Discrinimation by an value/opinion > VioIet

[greenoaks]

what do you have against art ?

Get your hand off it. Your avatar is no more a piece of art than a Windsor Smith billboard advertisement.

Two girls wearing underwear embracing each other in a provacative pose? That is designed to get your dick hard and nothing else - That is not art. Especially not when the girls have been photoshopped to enhance the perception of a 'perfect body image', which only perpetuates a dangerous image for other women and young girls that they are inferior if they do not look similar.

my av is not a photo

it is a drawing, a piece of art

do you also hate nude/semi nude statues of women/men or just the pictures

[barterer2002]

i feel this may have been lost in the flurry of posts... Lindax weighed in, and it was enlightening...-the black jesus

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

[list][*]Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.

But Owen, this part is new. TOs in the past HAVE had the ability to exclude people for whatever reason and Lindax is making a broad change of CC policy here without having bothered to tell the TOs. To me that is somewhat problematic especially in the way this change has been handled by hiding it over in GD rather than in the tournament forums.

[Master Fenrir]

Wow, fun topic.

First off:

...or do u find it correct of a CC volunteer he just is trying to push my button by stating something wich is clearly not thrue?? maybee u can react on that also ???

All I'm noticing is a troll. A troll associated with the site's management. Fascinating item, that.

Please let's not do that thing where we use somebody's volunteer moderator status as ammunition against them just because it can be done.

pascalleke can tell you if he wants to reveal personal information about where he surfs

mpjh was not pushing buttons or trolling, he was trying to get pascalleke to admit that the source of the avatar was from pornographic material on a porn site in order to make a point about context. He chose to go about it with a somewhat-Socratic Method instead of saying "You look at pr0n!" which people would have then said was mpjh flaming or baiting. Whether you agree with mpjh's point about context or not, he chose one of the most mature ways to go about making it.

Side note: The first thing that popped into my head when I read that quote by mpjh was, "I didn't know that the Netherlands were known for their beaches..." Yeah, long day.

Basically, from what I can tell, Violet has correctly summarised that Pascalleke is a misogynist pig...

Dude, really? He's a misogynist pig because of that avatar? That's ignorant thinking. That's the exact same line of thinking that also results in statements like "Look at that short skirt and low cut top. She's a whore." I don't have the stomach to summon the book & cover cliche, but it should be considered before throwing around words like "misogynist."

I think many people in this thread seem to have completely mis-understood the context of Violet's boycott - I believe she was making a stance against the exploitative nature of the way our culture depicts women's bodies.

The commonly criticized American culture? But if you know that Pascalleke is from the Netherlands, then you must be referring to world culture. If you think that a nice small step for Violet to express her moral stance against world sexual culture was to exclude Pascalleke from playing a Feudal dubs tourney...then okay. You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it's silly. If you want to express moral outrage, I think energies are best spent with real-world applications, not by preventing a player from moving numbers around a map on his computer screen.

No one would have made a fuss if she had excluded someone with an avatar of a KKK member lynching someone (but hey, that is against the CC guidelines, so there is no problem). Just because CC (and our entire culture) has deemed misogyny acceptable, (see NSFW thread and/or any music clip on TV) doesn't make Violet's stance 'discriminatory'.

This one's important. For starters, no one would make a fuss because such an avatar is not allowed, as you said. The avatar you used in your example was a KKK member lynching somebody, a violent and graphic image. I guarantee you that if Pascalleke's avatar included a man punching that girl in the face, it would have been reported already and Pascalleke would have had to remove it. If Pascalleke had been sportin' that avatar, then I could see you calling him a misogynist.

Violet's stance is not discriminatory. However, as Owen keeps trying to point out, her actions were against clearly defined CC rules, of which she was clearly aware.

From her tourney thread:

Btw: Pascalleke's avatar is within the guidelines of CC. If you don't think so you can report it in the appropriate forum: Cheating & Abuse Reports

It really should not be a reason for you to refuse him in your tournament. You simply can't refuse players because you don't like their avatar, username, signature, etc.

