Ludeon Forums

These posts have been split from DRM in mods (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=30938.15):

---

Quote from: Thirite on March 05, 2017, 08:39:54 PM
Look, I don't really care if people know it's my Children & Pregnancy mod in question. If people want to start a witch hunt go ahead. But you should be aware of the facts:
- The mod did not crash the game, it caused RimWorld to load endlessly if Children & Pregnancy and the 'other' mod were both being used. Neither did it intentionally cause a memory leak/freeze RimWorld.
- The 'other' mod was a mod which I had been informed (and been shown gifs of) that it allowed child rape when used in conjunction with my mod.

I didn't plan it to be any sort of "DRM", it was made entirely as a middle finger to people to want to simulate pederasty. So you can judge for yourself whether or not this was "problematic malicious code".

Ehh, if I were in your situation I would ignore it. 

A) The other mod writer can work around it if they want to.
B) By singling it out, there's other mods that you maybe don't single out.  If you block the ones you think are inappropriate, does that mean that the ones you don't block are ones you endorse?

For instance, you posted positively on a thread about a torture mod.  Do you recognize that that torture mod would most likely allow players to torture children if they combined it with your mod?  Do you support torturing children?

Of course you don't.  Does this mean that you will similarly block this mod from working with your mod?

What about a mod that allows you to do gender reassignment surgery?  Is it appropriate to do on a newborn?  Are you encouraging genital mutilation?

What about a mod that lets you put corpses straight into a nutrient paste dispenser?  Are you supporting the consumption of dead babies?

There's so many potential, and often accidental conflicts that are going to come up when you create a mod like this. I'm not sure that the author of the mod in question specifically wrote it with your mod in mind.  It's possible, I haven't used either of the mods.  But I can see a situation where you write a mod that interacts with pawns generally, and you write a mod that creates child pawns, unless the other author writes his mod specifically to avoid the scenario where child pawns exist in the game, and prevent certain actions, it's just going to be a consequence of the two mods.  In some ways, emergent behavior.

I don't particularly like the idea of either mod.  One adds a sort of "protected" class of people to a game that is way too rough and brutal to start with.  This is a game where people talk about their ways of committing mass murder and maximizing value by creating cowboy hats out of their leather.  Children don't really fit in this world, especially if you're worried about what might happen to them.  The other mod is just meaninglessly crass.  The game is brutal as it is, and that's with generally utilitarian actions.  Yes, you can butcher the dead and sell to slavers, but your colonists hate it, and it's not really supported.  For instance, you can't have a human "farm" or commit straight up malicious acts against colonists.  The worst you can do is schedule unnecessary surgery, and that's kind of a game limitation.  The other mod adds a level of malicious acts that I just don't think make the game better, just "edgier".

That said, it's not your responsibility to stop that mod from interacting with yours, and if you commit to the purity of your own mod, you're going to have a lot of work to do to make sure to continue to break that mod and others from interacting with yours. I think it's a losing battle.

Quote from: Thirite on March 05, 2017, 08:39:54 PM
Look, I don't really care if people know it's my Children & Pregnancy mod in question. If people want to start a witch hunt go ahead. But you should be aware of the facts:
- The mod did not crash the game, it caused RimWorld to load endlessly if Children & Pregnancy and the 'other' mod were both being used. Neither did it intentionally cause a memory leak/freeze RimWorld.
- The 'other' mod was a mod which I had been informed (and been shown gifs of) that it allowed child rape when used in conjunction with my mod.

I didn't plan it to be any sort of "DRM", it was made entirely as a middle finger to people to want to simulate pederasty. So you can judge for yourself whether or not this was "problematic malicious code".

very predictable
fanboys of children rape decided to start witch hunt instead of proper investigation.

its perfectly possible to "optout" if other specific mod is present, mod X detected, disable itself, very easy and very simple and this is not case of DRM and perfectly acceptable behavior of mod developer.

@zeidrich
You're entirely right, there's no point keeping it; I removed it from my working source long before people even knew about it. The thing is, once the cat's out of the bag any modder could easily circumvent it or make a compatch. Any attempt to make them not work together would take a quarter as much work to program than it would be to circumvent. I figured they'd find it soon enough- I hardly obfuscated it. But long story short I'm not going to waste the little time I have to work on the mod fighting with degenerates.

