There should be a sticky thread on acceptable features of CK3 mods

[grommile]

the fact that the devs deleted someone's mod is extremely disturbing, please let us modify the game the way we want

You can write any mod you want, and Paradox don't send out cyberninjas to delete disapproved mods from the author's computer.

But if you want the benefits of a Steam Workshop / (whatever the official Paradox non-Steam mod repo is called) presence for your mod, you have to abide by the policies (Steam and) Paradox set.

 

[Chlodio]

Reminds me of this time I made Imperator mod that made female commanders exclusive to Scythians, and Paradox took it down. I later reuploaded it and they didn't take it down.

 

[grommile]

Anyway my post was about slightly different issue, I wanted to say that if censorship already started it would only become worse.

No functioning large organized polity anywhere has ever allowed truly unrestricted freedom of speech for a prolonged period. (e.g. established Constitutional jurisprudence in the USA says that copyright, libel, slander, and obscenity laws can be compatible with the First Amendment.)

And we will never know what thing twitter crowd is going to consider offensive next. F.e. I think the game doesn't represent Saxon ethnicity properly (irl Saxons are the blondest amongst all Germans) so I created a personal mod where I increased a probability of Saxon characters to be with blonde hair in 40% of cases instead of 25%.

Should be fine to post. You're not engaging in erasure or supremacism with that.

(unless you are, but as long as you don't post supremacism or erasure in your mod's description, how would anybody know?)

 

[durbal]

Reminds me of this time I made Imperator mod that made female commanders exclusive to Scythians, and Paradox took it down. I later reuploaded it and they didn't take it down.

Sigh.

 

[BrokenSky]

If he wants to remove them from his game, he can totally do that, but Paradox are not obliged – morally or legally – to let him share his mod via the Steam Workshop channel for their game, or to host discussion of his mod on their own forums or their game's Steam Community forums.

You can write any mod you want, and Paradox don't send out cyberninjas to delete disapproved mods from the author's computer.

But if you want the benefits of a Steam Workshop / (whatever the official Paradox non-Steam mod repo is called) presence for your mod, you have to abide by the policies (Steam and) Paradox set.

That's a pretty controversial stance if you actually stop and think about the underling implications though; freedom of expression is internationally recognized as a fundamental and inalienable human right (comparable to the right to work or the right to life), but nevertheless it's considered generally acceptable to limit expression on privately owned platforms to only within accepted ideological views - if you took the same stance on other human rights, it could easily be used to justify any manner of atrocity.

I mean it may seem tame with this, but if, for example, Steam decided (for whatever reason) that they wanted to delete anything which promoted racial equality or referenced any religious view or appeared to advocate for LGBT rights, you can surely see how it would be a problem, even though the only difference between that and this is what the people involved believe is right?

I understand that a company has to look out for it's bottom line (and it's reputation matters for this), but you can't seriously believe what they're doing isn't immoral if they do something which is by all accounts wrong to do generally, just because the people they're doing to specifically are currently socially acceptable targets?

 

[pliznobn]

You mean the one where the mod author put a link to some sort of weird white supremacist YouTube channel in the description? Because I'm pretty sure that was the issue with that mod.

The "muh censorship" crowd love to ignore that part. That and an identical mod being left on Steam for years.

Though I'm not impressed by Paradox's handling of this. Trying to pretend discussion isn't happening only makes it worse.

 

[grommile]

freedom of expression is internationally recognized as a fundamental and inalienable human right

Article 19 of the UDHR has to be read in conjunction with articles 12 and 29.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

That's a pretty controversial stance if you actually stop and think about the underling implications though; freedom of expression is internationally recognized as a fundamental and inalienable human right (comparable to the right to work or the right to life), but nevertheless it's considered generally acceptable to limit expression on privately owned platforms to only within accepted ideological views - if you took the same stance on other human rights, it could easily be used to justify any manner of atrocity.

I mean it may seem tame with this, but if, for example, Steam decided (for whatever reason) that they wanted to delete anything which promoted racial equality or referenced any religious view or appeared to advocate for LGBT rights, you can surely see how it would be a problem, even though the only difference between that and this is what the people involved believe is right?

I understand that a company has to look out for it's bottom line (and it's reputation matters for this), but you can't seriously believe what they're doing isn't immoral if they do something which is by all accounts wrong to do generally, just because the people they're doing to specifically are currently socially acceptable targets?

i'm sorry, but this is seriously effed up. targets? are people seriously so paranoid that they think they're being targeted?

and the thought of steam removing stuff that promotes equality is so laughable that it's just not worth thinking about.

 

[BrokenSky]

Article 19 of the UDHR has to be read in conjunction with articles 12 and 29.

I'm sorry but I don't see what the point you're trying to make is? Just looking at those three can be read in a variety of different ways.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I'm sorry but I don't see what the point you're trying to make is? Just looking at those three can be read in a variety of different ways.

they're not hard to look up. i just did between reading your post and posting this

 

[BrokenSky]

i'm sorry, but this is seriously effed up. targets? are people seriously so paranoid that they think they're being targeted?

and the thought of steam removing stuff that promotes equality is so laughable that it's just not worth thinking about.