Lx

Normally I would agree with you, but i think some things are just crossing the line. I feel the avatar is disrespectful to girls. And if an avatar like that is within the guidelines of CC, that is just quite sad.
I already reported it. I thought that would be the best thing to do before denying him entrance to the tourney. Was hoping the report would resolve the situation, but it did not.

It looks like she reported the avatar, was told the avatar was not a violation of CC rules regarding nudity and/or pornography (see below), but chose to exclude Pascalleke anyway.

show: Nudity and Pornography Specifics

Now, it seems like the next logical step of her moral stance would have been to ask Pascalleke to remove the avatar, if not just temporarily for the duration of the tourney, or to abandon the tourney entirely. While I respect her moral stance, I think she exercised poor judgment in the application and execution of it.

[Georgerx7di]

I remember reading about a study suggesting that staring at cleavage for 5 minutes a day could reduce the chance of heart disease in men. I'll come back and link it if I get really bored.

ps Pascaleke, I love your avatar, and it's healthy.

[The Bison King]

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

So you're saying that the Blow up doll doesn't Objectify Women as much as an actual Woman?

Bravo you're a genius!

[radiojake]

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

So you're saying that the Blow up doll doesn't Objectify Women as much as an actual Woman?

Bravo you're a genius!

it is an inanimate object - you make of it what you will....

[Incandenza]

I remember reading about a study suggesting that staring at cleavage for 5 minutes a day could reduce the chance of heart disease in men. I'll come back and link it if I get really bored.

I think that turned out to be a gag, tho of course when I first read it I brandished it (metaphorically) at my girlfriend.

Interesting thread, this. I feel bad for people that naturally assume that the young lady in the picture is being somehow degraded, I think that says more about the person's conflicted view of human sexuality than it does about actual misogyny in western culture.

As far as tourneys go, I come down squarely behind Lindax. Violet was 100% in the wrong, and given the laundry list of rules that a TO has to follow to create a sanctioned tourney, I don't think adding "you can't exclude people just because you don't like them" is too onerous a restriction. Pascal is not a serial deadbeater or a notorious troublemaker, thus there was no good reason for him to be excluded. I'd like to think that Puritanical beliefs about the female body could be mitigated in an online setting (besides, if violet is going to get bent out of shape every time she sees a half-naked female online, then I suspect that she hasn't been online very long).

The sad thing is that NO ONE SAID WHERE THE IMAGE CAME FROM AND WHERE I COULD PURCHASE OR POSSIBLY TORRENT A COPY OF SAID SOURCE MATERIAL FOR MY PERSONAL NEEDS. Please rectify this situation immediately.

[The Bison King]

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

So you're saying that the Blow up doll doesn't Objectify Women as much as an actual Woman?

Bravo you're a genius!

it is an inanimate object - you make of it what you will....

ok here's what I make of it:

It is literally the objectification of a woman.

[InsomniaRed]

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

So you're saying that the Blow up doll doesn't Objectify Women as much as an actual Woman?

Bravo you're a genius!

it is an inanimate object - you make of it what you will....

How ignorant

[Lindax]

i feel this may have been lost in the flurry of posts... Lindax weighed in, and it was enlightening...-the black jesus

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

[list][*]Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.

But Owen, this part is new. TOs in the past HAVE had the ability to exclude people for whatever reason and Lindax is making a broad change of CC policy here without having bothered to tell the TOs. To me that is somewhat problematic especially in the way this change has been handled by hiding it over in GD rather than in the tournament forums.

Dear Bart,

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a Tournament Organizer. Which makes this personal attack on me even harder to swallow. I know that as a member of TeamCC I'm supposed to show constraint etc., but I'm also a human being.

I had meant to answer your previous post with your specific questions earlier, however, as you can imagine this thread is stirring up quite a bit of shit, mostly not related to the actual issue. Not to mention the fact that I basically answered your questions already in my own previous post, which few people seem to have actually read or understood.

But Owen, this part is new. TOs in the past HAVE had the ability to exclude people for whatever reason and Lindax is making a broad change of CC policy here without having bothered to tell the TOs. To me that is somewhat problematic especially in the way this change has been handled by hiding it over in GD rather than in the tournament forums.