This is getting kind of ridiculous for what was just supposed to be a middle finger to some pedos from 4chan. Some people say the rape mod is actually specifically coded to not allow interaction with children younger than 14 like my mod adds. Well, maybe what I saw was an earlier or modified version, and the mod was not quite as degenerate as I believed. I don't really care. A handful of people have actually suggested for me to make C&P have more complex intentional incompatibly coded into it, but the fact is I'm not actually trying to be a moral guardian and/or add DRM- I simply wanted to piss off degenerates for laughs. I know damn well I can't stop people from getting mods to work together if they want to and I'm not going to waste time trying. If I cared that much about morals in a videogame I would never have made C&P to begin with.

Was it misguided? Apparently maybe so. Was it immature? Sure. But from the info I had at the time it seemed like a perfectly hilarious thing to do.

Quote from: Thirite on March 10, 2017, 05:54:52 PM
This is getting kind of ridiculous for what was just supposed to be a middle finger to some pedos from 4chan.

pedos, nazis, jews, christians, hippies, sinners, hicks, unclean, lepers...
Play that tune long enough and you'll definitely belong to one of the sets of people that don't deserve to live.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on March 10, 2017, 10:17:24 PM

Quote from: Thirite on March 10, 2017, 05:54:52 PM
This is getting kind of ridiculous for what was just supposed to be a middle finger to some pedos from 4chan.

pedos, nazis, jews, christians, hippies, sinners, hicks, unclean, lepers...
Play that tune long enough and you'll definitely belong to one of the sets of people that don't deserve to live.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on March 10, 2017, 10:17:24 PM
...
pedos, nazis, jews, christians, hippies, sinners, hicks, unclean, lepers...
Play that tune long enough and you'll definitely belong to one of the sets of people that don't deserve to live.

Wow, today I learned finding pedophiles to be repugnant oxygen thieves is totally problematic and I deserve to die for it. I guess I was sick on the days they were teaching moral relativism in highschool.

The point AngleWyrm is trying to make is focused more on how aggressive you've been acting these last few months, rather than defending pedos. But I think you know that.

Quote from: Thirite on March 11, 2017, 06:30:46 PMWow, today I learned finding pedophiles to be repugnant oxygen thieves is totally problematic and I deserve to die for it. I guess I was sick on the days they were teaching moral relativism in highschool.

The sad thing is, if your goal is actually to prevent harm to children you're working against it.  The existence of outlets for such things has been shown to reduce real world instances of it.

"The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children."
- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

Wow, one hell of a topic, how did I not see this?

Well, heres my 2 cents...

... First off DRM in and of itself, I don't like, but this is less "drm" and more a reactive "security" measure to "protect" the mod, or something. So I still vote no on the poll, but take that with a grain of salt. I've seen doom mods occasionally have something where if you load with xyz mod, it does some weird crap, to be funny, and never once minded this.

Second : I think the modder has a valid point on here. Such things are incredibly vile, and unhealthy, but at the same time, in the context of rimworld.. ...not entirely sure I agree. Its abstracted and removed enough its hardly more engaging than a dirty novel with no pictures, so I'm speculative if in THIS case its warranted, as, honestly, if these people wished for gratification, there are more potent means (legally even) of doing so. I suppose there is the aspect of "living it out" which is a problem, and this I can see, though it is rather uncomfortable to admit its a choice between freedom of gameplay, and keeping such stuff away from people. Its a tough call, one I'm not able to make.

In general, when it comes to pedophilia, the biggest driving factor is if the idea is discouraged, or encouraged : Interally, I mean. Often there is MASS discouragement in society of the idea, however, in private settings, roleplaying, pornography, ect, this is much harder to discourage. In these settings, if such fantasies are accepted and fed, the desire and feelings WILL grow more intense, or at very least, not diminish, and will grow worse.

The hard part of it is admitting to ones self that these things may come, but its your responsibility to resist the thoughts : And knowing that FEEDING the dogs makes them stronger. If you keep a tight leash on the dog, do not feed it, and discipline it whenever it steps out of line, the dog will be less of an issue. Its a hard task, certainly speaking, but possible, and the difficulty diminishes as you do it more. The dog can survive, and remain strong off table scraps (like brief fantasizations or day dreams) So you must STARVE it of all food to keep it weak. This is difficult, but must be done if one wishes for control over ones life : Getting away from it is painful, like any addiction, but in the realm of possibility to beat it, with vigilance and effort

All people get obscure, sometimes horrible thoughts from time to time, usually from being exposed to something like mentioned above with pornography, but it is ones responsibility to acknowlege just because you might feel a certain way, have temptations, you still have the ability to resist temptation, and often this is much better for all involved. You have a larger control over your emotions than you think, if you only let yourself grab the reigns of your mind.

