Ludeon Studios has riduclously hypocritical policies

[avilmask]

Regardless, the law quoted above isn't relevant.  Rimworld characters are not "persons".  They are not real.  That is why you can make one sponge 30 bullets from a rifle for fun or forcibly remove organs until they die w/o consequences.  If they were "persons", doing these things would get you a life sentence at minimum in most states/countries, regardless of their age.

*ahem* Keeping gory comics, with a lot of brutal scenes, isn't a reason to send you to jail basically in any country.
Keeping japanese doujinshi comics, with completely fictional underaged women with lolita complex in them, is a reason to send you to jail in many states/countries.

[TheMeInTeam]

*ahem* Keeping gory comics, with a lot of brutal scenes, isn't a reason to send you to jail basically in any country.
Keeping japanese doujinshi comics, with completely fictional underaged women with lolita complex in them, is a reason to send you to jail in many states/countries.

I don't know every country's inane laws.  For any country with that nonsense on their books, Rimworld would already be illegal regardless of the mod (minors can do "lovin" in vanilla), so the mod would not change anything.  Unless there is a country that legally accepts depiction of sex but not masturbation?

[Limdood]

Simply put, it's Ludeon's game and they can decide what they will and won't allow in their game.

Nobody in this thread has said otherwise.  OP is making a case that restricting this mod is hypocritical, and that assertion holds.  Whether or not you care in this particular case, this is a demonstrably hypocritical situation because any credible standard applied to block it should also block vanilla mechanics.

I don't care about the mod, but I do care about the precedent.  Dishonest moves lose trust.

The precedent is that the game's creator doesn't feel like having THAT PARTICULAR THING in his game, so has blocked THAT PARTICULAR THING.  His feelings on other aspects are utterly irrelevant.

If he wanted to make a game where torture was encouraged, while blocking atheism, he can.

The only precedent here is that the creator is blocking things he doesn't feel should be in game.  full stop.

[TheMeInTeam]

The precedent is that the game's creator doesn't feel like having THAT PARTICULAR THING in his game, so has blocked THAT PARTICULAR THING.  His feelings on other aspects are utterly irrelevant.

If he wanted to make a game where torture was encouraged, while blocking atheism, he can.

The only precedent here is that the creator is blocking things he doesn't feel should be in game.  full stop.

Just to confirm, it's Ludeon doing this and not Steam?  It's a hypocritical practice regardless (Steam is on record for objectively lying about its censorship practices and wildly inconsistent enforcement of their non-stated rules so I would not put this past Steam).  In fact if you asked me to guess who would block this mod in advance of seeing the thread I'd first suspect Steam, because they have an extensive track record of hypocrisy and lying.  Ludeon being so openly hypocritical would be surprising in contrast.

Regardless, we're talking about explicitly blocking a mod, not about choosing what goes into the default game.  A mod that is legal under any standard the game itself is legal, that at worst violates a social norm (as if burning people to death doesn't violate a social norm).

Sure, Ludeon/Steam can do this, just like they could "block atheism" in Rimworld.  I'd have the same objection in both cases, or even if they blocked the inclusion of poodles because reasons.  It's necessarily arbitrary enforcement and when that is practiced the sensible response is to trust the person/organization/whatever doing it less. 

It's both within rights to do it, and also within rights to denounce objectively hypocritical choices as such.

[ReZpawner]

It's not blocked. It's just not being distributed through Steam. Ludeon hasn't put in extra code in the game to prevent that mod from working, which seems to be what some people think. It's simply a mod that they do not wish to promote or host.

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not blocked. It's just not being distributed through Steam. Ludeon hasn't put in extra code in the game to prevent that mod from working, which seems to be what some people think. It's simply a mod that they do not wish to promote or host.

By "they", are you referring to Ludeon or Steam?

If it's the latter it's both less surprising and suggests the title of OP is mistaken.  Steam management is worse than just hypocritical, though that's certainly still an accurate assessment of them.

