can search forums pretty well... Afaik the feature was needed because of upcoming changes in the USKP (use of false esm files). I think it and MO's then new 'potential mod order problem" (PMOP) feature where discussed there, haven't reread the whole thread but I think its the one.  DoubleYou did some tests and iirc the outcome was that in some situations things could not be automated - or was impratical or too complex. Hence it was changed by Tannin into the current PMOP warning feature, so users can make the changes themselves. Its far more complex then one would think. Testimony for this is this current lengthy thread.

 

Note: Haven't done (lazy and burned out a bit) so but I think having a good look at the algorithm would make things clearer and perhaps by altering the algorithm some issues would disappear or result in fewer warnings. Those suggestions would need to come from us I think.

 

Anyone who has been following this and other related threads might have noticed that this whole BSA extraction and  PMOP warnings stuff does not seem to give Tannin lots of positive energy (my opinion), which saddens me. He's open for suggestions and changes should the PMOP feature not work 100% BUT we all need to do some torture testing (imho) and create tickets so he can have a look at it. After all the latest algorithm is in the latest 1.21 BETA of MO.

[fireundubh]

because the "Official DLC are treated 'specially'" by Mod Organizer. Yeah, don't really know the specifics, but let's just say that it isn't a very transparent mechanism from the user's perspective.

No, the DLC are not treated "specially." The Data folder is though and with good reason. Move the DLC out of the Data folder and into the MO mods directory where the rest of your mods are located because the DLC are mods—official mods but still mods. 

Anyone who has been following this and other related threads might have noticed that this whole BSA extraction and  PMOP warnings stuff does not seem to give Tannin lots of positive energy (my opinion), which saddens me.

I'm impressed that he hasn't thrown his computer off a bridge yet. Or jumped himself.

Edited May 25, 2014 by fireundubh

[TechAngel85]

 

because the "Official DLC are treated 'specially'" by Mod Organizer. Yeah, don't really know the specifics, but let's just say that it isn't a very transparent mechanism from the user's perspective.

No, the DLC are not treated "specially." The Data folder is though and with good reason.

 

Move the DLC out of the Data folder and into the MO mods directory where the rest of your mods are located because the DLC are mods—official mods but still mods.

 

This is one of the smartest and most logical statements I've heard regarding this issue.

[Kuldebar]

fireundubh, on 25 May 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:fireundubh, on 25 May 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:fireundubh, on 25 May 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

No, the DLC are not treated "specially." The Data folder is though and with good reason.

 

Move the DLC out of the Data folder and into the MO mods directory where the rest of your mods are located because the DLC are mods—official mods but still mods.

 

And where, in all that "documentation" does it advise this? Users were early and often informed that Mod Organizer's greatest strength's is leaving your Game's Data Folder untouched, as pristine as the day it was installed. Even the cleaning instructions for the official files mention nothing about plopping the cleaned clones into MO's directory system.

 

The whole idea was that MO was designed to handle your MODS with the official files sitting right where they belong.

 

Oh, but...no...move those Bethesda files into the directory, because everyone has the disk space and the aptitude to move files around like that without borking things up royally not to mention who the hell was instructing that as "best practice"?

 

Let's not pretend that this has been the obvious solution all along, because the problem hasn't even been that apparent until some (me?) of us actually started noting that some things weren't being handled quite right. My particular issue was posted back in March, no mention from any MO-privy person chimed in at that time...

 

In fact, Arthmoor was right all along about MO and no one had the courtesy to explain why he was right.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Kuldebar

[TechAngel85]

Let us please keep our emotions in check and continue in a healthy debate.

[Kuldebar]

TechAngel85, on 25 May 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Let us please keep our emotions in check and continue in a healthy debate.

I think we should deal with facts and not throw revisionist one-linerss that distort how we even got to the point of having this discussion in the first place.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Kuldebar

[wolverine2710]

And where, in all that "documentation" does it advise this? Users were early and often informed that Mod Organizer's greatest strength's is leaving your Game's Data Folder untouched, as pristine as the day it was installed. Even the cleaning instructions for the official files mention nothing about plopping the cleaned clones into MO's directory system.

 

The whole idea was that MO was designed to handle your MODS with the official files sitting right where they belong.

 

Oh, but...no...move those Bethesda files into the directory, because everyone has the disk space and the aptitude to move files around like that without borking things up royally not to mention who the hell was instructing that as "best practice"?

 

Let's not pretend that this has been the obvious solution all along, because the problem hasn't even been that apparent until some (me?) of us actually started noting that some things weren't being handled quite right. My particular issue was posted back in March, no mention from any MO-privy person chimed in at that time...

 

In fact, Arthmoor was right all along about MO and no one had the courtesy to explain why he was right.

 

The tune makes the music. Might I suggest to do what Z wrote on the OP of this thread "In order to do so, we must not dredge up combative arguments. Constructive argument is good for all respective modding endeavors, so what has been said in the past is water under the bridge. So keep it lively and fact filled ... but keep it polite and considerate!". Personally I don't think that what you wrote is that polite.

 

That said: We together learn new things all the time and no one has all the answers (except Tannin).

 

Perhaps its best that someone makes a condensed version of this issue and the information which has been found and send it to Tannin. I can imagine he doesn't follow this thread (the whole time). Tannin can then decide what is the best way to proceed and perhaps he can/will make changes to MO. 

 

Edit: Ninja-ed by TechAngel85.