You've yet to explain how, if a mod maker wanted to work on the original mod and personally likes the end results, telling him what you think will preventing him from making similar mods in the future.
Well, there was the bit where I mention how joke mods are primarily attention-seeking devices, or the previous discussions where I note that better modders tend to accomodate criticism rather than shrug it off.
To me, complaining about something which isn't going to change is a waste of time, time which could have been spent making a new quest instead.
You may well ask what I'm doing inbetween posts here. The answer would be "incorporating Bons' IM entry into Quest Pack" interspersed with "cooking sausages". I'd estimate I've spent maybe 5 minutes total actively writing posts here, which is really nothing compared to the potential development time of a Jerry Zinger followup. (Incidentally, do you want a Jerry Zinger followup, or are you not allowed to say in case somebody cries?)
But personally I also dislike the aproach: "I've never played or seen/heard part of this mod but I think it's awful cause it's supposed to make people laugh
I have a major problem with this reasoning. It's an argument that's been used since the start of the thread, but it's also essentially meaningless. I don't need to play the mod to identify that it's a fourth wall-breaking humour mod. Not dissimilarly, I haven't tried sleeping with men, but I'm fairly sure I wouldn't like it.
I've no problem with people commenting on the quality of mods, but telling modders what mods they should and should not be working on is something else entirely.
So I'm supposed to say "I dislike this mod, but please, carry on making it anyway"? That sounds plain daft to me.