Yonan : Feeding those dogs is still feeding them, even through another means

Yes, keeping the urge "sated", but it never really cures the crux of the problem, which is sick thought habits... ...These can be cured, but its a rough road, which involves personal fortitude for the one going down it. Its not so much "not doing it" but trying to distance your mind from it too : You cannot get away from the idea if you always think about it, no matter how long you go without. Plus, this can often CREATE problems where there is not. What if a young man is introduced to it, and develops a taste for it? Is this worth just "maintaining" temptation by feeding it all the time? Do you also support rapists, murderers, and others fantasizing all day, or should they address and control their emotions?

I don't think pedophiles whom are non offenders should be killed, BUT, they should receive consoling to repress and alter their thought patterns, be made to lust and seek adult women, find a wife, ect...  Pedophiles who are non offenders, but feed the fantasy?... Well...Shouldn't be killed either, but they SHOULD face criticism. Pedophiles whom actually defile young girls / boys (I mean ACTUALLY young, not teens) I think need to be put down, though...

This is all without even getting into the complex question of "why" they do it, which is also imperative for a cure, but MUCH more complex... and takes the individual much introspection.

.. ... Inb4 someone still hates my opinion

Quote from: mumblemumble on March 13, 2017, 06:29:43 AMYonan : Feeding those dogs is still feeding them, even through another means

Yes, keeping the urge "sated", but it never really cures the crux of the problem

Oh definitely not a cure, but we take a lot of pills that aren't cures too, for good reason - it's better to stave off a problem if you can't cure it than to suffer the problem with no treatment.  But if - like the stats seem to show - it reduces real world impact on people, I'll gladly take it.  We can argue what-ifs, but if the data shows that it helps... I'll take that over a what-if any day.  If it makes 1 more offender but removes 3 others... that's like the trolley dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) "would you direct the train from the 3 bystanders to the 1 bystander" argument that is very hard to answer.

Problem is, its very unclear. These are REPORTED cases, lets be clear, and its entirely possible the atmosphere made it harder to report. And also, I never suggested pills : Pills are an awful idea when it comes to trying to fix a mental issue (its never permanent, and has endless side effects, ALWAYS)

....Another thing to keep in mind is exactly what the verbage means. It says "sex crimes" or "sex related crimes" : These could easily include possession of such porn. and if you bundle that in, YES, it would seem not to go up if you make it legal overnight.

This is extremely important to be aware of, and they do not see, to distinguish this, so I'm inclined not to believe it.

Remember : studies, and many others things can often be written with "lawyer talk" to stretch an idea : And in this case "sex related crimes" could include the crime of the porn itself, which of course wouldn't go up, because its now legal. And thus, you can say sex crimes "including rape" didn't go up, because yes, INCLUDING RAPE, with porn possession, it DIDNT go up, it went down, because overnight all cases of it were made legal.

Think this wouldn't be done, because thats "just ridiculous"? Keep in mind, some would try advocating this on lies

Theres also the fact some countries even list fictional fabricated porn as "abusive to children", so that feeds into the factor too.

If these people want cures, they must be introspective into their minds and why they feel this way. Maybe loneliness, maybe projection of experiences of themselves as children, maybe learned behavior through porn... ...but whatever it is, those behaviors can be unlearned.

Regarding the original topic: I'm against modders including DRM content in their mods. The EULA prohibits it anyway, from my reading.

Regarding the current discussion: I'm all for discussion of an idea & its merits/consequences.  But please be aware of the slippery slope we're on here.

