Thanks for a post that isn't completely idiotic...
Hotfixes are always a possible way to fix issues, if they are the best way or not depends on the circumstances.
First, there are always dangers with hotfixes. Due to their nature, they rarely get tested properly and have the potential to break more than they fix. That's why every sane developer evaluates if it's worth the risk. Hotfixes in general are common practice and they get used when the benefits outweigh the risks.
However this is completely unrelated to modding. Mods are unsupported and should
never have any influence on the patching process. Otherwise things get silly pretty quick and TW could just as well stop developing the game.
So if a hotfix is the right thing or not is completely based on the question if it broke something in the game and not if some unsupported mods stopped working. As far as I can tell 1.4 hardly changed after the hotfix apart from some crashes no longer occuring which is a complete success.
If they accidentally manage to break their game because they released untested code in order to fix a critical issue I could understand the complaining (even then, pointing out the early access state of the game would be a legit argument...).
Simply saying 'no hotfixes for the "stable" build' would be very shortsighted. Imagine they manage to entirely screw up the next major release and a hotfix could be deployed within a few hours. But they can't do that because some crétins decided that mods are more important than development?! And we would need to wait for weeks until the next major update gets released? That would seem pretty silly to me.
So people
can criticise hotfixes when they break something, as long as it's not mods.