Proposal for new tag for "Offensive" mods(instead of removing them)

[tempwayne]

Ah, you miss my point, friend. Marking mods as offensive will be done by the moderators, and not by users. Users can only report mods to be offensive, just like it happens now. So the system can't be abused in this way. It doesn't lead to any additional work on the side of the moderators, since they anyway have to go to the trouble of taking down mods in the present system.

[zaty1]

You state mod authors could tag as offensive. Therefore - their opinion out of the gate - trumps mine.

[ToxicWhiteout]

You state mod authors could tag as offensive. Therefore - their opinion out of the gate - trumps mine.

Is this for real? Of course their opinion trumps yours - It's their own mod! Mod authors already get to set the tags for their mods. If the mod is mistagged, sometimes a moderator will come along and change it or tell the author to change it.

 

For a public tag to get put up it needs votes. Multiple viewers need to tag it. This is so that someone doesn't just come along and add all the tags they want, or remove all the tags they want.

 

So yes, of course a mod author's opinion trumps yours when it comes to their own mod.

[bogieman987]

I'm all for free speech, and I think it's at least worth a try, can always roll back the updates no?

 

I would like to add, as it comes accross (to me) that people (not all) don't realize that offense is taken and not given.

 

Personally I feel the whole "I'm offended" thing has gotten rediculously out of hand in the last few years, especially in the gaming industry as a whole, I personally feel that we should have a choice, and if that choice offends someone, that's their problem. But I can also see that allowing certain offensive stuff on the site can cause quite a negative reaction, in part, due to the way things are going. Something that the owners, I imagine, don't want.

[sherameyn]

While most Internet users think the Internet is a host for freedom of everything, even responsibility, it is not.

 

Countries do indeed make choices of whether to show a website, or flag them as inappropriate, or even go over to try and take it down.

Copyright infringement comes to mind first, sure, but there are also national laws that can end in a block of a page. And I am not talking about China.

 

While I find the Nazi mods highly offensive, I would be okay with it if it was feasible. Ie. if it went with the theme of the game.

Like Wolfenstein.

I mean, the sites are clear, but living in Germany I could just play it with a modified version. It sucked. Not because I wanted to see the symbols, but it ruined the feeling of the game for me. I mean, you are clearly out to destroy all Nazis... but it is law in Germany, so I have to play along -- or I don't.

 

Anyway, while I think Fallout provides a lot of ground for alternative additions, Bethesda can't be held accountable. But trust me, Nexusmods will.

If it would allow all those "degenerated" mods to live, it will end up like Second Life in the Internet community.

Because this isn't necessary about Fallout. I mean, why doesn't things like that happen in Skyrim? Skyrim is just as costumizable.

And yes, Fallout is no multiplayer and not even an online game, but as said, it's not about Fallout.

 

So, when Nexusmods would go the way of allowing everything, people will stop coming. Because it will be overrun by child-molesting mods (btw., I already twitched when someone posted a "Play as a child!" mod), by "hate-mods" and all the nasty things you can't even imagine.

 

Nexusmods is the one going to suffer. If not by official actions, then by public opinion.

 

That's why a "Let's just discuss technical possibilities" doesn't work. Technically, Nexusmods could open a subsection or an "Underground Nexusmods" page, where they allow everything.

Or someone else could, for all I care.

 

I want to continue coming to Nexusmods and not having to see it falling apart because the people that REALLY care are offended because their mods were used as a basis to create something that goes anything against the right of being a human.

 

Because that should be Nr.1 law in all countries first:

The dignity of man is inviolable.

 

And even if it is befit for the Fallout universe, Nexusmods still doesn't have to allow it. It's their page, after all.

[zaty1]

@TheScout201- In general, the tags for files are based upon "fact". Go read them. You can debate a few of them. Cheats, NSFW, humor, unrealistic - and some others.

Offensive is not a cut and dry catagory unless you wholesale. I'm not debating whether this option is good or bad. I simply don't see it being a feasible fix to anything. That's all.

As I said earlier - we are just going to sit here all day trying to catagorize hypocrisy, irony, and opinion.

 

I still don't see a file specific block. I'd be more than happy with that. Then anyone can block anything they want, period, without blocking a whole pile.

[sherameyn]

@TheScout201- (...) I simply don't see it being a feasible fix to anything. That's all.

