Sex, murder, and children: A debatable topic of a nexus rule.

[Aurielius]

Good thing none of us are believers in the trinity.

True... I never could understand the Matrix anyway. :geek:

[ripple]

 

Now, when one goes through the AP mod's description, the modder explicitly states that rape is not allowed due to nexus rules, and pedophelia probably is as well (implied, but not explicitly stated).

 

Now, it got me wondering why these aren't allowed. If we can kill people, and mods are allowed to kill kids, and mods are allowed to have sex with people, why not just go the one step further with children? Morality clearly can't be the reason, as killing children surely wouldn't be allowed, and I doubt legality is either, because I can cite precident from a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a 1996 ban on possession of virtual pornography depicting underage children on the grounds of nobody actually getting harmed [1].

 

As for the explicitly known ruling of rape, I become more confused, as in the AP mod itself, you can use an intimidate check to have sex with someone. In many developed nations, sex by intimidation is defined as rape, so why (presumably) the "classical" definition of rape isn't allowed, and yet more... how one might say... "socially liberal" definitions of rape are allowed for mods is beyond me. Again, I would argue that morality can't be the cause, as I doubt the moderators would let intimidation-based sex (if not also possibly the whole concept of prostitution itself) be allowed if the reason was for morality, and as for legality, I once again point to the ruling of the aforementioned court case.

This is a misreading of Ashcroft. I direct you to the actual court decision here.

 

In the USSC decision, the court did not "overturned a 1996 ban on possession of virtual pornography depicting underage children." What they did was to declare sections of the CPPA unconstitutional because those sections were "overbroad" because it did not make clear distinctions between "actual" and "virtual" child pornography--the decision is not saying that that government cannot ever regulate "virtual" child pornography with a separate statute or amendments to the CPPA (which is what ended up happening). The court merely rejected the state's reasons for attempting to regulate "virtual" child porn in the same way that "actual" child porn is regulated (causal link, social harm, etc), noting that some forms of virtual depictions of under-aged persons engaged in sexual activities may be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment if they had "socially redeeming value" (you'd be hard-pressed to justify the mod you describe as bearing literary or artistic values under current prevailing popular perceptions of video games and video game modding). It's important to recognize this because that is a 2002 case--when censorship laws were still horribly lagging behind technological developments, and the relevant jurisprudence has evolved since (for example, the 2006 PROTECT Act).

 

Here is a more recent scholarly analysis.

 

I think it's fairly predictable what would happen if Robin and the other Nexus staff suddenly lost their minds collectively and allow "virtual child porn" type mods to be hosted on the Nexus. People like Jack Thompson will latch onto this as an "example" of the immoral and debilitating effects of video games, whip up a public and media frenzy to apply pressure to game developers, and various "powers-that-be" will attempt to shut down the Nexus in short order, merely to mitigate the horrendously negative publicity (even if the site is hosted in the UK, and not the US).

Edited August 8, 2015 by ripple

[obobski]

 

I think it's fairly predictable what would happen if Robin and the other Nexus staff suddenly lost their minds collectively and allow "virtual child porn" type mods to be hosted on the Nexus. People like Jack Thompson will latch onto this as an "example" of the immoral and debilitating effects of video games, whip up a public and media frenzy to apply pressure to game developers, and various "powers-that-be" will attempt to shut down the Nexus in short order, merely to mitigate the horrendously negative publicity (even if the site is hosted in the UK, and not the US).

 

 

And this is the bigger piece imho (and I think I said this before); even if whatever they wanted to do wasn't technically illegal, if it attracts enough negative publicity it will still have the same effect (censorship).

[MotoSxorpio]

LMFAO...on accident, I searched "attracts enough negative publicity it will still have the same effect (censorship)" on google...this is my first result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[obobski]

LMFAO...on accident, I searched "attracts enough negative publicity it will still have the same effect (censorship)" on google...this is my first result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

 

Ah yes, Barbara Streisand and her precious house. That's the "other side" of censorship which may even explain why topics this like thread seem to be relatively common. Why do I say "relatively common?" - because most mods that I've seen which deal with children or sex will have huge disclaimers and FAQ items (usually in 40 point bolded red font or some such) about how they will not be producing mods that sexualize children. I even remember this being the case for mods that added children to Morrowind, so it's certainly not a "new" discussion.

[MotoSxorpio]

lol, not to pin this thread on Barbara....

 

..I find it hard to explain that it is bad to play games or virtualize children being sexualized. Why do it even got to be essplained?

[obobski]

lol, not to pin this thread on Barbara....