"Acceptable Targets" - as in 'a group of people it's generally considered acceptable to make the butt of jokes or treat disrespectfully in general'. I'd suggest looking up the TV troped page on it if you're not familiar with the term.

they're not hard to look up. i just did between reading your post and posting this

I looked them up too. It's just that neither 12 nor 29 say anything which clearly explains what the point he's trying to make is and I'd prefer not to put words into his mouth.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

"Acceptable Targets" - as in 'a group of people it's generally considered acceptable to make the butt of jokes or treat disrespectfully in general'. I'd suggest looking up the TV troped page on it if you're not familiar with the term.



I looked them up too. It's just that neither 12 nor 29 say anything which clearly explains what the point he's trying to make is and I'd prefer not to put words into his mouth.

ok, here's my takeaway from 29:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare

 

[Jernau_]

truly unrestricted freedom of speech

More people should read up on what freedom of speech actually means. Most people that constantly talk about freedom of speech doesnt seem to understand what it is. Its completely irrelevant when talking about the removal of usercreated content on a privately owned service like the steam workshop.

 

[BrokenSky]

ok, here's my takeaway from 29:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare

I mean I get that that's the relevant part, but how does that fit in with the argument I'm making? I feel like you're throwing the most important piece of evidence you have at me and expecting me to assemble all the syntax to build an argument around it. If I do it's going to end up as something like:
"You can't use the fact that you find something offensive to justify treating someone exercising their freedom of expressing as though it were a personal attack" (or possibly, "you have a duty to treat other people's personal opinions with respect and make a best-effort attempt to discern whether you find something offensive because it is a personal attack (violates 12) or a general disagreement on something you identify with (allowed under 19)").
which obviously doesn't gel with the other things you've been saying. So can you make your argument yourself please?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I mean I get that that's the relevant part, but how does that fit in with the argument I'm making? I feel like you're throwing the most important piece of evidence you have at me and expecting me to assemble all the syntax to build an argument around it. If I do it's going to end up as something like:
"You can't use the fact that you find something offensive to justify treating someone exercising their freedom of expressing as though it were a personal attack" (or possibly, "you have a duty to treat other people's personal opinions with respect and make a best-effort attempt to discern whether you find something offensive because it is a personal attack (violates 12) or a general disagreement on something you identify with (allowed under 19)").
which obviously doesn't gel with the other things you've been saying. So can you make your argument yourself please?

i learned a new word the other day. sealioning.

this thread was about what's unacceptable in a published mod.

if you want clarity on the UNDHR start a thread in the OT forum

 

[BrokenSky]

i learned a new word the other day. sealioning.

this thread was about what's unacceptable in a published mod.

if you want clarity on the UNDHR start a thread in the OT forum

I don't in fact want clarity on the UNDHR - when I wanted clarification on that I looked it up in their website and they had a long discussion about how abusable #29 was and how hard it was to get the wording so dictators wouldn't use it as a pretense to remove other people's rights, but also so that people wouldn't abuse their rights to remove other people's rights (Part of their "30 Articles on 30 Articles" series).

What I was asking for clarification on was on your argument in this thread about whether a double standard was being applied when determining whether a mod which some people found offensive was acceptable.

Given how you've acted so far though, I honestly don't feel I can continue to make attempts to have a discussion in good faith on the matter.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

What I was asking for clarification on was on your argument in this thread about whether a double standard was being applied when determining whether a mod which some people found offensive was acceptable.

double standard how? these companies have one 'terms of service.' something is either within that standard or outside of it.

 

[grommile]

I'm sorry but I don't see what the point you're trying to make is? Just looking at those three can be read in a variety of different ways.

The general point is that the UDHR itself not only permits constraints on the rights in Article 19, but in some cases requires such constraints (e.g. laws to enforce the rights in Article 12 are inherently a limitation on the rights in Article 19), so saying "freedom of expression is internationally recognized as a fundamental and inalienable human right" misses some important points regarding other things that are internationally recognized as human rights.

 

[durbal]

The "muh censorship" crowd love to ignore that part. That and an identical mod being left on Steam for years.

Though I'm not impressed by Paradox's handling of this. Trying to pretend discussion isn't happening only makes it worse.

Huh? Wasn't that referring to a white supremacy thing from 2016? What does that have to do with a mod that makes Rurik straight?

More people should read up on what freedom of speech actually means. Most people that constantly talk about freedom of speech doesnt seem to understand what it is. Its completely irrelevant when talking about the removal of usercreated content on a privately owned service like the steam workshop.

It's also irrelevant to talk about the legality of removing mods from the Steam Workshop when the discussion is about whether or not it's right to remove a mod because it makes Rurik straight or homosexuality less common. I don't see anyone claiming that Paradox can't do it, but rather questioning if they should have.

 

[pliznobn]

Huh? Wasn't that referring to a white supremacy thing from 2016? What does that have to do with a mod that makes Rurik straight?

Considering how vague OP chose to be about the mod, I'm guessing the context was similarly offensive.