What the hell?

[Conner]

@Hana:Ah, that makes sense. Still a screwy way to run a site, but not as bad as Giskard's craziness, I suppose.Yeah, I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to notice that. (Oh, it looks like with that last post, Dwip became a puddle too!)@Dwip:I'm not even sure it sounds worth struggling through a whole page worth so I'd appreciate the cliff notes version too.

[Arthmoor]

Start reading around page 14 of the comments here then: http://www.tesnexus.com/news/index.php?id=792Sorted as "oldest first" btw, because Nexus does comments ass-backwards.

[Dwip]

Already read all that. I still have no idea what we're trying to debate here. I mean, I read your post, obviously, but as I note above, it does not seem to me after seeing the perms page that you're arguing at an existing thing. Elaboration needed.

[Arthmoor]

Did you read Holbrook's novels? I think he explained it pretty well. Policy contradictions and such. What DarkOne has been saying doesn't jive with how copyright operates. He was saying in that mess somewhere that mods whos authors haven't included permissions/usage info are going to be fine to use stuff from until said modder comes back from whatever has had them out of contact. IMO, that amounts to authorizing the looting of other peoples' stuff. Which is simply not legal, and definitely not moral either.

[Dwip]

Yeah, ok. I think I see where you're coming from, but:1. He said that in the past, and I'll trust Holbrook to have accurately found the quote. However, contradictions aside:- That screenshot I posted believes otherwise;- His front page post seems to believe otherwise;- Everything else he's said seems to believe otherwise;Hence I'm going to go with otherwise here. What he's got there by default looks to me to be pretty much the longstanding community consensus on the matter. I would think had he meant it the other way about, the screenshot I have would read wildly differently.2. Really there is no 2. I just use numbered lists as a convention too much.On a wholly other note, vaguely re: the crazy ass user titles for postcount:So, from time to time I like to search for my name on the Bethsoft forum. Usually I search for AFK_Weye as a way of keeping on top of what people say about my mod, but sometimes I like to see what if anything people say about me. Usually this works quite well. sometimes not so much, however.

[Hana]

So' date=' from time to time I like to search for my name on the Bethsoft forum. Usually I search for AFK_Weye as a way of keeping on top of what people say about my mod, but sometimes I like to see what if anything people say about me. Usually this works quite well. sometimes not so much, however.

I lol'd.

What DarkOne has been saying doesn't jive with how copyright operates. He was saying in that mess somewhere that mods whos authors haven't included permissions/usage info are going to be fine to use stuff from until said modder comes back from whatever has had them out of contact. IMO' date='[/quote']It's so easy for people to twist words around to suit their point as you well know. It's also easy to judge from behind a monitor. I read a few pages of comments, and horrific grammar and poor sentence structure aside, I did not grasp what holbrook was trying to say. Nexus has put in additional measures to enforce what they've enforced all along - steal someone's assets and get caught, banned. All because of modders of F0.I'll repeat what I've already said. It won't stop people from doing it.

[Conner]

Hence I'm going to go with otherwise here. What he's got there by default looks to me to be pretty much the longstanding community consensus on the matter. I would think had he meant it the other way about' date=' the screenshot I have would read wildly differently.[/quote']So, you're saying that everyone seems to be getting worked up over some hypothetical changes that have come up before and never actually amounted to anything then either?

2. Really there is no 2. I just use numbered lists as a convention too much.

I fully concur.

On a wholly other note' date=' vaguely re: the crazy ass user titles for postcount:[/quote']You mean you didn't like being a droplet and/or don't like being a puddle?

So' date=' from time to time I like to search for my name on the Bethsoft forum. Usually I search for AFK_Weye as a way of keeping on top of what people say about my mod' date=' but sometimes I like to see what if anything people say about me. Usually this works quite well. sometimes not so much, however.

I lol'd.

Looks like our demented rabbit is also someone's idea of how to spell the sounds from Space Invaders.

