This post is about the current arguements taking place in the post called “Nexus Mods Fine With Bigots Leaving Over Removed Starfield ‘Pronoun’ Mod”
If the primary objective here is to engage in constructive dialogue, then name-calling and overgeneralization serve no purpose and only fuel the fire. The issue at hand has been conflated to be about political affiliations like Republican vs. Democrat, when that’s not the core point of discussion at all. We’re here to debate the merits and drawbacks of mod removal, not to stereotype one another based on our political leanings or otherwise.
The aim of this post is to encourage a constructive and respectful discussion around mod removals in gaming communities. Name-calling, political labeling, and overgeneralization serve only to fuel divisiveness and distract from the main issue. Rather than resorting to stereotypes or making sweeping statements about each other’s viewpoints, let’s aim to engage in a balanced and open dialogue that acknowledges the complexities of the subject matter. We all have strong feelings about this topic, but constructive conversations require that we steer clear of actions that deepen divisions.
There’s very little constructive discussion to be had about this, if any.
Civility is one thing, but there’s not really anything to debate here. What complexities?
The mod’s only function was to hide an options menu. Its only purpose is to hide the fact that other people might wanna choose something else than the default, it literally did nothing else.
It didn’t add any option.
If it added any option at all, like to replace pronouns in dialogues with your character’s name or anything that’d be something else but it’s not.
I doubt that mod was made in good faith, but I don’t really care either way to be honest.
I’m not triggered by that mod’s existence, nor by its removal because it’s all mostly outage bait.
That other poster knew that was going to be a dumpster fire before they hit the button to post.
I honestly doubt this one is meant to do any better.
I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can’t have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn’t acceptable content.
It should be pretty simple here.
“Does it serve any purpose other than excluding people? No? Remove it.”
Shouldn’t users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It’s also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.
“Why should it be removed?”
Because it hurts real people.
“But shouldn’t people be able to modify the game as they want?”
Sure, they can do it themselves, but no one has to host content that causes real-world harm.
“But why draw the line at this mod?”
See answer 1.
Ya know, I love it when people like you use “civil discussion” as a mask, because it’s always the most transparent thing ever. Your real goals are always on your sleeve, but you just keep pushing the same things over and over again so that, in the end, you can say “Look, I was civil, they weren’t!”
Do you know what gives you away? It’s the way no answer you ever receive is satisfactory. It’s never enough. And it’s usually cyclical, too, which is exactly the behavior you’ve displayed here.
First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.
Second, the concept that ‘no answer I ever receive is satisfactory’ misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn’t it?
Lastly, if a mod does not align with one’s values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn’t mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let’s not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.
Claim whatever motivations you want, but reading through this series of comments does a great job of showing everyone your real motivation. You are not here for rational discussion of moderation policy. Your trying to argue that bigoted materials should be allowed.
I can’t stop looking at this train wreck. But ima try.
You do you G, ain’t gonna force my views down your throat.