The current AI/Low effort blocking system doesn't work.

[Diff]

On 9/28/2026 at 10:07 PM, Tj Pepler - Critcher said:

First I would like to know which mod programmer (code mods) you know that doesn't have any AI influenced tools in their workflow?

Me. Only one of my mods has any amount of AI in it that is clearly labeled as an AI-driven experiment. What else would you like to know? Ignoring the rest of your comment as I don't think chasing purity like this is useful or what anyone here is actually seeking, or as exotic as you're making it out to be.

Edited September 30 by Diff

[LadyWYT]

7 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said:

I mean, going on a tangent here but once VS reaches Minecraft levels of popularity and people start making servers that are just money-sucking internet slot machines predatorily targeting children for their parents credit cards with useless shiny pixels, I would certainly expect Anegos to step in and protect the players from such servers by taking them down

Well yes, because such cases, as I far as I'm aware, violate Anego's TOS, and real money transactions and children being involved are both very different scenarios than someone accidentally downloading a mod they don't like because they didn't do their server homework.

 

7 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said:

It's not about warning boxes and guardrails bogging down Multiplayer in general. This would be a simple convenience option based on data already present, already technically available at this point in time (pretty sure) simply presented for the players affected anyway by their own choosing. You block a certain mod/author/tag for yourself in your ModDB profile, you join a server for the first time/after a modlist update, the game gives you a kind warning that the modlist this server uses includes stuff you chose to blacklist. Nothing more. Doesn't even need to be more specific than that.

I still think it's an unnecessary guardrail that won't actually solve the player complaints(is anyone actually complaining about it aside from the OP? I can't recall seeing complaints about servers) as much as it will open the door to multiplayer becoming bogged down by guardrails in the future. 

In any case, since the primary topic of discussion is about tags, I'll flip the idea on its head and suggest just giving server owners the option of using an "AI content" tag for their servers, and let users filter out tags they aren't interested in. That would be useful for a lot more things than just AI, since it can be applied to gamemodes, 18+, or even a tag like "Discord required" if the server relies heavily on Discord(many seem to), and the AI tag itself could refer to the tools/content the server community tolerates at large(and not just the mods they happen to be using). The player will still need to do their research about the server, of course, since filters don't solve everything, but filtering out the servers is a smoother way to handle it than just flashing a warning screen every time the player tries to enter a server that has a blacklisted mod.

7 hours ago, Rainbow Fresh said:

If they get "sent away" by an automated warning based on their own preferences, atleast there is a reasonable chance these people (or rather some of them) never get far enough to become a nuisance reducing the workload of everyone involved a fair bit (less mental stress having to deal with idiots in the comments/DMs, less pending reports to verify) for a rather small one-time investment of coding effort.

Honestly, I don't expect that kind of person to just throw up their hands and not be a nuisance when they got soft-locked from most servers due to their own preferences, as much as I expect them to make try to make it everyone else's problem that they can't play what they want. 

[LadyWYT]

Or better yet, just give server owners and mod authors "AI Content" and "No AI" tags that they can tag their stuff with. Players can filter mods/servers based on those tags, and that option should satisfy/be useful to most players as well.

[Tj Pepler - Critcher]

6 hours ago, Diff said:

Me. Only one of my mods has any amount of AI in it

This is my point, we can argue technicalities but your statement is based on what you consider 'no use' but a data center enemy would say that your tools are products of AI and thus you use it.  And that is just a way of saying why I get so upset, there is no standard, there is no 'level of acceptable use' because they all have a different definitions depending on what influencer is their favorite. But almost every single thing in computing is influenced or built by AI, so what is the line here?  And if the problem is slop then let's try and remember how many people lost their systems to malicious code on olden days code sharing sites because they just copy pasted replies so, slop comes from humans too.  And some of the folks out there are just bad coders, that too is slop.

If people would be clear that would be helpful, are you anti AI or are you anti slop? What do you actually want?  Or is it both?

[Diff]

2 hours ago, Tj Pepler - Critcher said:

And some of the folks out there are just bad coders

which is why the tag is specifically "AI/low effort"

People are asking for clarity and disclosure, not purity. if someone slaps something together in an afternoon and they never intend to return to it, I would expect that to be labeled, too. When I was still learning my mods were labeled with that info

Edited Wednesday at 08:53 PM by Diff

[Rainbow Fresh]

14 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I'll flip the idea on its head and suggest just giving server owners the option of using a [...] tag for their servers, and let users filter out tags they aren't interested in.

Server tags would also be a very nice approach to this. We already have the official server browser thingie so it could be nicely integrated into that. I agree.