Proposed rule change for allowing achievement re-enablers

JippenYesterday at 11:14 PM So, I'd like to argue for an exception to the "No achievement enablers", specifically for Skyrim SE. My argument is that the rules allow modding the original version of Skyrim, which has been unlisted on the store in lieu of the remake. This means anyone buying the game currently must, effectively, play a game that has different rules than the original version. Additionally, "Skyrim Script Extender" is allowed for official mods, but mods that ship in the ingame mod store for skyrim SE cannot be used by achievement hunters.

I feel that this rule is fairly inconsistent, frequently ignored, and is generally unenforceable except for in cases where folks are ALSO breaking rules like OK-17.

Fallout 4 and other games originally released with mod-blocking achievement code, but skyrim technically didn't. Which is why I propose we treat it differently.

SellymeToday at 12:13 AM I have always felt that it's a bit weird to allow workshop (or other officially-hosted) mods, but explicitly disallow specific mods that fit that category because they do something we don't want. It's not consistent. If our position is "using a workshop mod to get a map where grinding this achievement is super easy is okay, it doesn't matter that the dev didn't want you to do that", then surely "using a workshop mod to enable achievements is okay, it doesn't matter that the dev didn't want you to do that" is just as applicable. It's unfortunate that there's games where this allows mods to straight-up unlock achievements for you, but if workshop mods are accepted as the developer explicitly allowing you to do something in-game, I don't see how that's any different to games like Redactem letting you press a button on the menu to do the same thing.

HikikomoriToday at 7:44 AM I can agree, I also disagree , but i think that there is time and language that needs to be adapted before that can come to fruition.

The rule was the last rule mytharox made at astats before disappearing. We included it as a compromise to better adapt users to astats and other sites and I guess make it more likely for astats to adopt the unified rules. Obviously thats changed since our drop of technical support and their denial of the rules from 2 years ago to now. So far only a single user in that time has been banned from astats, and none from anywhere else to my knowledge. The history of the rule seemed to be intended just to trap a specific user. If I can make an assumption, they got caught on its impossible implementation at catching users, so they expanded it to all games, instead of originally the 1 game they initially applied it to. Skyrim being a game that was caught in that crossfire. It originally had nothing to do with mods /enable/disable/bypass

It was originally about binding of Isaac i believe afterbirth because users were able to bypass the mod disabling by just pasting the mod in the base game folder instead of the mod folder, and it would work. no bypass mod needed. then it got expanded to cover every single game where any behavior could be labeled as bypassing. For example in Banished, you can mod give yourself everything save, turn of the mods reload the save, you keep everything, basically undetectable. So that behavior was labeled as "bypassing". I was a mod at AStats during that time, and said well you can't just target a single user for a rule, you have to apply it evenly across every game, so that'll be my fault for that lol. The original game in question, the dev has switched back and forth since that time of mods disabling achievements to where currently today, mods DO NOT disable achievements in his games. so the original purpose and game that started the rule is no longer relevant.

Then of course we wrote the Unified Achievement Hunting Rules after to accumulate all the existing rules that existed in all communities. That one of course, having to be added cause it did technically exist.

Whats always been a rule since before even that, was any mod that unlocked achievements on load/sam whether in workshop or not, is not allowable. It being in the workshop was not seen as the developer explicitly allowing it, it was a pure and simple, the community leaderboards do not allow this for use.

To touch on Skyrim SE, it did release with achievements being disabled when mods were used. That wasn't added later if my memory serves me correctly. paragraph man strikes again XD

JippenToday at 12:21 PM It feels like if we remove the "workaround achievement-enabling" language from NA-7, then the no instant unlock language in NA-7 and the cosmetic mods language in OK-17 still keep the intent pretty clear.

MiraglythToday at 12:21 PM @Hikikomori When you say the rule, you mean the rule to disallow workshop mods that forcefully bypass achievement disabling?

JippenToday at 12:22 PM My example case is that I should be able to play through skyrim SE with the insects begone mod (cosmetic, removes spiders) AND the achievement re-enabler - since its not a rule break to play skyrim legendary edition the same way. Should I be able to play with an achievement re-enabler and an instant get all cheevos mod? No. Because SAM is still SAM even if you code up your own implementation of it.

MiraglythToday at 12:26 PM So it sounds like the spirit of the request is that using a re-enabler mod and a mod that gives or eases an achievement in conjunction should remain disallowed, but using an re-enabler and cosmetic mods (that would otherwise set off the disable) should be fine?

JippenToday at 12:26 PM Yes

MiraglythToday at 12:27 PM Makes sense to me.

HikikomoriToday at 12:27 PM I disagree with the reasons given for the change, since they seem to be hyperspecific to one game, and it makes the incorrect assumption that both versions of skyrim are being treated as the same game. thats dangerous wording to go down I think you could explain it better in generic terms

JippenToday at 12:28 PM I'd be happier with a larger change here, but I preferred to start with the smallest change that would allow what I'd like, and then debate scale from there.

HikikomoriToday at 12:29 PM what worries me, is it seems to again, be hyper specific because you have a phobia of spiders, i worry about pet changes by moderators if they're unable to make the argument on the whole not to offend you cause i'm not accusing you of that

MiraglythToday at 12:29 PM Oh yeah, I wouldn't want to single out a specific game for this just because it had a prior AppID with a different implementation.

HikikomoriToday at 12:29 PM I think the better direction is to prove on the whole why the rule is insufficient I was never a fan of its implementation, again, one single user has ever been invalidated for it. and the wink wink nudge nudge, was always, no one can tell if you're just doing cosmetics

JippenToday at 12:30 PM Totally fine, and is just a simple example. An alternative would be, say, modding skyrim se with oldrim stuff so the game is completable on a underpowered pc

HikikomoriToday at 12:31 PM i think its best not to confuse the two versions

JippenToday at 12:32 PM Okay, sounds like nobody wants this to be a single game exception, so lets dump that in favor of "should this be a global rule change"

HikikomoriToday at 12:31 PM a remastered version comes out later, theres plenty of people who file edited their saves to be "compatible" with remasters, and those are big no nos. so i don't wanna go down the wording of, trying to make a game just like the old game you had, etc. language like i said before, the origin of the rule, the game it was created for, doesn't even disable achievements anymore lol so theres the 7 or so other games, and their variances that need to be argued

MiraglythToday at 12:34 PM Single game exceptions should be avoided where possible after all?