@Yonan,
That's a really disturbing article, and it flies in the face of known & accepted psychology, but thanks for sharing it.  I didn't know people thought that was a thing.  Why do I say it flies in the face of known psychology?  Well, take anger for instance.  There was a long time when it was generally believed that "venting" was healthy and decreased the likelihood anger-related health & relationship problems.  Now, we know that people who habitually "vent" their anger are the most angry people and they have the most anger-related problems.  This is the very same idea - small doses of something undesirable to ward off a larger concentration of it, which ends up backfiring.  I'm extremely skeptical.  Even if it's reporting a real observation, there's really no context of the larger picture so it could easily be misleading.  (Remember, correlation is not causation.)  It's entirely possible that child abuse simply wasn't being reported or was being classified differently.  There was a LOT that changed at the time, and there were many factors at play.  None of them are discussed.  We know for a FACT that said child abuse was taking place - child pornography (of the photographic variety) is EVIDENCE that it took place.  And the article completely ignored that inconvenient fact, so what else is it ignoring/hiding?  It's extremely hasty to promote a "fantasy" as a way to avoid it's appearance in reality, especially when we know that fantasizing about something makes it far MORE likely (not less) to occur in real life.

agree with milon on the slippery slope : even though some claim it is fallacy, it can have merit : All actions have consequences, big or small, and its highly possible for a string of actions / consequences to make catastrophic issues down the line. Just look at the idea of a Rube Goldeberg machine : An endless string of mechanisms, seemingly unrelated, which causes an end result far down the line. This can happen organically as well, sometimes, and its important to ask what are the possible ramifications.

While the act of using pornography has very few catastrophic SHORT TERM  effects on the user, the chain of events from it is often much worse. Say its made legal. This opens a market for it. Market for it means demand. Demand means monetary motivation. Monetary motivation means presuasion into accepting child abuse FOR monetary motivation (like people selling their children). And this is just DIRECT actions, not even mentioning the mentality of society. If its made legal, those in the ballpark of "just obey the law, screw everything else" will push past that line without hesitation, as the only thing which held them back WAS law in and of itself, and when the law changes, the law based morality changes too.

This is why I honestly care less about law than morality : To many people, morals are almost a none issue, they worry about law, what they can get PUNISHED for, the ME mentality. Obeying laws has its merits, don't get me wrong, but having some form of morality and willingness to question and examine is imperative for people in society to keep things running smooth, less people are lead like sheep with their emotions, or that they lose touch of right or wrong, in favor or whats legal and illegal.

Quote from: milon on March 13, 2017, 12:09:32 PM
Regarding the current discussion: I'm all for discussion of an idea & its merits/consequences.  But please be aware of the slippery slope we're on here.

An essential part of a healthy society is to be freely able to discuss ideas so we can decide what is best so being willing to discuss it as you are is great, though sadly rarer than it should be.  Although a mod thread probably isn't really the place for an in-depth discussion I guess hahaha.

Quote@Yonan,
That's a really disturbing article, and it flies in the face of known & accepted psychology, but thanks for sharing it.  I didn't know people thought that was a thing.  Why do I say it flies in the face of known psychology?  Well, take anger for instance.  There was a long time when it was generally believed that "venting" was healthy and decreased the likelihood anger-related health & relationship problems.  Now, we know that people who habitually "vent" their anger are the most angry people and they have the most anger-related problems.

It might depend on what "venting" is, but it's regularly be shown that while playing violent video games increases short term (as in minutes) aggression, that's likely because all competition does the same thing.  IIRC it definitely hasn't been shown to increase medium or long term likelihood of aggression, though I can't remember if it's shown long term decreases in it.

The article was just the first one that came up in google for something I've read about in the past.  I'm not a psychologist or even well read on the topic, but I wish it was researched more thoroughly and discussed openly as readily as some here seem willing to do.

Quote from: mumblemumble on March 13, 2017, 02:44:03 PM
While the act of using pornography has very few catastrophic SHORT TERM  effects on the user, the chain of events from it is often much worse. Say its made legal. This opens a market for it. Market for it means demand. Demand means monetary motivation.

Yeah I'm defiitely not suggesting legalization or decriminalization of child porn.  However criminilization of *drawings* of it such as Hentai (I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Australia for example) removes a harmless possible outlet which might (some research seems to suggest) help reduce real world harm.  But incentivising creation of real CP is definitely a no-no ofc.  Which is why this thread is relevant to me - if someone can get their "power kick" in a game instead of in real life, I'd find that much preferable.  So long as it doesn't encourage escalation - which I'm not convinced it does over the opposite, a reduction in real world impact.


But we're probably too far off course from what is mainly a discussion on ethical modding practice.  I just thought the unethical modding practice might not have had the desired outcome - if that was their goal rather than just trolling.