As I said earlier - we are just going to sit here all day trying to catagorize hypocrisy, irony, and opinion.

 

I still don't see a file specific block. I'd be more than happy with that. Then anyone can block anything they want, period, without blocking a whole pile.

 

I agree.

What is offensive? Nazis are okay, but ISIS sympathizers aren't? Supermutant Suicidebombers are funny, but Settler Suicidebombers aren't?

Treating women like kettle is okay (because it would be "feasible"), but treating children like kettle isn't?

 

I don't think being offended is a bad thing. People have been offended before and always will be, but if it is reasonable or not should be defined.

 

I mean, why is it that people mistake Freedom of Speech or Opinion as Freedom to Act upon it?

[tempwayne]

I'm pretty much convinced that a few (extremely offensive, with intent) mods indeed need to be deleted.

 

 

Anyway, while I think Fallout provides a lot of ground for alternative additions, Bethesda can't be held accountable. But trust me, Nexusmods will.

If it would allow all those "degenerated" mods to live, it will end up like Second Life in the Internet community.

Because this isn't necessary about Fallout. I mean, why doesn't things like that happen in Skyrim? Skyrim is just as costumizable.

And yes, Fallout is no multiplayer and not even an online game, but as said, it's not about Fallout.

 

So, when Nexusmods would go the way of allowing everything, people will stop coming. Because it will be overrun by child-molesting mods (btw., I already twitched when someone posted a "Play as a child!" mod), by "hate-mods" and all the nasty things you can't even imagine.

 

Nexusmods is the one going to suffer. If not by official actions, then by public opinion.

 

 

Again, I want to clarify this: There are three kinds of mods:

1. Not offensive to anyone. Say HD textures for bullets.

2. Very offensive, created with the intent of hurting peoples' feelings. Like mods that allow YOU to be a Nazi and kill people of a single race. Or mods with child-molesting.

3. The gray area: Slavery, child killing, etc.

 

For type 2, we seem to know what to do: ban them. For type 3, we don't really have a solution. Some people are offended by these, while some are not. When a mod author creates a mod that lets children be killed, he/she could consciously understand that this mod might be offensive to some people, and tag it as "Offensive". If the mod author fails to do that, a moderator can, on the request of users.

When a user CHOOSES that he/she wants to see mods that are offensive, they are signing up for the whole barrage of type 3 mods.

The result is that less sensitive people get offended, because if someone is sensitive, they wouldn't choose to see mods under the offensive tag anyway.

 

@TheScout201- In general, the tags for files are based upon "fact". Go read them. You can debate a few of them. Cheats, NSFW, humor, unrealistic - and some others.

Offensive is not a cut and dry catagory unless you wholesale. I'm not debating whether this option is good or bad. I simply don't see it being a feasible fix to anything. That's all.

As I said earlier - we are just going to sit here all day trying to catagorize hypocrisy, irony, and opinion.

 

I still don't see a file specific block. I'd be more than happy with that. Then anyone can block anything they want, period, without blocking a whole pile.

 

See, even presently, the more offensive(which, you agree is somewhat subjective) mods are straightaway taken down, while borderline offensive mods are visible to everyone. An alternative that I offer is:

1. Remove a mod if it is very offensive.

2. If there's considerable debate on whether it is offensive, do not take it down, but put it under the Offensive tag. Only people who are ready for this will see them, just like adult content(which is more clear in its definition, I guess).

Edited November 28, 2015 by tempwayne

[sherameyn]

What makes slavery being "debatable" and "not hurting anyone"?

I mean, why doesn't it fall under the 2nd category?

 

Are you the master or the slave?

Edited November 28, 2015 by sherameyn

[zaty1]

How do you define "considerable debate" then?

 

How long til, hypothetically, someone "takes offense" to http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/2355/? and starts a crusade to have it pulled?

Tongue-in-cheek here, obviously - but what about actual hard feelings between authors of various "gray area" mods? What qualifies?

Why add yet another section heavily controlled by opinion that the moderaters have to dance about dealing with?

 

Why do I have to knowingly open an "offensive" catagory to look at stuff? Can I be offended that my opinion is catagorized as offensive?

Goodluck with this, I do truly hope some kind of solution can be found. Til then, I'll keep blocking authors. :)