Mod authing Thread

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not telling the admins how to do their jobs, but what is going on with mod authorization? It seems like any old riff raff can pass even if they haven't passed any of the three criteria. Noobs just register their new 'idea' and expect modders to take up the project. Then, nothing happens, and the so called 'mod' is left for months and dies. In my opinion this is called spamming, and usually modDB cracks down on it. Just a quick search brought up mods like mutant outbreak and Resident Evil Apocolypse. These are just two examples of many more mods.

I don't really care about it myself, it's just a piece of advice, so you can flame me if you want. I just think the modDB should be a place where only the promising mods can enter, but I think soon it will get even worse. I would say you should have a clean-up and for the future set more criteria for authorizing.

Well, that's just my two cents, it would be nice to hear what everyone else says though.

Edited by (in order): mr.spammer, mr.spammer

The thing is Mr. Spammer, all mods should be allowed to participate as long as they attempt to make something of it, which most do and alot fail.

Failure is just a crappy part of learning to be within a mod or run a mod so it has to happen. And I think it would be unfair to let only the best looking mods in as it kind of stunts the mods that are trying just as hard but don't have as skilled members.

Mods are already finding it harder and harder to compete within the mod communities and doing this would only make the whole modding process ALOT more difficult.

I think the criteria should be met with utmost professionalism however, I agree with you there and sites that look "temporary" shouldn't be allowed.

Personally, I would simply desire properly formed sentences and someone who has the ability to have a proper discussion above anything else. It seems that all people who aren't serious lack the two.

And a note: with proper sentencing I don't mean that all your sentences should have perfect spelling as you can't expect that from an international audience. What I mean is that the sentences should be readable without having to decode them, so to speak.

Nemor wrote: The thing is Mr. Spammer, all mods should be allowed to participate as long as they attempt to make something of it, which most do and alot fail.

Failure is just a crappy part of learning to be within a mod or run a mod so it has to happen. And I think it would be unfair to let only the best looking mods in as it kind of stunts the mods that are trying just as hard but don't have as skilled members.

Mods are already finding it harder and harder to compete within the mod communities and doing this would only make the whole modding process ALOT more difficult.

I think the criteria should be met with utmost professionalism however, I agree with you there and sites that look "temporary" shouldn't be allowed.

I'm not saying only the elite few mods should be allowed, but I think they should have a fully functioning website, a proper description, and more than one members (with modding skills).

I basically agreed with that

The criteria should be met but it sounded like you meant "Don't let any mods in that don't look like they'll work".

Remember, even failed mods have a purpose, experience is the best teacher.

It's not their job to decide which ones look promising and which ones don't. That'd mostly be their opinion, and it's not really our right to judge a mod that you might not like, but a certain population on Moddb might. It isn't a part of the criteria where, "Your mod idea has to be cool!" or something like that. If they don't progress with their mod, it will just become archived, end of discussion.

Of course, if their mod doesn't have a fully-functional website or a tiny description, inform one of the mod authers (such as Tarky), and they'll be sure to get right on it. Of course, they're not going to attack someone who doesn't have English as their first language, as modding is an international hobby, after all.

Not to mention, there are such things as one-member teams, so they're not going to archive a mod for just having one member, because they might also be the only one registered on Moddb.

I think most people have misunderstood me. I think it is wrong to only accept mods which appeal to you, all I'm saying is that if people can't even put in the effort to write a proper description or make a website, then I think it shouldn't be authed.

mr.spammer wrote: Noobs just register their new 'idea' and expect modders to take up the project.

Also, when I said more than one person, I meant somebody who didn't have any modding skill.

That's funny. Because, when I was a noob, I registered my idea, and there were modders who wanted to help on the project. Funny how there's a website like this that offers a service such as that?

And who says they are authing mods that appeal only to them? They're probably thinking outside of the box for the most part.

Oh, and Resident Evil Apocolypse is just an archived mod. No mods are ever going to be deleted. That was also authed back in February, so all sorts of changes could have occurred from then. "mutant outbreak" fits all of the criteria, since it has a full description and website, so I don't see what's wrong with that mod.

If you have any issues considering Mod Authing, take it up with the mods or admins of this site, and don't go complaining to everyone about how they handle things. It appears that Moddb is knuckling down on situations such as this, so there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

i think the forums is a great place to talk about it, it brings awareness and a discussion to the community, just becuase you disagree with him doesnt mean you dont have to see it. i agree with some of the things mr.spammer said. i think as long as mods fit the criteria they should be authed. but i would love to see dead mods removed. I am personally on a mod that has two accounts(hl and hl2) and it is dead and will never ever return. i dont see the need for it to still be here.

ive seen mods with msn.com as their website ¬_¬

Mantis wrote: i think the forums is a great place to talk about it, it brings awareness and a discussion to the community, just becuase you disagree with him doesnt mean you dont have to see it. i agree with some of the things mr.spammer said. i think as long as mods fit the criteria they should be authed. but i would love to see dead mods removed. I am personally on a mod that has two accounts(hl and hl2) and it is dead and will never ever return. i dont see the need for it to still be here.

It has been repeated over and over and over and over.... and over, that mods will never be deleted on Moddb. They will only be archived. They are no negotiations for that. It will stay there in case someone wants to revisit it, or just for decoration. Let it be known that this has been preached since the rule came into being: No mods will be deleted.

Yes crappy mods are slipping throught teh net but what some dont realise is the sheer number of dumbaass mods that are actually submitted and rejected and the badgering mod authers have to go through.

Im not talking about this under experience (as im not a mod auther) but I do know what it entails and what a horrid task it can be at times.

Hmm yer, Stuffie has got a really good point there, now I realise authors must have a real problem trying to pinpoint every single crappy mod. I guess I'm being a little bit too picky.

embers. wrote: ive seen mods with msn.com as their website ¬_¬

lol...

I've also seen AUTHORIZED mods with mail.com as the website as well (gLOC for GTA:VC) and it had a description describing how great GTA:SA is, and at the end "If you know how to make dbz model email me". lol.

Oh and the mod before it's number wasn't authorized and had a valid site and all and it was for Wolf3d, hrm.?

Hey, resident evil apoc looks sweet! That is, if it was 1995, not 2005

Edited by: !Bryan!

I think the biggest teller on that is the fact that the only team member for Resident Evil Apocolypse is banned.

And the site for mutant outbreak is down...

embers. wrote: ive seen mods with msn.com as their website ¬_¬

[mod4742 NOT FOUND]

hehe lol

I still say moddb needs some form of protection from these people there seems to have been a giant influx of them since HL2..

Help us all

I think a new level of mod authing strictness is required.

embers. wrote: ive seen mods with msn.com as their website ¬_¬

Microsoft is everywhere....
*hides in corner

I have an issue with mod news posts.

Most of them come without ANY kind of explanation about the mod at all.

I can agree with professional titles such as Dystopia, Insurgency, Sven Co-op 2 etc. not having intros, but the rest of the mods are complete unknowns.

Please include a sentence or two about your mod before you attempt ot post it on the front page.

Yeah, I also hate news posts that show off their unskinned (and never to be skinned in the future) guns.

Or, tiny minor progress on skins even

We can't not authorise news based on the content of the pictures. Well, I mean if it was pr0n we would delete and ban/warn the poster, but thats a different matter. It doesn't matter if the model is skinned or not, or if the concept art is coloured or not.

ShortCutMan wrote: We can't not authorise news based on the content of the pictures.

BUT IF THE PICTURE WAS BIG NOW WHAT WOULD YOU DO

Thats not content. If it was big, it goes straight to the mod profile.