As long as I have been on CC, which is not as long as you, TOs could NOT exclude people from their tournament for whatever reason. Before I posted that I checked with my boss, Night Strike, who has been here a bit longer than I have, and he agreed with me.

Following that, I am not aware of making a broad change of CC policy "without having bothered to tell TOs". What have I ever done to you to be considered such a lowlife? I have always tried to be fair and balanced and I have always been the first to include TOs, ask TOs and respects the TOs opinions.

Hiding this in GD? For f*ck's sake! This started as a topic in Cheating and Abuse. Evil Semp decided it should be moved to GD. The moment I saw that I sent him a PM and asked him to move it to the Tournament General Info/Discussion area, which obviously never happened.

If this is the shit I get for trying to do my job and staying as objective as possible, than I thank you very much for this "back stab". I never expected something like this from you.

I understand that I'm implicating fellow members of TeamCC here to cover my own ass, and however regrettable, that's life. I'll even take it a step further: I have been communicating with Night Strike and Andy about this in the TD Forum, yet I feel like I'm left out in the cold to take your shit. Goes to show how much your post upset me. I'll take the consequences, and to be honest, after donating so much of my own free time into "making tournaments better for everybody" I don't think I'll be motivated to do so anymore.

Guess I just signed my own death warrant anyway....

Lx

[The Bison King]

Object's are made by men and used for many purposes, but we never love objects

[radiojake]

Ironically, I do not think Lindux has actually done anything wrong - He has only complied with the pre-existing guidelines.

Anyway - I've said my piece on this issue - Whether pascalleke joined the tournament or not did not concern me whatsoever, but I tried supporting Violet in a desicion that I thought was just - However, it has been deemed unjust, that is how it goes.

It has provoked an interesting discussion about the objectivication of women in our (western) culture - some people have seemed to understand where I was coming from - and clearly a lot of people have not. I will not respond futher because now people have resorted to replying to my posts with those inane smileys - Come back when you have something to say.

[greenoaks]

Ironically, I do not think Lindux has actually done anything wrong - He has only complied with the pre-existing guidelines.

Anyway - I've said my piece on this issue - Whether pascalleke joined the tournament or not did not concern me whatsoever, but I tried supporting Violet in a desicion that I thought was just - However, it has been deemed unjust, that is how it goes.

It has provoked an interesting discussion about the objectivication of women in our (western) culture - some people have seemed to understand where I was coming from - and clearly a lot of people have not. I will not respond futher because now people have resorted to replying to my posts with those inane smileys - Come back when you have something to say.

i had something to say, you ignored it

[Fircoal]

Whether or not the image that Pascal is wearing is wrong or not (I would nawt say that porn in of itself is wrong, however I will say that to wear it as your avatar is kinda... disturbing.) is not really the issue. I think the decision that was reached was incorrect, because TO's who dedicate their own time to tourneys should be able to throw out anyone that they wish to. It's like how Lack has the power to throw any of us out if he wants to. This has checks and balances in of itself, because if something like this happens and someone that shouldn't be thrown out is, then something like this will arise and the runners reputation will sink rightly or wrongly. There are risks to rejecting people, and I think that it should be for the TO's to decide whether they'll take it or not.

[Night Strike]

Let's be perfectly clear to everybody: Lindax's post was made simply because I did not have the time to write up an eloquent post on the issue. Everything he posted in his first post was supported by me, so if you have a beef with his post, direct it at me. He posted on my behalf only because he was originally notified of the issue and was handling the discussions with the player and organizer in question.

I have restarted this discussion in the tournament forum (since the GD mods didn't move it as requested), so you all can discuss your objectivity of women in this thread; the tournament discussion will move there where it's relevant. Don't expect any more comments from Directors in this thread, especially if you're wanting any official discussions.

[owenshooter]

Let's be perfectly clear to everybody: Lindax's post was made simply because I did not have the time to write up an eloquent post on the issue. Everything he posted in his first post was supported by me, so if you have a beef with his post, direct it at me. He posted on my behalf only because he was originally notified of the issue and was handling the discussions with the player and organizer in question.

