Paradox doesn't NEED modders.
Now there's a brilliant business plan. Because locking your games down and banning modding has worked so well for other games and kept them alive and strong for so much longer than others in the same genre (Hint: That's nonsense).
Luckily Paradox doesn't agree with you that "Modders can go eff themselves" or this discussion wouldn't even be around. I sincerely doubt that a genuinely anti-Modding company wouldn't just delete the discussion and be done with it. Just because you happen to not care about Mods or Modding doesn't mean other people don't.
Stop acting entitled. And you're a classic example of the pot calling the kettel black.
This doesn't even make sense.
(Edit: Maybe you're referring to my "deliberately side-stepped answering the issue when raised during development"? See, this is where going "TL;DR" becomes a problem, because if you actually read what other people wrote then you'd see that isn't in regards to this thread, where things were answered, but during the Development.....which has ended, since, y'know, the game has been released.)
You got your answer on all accounts. Why do you continue? /.../
Because people keep repeating nonsense ad nauseam to try and shut people up, which is loathsome, while also hoping some Dev might think that the specific-religions hard-coding would be a better solution.
especially when it's more than just little old me who's calling you out on your BS?
You mean that one other guy who just said that he liked it when people didn't quote whole messages in their responses, because it screws up the formatting on his mobile phone? Real strong endorsement there, guy.
Grow up already. People tell me to stop feeding you (in PMs) but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not simply just having immature fun and maybe you'll realize that the issue has been answered and you're just going on a rant, and maybe calm down.
I'm fairly certain that either no one PMed you like that at all and you're just using it as a self-protection mechanism, or it was some other sycophant that never argued with anyone else's real points either and just regurgitated the same tired Strawmen on what other people didn't say.
I'm perfectly aware that the original issue has been answered with the reason why it is like it is, but that wasn't what I returned to the discussion-thread for, now was it? No. I was quoting another user and expressing my issues with that policy as well as offering an alternative that would satisfy both sides. But keep arguing with an imaginary villain if you like.