What happened to the yennefer(tw3) clothing mod?

[VanyarElf]

Why are you so determined to have some sort of numbers to go by? Why isn't "don't put an adult body on a fifteen year old" good enough for you?

 

Yeah, you definitely don't understand how body meshes/clothing meshes work. The author isn't just importing the clothes, they are importing the body shape entirely.

And those modders in those instances used the inherent body shape and mesh in the game files to ensure their mod doesn't look drastically different or messes up various animations, with minor tweaks to polish the look of the clothes. I already displayed side-by-side comparisons, but I wonder if you do realize that if someone were to 'put an adult body on a fifteen year old'..... then the so-called 'fifteen year old' you know and love would simply cease to exist in that instant, right? Do you think that if I changed my character model to a Hill Giant wearing a loincloth, then I would be 'sexualizing a 15-year old' because the lore says I'm a Hogwarts student?

 

I don't know why we must keep coming back to this, but the string of text in the game code designating you as a fifth-year student in a magic school doesn't have any primacy over common sense and visual recognition.

[showler]

 

I don't know why we must keep coming back to this, but the string of text in the game code designating you as a fifth-year student in a magic school doesn't have any primacy over common sense and visual recognition.

 

It does when that is the rule of the site you joined. The site whose rules you agreed to abide by in order to make an account.

 

There's a whole section on the treatment of characters who are canonically under 18 years of age. There is no carve-out for "I made them look adult therefore the rules no longer apply". You can't "rule lawyer" your way out of the Terms of Service by arguing about the age of pixels because the rules you agreed to already account for that nonsense.

[PrettyCat]

"This rule is silly and poorly defined."

"That's the rule though!"

"...yes, but it's silly, and poorly defined."

"Th...that's the rule though!"

 

Where's that tiresome.jpg meme when you need it?

[showler]

Did you look up the rule? There's a bunch of examples and then at the bottom it states that they will make judgments as required.

 

Because, as I've repeatedly stated, if you narrowly define the rules people will try to skirt them. And then you've just made a whole lot of mess for yourself.

 

It's no different from laws regarding obscenity or plagiarism or the like. The Judge has to make a call most of the time because you can't just run it through an algorithm and have it say "this is too much" or "this is okay" (regardless of what those "services" the Universities use like to claim.)

[PrettyCat]

Did you look up the rule? There's a bunch of examples and then at the bottom it states that they will make judgments as required.

 

Because, as I've repeatedly stated, if you narrowly define the rules people will try to skirt them. And then you've just made a whole lot of mess for yourself.

 

It's no different from laws regarding obscenity or plagiarism or the like. The Judge has to make a call most of the time because you can't just run it through an algorithm and have it say "this is too much" or "this is okay" (regardless of what those "services" the Universities use like to claim.)

Yes, we know, you've said some variation of this several times now. "They have deliberately left the rule so open as to justify any action for any reason, so ha!" is an improper response to people conversing about how a specific interpretation in a specific scenario is bad, or asking you to justify the specific scenario of a "sexualized model" that you put forth. I don't know how many more times you need to read this before you're able to break the loop you're stuck in, and stop repeating the same non sequitur. Read what you're replying to, pay attention to context, and try to type up responses that follow from what the other people said.

[showler]

You're not the judge. I'm not the judge.

 

Robin's the judge. His opinion of what is and is not acceptable is the only thing that matters according to the rules you agreed to when you made your account.

 

This whole argument is basically you wanting not only strictly defined rules, but for Robin to have to justify his decisions to you. Why would he do that?

 

The answer he gave overall was "We are uncomfortable hosting these types of mods, so we decline to do so." That's all the explanation you need or deserve.

 

For the record, I am following what you say. I just don't think it matters in any way. You have no influence over the decisions Robin makes.

[PrettyCat]

You're not the judge. I'm not the judge.

 

Robin's the judge. His opinion of what is and is not acceptable is the only thing that matters according to the rules you agreed to when you made your account.

 

This whole argument is basically you wanting not only strictly defined rules, but for Robin to have to justify his decisions to you. Why would he do that?

 

The answer he gave overall was "We are uncomfortable hosting these types of mods, so we decline to do so." That's all the explanation you need or deserve.

 

For the record, I am following what you say. I just don't think it matters in any way. You have no influence over the decisions Robin makes.

Do you sincerely believe that the people commenting in this thread are doing so because they believe they have legal authority over the owner and his bad decisions? If not, then constantly responding to people saying "this is dumb" with "well you're not in charge" is a non sequitur, and makes it seem like you in fact are not following what I say, or even following the basic concepts on how conversation works. If so, then...damn man.

 

Even discarding that, no, you obviously aren't following what I say (which is crazy considering how simple and straightforward it is), because you're still robotically repeating yourself about rights and rules, after two solid pages of people explaining to you in increasingly simple language why this isn't the issue, and why constantly bringing it up is deranged. At this point it really feels like a strong desire to win an internet argument has combined with a lack of self respect, and produced a strategy of just babbling and repetition until the other party finally retires and lets you have the last word, so you can feel like you've won something. Is that what you're after? If so, I wish you had said something several loops ago.

[VanyarElf]

 

 

I don't know why we must keep coming back to this, but the string of text in the game code designating you as a fifth-year student in a magic school doesn't have any primacy over common sense and visual recognition.

 

It does when that is the rule of the site you joined. The site whose rules you agreed to abide by in order to make an account.

