librechad @ librechad @lemm.ee

Posts

6

Comments

133

Joined

2 yr. ago

While I understand the concern that allowing one such mod could set a precedent, each mod's impact should be evaluated on its own merits and within the context of the platform's guidelines. Indeed, many mods may be considered 'stupid' or 'useless' by some, but they nonetheless find an audience.

Is the existence of an 'ignored setting' truly sufficient to warrant a ban, or does that reflect a broader issue around community standards and governance?

Sealioning is often a tactic used to derail conversations, but that's not my intent here. I genuinely want to explore the community standards that dictate mod removals. If you find that pseudo-intellectual, perhaps it's because the questions themselves are inherently complex and require intellectual discussion.

Fair enough, you're not obligated to partake in a more nuanced discussion. But make no mistake, the essence of a public forum is to invite varying opinions, including those that go beyond surface-level judgments. If that's not a conversation you're interested in, you're free to step aside. But don't misinterpret my thoroughness as desperation.

My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod's creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a 'dog whistle' doesn't help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.

Your point about 'ethics in game journalism' isn't actually the focus of my argument. I'm more interested in discussing what kinds of content should be considered unacceptable to the point of removal. This is all about understanding community standards and how a platform should be governed.

As for asking people to go to the main post, my intent is to centralize the discussion for everyone's benefit. It allows for a more structured, in-depth conversation. This isn't about pushing a 'Why can't we all just get along' agenda, but rather, understanding the guidelines that govern our interactions. If you find that to be tired rhetoric, perhaps we're looking at different aspects of a complex issue.

Your point is well-taken, but it's also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I'm fully aware that the mod's author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it's about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I'm interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.

While it's true the platform has the right to refuse hosting certain content, the point at issue is whether that decision should be made on subjective opinions like 'dumb trash,' or if a more balanced approach should be taken. We're discussing the principles of platform moderation, not just the convenience of downloading a mod elsewhere.

In the words of JFK, 'One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.'

In an online world filled with a plethora of mods, from artistic to bizarre, it's intriguing that the focus narrows down so sharply on one. The concept of a 'dumb meme mod' being powerful enough to tarnish the reputation of an entire platform is a strong statement about the perceived fragility of said platform. Also, the idea that users need to be 'shielded' from something they can just scroll past underscores a lack of trust in the user community to make their own informed choices. Surely, the platform can weather the storm of a singular, controversial mod without undermining its integrity.

The purpose of centralizing the discussion is to understand various perspectives on platform moderation. While you may see the issue as settled, other individuals may have questions or viewpoints they'd like to explore. Declining to engage in debate doesn't nullify the merit of the discussion for others who are genuinely interested in dissecting the subject matter.

Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what 'streamlining' means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It's about catering to one's own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of 'streamlining' be limited to your understanding?

First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.

Second, the concept that 'no answer I ever receive is satisfactory' misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn't it?

Lastly, if a mod does not align with one's values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn't mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let's not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.

The intent of my posts was not to reopen settled debates, but to explore the principles that underlie how moderation decisions are made on platforms that host user-generated content. I believe this is a worthy subject of inquiry because it can affect various communities in different ways. While you see this issue as settled, the modding community is ever-evolving, and new scenarios that challenge established norms will likely continue to arise. I assure you that my intent is to engage in good faith, and I am open to learning from this experience. If you choose not to engage further, I respect your decision.

Shouldn't users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It's also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.

If it's indeed the case that the mod was removed due to the author's statements in the mod description, then the removal is justifiable based on those grounds. This would then be less about the content of the mod itself and more about adherence to platform guidelines. It also highlights the importance of understanding the complete context behind moderation decisions, rather than focusing solely on the mod's functionality.

A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn't necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there's a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.

If you'd like to engage in a debate on this topic, I invite you to bring your arguments to the original post where the discussion is centralized. This will help maintain a focused and meaningful conversation. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I agree that Nexus, as a private platform, has the prerogative to decide what content to host. The focus of my original post was not on the content itself, but on the criteria for moderation. If you'd like to engage further, please post your comment on the original discussion for a more centralized dialogue.

Thank you for your input. Could you please post your comment on the original post? It would be more constructive to have all viewpoints and discussions centralized there for a more comprehensive dialogue.

I appreciate your input, but I'm puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you're not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it's an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?