Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as ‘already resolved’ dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.

1. Historical Precedence: While it’s true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the ‘tools and principles are well-established’ may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.

2. Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should ‘tolerate the free speech of bigots.’ However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?

3. Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?

4. Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn’t invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn’t address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.

5. The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn’t we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?

6. Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.

In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only ‘bigots’ would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.

Uncle fucker, you got me.

Very constructive response.

Your accusation of a ‘thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance’ ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I’ve already acknowledged the mod’s removal was warranted due to its author’s bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.

However, as Mark Twain once said, ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ It seems we’re unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it’s best to leave it at that.

While I’ve already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that’s not the focal point of my inquiry. What I’m driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I’m not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It’s curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as ‘gross,’ especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.

You do you G, ain’t gonna force my views down your throat.

While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of ‘streamlining’ was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod’s existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.

While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind ‘polite discussion’ as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it’s important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it’s about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.

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?

Sealioning is often a tactic used to derail conversations, but that’s not my intent here. I genuinely want to explore the community standards that dictate mod removals. If you find that pseudo-intellectual, perhaps it’s because the questions themselves are inherently complex and require intellectual discussion.

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.

My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod’s creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a ‘dog whistle’ doesn’t help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.

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.

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.

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.

In the words of JFK, ‘One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.’

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.

The purpose of centralizing the discussion is to understand various perspectives on platform moderation. While you may see the issue as settled, other individuals may have questions or viewpoints they’d like to explore. Declining to engage in debate doesn’t nullify the merit of the discussion for others who are genuinely interested in dissecting the subject matter.

Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what ‘streamlining’ means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It’s about catering to one’s own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of ‘streamlining’ be limited to your understanding?

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.