Political Agenda mod.

[Sixtoy]

So addressing this mod;

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/41504?tab=description

 

Just wanted to know if Nexus moderation had any particular commentary or opinion regarding it, as it lacks English translation and does not qualify the fact that the image they put on the shirt, though it says "I love Hong Kong" in English, is used as a pro-China control and anti Hong-Kong independence/democracy.

 

Kinda wanted to know if people understood the mod as a poorly explained political-agenda piece and what it was/is pitching.

[Lominsa]

The mod includes screenshots of a tweet and a news article. I can understand if they want to keep the mod itself, but off-topic screenshots should be removed.

[cossayos]

You can bring up the same argument with this mod.

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/1164

 

It features nazi symbols that are outright forbidden in many european countries. It's a single player game, so noone really cares, I would say. Ultimately the player decides on what makes it's way into their data folder.

[taryl80]

Many mods have some political/cultural message in it and always will it give people who like a mod for it and also people who dislike it.

 

Luckily nobody cares because modding would get a huge setback imo, if someone would put rules on for every possible scenario.

[Sixtoy]

Kind of a difference though.

 

The Hong Kong situation is a live-event. Something that is still happening as we speak.

 

Historical events, even major ones like the prior mentioned mod references, are things that are not actively happening. On top of that it's not like that uniform mod is linking to any news or other element to try and glorify the uniform or what it "represents" (besides, that uniform mod really should have just used the BoS symbols on it. :tongue:).

Seems the mod author actually went out of their way to address that in their update comments actually.

 

And that wraps around to the problems again with the shirt mod. It's not a thing from a historical event, it's something hearkening to a current event, that does so by also trying to share a specific view, while simultaneously trying to avoid explicitly admitting that the view being shared is antagonistic to the only part of the message it declares in English.

 

You can say political agendas are normal to have in mods, you can even be ok with them being pushed by a mod. But you should at least demand that the author is honest and open about such an agenda.

[taryl80]

Well, the ww2 is still in many parts of this world a hot topic. Some act as it had happend yesterday.

 

Besides that, many conflicts of today have their roots in ww1/ww2, like the south/north corea situation or also many of the conflicts that have had happen in the middle east.

 

What our times matters, so I think that the most people on earth are also aware that the majority of movies/games (and with it mods)/books/songs and so on also transfer specific agendas and or ideologies. Thats imo why we should not just consume, -we should also think about what we consume and if we are ok with it.

 

To come back to hongkong - currently seem to be 2 mods in the hot files about this topic. 1 is pro hongkong and 1 pro china (the pro china mod has turned the comments off). You can pick your poison and support your favorit mod with an endorsment :smile:.

 

Edit: Nevermind, both have turned their comment section off.

Edited October 17, 2019 by taryl80

[michaelrz167]

To me, it's not a matter of what side you're on. It's just such a contentious thing right now that it's going to have an inflammatory effect one way or another. And it very quickly can come from any direction. You never know when some reasonable, innocuous political thing floating around is gonna rear back on everyone around. More so when it's something everyone already knows is blowing up. It's not even a matter of intent. You can say pick your poison and in general I would agree with that. But that is to say either way you go, any hot issue like this cannot be separated from a certain degree of toxicity that refuses to ever be compartmentalized. It is for this reason that political discussion is frowned upon in a lot of online communities. Even if the issue is important and the message is sincere, the things that brings with it are not good and often not appropriately aligned with the ethos of the group as whole... only groups within the group. If we assume the nexus is all about the mods, then we could argue it both ways. You could say that since it's about the mods as a whole, then there should be as few barriers as needed in order to avoid stifling the diversity... that it should stay in the spirit of trying not to discourage people from contributing or perhaps, limiting their ability to contribute. Just as you could argue that when it comes to mods pushing a current agenda of this nature in such a big, diverse bunch of mod users and creators, it naturally becomes less about the mods and more about things dividing people in the community.

 

Personally, I'd say what this mod is saying and doing crosses into the realm of 'better not go there' stuff. The nexus being what it is it's probably best for everyone that the political climate remain neutral so that we can avoid being dragged down by issues that have nothing to do with modding our games. It would best be kept personal, whatever it is. I think it's very idealistic to think a room full of people, many of whom don't really know each other, is just going to go 'to each their' own. People simply don't work that way and actively pushing any sort of agenda or ideology to the point where that constitutes its whole existence is asking for trouble imo. Free expression fully has a place here, but when your mod is all expression and no real creativity, that can be a problem. Once you take whatever you might want to get across on a big pedestal in front of a lot of people, ugliness inevitably ensues and then has to be reigned-in anyway. It just trickles out of wherever it starts. It's easy to see this anywhere on the internet. People within niche, specialized communities sometimes get more gung-ho about having these political dialogues, which eventually leads to more and more people going further up on soapboxes and going at each other, which ends up amounting to more and more people getting caught up in something completely different from what they even came there to do in the first place.