[Dr_Zhivago]

Not sure if it is on Ludeon's side or Steam. My first thought is that some self-righteous people are reporting the mod on Steam, and it's just auto-removed b/c a certain number of reports was hit. Honestly not sure how that flagging system works. OP might know more about which party is behind the removal.

Either way taking down the mod, whether it is from Steam or Ludeon, is ridiculous. Especially considering Vanilla mechanics and the general modesty that the mod has. A lot of people used the mod as well, so it wasn't just some niche creation that only a few people found useful. I can also understand the distress of the mod author, because the removal is so arbitrary. I would be upset if Ludeon or Steam decided to remove one of my mod creations from the Steam Workshop, especially if a similar concept was already incorporated into the game.

[Ramsis]

I commented on the Steam side of things.

[ZornieKins]

I don't get what's the big deal about a line of text. But hey, that's just me.

[Nafensoriel]

You've moving the goalpost.  I don't think anybody is surprised to hear government regulations are arbitrary nonsense.  That doesn't change the point of what you quoted.  If "masturbation" would be a violation, so must be vanilla Rimworld's "lovin".

Regardless, the law quoted above isn't relevant.  Rimworld characters are not "persons".  They are not real.  That is why you can make one sponge 30 bullets from a rifle for fun or forcibly remove organs until they die w/o consequences.  If they were "persons", doing these things would get you a life sentence at minimum in most states/countries, regardless of their age.

No there is a difference in government between murder and sex and yes the limits are very strange. Take a look at sims games. They "woohoo" because of a ratings flag and teens can only "fool around" to avoid legal issues with child porn. It's a minefield where some things are explicitly stated and others are up to the enforcing body. Sex and children of any kind are very explicitly stated as "the concept of sex and children". Murder, on the other hand, requires an actual death with evidence of a body. It's government regulations in a nutshell.

That said all of the above is only valid on the actual game. A mod is immune to any consideration other than the suggestion of child pornography and it would be a stretch to get masturbation in rimworld to meet that requirement.

/edit it should be noted that america, mexico, canada, most of europe, japan, korea, and shockingly china have extremely brutal limits on content showing actors or suggestions of actors below the age of 15. Even if you have an actor who is older than 18 portraying a 14-year-old and that character engages in sexual acts on screen it constitutes child pornography in all of those countries.  Every single law pretty much says "if it remotely suggests a child is engaged in sex it cannot exist in any media or be possessed by any individual or organization".

[TheMeInTeam]

That said all of the above is only valid on the actual game. A mod is immune to any consideration other than the suggestion of child pornography and it would be a stretch to get masturbation in rimworld to meet that requirement.

I know I've said it multiple times, but I'm still interested in an explanation for how masturbation could possibly break any laws that "lovin'" in the game would not also break.  Short of modding younger characters, new art, or some other thing OP's mod doesn't do I don't see how anybody could possibly make such a case.

Either Rimworld is breaking the law right now, or it isn't and therefore the mod couldn't be.

it should be noted that america, mexico, canada, most of europe, japan, korea, and shockingly china have extremely brutal limits on content showing actors or suggestions of actors below the age of 15. Even if you have an actor who is older than 18 portraying a 14-year-old and that character engages in sexual acts on screen it constitutes child pornography in all of those countries.

Interesting, and very bizarre considering what is allowed.  Still, the law quoted here refers to "persons".  That law as written can't apply to Rimworld, as pawns are without question inhuman (they are literally aliens, and I've yet to meet a person on Earth that can haul an adult elephant unaided).  It would be hard to make a case even against the Sims with that code, though I could see why devs would want to avoid being too near that line, way more risk than reward.

[Nafensoriel]

That said all of the above is only valid on the actual game. A mod is immune to any consideration other than the suggestion of child pornography and it would be a stretch to get masturbation in rimworld to meet that requirement.

I know I've said it multiple times, but I'm still interested in an explanation for how masturbation could possibly break any laws that "lovin'" in the game would not also break.  Short of modding younger characters, new art, or some other thing OP's mod doesn't do I don't see how anybody could possibly make such a case.

