In an online world filled with a plethora of mods, from artistic to bizarre, it’s intriguing that the focus narrows down so sharply on one. The concept of a ‘dumb meme mod’ being powerful enough to tarnish the reputation of an entire platform is a strong statement about the perceived fragility of said platform. Also, the idea that users need to be ‘shielded’ from something they can just scroll past underscores a lack of trust in the user community to make their own informed choices. Surely, the platform can weather the storm of a singular, controversial mod without undermining its integrity.
While I understand the concern that allowing one such mod could set a precedent, each mod’s impact should be evaluated on its own merits and within the context of the platform’s guidelines. Indeed, many mods may be considered ‘stupid’ or ‘useless’ by some, but they nonetheless find an audience.
Is the existence of an ‘ignored setting’ truly sufficient to warrant a ban, or does that reflect a broader issue around community standards and governance?
Just download it somewhere else. Nexus isn’t forced to host any mod thats uploaded.
edit: you also clearly don’t understand why they removed it. The mod itself wasn’t powerful enough to tarnish their reputation. If you actually tried to take a look at their own file submission guidelines, you’ll see that:
Files that remove gender identity including pronouns from a game that have been intentionally put in place by a game developer, when the removal is clearly to be divisive or cause hostility within the community or marginalise specific group(s).
are not allowed, among many other types of files. Why this particular mod is getting attention? I don’t know, perhaps the mod’s creators are trying really hard to get people to notice the removal.
Face it. They deliberately made a mod that went against the site’s guidelines. Why should they or anybody else be pissed off that the site removed it?
Your point is well-taken, but it’s also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I’m fully aware that the mod’s author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it’s about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I’m interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.
Well I’m not interested in a more nuanced discussion. I said what I wanted to say. I really find it odd how desperate you are to gain opinions from literally everybody who interacts with your post. Not everybody wants to talk to you.
Fair enough, you’re not obligated to partake in a more nuanced discussion. But make no mistake, the essence of a public forum is to invite varying opinions, including those that go beyond surface-level judgments. If that’s not a conversation you’re interested in, you’re free to step aside. But don’t misinterpret my thoroughness as desperation.
While it’s true the platform has the right to refuse hosting certain content, the point at issue is whether that decision should be made on subjective opinions like ‘dumb trash,’ or if a more balanced approach should be taken. We’re discussing the principles of platform moderation, not just the convenience of downloading a mod elsewhere.
“It’s about ethics in game journalism” is not the argument you think it is. No amount of hate should be tolerated if you want an inclusive community.
Suggesting people discuss it elsewhere is also a terrible ask. You posted this in Beehaw. Asking people to go to an external forum means you don’t want follow the rules of this forum. Your “Why can’t we all just get along rhetoric” is tired.
Your point about ‘ethics in game journalism’ isn’t actually the focus of my argument. I’m more interested in discussing what kinds of content should be considered unacceptable to the point of removal. This is all about understanding community standards and how a platform should be governed.
As for asking people to go to the main post, my intent is to centralize the discussion for everyone’s benefit. It allows for a more structured, in-depth conversation. This isn’t about pushing a ‘Why can’t we all just get along’ agenda, but rather, understanding the guidelines that govern our interactions. If you find that to be tired rhetoric, perhaps we’re looking at different aspects of a complex issue.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
In an online world filled with a plethora of mods, from artistic to bizarre, it’s intriguing that the focus narrows down so sharply on one. The concept of a ‘dumb meme mod’ being powerful enough to tarnish the reputation of an entire platform is a strong statement about the perceived fragility of said platform. Also, the idea that users need to be ‘shielded’ from something they can just scroll past underscores a lack of trust in the user community to make their own informed choices. Surely, the platform can weather the storm of a singular, controversial mod without undermining its integrity.
I see it keeping as an invite for other modders to also create their “anti-woke” trash and upload it there.
The mods you described have an actual use. This just sounds stupid and could be just that: An ignored setting.
While I understand the concern that allowing one such mod could set a precedent, each mod’s impact should be evaluated on its own merits and within the context of the platform’s guidelines. Indeed, many mods may be considered ‘stupid’ or ‘useless’ by some, but they nonetheless find an audience.
Is the existence of an ‘ignored setting’ truly sufficient to warrant a ban, or does that reflect a broader issue around community standards and governance?
Just download it somewhere else. Nexus isn’t forced to host any mod thats uploaded.
edit: you also clearly don’t understand why they removed it. The mod itself wasn’t powerful enough to tarnish their reputation. If you actually tried to take a look at their own file submission guidelines, you’ll see that:
are not allowed, among many other types of files. Why this particular mod is getting attention? I don’t know, perhaps the mod’s creators are trying really hard to get people to notice the removal.
Face it. They deliberately made a mod that went against the site’s guidelines. Why should they or anybody else be pissed off that the site removed it?
Your point is well-taken, but it’s also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I’m fully aware that the mod’s author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it’s about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I’m interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.
Well I’m not interested in a more nuanced discussion. I said what I wanted to say. I really find it odd how desperate you are to gain opinions from literally everybody who interacts with your post. Not everybody wants to talk to you.
Fair enough, you’re not obligated to partake in a more nuanced discussion. But make no mistake, the essence of a public forum is to invite varying opinions, including those that go beyond surface-level judgments. If that’s not a conversation you’re interested in, you’re free to step aside. But don’t misinterpret my thoroughness as desperation.
Or they could just decline to host something they think is dumb trash. Surely, you can just download the mod fucking somewhere else if you want it?
While it’s true the platform has the right to refuse hosting certain content, the point at issue is whether that decision should be made on subjective opinions like ‘dumb trash,’ or if a more balanced approach should be taken. We’re discussing the principles of platform moderation, not just the convenience of downloading a mod elsewhere.
The issue should be less of platform moderation and more one of why the fuck is a civilised society allowing a platform that promotes hate to exist?
“It’s about ethics in game journalism” is not the argument you think it is. No amount of hate should be tolerated if you want an inclusive community.
Suggesting people discuss it elsewhere is also a terrible ask. You posted this in Beehaw. Asking people to go to an external forum means you don’t want follow the rules of this forum. Your “Why can’t we all just get along rhetoric” is tired.
Your point about ‘ethics in game journalism’ isn’t actually the focus of my argument. I’m more interested in discussing what kinds of content should be considered unacceptable to the point of removal. This is all about understanding community standards and how a platform should be governed.
As for asking people to go to the main post, my intent is to centralize the discussion for everyone’s benefit. It allows for a more structured, in-depth conversation. This isn’t about pushing a ‘Why can’t we all just get along’ agenda, but rather, understanding the guidelines that govern our interactions. If you find that to be tired rhetoric, perhaps we’re looking at different aspects of a complex issue.