What DarkOne has been saying doesn't jive with how copyright operates. He was saying in that mess somewhere that mods whos authors haven't included permissions/usage info are going to be fine to use stuff from until said modder comes back from whatever has had them out of contact. IMO' date='[/quote']It's so easy for people to twist words around to suit their point as you well know. It's also easy to judge from behind a monitor. I read a few pages of comments' date=' and horrific grammar and poor sentence structure aside, I did not grasp what holbrook was trying to say. Nexus has put in additional measures to enforce what they've enforced all along - steal someone's assets and get caught, banned. All because of modders of F0.[/quote']Wait, so you're saying it's not that Nexus is saying it's okay to steal other modder's stuff like Samson was saying but rather that they've coded in extra means to enforce the notion of banning someone if they're caught stealing someone else's assets? That sounds like it'd be a good thing to me.

I'll repeat what I've already said. It won't stop people from doing it.

Well, no, people are people and they'll do what they want to regardless but if you make something difficult enough to do or if you make it not worth the effort or if you make it dangerous to do then it will keep the majority of the people from doing it.

[Arthmoor]

Holbrook summarized my beef pretty well, and shortly after he pointed this stuff out, DarkOne decided the topic was done. I don't know how much more you'd like to have it explained, but there it is.What's being displayed in the big pink warning boxes is NOT what he's telling people is reality. I think a whole lot of effort has been expended on a nearly useless feature only to have him come along and contradict all of it in an official discussion of the topic. It would have been simpler to just ban the thieves and be done with it. It seems to only be an issue for F:NV anyway.

[Dwip]

@Conner - What I'm saying is that, this Nexus thing aside, there's some pretty long-standing community consensus about how to treat people's work. Discussion threads aside, Nexus seems to be following that interpretation of the way things are. What Samson and others are getting worked up about appears to be some contradictions in what DarkOne was telling people relating to how to treat files by authors no longer in the community. They're of the opinion that he's told people that abandoned files are free game to do whatever with, while DarkOne in his original post on the subject and in his latest postings is of the opposite opinion. For myself, I'm of the opinion that DarkOne's not lying to us here, and that if he had intended something else, those default file permissions would read much differently.You can make the case that making files free game without intervention by the author is an ass-backwards reading of copyright, and I would totally agree with that, but it doesn't seem to me that that's really what DarkOne's trying to do with this thing, and nobody, at least in the Oblivion community, seriously tries to argue the free game position for very long without a serious smackdown.You can also make the case that this is a pointless waste of time of a system, and I might also agree with that, but that's something else entirely. I do tend to think that a system that forces people to think about this sort of thing can't be all bad, though I'm not sure this is the best possible version of it.Re: User ranks, they're not very Elder Scrolls, now are they?

[Conner]

@Samson:Okay, now I understand the situation. Basically the DarkOne needs to get his shit together and make a single position and then be static about it. Preferably, a realistic and legal one. When it comes to copyrights it's generally held, as I understand it, that permissions omitted from a license are automatically not granted by the license.@Dwip:Well, copyrights do have time limitations, but generally it's X years, not 3 weeks of inactivity by the author.I think the problem isn't that DarkOne's changed the official policy on it but that he expressed himself in a manner that's got people frenzied because of his apparent self-contradictions.I'd agree that this appears to be a poor version of getting folks to think about this sort of thing. :lol:You're an admin level user here, go change the rank titles (or even the rank levels) if you'd like, I'm sure we could easily enough come up with better ones instead of just using the default ones.

[Dwip]

More or less.And I see a spot to ADD titles, but I don't see a spot to EDIT titles.

[Conner]

I haven't upgraded my own QSFP forums in several versions, unfortunately (I keep meaning to and then not getting around to it mostly because I'm rather afraid of losing vast changes to the templates and CSS that Dragona and I had made toward customization), but in the version I'm using it was the link right below the link to add new titles under the members menu.

[Dwip]

The fact that I can't read inhibits this sort of thing.