Either Rimworld is breaking the law right now, or it isn't and therefore the mod couldn't be.

it should be noted that america, mexico, canada, most of europe, japan, korea, and shockingly china have extremely brutal limits on content showing actors or suggestions of actors below the age of 15. Even if you have an actor who is older than 18 portraying a 14-year-old and that character engages in sexual acts on screen it constitutes child pornography in all of those countries.

Interesting, and very bizarre considering what is allowed.  Still, the law quoted here refers to "persons".  That law as written can't apply to Rimworld, as pawns are without question inhuman (they are literally aliens, and I've yet to meet a person on Earth that can haul an adult elephant unaided).  It would be hard to make a case even against the Sims with that code, though I could see why devs would want to avoid being too near that line, way more risk than reward.

It's not persons. Its anyone representing a person or a possible person. Technically you cant paint an actress green, call her a 14-year-old alien, and have her engage in sex without violating CP laws. "Art" related issues are different by country but generally very close. An example is Canada and bestiality rules. Did you know that technically "furry art" can be interpreted as bestiality if the actors in the images are too human-like? Yes. Drawing a dog having sex with a human is a crime in Canada even if it is just art. Being "illegal" and being "enforced" is different though. I don't think anyone would(or has) be(en) charged with furry porn unless it was explicitly to bypass something like CP restrictions.
Most of these rules exist entirely to stop CP proliferation and trust me when I say those who traffic in CP are god damn pernicious shitbags.

In the case of "loving" its one of those grey areas that are technically not defined. Similar to how the sims say "woohoo"(adults) and "fooling around"(teens) in the flavour text but on the actual code its referenced as what could easily be defined as sex in that both tags go under the same "statistic". If they don't actually display sex or anything remotely looking like sex it's not technically sex unless called sex. Confusing right?
It's similar to making a technical copy of a song legally distinct enough to not have to pay the original author royalties.

As to how the mod could come under question but not violate laws that is an easy one. It would take a moderator two seconds of reading even one post saying "teenage masturbation" to lock that file down quick and send it for review. The moderator isn't probably a rimworld player and is just operating on SOP of "kill CP dead fast". In steams cases, this is probably just some ultra sexually conservative minds reporting the mod until it triggers an automatic lock though. With so many different opinions in the world, it happens quite often with automated systems.
My original point is just that I can easily see how an uninformed moderator could leap first for safety reasons knowing exactly how harsh the law can be about such things.

The weirder part though is technically if the mod allowed a legally underaged individual to display a sexual act(even masturbation) it would actually violate the law in many countries. Even if the issue was via a bug if the author did not correct it once notified. Action probably would not be enforced unless that particular trait of the mod started to expand though(which is how one CP ring attempted to traffic their content via games involving drawn images of underaged persons). The reason so many things can be interpreted as violating CP laws is to ensure no loopholes ever exist to allow CP propagation.

[TheMeInTeam]

Most of these rules exist entirely to stop CP proliferation and trust me when I say those who traffic in CP are god damn pernicious shitbags.

For sure.  That just seems so far away from gaming/OP's situation that it's not worth considering.  If laws consider this and that under the same umbrella they're glaringly too broad.

What if the alien species is an insectoid that matures at age 2?  Is 14 still too young then?  Are the dreams of hot megaspider action dashed after all?

If they don't actually display sex or anything remotely looking like sex it's not technically sex unless called sex. Confusing right?

So if you changed "masturbation" to "fun alone time" or something that would work the same then?  That's pretty bizarre, yes.

In steams cases, this is probably just some ultra sexually conservative minds reporting the mod until it triggers an automatic lock though.

I'm not going to give Steam any benefit of the doubt.  They first claimed "if it's legal we will allow it" and then censored/banned a game rated T by the ESRB, all while being *very* inconsistent with this enforcement (mysteriously lax in AAA titles like the witcher), and still allowing games that for all intents and purposes enable children to gamble.

