Normally I'm one to defend modders to the bitter end. While I don't disagree with the overall idea of an in-game system to check to make sure if the mod user has taken the time to read the ReadMe (RGO takes several steps to configure itself and makes internal checks whenever the mod is installed or updated) the fact that UV's implementation punishes the mod user is unacceptable in my view.
Now, of course, we're veering decidedly off-topic (unless we want to start arguing about whether a very bad manner of complaining over what may be considered to be a legitimate 'beef' is 'OK' for a user), but I'll take up the 'defend modders to the bitter end' torch here.
It's a valid 'take' that the mod punishes the reader for not reading the Readme. It's even valid to say that it's something of a harsh punishment (although there is a very real possibility that it only
looks harsh, to prevent
real harsh consequences from not having read the readme).
It is of course, valid to say that you find this unacceptable.
It is, however, HexOff's mod, and if he (sic) wants to punish users harshly for not reading his readme, that's his good right. I think we're all agreed that the user reactions to this are themselves unacceptable, but this 'civilized objection' is not necessarily as much of an improvement as might be thought.
Modders don't have to be perfect people-- and of course, they aren't (since nobody is). Every 'customer service professional' is not necessarily perfectly polite and reasonable under all circumstances when interacting with users of the product they support. It is an illusion that they are 'supposed to' be, and it's impossible.
The mod, from all reports, works perfectly. Even the kill works perfectly-- and has no one considered that
this is a very good method of preventing the user from saving with the mod active, if they have not installed/configured it properly, preventing damage to the save? If one just "disabled the workings of" the mod because the ini wasn't configured (thereby proving that the user hadn't read the readme and therefore perhaps had not done other operations necessary to allow the mod to work correctly and without 'collateral damage' to other mods, or the save), the user would probably play on with the mod enabled, but "not working"-- and would probably save in the course of so doing, with possibly far-reaching consequences. Killing the PC at least forces a reload, and said user is probably annoyed enough to quit the game... either to disable the mod completely, or to read the readme and follow any instructions inside. Win, either way (in terms of preserving the save intact).
If it seems mean-- well, HexOff can be mean if he likes... if it is indeed meanness, and not a wicked sense of humor while implementing a preventive measure designed to protect users from themselves. All he is "required" to do is provide a properly-working mod, with full and complete documentation, which he has done.
All this objection sounds a bit whiny to me, is all.