This sites being really good for trans supports, LGBT+ etc. Don't start enshittification.

[TheVampireDante]

13 hours ago, PrettyCat said:

You aren't. There's nothing to be protected from, it's just a lot of self-aggrandizement from really online people who don't have a lot of perspective, spending a lot of time dunking on strawmen and conjuring up fanfic backstories for anyone who disagrees.

 

These are descriptions I'd apply as easily to you, and maybe with a bit more veracity. You immediately jump to deciding anyone who disagrees about anything, for any reason, in any degree, is a random collection of bad no-no words, with zero provocation. I'm homophobic? You sure? I'm homosexual, so that'd be a neat trick. No, these are things you throw out thoughtlessly to shut down conversation, that's all it ever is. Somebody posts an innocuous mod, a harmless comment, whatever it is, you apply all these inapplicable descriptors to them, and anyone who notices the bullshit gets the scarlet letter too. It's senseless.

The reports we get say otherwise - and I was using "you" in the general sense above, just in case you felt targeted by by use of the word.

As for "random collection of bad no-no words" - I'm going to disagree there too if that's not too much trouble. I pick my words very carefully.

Someone posting "all gays should burn", "queer crap", "trans terrorist BS", "trans mental illness", "eww, black people", "there N***rs in this" or the ever popular "YWNBAW" -or anything similiar, is not someone we want to accommodate here. Which is why they, and yes - their uploaded content with the same hateful, regressive, offensive and frankly obsurd ideology, is removed.

What happens then? They go elsewhere and scream persecution. About being unjustly banned. Something I've noticed over the years? Not one person doing that will link to their ban notice - because those list what they actually did/said.

If you want to defend people that post stuff like that, you are most welcome to join them in leaving. People whose entire modding ideal is based on producing content attacking others for just existing aren't going to be accepted here, no matter how hard they try and force the matter.

You want those sorts of mods in your game - go ahead. make them, use them. What you don't get a say in, is who hosts them. Read our terms and conditions - you (again, general term usage) agreed to them when you confirmed account creation.

You disagree with something there, feel free to deactivate your account and go somewhere else.

[PrettyCat]

7 minutes ago, TheVampireDante said:

If you want to defend people that post stuff like that

I don't think anyone here does. Vanishingly rare that anyone anywhere does. What happens is someone posts something that isn't racist, or homophobic, but which you find disagreeable for one reason or another, and you misapply these labels so you can misrepresent what you're doing and why, something you did to me just a few posts ago. You are very quick to apply these labels without cause. Gee, I wonder if you might also be applying them to removed content without cause every once in a while? If you actually restricted yourselves to moderating the corner case examples you give, then very few people would notice or care. I certainly wouldn't. But you don't - you over moderate, you label people with hateful and dehumanizing language to dress up your targets as villains that you can crusade against, and when anyone points this out they too get dressed up as villains. "Racist!" "Homophobe!"

 

Quote

You disagree with something there, feel free to deactivate your account and go somewhere else.

I'm sorry, but I won't exclude myself from modding because online bullies have taken it upon themselves to name call. I've never felt chased away by a mod I didn't agree with or didn't want to download - but you people do it constantly. You can hardly read a word of disagreement before you're trying to push people out.

[Arneercool]

13 minutes ago, PrettyCat said:

- but you people do it constantly. 

 

Lol. Can you even help it?

[PrettyCat]

4 minutes ago, Arneercool said:

 

Lol. Can you even help it?

"You people" as in "you collection of individuals clearly being referenced here", very obviously. Perhaps I should have directly quoted you, and said "you", and then it would be understood to be directed at a formless, undefined group off in the mists.

[acidzebra]

  

Quote

an innocuous mod, a harmless comment

you're invited to look at the ban forums, I don't think the people who were banned left "harmless comments". I'd give examples of the exact wording used but they are truly distasteful. Dante gave some examples already.