I should clarify - I was posting from my phone and it was easier to tag Yonan's name to indicate what I was replying to rather than try to quote a segment. But my response really wasn't directed *at* Yonan, beyond thanking him/her for the relevant article (even if I disliked it).

---

Also, I agree that this is off topic enough.  Thread has been split & moved.

I can see where you come from yohan, and I think the law setup really should be altered from issues of mental health : Its often counter productive, and perhaps seperating the judicial system into a judicial system AND a public mental health approach would be better.

Because its a delicate balance of preventing harm, and not CREATING harm

On one hand, yes, the usage of drawn images is victimless, and so, at the gate, a full on punishment like sex offender registry or what have you would CREATE more harm than that which is there to begin with

HOWEVER : it pays to look at what harm CAN be created

now some might argue that you cannot treat someone bad because something is a possibility : But then using this logic (Because we MUST have consistency) you cannot justify arresting drunk drivers.

How it really pays to consider something is weighing how catastrophic the risked effect is (drunk driving crash, raping a child, ect) with the possibility of it.

This is not easy, and it certainly has guess work : going based on what is reported for rates, going based on perceived knowledge, but its the best to go on.

Going back to drunk driving, yes, one could argue maybe 9/10 drunk drivers do not kill anyone. However, 1/10 do, and drunk driving is very common, and DEATH is VERY severe, and preventable. Thus, using this metric, it is good to make drunk driving illegal, for the protection of others.

For pornagraphy it is similar : Theres a possibility of someone browsing those types of porn may have such desires grow, and influence real people. This is a risk, and danger to a preteen child especially, from being assaulted is catastrophic. HOWEVER, jailing a man for having a picture show up on his computer, or curiously browsing such things, is also catastrophic.

So what would be a good solution?

Court ordered intervention, perhaps

See, criminal issues are often mental health issues, and law has become very ineffective at PREVENTING issues, or addressing mental health. I think that for many borderline situations like these, intervention of mental health may be a more applicable approach : Taking time to sit down with the person, and let them know the possible ramifications, and where their mind goes with it, as well as trying to make changes in thought patterns

Maybe I'm not correct on how to approach this : its a delicate matter, but I realize protecting children is a huge priority, while at the same time, current approaches can sometimes do more damage than help.

I do think there are times where children should be punished, mind : Theres too many cases of young women using sexuality on men and then using their age as a trap card : And this to me demonstrates they are not innocent, and were aware of what they are doing with sex. Somethings, THIS ITSELF, is mental health issues, arising from prior sexual abuse, or otherwise, and THIS should be treated, rather than "did x break x law". Because this mentality in young girls ITSELF is destructive and damaging, and can often put men in position TO break the law.

Sure, laws work for many things very well, but treatment of mental issues would not only be a good treatment for events like this, but would be a much more effective pre-emptive measure

Lastly, there might be a question of "what is worth dealing with for mental health?"

Well, should be rising in priority, with the likelyhood of a problem, to the risk of severity, using OBJECTIVE thinking. Something like porn, as much as I detest it, is very low in risk if theres no immediate victims, and thus, is low priority. Someone whos skitzo, violent, and does not see reality, they are much higher risk, higher priority, and its more reasonable to suppress rights

I also think we should be aware when a mental health problem has gone away : Too many people figure "once xyz, always xyz" which is the core of the stigma problem imo. I do think, for instance, someone could be diagnosed with skitzophrenia, and have symptoms go away, WITHOUT medications, and thus, should be free from stigma on prior diagnosis.

....people often say "theres no cure" for xyz : and this means there nothing which is done with 100% reliability which removes it... but this doesn't mean it cannot be removed  :)

Sorry for going off topic AGAIN with some of that, milon, especially after a split and move, but I hope you can forgive it, with all the input involved

Quote from: milon on March 13, 2017, 12:09:32 PM
Regarding the original topic: I'm against modders including DRM content in their mods. The EULA prohibits it anyway, from my reading.

On to the original topic. If the EULA prohibits it what Thirite is doing. What happens now?

What I coded was not DRM. DRM is code to prevent unwanted copy protection. What I made was intentional incompatibly. I've been informed the developers agree that my silly code is not against any rules as long as I clearly state what it does. Whenever I get around to updating the mod it won't be in there anyways.

The original topic is the place to discuss DRM & related issues:
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=30938.0

I've also edited the link into the OP of this thread.