[Conner]

Yes, I can see how that'd impose some rather severe limitations on performance of administrative functions in a forum software, though the fact that you're post count is barely staying behind my own does seem mildly contradictory toward indicating that particular problem.

[Arthmoor]

In another thread, loosely related (had to do with a ban for piracy): "Why we have our rules is irrelevant. If you break them you get shown the door. It's quite simple really." Isn't that just lovely?

[Conner]

Actually, I don't have a problem with that sort of attitude about the rules. Most forums, games, etc have rules established for whatever reasons seem appropriate to the folks establishing the rules and to everyone else it really shouldn't matter why they have those rules, it's more about knowing what the rules are so you can operate within them. In fact, that's mostly true even of the laws in our real lives. Does it really matter why we have, for example, rules about speed limits or does it really just matter that you'll be paying a stiff penalty if you're caught breaking those rules?Sometimes the why behind a given rule is quite obvious. (We don't want people going around killing other people so we have laws about murder.) Sometimes the why isn't so clear. (In Texas, there's an old law on the books that you can't wear your pants tucked into your boots unless you own at least 10 cattle. Um, what?!?) But either way, as long as you're aware of the rules, what matters is that you try to comply or at least not get caught failing to do so because you know that you'll be punished in some fashion for violating those rules.

[Arthmoor]

Your Texas example is precisely why one should question the reason for a law. As a further example, in Baldwin Park (CA) it's illegal to ride your bicycle in a swimming pool. Go figure why that ever needed to be made illegal, I seriously doubt they have a rampant problem with rogue bike riders in pools.It matters a great deal why we have speed limits. You get all sorts of bull for answers on that one. Ranging from being good for the environment to being a safety concern.So yes, the why behind a law or a forum rule is pretty important. Handwaving it away as "it's a rule, obey" doesn't fly well with a lot of folks. It's a cheap answer for a legitimate question. Bogus laws/rules tend to get ignored, and if you ignore them long enough the authorities will stop enforcing them because it gets to expensive to jail all the violators.

[Conner]

While that's true on the philosophical level, most people would ultimately rather avoid the penalty than worry about the rationale. Lawyers will eventually address the why and reasonableness and so forth of a law, but, generally, citizens who aren't lawyers usually just have to accept that a new law has been passed that they now have to worry and grumble about.

[Hana]

Just because this is the catch-all thread, I'm going to pose a question at Arthmoor.The latest All Natural update 1.1 ...... does it really require OBSE 19, or are you just saying that in the requirements because it's the latest?Also, this;

Moved ini file to Dataini.

I have no DataIni folder? I have an Ini Tweaks folder (from BASH?). Is that what you mean? After installing this with BAIN my all natural.ini is just in Data folder as usual.Also, your wizard installer doesn't work any more. It gets to the last config page and the "finish" button is greyed out. You can only cancel.

[Arthmoor]

Yes, it really requires 0019. OBSE scripts compiled with 0019 have to be run on 0019 or they won't work.Yes, it really means Dataini. If you don't have an ini folder under Data, make one, then put the file in there.As for the wizard, why am I not surprised something broke? It always does.

[Hana]

Ok, can I make a friendly suggestion that you actually post those 2 points in the Beth thread? No where besides the ReadMe does it mention OBSE 19, and you know people don't read the readme's (except me apparently).The point about the ini folder seems to suggest the folder will be created for you.Misc observation: The ReadMe doesn't even mention anything about the wizard installation choice.Another post-install observation. BAIN didn't install the ini at all. The one in my Data folder is the old 9.9.5 version. I wondered why I didn't see anything about these new fog settings...

[Hana]

Ok, can anyone shed some insight on what's going on here?It just won't stop.Nevermind, got rid of it.

[Conner]

Those weren't the new grass mowing pattern?

[Arthmoor]

Sorry, no idea what's going on there. The usual thing when OBSE updates is to display one message on the upper left of the screen and that's it.

[Conner]

Maybe her game was just so excited about the new version of OBSE that it wanted to make absolutely certain she'd notice...