Shut up you fat patty. Read my nuts.

You can say that about all sides. Not conservative BTW if that matters.

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.

A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn't necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there's a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.

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.

While the concerns you've raised resonate with many, it's worth remembering JFK's words, 'Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.' As a society, we must consider the nuance that exists in any debate, even one as sensitive as this. Open discussion should serve as a mechanism to understand what defines intolerance and how to appropriately combat it, rather than shutting down dialogue altogether.

Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.

I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that's not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?

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.

I must point out, albeit reluctantly, that much of the stereotyping and overgeneralizing in this thread seems to be coming from those who are in favor of the mod's removal. This does little to advance a constructive conversation and only serves to deepen divisions.

If we're truly interested in finding common ground or at least understanding the other side of the argument, we need to stop dismissing each other's viewpoints out of hand. Only through respectful and open discussion can we hope to reach a resolution that considers the full complexity of the issue.

I understand your point that the behavior surrounding certain mods can escalate and create a toxic environment. In that sense, it's not just the mod in question but the kind of interactions it may foster. However, that leads us into a very slippery slope. If we start removing mods based on what they might encourage rather than what they actually do, where do we draw the line?

Note that mods can be used for multiple reasons, not all of which are nefarious. Some people may genuinely appreciate the option to customize their experience in a way that the mod allows, without any intention of engaging in toxic behavior.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea of acting pre-emptively to negate potential harm, which is a valid point. But this can also set a concerning precedent that may affect the open nature of modding communities, by limiting what can and cannot be customized.

So the question then becomes, how do we balance preventing potential harm with preserving the user's freedom to customize their experience? It's a complicated issue, but one that deserves open dialogue rather than summary judgment.

What I was trying to convey is that gamers should have the freedom to customize their gaming experience based on their preferences. It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather having the option to make changes if we want to. It's all about personal choice and freedom in how we enjoy our games.

Removing a harmless mod is a slippery slope because then moderators are just removing mods based on their political ideolagy. Kinda ridiculous if you ask me.

Not gonna lie, people throw around the word 'fascist' too much. The word has basically lost all meaning at this point.

*Meta