In fact, using the ban forum, could you please point to some actual examples of all these poor sweet innocent people banned without cause due to overzealous moderation? I notice that all your arguments are vague and handwavey and I'm not in a place where "trust me bro" will cut it. We will count those poor innocents against how many actual hateful comments and their accompanying accounts which get deleted. We'll all use the ban notices forum as source so this goes beyond some vague assertions that never quite say anything real and ground this discussion in facts. We'll have a realistic view about the false positives you are so concerned about and a tally of vile, hateful stuff that is spouted.

Because here is what I think: you'll find maybe 5-10 false positives for every several hundred hateful comments. Maybe. If you look hard and dig deep and go through several hundred pages of horrible stuff. False positives happen, it's a community of millions and moderators are humans too. I don't know how many reports/hour they receive but I imagine it's quite high so mistakes will happen. It's regrettable. At this sort of scale it's hard to give any reported comment or mod the time and nuanced consideration it maybe deserved. Hateful people are well aware of this of course and will try to obfuscate and disguise their real intentions just enough to slip through and will cry the hardest on reddit etc. when their content is removed, leaving bystanders wondering. This is intentional on their part, of course. But if you want to assert it's a systematic heavy-handed overmoderated system where everyone who doesn't toe whatever you think the line is deleted for just some innocent harmless fun (as you seem to be doing), you're going to need to provide some data.

Otherwise (and you are of course free to decline which I expect you will because the numbers are quite damning and the task is not very fun), whatever is asserted without evidence is dismissed with a plethora of evidence of hateful people spouting hateful things, specifically directed at lgbt people, various minorities, etc. And getting shown the door, as they should be everywhere in polite society. If you want to misconstrue that as 'hate' you are welcome to, it is inaccurate but don't let that stop you.

[showler]

For those potential "5-10 false positives" there is an appeal process that will have staff review the reason for the banning.  If the staff agree with the moderator then the chances of a "false positive" is really low.

[PrettyCat]

On 6/20/2025 at 1:37 AM, acidzebra said:

 I don't think the people who were banned left "harmless comments"

Yeah, I'm sure some of them didn't. One such 'harmless comment' in mind was (obviously) my own, saying that this group of people you hate probably also see you as a loud and small group, which was immediately met with the usual non sequitur, snarling, something-something-ism-something-something-phobe stuff. Back in the day if you wanted to be a racist or a homophobe you had to at least say something referencing race or sexuality. Now all you have to do is allude to the fact that the vast majority of the userbase didn't interact with that blog post, or any blog post, or this forum, or your discord, or whatever else, couldn't care less about any of this, and it really is just two small groups going at each other...and bingo, you're a turbo-racist nexusphobe, and you have to delete your account.

 

Quote

and you are of course free to decline which I expect you will

Well you're right about that, I wouldn't waste time on that sort of redditorism. Whether the number of goofy bans is one in ten, one in twenty, one in whatever, it doesn't really change the point of contention, so this kind of "oh yeah!? well do a data science project right now then!" thing is just sort of orthogonal to everything. To try and reset and maybe give you a little bit of clarity, the point is that:

1. You're both small and loud, hardly anyone engages with any of this. I click the comments on that ownership blog, I see the same 5-6 people commenting on everything relentlessly. It's not some widespread thing.
2. You're misrepresenting people when you pretend concerns about censorship always boil down to "not tolerating racism and discrimination etc" which just isn't true. 

 

On 6/20/2025 at 4:05 AM, showler said:

For those potential "5-10 false positives" there is an appeal process that will have staff review the reason for the banning.  If the staff agree with the moderator then the chances of a "false positive" is really low.

"We've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" well there you go. 

[acidzebra]

Okay so recapping, the alleged number of false positives still stands at unknown number but assumed to be very low compared to the actual amount of vile stuff that gets people banned (or it would be super easy to point at a bunch of examples). That's pretty good for a site of this scale with so many different people, the fears of overmoderating turned out to be just opinion I guess. Based on some other source than the actual data in the bans and warnings forum? How does one form an opinion without examining the data, third party site reporting? Angry reddit posts? I feel like that is less "data science experiment" and more "the basic data you need to form an accurate opinion on the scale of the supposed problem". I stand by my original estimate, based on frequently reading through the B&W section for entertainment purposes.

