FokkeTale

As in Vladimir Sall, from the Eye? Well, Sall is a Senegalese surname. So I assume he's Senegalese/Slavic, since a surname is usually more indicative of heritage (or at least heritage married into) than a given name. But, regardless, there's no modding even needed to complete this request. He's likely already Senegalese and Slavic.

'sgtm' changes game speed (it'll slow down everything from player and NPC walking pace to projectiles moving through the air), not the timescale. What jnight found was the proper setting. What I ended up doing with it was this: Inside the 'StarfieldCustom.ini': [General] sStartingConsoleCommand = bat AboutTime I then created a .txt file in the same folder as my Starfield executable named 'AboutTime.txt' which contains the line: setgs fCalendarTimeScaleGround 6 That's it. My timescale has remained '6' since I did this.

There is a Nexus Mods Discord as well as, specifically, a Starfield Modding Discord (further down the page, under 'How do I get involved?'). Given that there's no Creation Kit available until some time in 2024, knowledge is limited, and as are third-party tools, so, I assume, an easier way to get started may be to look into the process of making mods for Fallout 4. It's the route I'm going to be looking into - and I expect (or hope) there'll be some transferance of skill between modding for either game.

The issue isn't the posts and users that will clearly see moderation - staff here are wonderful at what they do. And the goal isn't attempting to enforce site policy as non-staff - staff enforces policy, and I'm grateful that the policy is geared toward inclusivity. The point I've been making is that it's entirely fine to engage with hateful discourse and to refute it where it slips through (and it does, for a number of reasons that staff aren't responsible for; like obfuscating language and veiled intent). If the purpose of a debate is to convert the person you are arguing against, then debates themselves are ineffectual at their decided purpose. Moreso, the point of a debate is to discuss opposing viewpoints. And, when given the opportunity, to disprove the opposite viewpoint while proving your own. I'd say, here, in the context of arguing against displays of bigotry (specifically those that don't get outright removed of their own accord), it's also about solidarity. Standing in silence while veiled bigotry stands doesn't show marginalized communities support, even if specific rules are in place to support them in silence (and only if the offence is blatantly clear). I don't have access to the Mod Author forums. I don't know how current staff feels about my arguement - but I'm also not trying to represent them or their rules without that knowledge. Just my current understanding that no one has been facing punishment for rules they haven't broken. A bully pulpit suggests that someone is trying to use their membership and voice here to pursue an agenda. Is each individual equally being allowed to voice dissent against bigotry where they see it definitive of a bully pulpit, or is standing up against hate where it might slip through uncontested the 'agenda' in question? Here's another pair of analogies that operate less upon a false equivalence: 1. If you had a neighbourhood party that was open to those in the community to attend at your home, and one guest loudly expressed that diversity was what was wrong with the neighbourhood today - and another guest, of a marginalized group, responded as to why that first guest was wrong and the two began to argue their points, would you kick them both out equally for 'causing a ruckus'? 2. As a homeowner, if you had two guests and one was giving a pseudo-intellectual rant that espoused the inferiority of a specific group without utilizing slurs, and using veiled terms, and the other was a member of that group, would you hold the latter accountable to responding even after saying you would handle it? Or would you be supportive of them in giving their own response to what they've experienced? Here is where I partly agree with you. But, again, differing in 'semantics'. Come across a post where someone is using slurs or outright declaring hate against - or disgust for - a particular group (that isn't a hate group)? Report and move on. The staff here will deal with it. They've been tremendous in their efforts to maintain an inclusive space here on the forum and in the mods sections themselves. But where someone is using veiled language, fallacious arguements, or are expressing ignorance (intentional or not) in ways that their posts might not get removed on sight by staff, there is definitely room to respond without breaking the ToS. I've done it. I haven't received a formal - or even informal - warning. We're talking about the threat of punishment (that doesn't exist) for people expressing a counterpoint to hateful discourse, which is, again, not a 'vigilante act' and doesn't fall under 'feeding the trolls' by any stretch. What other explicit rules are you referencing here? Is there a hidden rule that I'm unaware of? Are there people showing up with formal warnings or bans in the feed because of this? So far as I can see, the lack of broken rules has lead to exactly no punishments of this variety. This reads as argumentum ad baculum. This is another false equivalence. Refuting a point is not punching someone in the face. And I haven't seen or received any formal warnings for doing so, so far. If by polite, you mean addressing their views and not attacking their person, we are already in agreement on this point. I posted as much. To do otherwise would actually break the rules, as I understand them and have seen them enacted. Ad hominem over directing one's energy into 'more meaningful ways' reads as disingenuous when it's within the 11th paragraph of a post that, in your next paragraph, you'll regard as pointless. We also have differing opinions on what the primary function of a debate or refuting a hateful point is. I'll be continuing on the way I have been (reporting and moving on from blatant abusers that I have no doubt will get removed, and engaging with the other examples when I find the will and the time) until it's made clear that I am, in some way, violating the rules - or I am told by Robin and their current staff, even quietly, that my behavior is unwelcome (I promise, I won't even raise a fuss or pout about it). But I understand your concern and that it's born out of your experience as a long time user and as a former moderator, even if I don't agree with you on the specific points (or 'semantics') in this discussion. I hope tomorrow is a happy birthday, for you.

I quoted only what my first point - and paragraph - was addressing. The rest was meant in response to the full length of discourse prior to my post. And I stand by the points I made. People are going to differ in what constitutes feeding the trolls. I don't believe that 'standing up to bigotry as an individual or a community' falls under the category of 'enforcing site policy yourself'. And - I welcome being corrected by current staff on this, if I'm wrong - I don't expect staff are looking on with exhaustion and disdain as members of the community express opinions that stand in line with wanting this to be a safe, inclusive space; so long as what they're responding to might not receive an instantaneous ban on its own (whether its concealed behind veiled language or intent, is fallacious or misleading, or unintentionally ignorant), and isn't blatantly just bait.

