Forum Discussion/Suggestion Thread

[plykkegaard]

Adapted from the usenets style of qouting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting

[bricksathome]

A question regarding the new rule 3.1:

Sharing your own mods on this forum must be done with direct links only. Eg: The link you click on in the post should be to the file not a web page or forum page.

Would it be possible to clarify what counts as "not a web page"?

Presumably linking to say, www.promods[dot]net for the ProMods download would break this new rule because the link doesn't take the user straight to the download. But would linking to download.promods[dot]net (which links straight to the first step of the download process) break the rule or not? The user will be taken to the first step out of multiple steps where they can download the mod but the actual page they land on does not start the download.

Most crucially, where do file hosters like Sharemods, google drive, media fire, etc fall under this new rule? Does linking to a mod hosted on media fire break the rule because the download doesn't immediately start when the link is clicked? If that does break the rule, are people now required to have links that immediately start a download upon clicking them? (i.e, once the user clicks the link they don't have to click anything else on the webpage in order to start a download) In which case, even sites like Google Drive and Dropbox would break the rule because they show a preview page first, before the user can download the file

If this isn't allowed anymore, the majority of mods on the forum are breaking the new rule. If the solution to that is "host mods on the steam workshop" (Assuming links to mods hosted on the Steam Workshop are still allowed), will it become possible to upload all types of mod to the steam workshop? (currently it is not possible to upload mods of certain categories, for example, map mods, to the steam workshop)

[Bandit & The Snowman]

What this rule means is that you can't post a link from which it takes one or more steps to get to the download process. The links Sharemods and other hosters are supposedly treated as direct download links as they are as close to deep links as it gets. Only the creator/publisher of a mod is supposed to use these links though.

In the case of ProMods, you can always just cite the name and people can search for it. They offer just two products so far, and you have to be registered with them anyway so it doesn't make sense to give direct links.

[plykkegaard]

What this rule means is that you can't post a link from which it takes one or more steps to get to the download process.

Which is actually the case with promods, but for an very important reason as the mod is not a single file
If you a strict the site is in violation with the new rule as it the download page is locked behind an authorisation wall

[Mohegan13]

Rules relating to mod hosting won't go into affect immediately, so that those who need to make changes can (which TBH is a minority) and so we can also get feedback on things we might not have considered.

We certainly don't want to oust good modders. I've already started a debate in the moderators forum about specifics such as a list of acceptable hosts and maybe the idea of allowing specific trusted sites like Promods. Bandit has the general idea, linking to download hosts such as sharemods is what we intend, we understand that the functionality of the website requires an extra click or two. But we also know there's nothing going on there we would have to moderate, unless someone is posting stolen mods of course.

The main aim is to crack down on multipage clicks on 3rd party sites that makes moderating mods a nightmare, particularly were site registration is required or where people could be claiming "free mod" and it turns out after some hoops it's just an advert for a paid mod.


Technically speaking the Promods topic may have been in breech of existing rules (do their developers actually offer mod help on this forum?)

[plykkegaard]

do their developers actually offer mod help on this forum?

Does non active developers count?

[erkinalp]

Why not just delete the quote feature altogether.

Because, we sometimes need to refer to something outside the forum and post IDs do not exist for them.

[hangman005]

I think a different forum engine, would take away a lot of the issues regarding quotes and I think some of the issues in general, phpbb, is serviceable... but dated. Not sure if there are add ons that can improve it's functionality and it has been a long time, since I've been on the other side of phpbb forum. It's probably not priority or even on the radar, but I do think there is room for a lot of functional and quality of life improvements migrating to a new engine.

[plykkegaard]

Dark subsilver2 theme is created for latest phpbb 3.3, maybe some maintenance sub versions are missing
https://github.com/SCSSoftware/phpbb-da ... ver2-theme

Which free vamilla forum engine does it better?

[bricksathome]

Technically speaking the Promods topic may have been in breech of existing rules (do their developers actually offer mod help on this forum?)

hey now, the rule says "you are agreeing to give all users of the forum equal technical support in the mod's topic." If developers don't give support, as long as everyone gets equally no support from developers it's fine, right?