Disturbing mod, even if it is allowed, it shouldn't be

[fore]

If you always try to find a negative interpretation/purpose in something, then the problem is you. Apparently, you forgot the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And conjecture and worst case scenarios are not proof.

 

Then it's ok when someone posts instruction on how to build a bomb? Worst case scenario is not a proof?

 

I give up.

[LadyMilla]

 

If you always try to find a negative interpretation/purpose in something, then the problem is you. Apparently, you forgot the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And conjecture and worst case scenarios are not proof.

 

Then it's ok when someone posts instruction on how to build a bomb? Worst case scenario is not a proof?

 

I give up.

 

 

Where did the author post instructions on how to turn it into a pedo-mod? The only one posting instructions was you when you wrote someone only needed to remove certain parts of the mesh in Nifskope. :facepalm:

 

You want to use worst case scenarios as damning evidence? Your FNIS enables users to add child-porn related animation. There. The worst case scenario. Think about the children!!! :rolleyes:

[DDProductions83]

http://img.ifcdn.com/images/a33a06c8b717e51297827f9405f66452ef46dbf485602090b9aaad5de50b5371_1.gif

 

[FrankFamily]

 

 

If you always try to find a negative interpretation/purpose in something, then the problem is you. Apparently, you forgot the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And conjecture and worst case scenarios are not proof.

 

Then it's ok when someone posts instruction on how to build a bomb? Worst case scenario is not a proof?

 

I give up.

 

 

Where did the author post instructions on how to turn it into a pedo-mod? The only one posting instructions was you when you wrote someone only needed to remove certain parts of the mesh in Nifskope. :facepalm:

 

You want to use worst case scenarios as damning evidence? Your FNIS enables users to add child-porn related animation. There. The worst case scenario. Think about the children!!! :rolleyes:

 

 

By that logic autodesk and the creators of nifskope are pedophiles too because with their tools you can make child-porn. In my opinion making a tool that allows adding a variety of stuff that could include child-porn (metaphor: general purpose factory that could manufacture weapons) is different from releasing a clothed-nude child mod (metaphor: weapon with a lock)

Not accusing the author of the mod in question, since his content is not directly child-porn as it requires the user to do (without any instruction) those couple of clicks, but I do think the mod is in a grey area.

 

If the author of the mod in question didn't absolutely want to make child-porn, then he could have easily removed the body under the underwear, so that if the underwear was removed by the user you'd end up with a big gap not child-porn, just as in the vanilla game.

[LadyMilla]

 

 

 

If you always try to find a negative interpretation/purpose in something, then the problem is you. Apparently, you forgot the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And conjecture and worst case scenarios are not proof.

 

Then it's ok when someone posts instruction on how to build a bomb? Worst case scenario is not a proof?

 

I give up.

 

 

Where did the author post instructions on how to turn it into a pedo-mod? The only one posting instructions was you when you wrote someone only needed to remove certain parts of the mesh in Nifskope. :facepalm:

 

You want to use worst case scenarios as damning evidence? Your FNIS enables users to add child-porn related animation. There. The worst case scenario. Think about the children!!! :rolleyes:

 

 

By that logic autodesk and the creators of nifskope are pedophiles too because with their tools you can make child-porn. In my opinion making a tool that allows adding a variety of stuff that could include child-porn (metaphor: general purpose factory that could manufacture weapons) is different from releasing a clothed-nude child mod (metaphor: weapon with a lock)

Not accusing the author of the mod in question, since his content is not directly child-porn as it requires the user to do (without any instruction) those couple of clicks, but I do think the mod is in a grey area.

 

If the author of the mod in question didn't absolutely want to make child-porn, then he could have easily removed the body under the underwear, so that if the underwear was removed by the user you'd end up with a big gap not child-porn, just as in the vanilla game.

 

 

Again, that's conjecture. You cannot remove the underwear from the character in the game with console commands. You actually need modding tools and know-how to do that because the underwear is part of the body model. But, as I said, for one who is hell bent on turning the mod into a pedo thing, it is much easier to replace the body meshes and textures. (As a matter of fact, that method can be used to nudify any child mods, including Bethesda's own in-game child NPCs. Still I do not see the pitchfork and torches commando burning down Bethesda's headquarters).

 

Calling it a weapon with lock is like complaining about a door lock not being safe enough when a burglar can open the living room window with little effort.

[Terra Nova]

 

If you always try to find a negative interpretation/purpose in something, then the problem is you. Apparently, you forgot the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And conjecture and worst case scenarios are not proof.

 

Then it's ok when someone posts instruction on how to build a bomb? Worst case scenario is not a proof?

 

I give up.

 

I was going to tell you not to reply to that(as I knew what the result would be) but I'm too late lol.........

[amakachao]

Excuse me can this be locked?

 

A mod author provides a follower mod. The USER must GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to make it nude.

A mod author provides FNIS. The USER must GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to make pornography.

 

I am not accusing anyone I am making a point that the USER must take extra steps that are not intended (or we can't prove it was intended) by mod authors.

 

NEITHER mod author provides the "indecent" aspect. The USER must go out their way to make it indecent using a SEPARATE program, tool or file.

 

We can't control what mods people combine on their own computers, but the mod AS IS does not provide something that breaks the law.

 

This conversation is pointless Unless the mod AS UPLOADED provides an IN GAME way to break the law.

 

OP:

Nifskope is not in the game. You went out of your way to undress this mod. No one did that to you, or forced you to undress a child mod. I didn't know it could even be done. You and posters in this thread just taught everyone how to do it. You are helping the types of people you say you are against.

 

Please lock this thread before the "opponents" to this mod explain IN FURTHER DETAIL how to accomplish this.

[TheVampireDante]

I believe this topic has gone on long enough.

 

Time it was closed before someone really says something they'd regret later.