You're misrepresenting _me_ if you allege that I _pretend_ concerns about censorship _always_ boil down to racism and discrimination, but it is very much the case for the majority of these loud minority right-wing Gamers-with-a-captial-G in particular in the responses to the news post. They're the same people who throw a fit over rainbow flags, I don't think it's because of the striking colors. Oh, and pronouns, but I feel that might be a misunderstanding about what pronouns actually are and where they are used in sentences. Their "alternative" mod sites which are frequently labeled with some form of 'based' or 'free' in the name, in case you have never checked one out, are filled to the brim with such gems as swastika flags, non-white race removers, and other such lovely fare (and adjacent gooner stuff of the variety that would break laws about minors in the UK and most other civilized nations). Totally normal stuff, the best of people. I'd invite you to examine the slew of bans and warnings the news post generated but you seem disinterested. It would be illuminating though.

By the way, I don't think I have alleged you were anything-or-other and I have thus far engaged in good faith, even if we disagree. I'm not sure you are engaging in good faith, in part because of the earlier mischaracterization of my statement and similar instances of the same.

I would also invite you to re-examine the order of events: 

1. Robin posts retirement/handover message
2. a bunch of random people (mostly from accounts with zero contributions to the community) immediately go "but what about the LeFtIsT CeNsoRsHiP" because why show a little decorum and restraint, gotta push that agenda
3. other people chime in to go against these people

This is not a "they started it" argument; you're welcome not not care about the hate they spout, but I don't think this sort of garbage should go unchallenged lest some people (bystanders, people new to the site, future people new to the site, etc) think it's normal. It is possible to normalize hate of a group, it has happened before. I'm well aware that none of these people will suddenly go "oh, you're right, maybe hating someone because of their skin color or sexual orientation is stupid". I am of the opinion that letting this go unchallenged will make people think "you know, maybe there _is_ something to all these horrible things they say about lgbt people, I see so many people saying it". Maybe you have not noticed there has been a fairly concerted effort from the alt-right to label lgbt folk as 'groomers' which is both an outrageous lie and given the content sexualizing minors I found on their preferred 'freedom/based' fringe mod sites, a confession. Several comments to that effect were removed. Was that over-moderating? This sort of othering doesn't tend to end well, and it's my perception that it is on the rise. You may disagree, that's fine. I'm also aware it may be annoying to others. If it annoys you, continue to not engage with it. You apparently live in a place where as someone of the lgbt community there is "nothing to be protected from" and that is awesome if somewhat unlikely given the current state of the world. I wish the same were true worldwide (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

In fact the only people I feel mildly sorry for are the new owners who obviously have been wading through that dumpsterfire. I hope nobody is training their LLM on this, lol

ps. I will say it's funny that someone posted some kind of table or something which completely broke the comment section halfway through (technology which still allows this in 2025 is just *chef's kiss*) and none of the people still engaging with the post took much notice and are spreading comments over the remaining posts that didn't get mangled. (it was since repaired)

pps. we have restricted the convo to moderation on the nexus, but other big mod sites like moddb and gamebanana moderate this stuff just as hard, I wonder why.

[PrettyCat]

15 hours ago, acidzebra said:

How does one form an opinion without examining the data

By using the site, watching mods get removed for nakedly ideological reasons, watching uneven enforcement of rules, unprofessional behavior, etc. It's the same way normal people are able to say things like "the sky is blue" without first commissioning a study. I think you're aware of this. There's also the issue that you're asking me to gather all this data and write a book report for you in support of an argument nobody is really making. That's why I tried to clear up and simplify the conversation for you so you'd understand what was actually being said vs. what was a tangent someone had dragged the conversation into. Let me try again, as plainly as possible: far as I can tell, nobody in this thread cares about banning a user that spams slurs. It isn't what I'm talking about. It isn't what the people you hate are talking about either.