This mod exists for sprinting. I haven't seen one for sneaking yet. Though, I do find it strange - and am very grateful - that they finally added a 'toggle aim' option in the accessibility options while not having options for 'hold-to' sneak or sprint.

This point is misleading. Applying an equal criticism to 'both sides' when one side is spouting racist, homophobic, and transphobic attacks, and the other is responding to said attacks is definitive of one meaning of the 'bothsidesism'. It infers an equal contribution to an issue where that clearly isn't the case. I can agree on the points being made here that feeding the trolls isn't going to provide anything productive. But I do think there's going to be some difference of opinion in what counts as feeding the trolls. I do think Showler also makes a good point, that reporting the attacker in question will likely result in a ban or formal warning (here, at least) when the intent of the original post is clear (slurs, personal attacks, and incitement). And I do try to just report blatant racism, homophobia, and transphobia, and move on without giving engagement to the user (though I do check in on posts I've reported later, to see that they do get removed). To do so in this case, I agree, would be feeding the trolls. They are getting what they want from you, and you are wasting time alongside them when your counterpoints are likely to get deleted alongside the original message. The exception, I think, is when a user is cowardly hiding behind buzzwords and rhetoric that implies diversity is bad (or applies homophobic, racist, or transphobic views), without saying it outright (so they can hide from the banhammer), or someone is approaching things with an arguement that is fundamentally flawed (full of logical fallacies, whataboutisms, and bothsidesisms), or just clearly don't understand the issue in question and are operating from a position of unintentional ignorance. These are posts that might not inherently receive a ban (even when trolling might have been the thinly veiled intention of some users, especially the cowardly), and that's, I think, what makes them open to response - and sometimes, important to respond to within a community of those vulnerable to hate and discrimination. In these cases, I believe it's more than okay to engage so long as you're attacking their arguements/views and not their person (not for the sake of their feelings, but for the sake of not getting lost on the way to disproving their point, and also not getting banned yourself). Just don't take the bait when you see it.

Prior to 2.0, System-EX did this. It might be a bit before things get updated given that the big patch dropped just today.

According to Bethesda Support, the physical copy of the PC version of the game ships with a Steam key, and isn't subject to the potential obstacles in utilizing SFSE that other versions of the game (like Gamepass and Windows Store) might face. Though I can't verify this myself, because I bought mine from Steam directly.

From conversations I've seen on the Starfield Modding Discord and through the mods available here on the Nexus, it doesn't look like anyone has figured out how to add new skins to the 'Skins' section of the weapons or space suit workbench yet. There's a lot of possibilities awaiting the release of the Creation Kit or other third party tools. For reference, Fallout 4 was released on November 10th of 2015. And the initial open beta for its Creation Kit was April 26th, 2016. The stated launch date for the Starfield Creation Kit is 2024. So, depending on third party possibilities, it'll be awhile before we start seeing non-replacer mods of this variety.

I'm glad you were able to sort this one out! I remember having to deal with a busted mouse button by having to remap a key to it outside of game for one of the Total War games.

To start with, the 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. It's rhetoric that makes a mountain of a molehill and is often used in conjunction with the 'appeal to fear' - as you do here, in talks of 'risk' behind keeping an inclusive environment and ejecting bigotted mods. There is no evidence that preventing the hosting of exclusionary mods will lead to the banning of cosmetic mods that don't erase ethnicity or gender identity. And you seem aware that mods such as hair replacers and cosmetic body options exist and haven't been touched, so you are already providing a counter to your concern (and to your 'slippery slope' arguement). Whether or not you are posting this arguement in good faith, the tactics that you are using - intentionally or not - are fallacious.

This. To quote staff, from the last time they made a judgement on a very similar topic: '...We are for inclusivity, we are for diversity. If we think someone is uploading a mod on our site with the intent to deliberately be against inclusivity and/or diversity then we will take action against it. The same goes for people attempting to troll other users with mods deliberately to cause a rise. For our part, we will endeavour to do a better job of moderating our website to this ethos ourselves. We aren't the authority on what users can and cannot mod. Us removing a mod only means it cannot be found at Nexus Mods, nothing more, nothing less. We also note that we are not the only site that has removed this mod from their platform. As a private business, we have a right to choose what content we do and do not want to host on our platform. Respect this right the same way you want respect for your rights. If you feel something goes against our policy then please report it. However, we will be the adjudicators on what we do or do not think is appropriate for Nexus Mods. And that goes for everyone no matter where they stand; left, right, up or down. We don't want to and won't argue this with you. We've now explained our stance and we won't be providing a platform for you to distort our position in order to feed an irrational and paranoid narrative. You can do that elsewhere, where we won't care enough to read it.' I really don't think they're looking for any continuation of conversations about providing bigots a platform to give excuses to let them host discriminatory/exclusionary mods here. But that could just be my read of the situation.

Of the two threads that I can see locked on the first page on the Debates subforum, both seem to have broken clearly marked rules for said subforum. One became a religious debate (a rule with its own sticky) and the other began with a poster accusing all those that disagreed with them of hypocrisy (accusations of hypocrisy/immaturity are covered in the Unacceptable Language sticky post). Are these two threads included in the ones you are referring to, or did I not dig deep enough?

I'm sure hairstyle replacer mods will be up as soon as people figure out how to make them. There's a ton of games with them already on the site, including Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout 4, and Skyrim.