I have restarted this discussion in the tournament forum (since the GD mods didn't move it as requested), so you all can discuss your objectivity of women in this thread; the tournament discussion will move there where it's relevant. Don't expect any more comments from Directors in this thread, especially if you're wanting any official discussions.

i personally think the Directors have handled themselves quite well within this thread. they have shown an ability to eloquently explain things and to answer as many queries as possible. they have shown a far better grasp of their place in the community than many of the mods that run the forums. actually, almost every mod that weighed in on this topic was very helpful in moving the discourse forward, excluding one (which is not at all a shock...). if this is the sort of moderation that goes on within the tournament forums, i think team CC should look at how this specific issue was handled and use it as a learning tool for many of the jr. mint mod squad that bound about the GD without any grasp of what it is they are to do or how they are to act. i applaud Nightstrike and his team, they have handled themselves very well here within this thread...-the black jesus

[wolfmaster]

this is my 2 cent,let hope this doesnt get me in trouble

1) there is nothing wrong with violet deny pascalleke the right to join or not, as the avatar of pascalleke offence violet
It violet tourney , thus it is violet rule. prior before pascallek post there is no fast rule but pascallek could contact a TD if he feel mistreat.
i give an example where the TO have the full right to do what he need on his tourney
refer to the below
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=25056
due to pascalleke avater, violet is not able to judge objective, thus what wrong with that.
there is not writen rule that she cannot do that, thus it would fail under TD to make it a writen rules
even it is a writen rule , she can also say she cant be objective due to the avatar. she could be stop at that and dont need to given any more further explaination even if TD to further the issue, she could just say she dont want to run the tourney anymore, cut her some slack it her first time to run a tourney

2) there is also nothing wrong with pascalleke avatar, i know who she is, but it do fail under within the guidelines of the CC
thus why there is a need for pacalleke to change it at all,it his avatar , it fall under his right as long as it dont break the rule , you should judge the avatar objective, it a lady dancing and singing and showing half of the boob,regards how pascalleke get the avatar it non of our concern , why do you think there is a need to push your own personnel opinion to Pascalleke , it his right , thus it is his perference

it is also his right to feel that he is been mistreated by a TOs and file a complaint, it have been done and TD have deed that it is unfit for violet to excluded him on the tourney

3) TD , There is a reason why they are TD, If any action deem unfit by them and if they need to change the rule of running tourney , it fail under their right to do so, thus respect their rule

4) this is a general discussion, it my opinion you dont like any thing i said, it fail under your right but dont come and found me, it is my right to ignore you

[mpjh]

I am sure this thread is giving violet a chuckle or two.

[owenshooter]

I am sure this thread is giving violet a chuckle or two.

if i were here, i'd be embarrassed... which i'm sure she is, since she hasn't bothered to weigh in on her decision making process which the TO staff has clearly stated violated their rules...-the black jesus

[owenshooter]

this is my 2 cent,let hope this doesnt get me in trouble

1) there is nothing wrong with violet deny pascalleke the right to join or not, as the avatar of pascalleke offence viole
It violet tourney , thus it is violet rule.
i give an example where the TO have the full right to do what he need on his tourney
refer to the below
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=25056
due to pascalleke avater, violet is not able to judge objective, thus what wrong with that.
there is not writen rule that she cannot do that, thus it would fail under TD to make it a writen rules
even it is a writen rule , she can also say she cant be objective due to the avatar. she could be stop at that and dont need to given any more further explaination even if TD to further the issue, she could just say she dont want to run the tourney anymore,

yeah... i think you missed this whole part of the discussion:

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

• Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.
  
• Let's just say that there has to be a valid reason. I realize that that can be subjective, but denying entry in a tournament to a player because the TO does not like the player's avatar, username, signature, etc., is not considered a valid reason.
  
• If a TO thinks an avatar (for example) does not follow the guidelines of Conquer Club he/she can report that through the proper channels.
  