 

 

15 hours ago, acidzebra said:

You're misrepresenting _me_ if you allege that I _pretend_ concerns about censorship _always_ boil down to racism and discrimination

Am I? The post I replied to said:

On 6/19/2025 at 5:55 AM, acidzebra said:

spamming the comment thread with concerted complaining about "leftist censorship", by which they mean "not tolerating racism and discrimination etc"

A sentiment you repeated just now. So I don't know, it seems pretty clear that you do think when they complain about censorship, they're secretly just wanting to upload Alex Jones videos or something, you've said it twice. You give yourself an out by saying "well, when capital G gamers say it...", but this is just another sort of redditorism, "well not everyone, just my hated outgroup", but then one joins the outgroup by talking about it anyways. You're not open to it, but I would suggest the reality is actually the opposite, and that sometimes mods here are removed for ideological reasons, and then after the fact we're told that this is okay because a moderator used the bad guy villain words to describe the mod, and so everyone should just fall in line and never question it or they too are bad guy villain words.

 

 

15 hours ago, acidzebra said:

a bunch of random people (mostly from accounts with zero contributions to the community) immediately go "but what about the LeFtIsT CeNsoRsHiP" because why show a little decorum and restraint, gotta push that agenda

Well, I think if you're concerned about the cultural direction of Nexus mods, an announced change in ownership is a good time to bring it up. I don't know why this is being vilified and portrayed as some kind of beyond the pale behavior here. You announce a new owner, you invite public comment, what do you think you're going to get but a lot of "I hope this changes" and "I hope this doesn't change" comments? I can't see why this is bad, other than it's coming from the hated villain group, and so everything they do and every breath they take must be villainous, the ultimate scandal. 

 

15 hours ago, acidzebra said:

You apparently live in a place where as someone of the lgbt community there is "nothing to be protected from" and that is awesome if somewhat unlikely given the current state of the world. I wish the same were true worldwide (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Is there risk to people out in the world? Sure. Is any of it coming from voluntarily downloaded modifications of fictional single player computer games, the context of that comment? No, I don't think it is. In fact, I think you could search high and low and you wouldn't find a person killed or injured by video game mods. I've downloaded a lot of mods, and hardly any of them have popped out of the screen like The Ring and tried to kill me.

 

No, this is just self aggrandizement, and I just have no patience for this or the goons here who engage in it. It's a way for people who have no perspective and nothing going on in life to sit at a computer all day and argue about whether strangers should be able to change 'body type' to 'male' in a video game, but they want to puff out their chest out and pretend like this sort of busybody internet hall monitoring is actually connected to this list of important issues they got from wikipedia, so therefore you see they're actually doing really important stuff. We must prevent fictional video game character from being modded out of favored group and into unfavored group in order to fight violence in Lebanon!

 

You can have the last word, this has gone on long enough and I've said what I wanted, but that really gets under my skin. Invoking real-world violence to justify censoring video game mods is not just self-important, it’s a slap in the face to people who’ve survived genuine harm. It cheapens actual suffering and it's shameless.

[PinkyDude]

I haven't seen a single person provide one example of "harmless mod being removed unfairly" so far, could you please show at least one example? 

"Invoking real-world violence to justify censoring video game mods is not just self-important, it’s a slap in the face to people who’ve survived genuine harm." 

As a queer person yourself, im baffled that you're able to write this while simultaneously seeing nothing wrong with  discriminatory mods being hosted on Nexusmods. 

There is no escaping reality, not for queer people, not for persons of colors, not even for women - anyone who isn't a cis white man faces some type of discrimination. Minorites simply can't escape it; we face the same type of hate online, even more so than IRL.

I'll just repeat what you said; 

Using real life violence as an inspiration for mods is a slap in the face to everyone trying to simply survive in a world that despise us for being us. A mod that "simply remove a pride flag" isn't harmless, and It should be easy to understand, especially for you.