Children & Ethics (split from DRM in mods)

[zeidrich]

These posts have been split from DRM in mods:

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.

[RawCode]

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.

[Thirite]

@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.

[Thirite]

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.

[AngleWyrm]

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.

[Aristocat]

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.

[AngleWyrm]

[Thirite]

...
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.

[Lennbolt7]

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.

[Yonan]

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 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

[mumblemumble]

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

[Yonan]

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

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 "would you direct the train from the 3 bystanders to the 1 bystander" argument that is very hard to answer.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[milon]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.