 

..I find it hard to explain that it is bad to play games or virtualize children being sexualized. Why do it even got to be essplained?

 

I think, and this is purely an opinion, that because it is banned and taboo it draws attention to itself, whereas if it was just not mentioned at all I would assume there would be very little discussion about it (because how many people *actually* would want that content?). However it comes back to a small minority or individual "ruining things" for everyone else. Because someone/someones *did* mention it and so forth, a rule had to be created, and then you get the much larger group of people questioning the rule after the fact. Like speed limits on roads. Technically it should be common sense that driving at 200 mph through a residential area is bad because the car can't handle, stop, etc very well in those conditions and its a recipe for disaster, and for the most part I think you could get away without having a rule, but then you get someone deciding that because there is no stated rule they can do whatever they want, and going 200 mph through a residential area and hitting poor grandma as she walks down to get the mail. And that's how you get speed limits. Someone was inconsiderate so now everyone has to be subjected to more rules.

 

Of course that's an over-simplification, but honestly that's how I imagine this kind of debate/discussion comes to transpire - I'd like to believe that there's not a big group of people out there who want to do harm to children, or create virtual content that depicts it. However there's certainly a big group of people who'd like to know why they were told "no" about something, even if it's something they likely never would do/want/etc.

[MotoSxorpio]

 

lol, not to pin this thread on Barbara....

 

..I find it hard to explain that it is bad to play games or virtualize children being sexualized. Why do it even got to be essplained?

 

I think, and this is purely an opinion, that because it is banned and taboo it draws attention to itself, whereas if it was just not mentioned at all I would assume there would be very little discussion about it (because how many people *actually* would want that content?). However it comes back to a small minority or individual "ruining things" for everyone else. Because someone/someones *did* mention it and so forth, a rule had to be created, and then you get the much larger group of people questioning the rule after the fact. Like speed limits on roads. Technically it should be common sense that driving at 200 mph through a residential area is bad because the car can't handle, stop, etc very well in those conditions and its a recipe for disaster, and for the most part I think you could get away without having a rule, but then you get someone deciding that because there is no stated rule they can do whatever they want, and going 200 mph through a residential area and hitting poor grandma as she walks down to get the mail. And that's how you get speed limits. Someone was inconsiderate so now everyone has to be subjected to more rules.

 

Of course that's an over-simplification, but honestly that's how I imagine this kind of debate/discussion comes to transpire - I'd like to believe that there's not a big group of people out there who want to do harm to children, or create virtual content that depicts it. However there's certainly a big group of people who'd like to know why they were told "no" about something, even if it's something they likely never would do/want/etc.

 

 

 

lol, not to pin this thread on Barbara....

 

..I find it hard to explain that it is bad to play games or virtualize children being sexualized. Why do it even got to be essplained?

 

I think, and this is purely an opinion, that because it is banned and taboo it draws attention to itself, whereas if it was just not mentioned at all I would assume there would be very little discussion about it (because how many people *actually* would want that content?). However it comes back to a small minority or individual "ruining things" for everyone else. Because someone/someones *did* mention it and so forth, a rule had to be created, and then you get the much larger group of people questioning the rule after the fact. Like speed limits on roads. Technically it should be common sense that driving at 200 mph through a residential area is bad because the car can't handle, stop, etc very well in those conditions and its a recipe for disaster, and for the most part I think you could get away without having a rule, but then you get someone deciding that because there is no stated rule they can do whatever they want, and going 200 mph through a residential area and hitting poor grandma as she walks down to get the mail. And that's how you get speed limits. Someone was inconsiderate so now everyone has to be subjected to more rules.

 

Of course that's an over-simplification, but honestly that's how I imagine this kind of debate/discussion comes to transpire - I'd like to believe that there's not a big group of people out there who want to do harm to children, or create virtual content that depicts it. However there's certainly a big group of people who'd like to know why they were told "no" about something, even if it's something they likely never would do/want/etc.

 

yeah. Hard to put words to it, isn't it?

[MotoSxorpio]

Children in general should not be debased, disordered, manipulated, conspired or otherwise. It takes a community to raise a child. Said community holds fault. We want them to be better than us.

 

Beyond that, I'm not trying to go.

 

As for in games...there's no need for them to be there except in the instance mature, civilized, adults are in charge of the accountable entity and decide that some objectiveness is in order and a few plain truths.

 

This does not mean I condone abuse of children. Nor the virtualized abuse of children. If this kind of content gets you off, you need help. Consenting adults is one thing...

[HeyYou]

Please do not bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate, the children.