 

There's a whole section on the treatment of characters who are canonically under 18 years of age. There is no carve-out for "I made them look adult therefore the rules no longer apply". You can't "rule lawyer" your way out of the Terms of Service by arguing about the age of pixels because the rules you agreed to already account for that nonsense.

 

As I've stated before, I am well aware of Robin's rules, and you don't see me uploading any mods, sharing any mods, or requesting any mods, do you? Those are the terms I agreed to. I did not agree to refrain from opining on the implementation and nature of said rules on the website's forums. My sentence about the text string of lore not having primacy over common sense and visual recognition still stands, Nexus rules do not necessarily have to incorporate either. Furthermore, I can prove to you that those rules themselves would *not* prevent me from making my character a Hill Giant with a loincloth, and that they are also erratically, contradictorily and inconsistently applied - with the acknowledgement that the Nexus reserved the right to apply them as they see fit or on the basis of personal considerations, yet that is still something I can discuss with others on a forum.

 

So, we have two sections here. First are the Adult Content Guidelines defining what 'sexualized clothing' or other forms of sexual allusion, in addition to adult content would be per Robin's sensibilities:

 

1. According to the 'Visual guide to Nudity related/skimpy clothing restrictions', many of the mods removed so far or liable to removal should they ever surface in HL ( e.g Shorts, crop tops, maybe sleeveless shirts ) should not be removed. They do not expose the red zones, and the only clause they could possibly be persecuted under is that of 'skin-tight clothing accentuating primary and secondary sexual characteristics', which I would argue has not visually been the case for the Yennefer mod or Tifa Lockhart mod for example, and later on I am also going to cite a section of Robin's own guidelines which discredits the assessment that any of those mods could be perceived as sufficiently skin-tight or accentuating per his own definition.

 

Next up we have the File Submission Guidelines on Content Related to Child Characters:

 

2. "Featuring bodily proportions that are predominantly associated with children. (examples include; small bodies, large heads and eyes, etc.)", - This criterion has been completely flaunted when it comes to at least half of JRPG mods on the website

 

3. "Having physical similarities to a child in height, build, features or mannerisms". - See above

 

4. "Presented in a way that is indicative of a child in the base game." - Completely flaunted by any game hosted on the nexus featuring 'skimpy' clothes or other adult content that can be located here.

 

5. "Canonically a child or child-like character in relation to the base game." - See above

 

6. "Clothes must remain irremovable through regular, in-game means" - Flaunted in all games involving canonical children, see above.

 

Now we come to the part concerning whether or not importing the most sexualized character model on the planet or a Hill Giant from another game and replacing my model with it would violate Nexus rules:

 

7. "Any mod added child body or alteration must not feature reproductive organs or other sexual features (breasts)" - An import of a completely new model is not that of a child body nor an alteration of the child body itself, but a whole new body

 

8. "Any mod added child body model must not enhance sexual characteristics in a way that is typically associated with adult bodies" - If you imported a completely different model, then you did not add or enhance the pre-existing child body.

 

If I make my character into Mrs.Weasley, and Mrs.Weasley is canonically an adult and looks like an adult, then I am not in violation of Nexus rules even though I would normally be controlling a child character. Same goes for the Hill Giant and other imports. Now we come to the part which I also promised earlier that establishes the appropriate level of modesty according to none other than Robin himself, as promised earlier:

 

9. "Likewise, modded clothing attire for children should use the vanilla game as a reference point when it comes to determining the level of modesty that is appropriate in the given game context. Clothes for children should, in general, not be more revealing than would be considered appropriate for a child in a comparable real-world scenario"

 

10. "Note that while e.g. three-quarter trousers are technically more revealing than e.g. a turtleneck shirt in combination with a ball gown, it would still be considered modest on a child in a real-world scenario and would, therefore, be in compliance with our guidelines."

 

A 16, 17 or 15 year old in the UK, or in the USA, or in any comparable real-world scenario can appropriately wear whichever clothing they can formally buy from teenage clothing stores for public apparel. Therefore, if similar pants, shorts, tops, etc would be commonly worn by 'children' in real-world UK, they ought to be in compliance with Nexus guidelines.

Edited February 21, 2023 by VanyarElf

[luckycandy]

 

 

 

I don't know why we must keep coming back to this, but the string of text in the game code designating you as a fifth-year student in a magic school doesn't have any primacy over common sense and visual recognition.

 

It does when that is the rule of the site you joined. The site whose rules you agreed to abide by in order to make an account.

 

There's a whole section on the treatment of characters who are canonically under 18 years of age. There is no carve-out for "I made them look adult therefore the rules no longer apply". You can't "rule lawyer" your way out of the Terms of Service by arguing about the age of pixels because the rules you agreed to already account for that nonsense.

 

As I've stated before, I am well aware of Robin's rules, and you don't see me uploading any mods, sharing any mods, or requesting any mods, do you? Those are the terms I agreed to. I did not agree to refrain from opining on the implementation and nature of said rules on the website's forums.......

It's almost as if people expect to have clear, concise, evenly applied guidelines to not run afoul of from one of the premiere mod hosting websites. Funny how that works, and even funnier how it seems that's completely incomprehensible to some participants of this thread.

Edited February 21, 2023 by luckycandy

[Dark0ne]

Don't make mods that sexualise the children or that could easily be interpreted to have been done to sexualise the kids in Hogwarts Legacy. That's the rule, we really don't need to explain it, nor will we be providing reasoning for every single individual case.

 

EDIT: Similarly, we did not delete the Yennefer mod, the author did.