 

I guess my main concern with stuff like this is that it may actually lead to degradation of the output from the nexus, with fewer people hanging out and wanting to contribute. Because sometimes people want to make, share, and use all sorts of interesting mods without having to get pulled into some charged dialogue about things happening in the world that are affecting a lot of people. It's a question of what using the nexus as a platform for making a statement like this is really about and what it ultimately leads to... what it often draws people on either side of literally anything big to do with their time on the nexus. What they do with/in their own game is another matter. Can't stop that and frankly there is no reason to... even if you could it's not about that. Do people come here for mods and all things to do with modding? Or for political messages and debates? I can tell you which I'd rather come here for. I think a small mutual boundary is healthy with things like this, just in the pure sense of keeping the spirit of the place best geared towards that. Anything that takes away from it being that... to where some people who are here already stay and others go for any reason other than it not being good in a pure modding sense anymore is detrimental and leads to precisely that. In the end, people have to make their own choices, but the choices that injecting politics into a place like this leads people to make can be harmful to the nexus as a whole.

 

You kind of have to ask how much being able to be super-forward about these things no matter where is really worth. There are plenty of situations out in the world, in everyone's interactions where it's not worth it because it just winds up derailing things for everyone, including those who have chosen not to involve themselves.

 

I don't want to split hairs on it too much. Any mod that is predominantly political and not any sort of creative expression, entertaining work, or technical endeavor has its own alignment, completely removed from modding itself. It's not coming from remotely the same place as the rest. And I do see that as a problem. Maybe I've been on the internet too long. I feel like I've seen how it goes enough times. Not everything ought to be used for political statements. The nexus is not needed for people to make them. You can still make a mod like that and distribute it. Having them here stands to undermine the foundation of the whole thing. That's my fear with stuff like this. Statement alone is not enough for merit in my eyes. It's not contributing anything to the nexus as a whole. It just takes a little bit of air out of the room. There are certain things that people always feel too strongly about for anyone to expect that when those things pop up, everyone's going to conduct themselves in ways that are conducive to perpetuating this whole thing we've all got here. It just isn't gonna happen.

Edited October 17, 2019 by michaelrz167

[cossayos]

Kind of a difference though.

 

The Hong Kong situation is a live-event. Something that is still happening as we speak.

 

 

No, it's not that simple.

 

The uniform mod uses symbols that are forbidden in many European countries. This is a live-event, so to speak.

 

But once again, it's a single player game and it's your choice what makes it's way into your data folder. Apart from the fact that only China would take issue with Hong Kong symbolism.

[Virde]

Wouldn't attempting to silence any of the aforementioned mods just cause a streisand effect?

 

In fact, this thread is doing more to promote the mods in question by giving them attention they didn't have prior.

[michaelrz167]

Wouldn't attempting to silence any of the aforementioned mods just cause a streisand effect?

 

In fact, this thread is doing more to promote the mods in question by giving them attention they didn't have prior.

That's definitely a real risk. I think the key there is the consistency. If you want to eliminate one of them, you have to vigilantly go after all of them with the same measures. There can still be outcry, but it makes the intent much harder to dispute. There are ways to make clear the intent of simply not being a political platform... just step on everyone's toes without prejudice :tongue: But no, a good example of how to trigger a Streisand effect is how blizzard handled things. I'm sure they didn't mean to (at first, though ultimately that changed big time,) but their actions and statements amounted to picking a side. And unfortunately, unless you are a political organization, once you go down that road, you lose. That's the heart of it for me. The nexus is not a political organization, so allowing it to become a political platform can pretty easily undermine the whole thing. And it's like you really can't win. If you allow it all, you can be targeted for supporting things that people don't agree with. If you try to pick and choose, you eventually get called out as having an agenda of your own and it royally screws up your image. If you disallow it all, people may try to play the free speech angle, but at the end of the day at least that leaves a lot less for people to talk about and bicker senselessly over. It doesn't last... people forget all about it and go back to what they originally showed up for... it's not an ongoing thing. They simply find better outlets for expressing themselves politically. And usually, they still come around to the other places.

 

Now as far as talking about it bolstering it... yes, that's a thing. But it's always going to be a thing. If it's there, people will inevitably want to discuss it. I could, however argue that we wouldn't be here talking about it if mods like this were explicitly forbidden in the first place. They wouldn't be around to talk about.

 

To me, if not having things like this here is enough to steer you away, I kind of question what you're here to do. If it's just about mods, it really shouldn't be an issue. It might frustrate you and you might wish it wasn't that way, but you also recognize that it doesn't really hinder you in any major way. If anything, the only thing I see people ever potentially agreeing upon is not going there. The moment you go political in any way, things get very divisive. You know for sure at that point that people aren't going to agree and they're gonna go at each other. To me, the only sensible thing you can do to avoid that is to eliminate the source.