Ludeon I give the benefit of the doubt, but Steam's track record doesn't grant it that.

Action probably would not be enforced unless that particular trait of the mod started to expand though(which is how one CP ring attempted to traffic their content via games involving drawn images of underaged persons). The reason so many things can be interpreted as violating CP laws is to ensure no loopholes ever exist to allow CP propagation.

At least, I THOUGHT it was far removed from gaming.  They were using it as a means to cover up distributions of drawings of actual people?  That's crazy, but if it's happening I can at least understand why they'd use algorithms to screen that stuff out.

[Nafensoriel]

What if the alien species is an insectoid that matures at age 2?  Is 14 still too young then?  Are the dreams of hot megaspider action dashed after all?

Technically it could be considered CP if the similarities were close enough to a human in whole or part. IE if you had a butterfly with a human or part human body.  Again this would be to prohibit loopholes of simply doctoring images "just enough" to allow distribution.
If it was simply an ant and the story revolved around the lifecycles of an ant then no one would care.
If you used "ant" in a story to replace the word "child" it might fall under CP laws if the story was obviously not about ants though this would be a challenge to prove.

So if you changed "masturbation" to "fun alone time" or something that would work the same then?  That's pretty bizarre, yes.

Provided you did not show a sexual act, yes a simple name change counts.

I'm not going to give Steam any benefit of the doubt.  They first claimed "if it's legal we will allow it" and then censored/banned a game rated T by the ESRB, all while being *very* inconsistent with this enforcement (mysteriously lax in AAA titles like the witcher), and still allowing games that for all intents and purposes enable children to gamble.

Ludeon I give the benefit of the doubt, but Steam's track record doesn't grant it that.

While I agree they should define their rules better they are technically a private enterprise. As such they are judge jury and executioner of their content and can exclude anything they wish for any reason as long as it doesn't violate a countries laws(such as racial laws). Honestly, laws are not often black and white until many many court cases have been done to establish a broad list of precedents about a subject. This is why "accept what i do not what i say" is more applicable for things like steams management.

For sure.  That just seems so far away from gaming/OP's situation that it's not worth considering.  If laws consider this and that under the same umbrella they're glaringly too broad.
At least, I THOUGHT it was far removed from gaming.  They were using it as a means to cover up distributions of drawings of actual people?  That's crazy, but if it's happening I can at least understand why they'd use algorithms to screen that stuff out.

Doesn't have to be actual people. Just young images and yes it's been done multiple times.
One recent case from last year involving skyrim... is a really easy case for why the laws are so broad and why its important they stay broad.

[TheMeInTeam]

While I agree they should define their rules better they are technically a private enterprise. As such they are judge jury and executioner of their content and can exclude anything they wish for any reason as long as it doesn't violate a countries laws(such as racial laws).

I'm not saying Steam can't do what it wants (within its own legal limits).  I'm saying I won't give them benefit of the doubt because what they've chosen to do is lie outright and screw over developers in the process while applying obvious double standards (they didn't just lie, their behavior pattern follows obvious favortism/$$$ incentives).  Even if such is legal I can still call them out for it.  Being a jerk is legal too etc.

Ludeon's reputation doesn't deserve to be in the same space as that.

One recent case from last year involving skyrim... is a really easy case for why the laws are so broad and why its important they stay broad.

That's certainly very cringey.  I'm not sure it should fall under CP rather than obscenity or some different categorization though.  When I think "CP" what comes to mind is the stuff that literally ruins lives.  Lives of the victims, and often the victims' family.  That damage is permanent in most cases too, an otherwise healthy person never recovers/winds up in an institution directly from suffering that.  Likening weird Skyrim guy to that cheapens the gravity of the crime.  It's also awkward to see a "CP" conviction get 2 years or less when in terms of its damage to real people the only obviously worse crime is straight up murder.

But at least it's more clear to me why this mod got shot down so hard, even if it's really not comparable even to the Skyrim case.