• Using the foe list as a tool to deny players entry in your tournament is not acceptable. You cannot add a player to your foe list with the purpose of excluding that player from your tournament. In other words, there has to be another reason that the player is on your foe list.
  
• A TO can use prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament, as long as they are not overly exclusive. I'm talking about setting a point minimum or a minimum rating for example.
  
• If a TO posts in his tournament thread: "I reserve the right to deny entry to this tournament to any player", it doesn't mean that he/she can actually do that without a good reason.

If you think you were denied entry unfairly by a TO, or a TO has prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament that seem overly exclusive, feel free to file a complaint to the Tournament Department. As mentioned above, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this clears up things a little.

Lx

but thanks for weighing in for team violet...-the black jesus

[Timminz]

pascalleke can tell you if he wants to reveal personal information about where he surfs

The first thing that popped into my head when I read that quote by mpjh was, "I didn't know that the Netherlands were known for their beaches..." Yeah, long day.

Noordvijk Aan Zee, would probably be where he surfs. That's where all the best kite-surfers are from.

[JelleR]

I remember reading about a study suggesting that staring at cleavage for 5 minutes a day could reduce the chance of heart disease in men. I'll come back and link it if I get really bored.

I think that turned out to be a gag, tho of course when I first read it I brandished it (metaphorically) at my girlfriend.

Interesting thread, this. I feel bad for people that naturally assume that the young lady in the picture is being somehow degraded, I think that says more about the person's conflicted view of human sexuality than it does about actual misogyny in western culture.

As far as tourneys go, I come down squarely behind Lindax. Violet was 100% in the wrong, and given the laundry list of rules that a TO has to follow to create a sanctioned tourney, I don't think adding "you can't exclude people just because you don't like them" is too onerous a restriction. Pascal is not a serial deadbeater or a notorious troublemaker, thus there was no good reason for him to be excluded. I'd like to think that Puritanical beliefs about the female body could be mitigated in an online setting (besides, if violet is going to get bent out of shape every time she sees a half-naked female online, then I suspect that she hasn't been online very long).

The sad thing is that NO ONE SAID WHERE THE IMAGE CAME FROM AND WHERE I COULD PURCHASE OR POSSIBLY TORRENT A COPY OF SAID SOURCE MATERIAL FOR MY PERSONAL NEEDS. Please rectify this situation immediately.

I tried, but you said it way better. +1!

[barterer2002]

OK, I'm going to post this here since this is where the conversation originally started. I'm going to publicly apologize to Lindax for anything I've said that offended him as clearly some did. We disagree on the topic here but I have all the respect in the world for him as a person and as a TD.

[Woodruff]

what do you have against art ?

Get your hand off it. Your avatar is no more a piece of art than a Windsor Smith billboard advertisement.

Two girls wearing underwear embracing each other in a provacative pose? That is designed to get your dick hard and nothing else - That is not art. Especially not when the girls have been photoshopped to enhance the perception of a 'perfect body image', which only perpetuates a dangerous image for other women and young girls that they are inferior if they do not look similar.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp of what constitutes "art". Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't art.

[Woodruff]

But this is arbitrary now because CC have ruled it inoffensive, and therefore not a legitimate reason for exclusion. I do not see this changing at all while we are present within a culture that accepts misogyny.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means. Do you really mean to say that we are present within a culture that accepts the hatred of women?

"The term misogynist is frequently used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds a distasteful view about women as a group. Therefore, someone like Schopenhauer who proposes naturalistic reasons for various behaviors common to women is often regarded as a misogynist. As another, particularly striking example, man who is considered by many including himself to be "a great lover of women," is often regarded as being misogynist. Examples of this type of man would be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

In feminist theory, misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist's attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent him or her from having positive relationships with some women"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Feminist_theory

So basically what you're saying is...because a lot of folks are misusing a term, we should all abide by that misused definition of the term?

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

So you're saying that the Blow up doll doesn't Objectify Women as much as an actual Woman?

Bravo you're a genius!

it is an inanimate object - you make of it what you will....

ok here's what I make of it:

It is literally the objectification of a woman.

Bingo. Well done.