 

Now, on the whole notion of silencing... I don't think that's accurate. We're talking about a private organization... where it is not your right to say and do as you please. Silencing someone would be removing their right to do so. Not giving someone the privilege in the first place isn't the same as silencing them. People can say that it is, but it doesn't make it so. Rules are just rules. If you don't want to abide by them, it is your right to challenge them and act against them, just as it is the organization's right to revoke your privileges within the organization. That is a mutual arrangement. And with that it's settled. I see no moral ambiguity there, though I think people often try to put it in relativistic terms in order to gain favor for whatever practice or activity they would like to engage in, in spite of the consequences to others or to the very platform they stand on. But at the end of the day, an individual simply is not entitled to do whatever they want just anywhere. If we want to call disallowing political agenda mods silencing, then we have to look at most other rules about what can and can't be discussed in the same light, not just here, but in society. So what happens when we do away with all of those rules?

 

And again, I'd think most reasonable people would recognize that it's not about silencing people or somehow altering the narrative, but rather about keeping things running smoothly and peacefully for everyone involved. It's about not having to deal with convoluted narratives and debates in the first place, because often it is completely counterproductive. Same reason that when out in the world, most everyone is guarded about who they discuss politics with and where. It's considered rude to bring that in where it wasn't needed - we've all met and maybe even had the displeasure of working with folks like that. The only ones who are really going to take issue with such a basic boundary, by doing so, demonstrate that their concerns are with whatever issue they are are so attached to... they favor that over the consequences of bringing that stuff into a place that is not geared for it. It's like... your average person understands well that saying whatever you want wherever you want isn't always such a good idea. It sounds nice - I myself wish we could all get along in that way, but it doesn't work out so well a lot of the time, because you're always going to have those people that are obsessive and take it too far. It's just not appropriate or beneficial. People always want their voices to be heard, but when it comes to a unified body with specific goals, you have to ask, what does that message add? What does having a mod like this add to anything? Is there anybody out there in gaming who doesn't already know? Is anybody's mind being changed by it? Or is it just a way for people to feel good about themselves by putting themselves on the right side of things in front of people? If that's what it is, is that healthy for a community like this? Even if this mod specifically is well intended, the principle is questionable... a door is left open for people to walk in and take advantage of us, carrying this idealized notion of totally free expression. Sometimes it's just not a good road to go down.

 

There's no moralistic angle to it - it's all practicality. It would be nice if we could have these things everywhere, but due to human nature, we kinda can't always afford to.

 

Most people get that, though sometimes they need reminding. So it's not so much a matter of silencing people, it's not like they control the whole flow of what people put out there... there are so many other avenues for getting those ideas out there. Nobody is being removed from that choice. To me, a private organization looking to stay cohesive by avoiding political narratives and discourses kinda just makes sense. Having been on the other side of attempting to run online communities, I can safely say whether you want it to or not, it often comes down to doing just that, whether you put on sunscreen now, or sunburn cream later. In practice, having political elements in the mix and being permissive of that kind of thing makes it much, much harder to keep things running. It takes away from resources for dealing with problems more pertinent to the organization itself. It's just a fact of life. A lot of people cannot handle getting into politics without completely losing their minds and that can be incredibly damaging... much more so than the temporary blowback of not allowing it at all. Better than having people who were once your friends, united in a common goal become your adversaries because of something unrelated to what you came together over, you know? I've seen how it just guts communities and it is ugly. Always over things you'd have thought wouldn't be so divisive. The way it all spirals is hard to stay on top of. And by the time you're doing damage control after being too permissive, you're pretty much screwed, because now you're going to have to make calls that are REALLY going to make you the bad guy.

 

And again, certain groups can cry censorship, but when you're disallowing all of them equally, there's really not a leg to stand on. That comes and goes, and there really isn't anywhere to go. The precedent is already there in western society that if a private organization wishes to abstain from things of a political nature, they are within their reach to do that. It happens all of the time and nobody talks much about it. Just kind of a matter of how you go about it.

 

 

I'll put it this way... and this is all I can really say at this point. Has anyone ever heard someone complain about a platform not being political enough? I'm going to assume probably not. The only time you hear about that is when someone has an axe to grind, at which point they are veiling that under the guise of this completely non-functional ideal of 'free speech everywhere.' The reality of which, nobody actually wants or needs, because at best it is annoying. People say they want everyone to be able to say what they want to say, until someone says something they REALLY don't like. And then all bets are off. There is no pleasing people on it. So disallowing it is no different from a business choosing not to offer people services it can't afford. You can complain all day that they should offer them to you, but you'd also complain about the necessary price increase. It's not all so rosy, yanno? All you can do is take it for what it is and buy it or don't. But chances are, you're gonna buy it anyway. Same goes for apolitical platforms of expression. People may occasionally be upset that they can't voice certain views on things, but at the end of the day it's not enough to make them not want to contribute in other, healthier and more beneficial ways... unless there's a better option. But it's much easier for you to remain the better option when you're free to focus on doing that, instead of trying to please people who can't be pleased in ways you can't sustain and wasting time dealing with elements you can no longer control.

 

Or, I could simplify it even more and say you can't lose a game you're not playing. And when it comes to politics, that's a sacrifice you often have to make.

Edited October 19, 2019 by michaelrz167