Discrinimation by an value/opinion > VioIet

[Woodruff]

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.

Please let's get our volunteer moderator trolls under control and we won't have to worry about it.

[Lindax]

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.

Apologies accepted. Thank you Bart.

Let's get back to business with mutual respect.

Lx

[mpjh]

Still no url from whence the dancing woman came.

[Foxglove]

Still no url from whence the dancing woman came.

I did pose the question elsewhere, to try and get an answer that wouldn't be lost in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=132802

[pascalleke]

Still no url from whence the dancing woman came.

I did pose the question elsewhere, to try and get an answer that wouldn't be lost in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=132802

if i do give it ....can u then please admit that ur just trying to defend ur own reality? that my avatar came from a site were u like to surf urself?? i rather surf at the beach .....


http://www.coolavatars.org/welcome-to-c ... kadena24tt here i got it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reon_Kadena and this is the woman on it ....u see no porn actrice ....so if u can admit ur wrong u would surprise me

[Optimus Prime]

I may be a little late to this discussion, and no, I haven't read every single reply to this thread (although I may do so later this evening if I have the time), but I feel compelled to add my thoughts.

The decision that a tournament organizer is not allowed to refuse entry into their tournament based on being offended by an avatar is wrong. That is the easiest way to put it. Why do I say this? Because if lackattack can force users to change their avatars because he is personally offended by them (reason for offense is of no matter, let's make that clear), and threaten them with suspended use of the forums, then if a tournament organizer is truly offended, they have the right to refuse entry into their tournament.

You cannot maintain a double-standard, and yes, it is a double-standard.

Unless something has changed, and I damn well hope not, then tournament organizers have always been allowed to refuse entrance into their tournaments at any time at their own discretion. I certainly hope that this is merely an oversight by the Tournament Directors and the decision will be corrected as is appropriate.

And yes, I will start a rampage of horror if I find that tournament organizer rights are being trod upon in an unfair manner. I'm not joking.

[Ace Rimmer]

^^^ totally disagree with OP. Good ruling Lx.

[Optimus Prime]

^^^ totally disagree with OP. Good ruling Lx.

Go right ahead and disagree, I don't care.

However, I would like to point out that I have and will continue to refuse entrance to Blitzaholic into my tournaments based entirely on my dislike of him as a person. When it went down months and months ago regarding that issue, I was allowed to do so, and am still allowed to do so. This is no different.

It's that simple. Bad ruling all around.

[Gypsys Kiss]

I may be a little late to this discussion, and no, I haven't read every single reply to this thread (although I may do so later this evening if I have the time), but I feel compelled to add my thoughts.

The decision that a tournament organizer is not allowed to refuse entry into their tournament based on being offended by an avatar is wrong. That is the easiest way to put it. Why do I say this? Because if lackattack can force users to change their avatars because he is personally offended by them (reason for offense is of no matter, let's make that clear), and threaten them with suspended use of the forums, then if a tournament organizer is truly offended, they have the right to refuse entry into their tournament.

You cannot maintain a double-standard, and yes, it is a double-standard.

Unless something has changed, and I damn well hope not, then tournament organizers have always been allowed to refuse entrance into their tournaments at any time at their own discretion. I certainly hope that this is merely an oversight by the Tournament Directors and the decision will be corrected as is appropriate.

And yes, I will start a rampage of horror if I find that tournament organizer rights are being trod upon in an unfair manner. I'm not joking.

Yes, but what is good for the site is good for everybody.

You mention double standards. If someone has me on their foe list, in a tournament they have to play me, as foe lists are ignored. Yet you are saying a TO has the right to ignore the ignored. Isnt that a double standard?

[barterer2002]

Gypsy there is a difference.

When you join a tournament you are agreeing to play the other players who have also joined. There have been issues in the past with foe lists in tournaments and so the rules changed to ignore foe lists for tournaments was put in place simply to make things easier. Nobody is required to join a tournament at all and as such they don't have to play people on their foe lists.

You might say that nobody needs to run a tournament either and while that is true it is also true that those of us who elect to run a tournament do so with the responsibility to run a smooth tournament. To run one that is enjoyable for all (or at least as many) participants as possible. To this end, TOs have always been allowed to disallow people into their tournaments for whatever reason they deemed necessary. There is a long history of TOs exercising this right although to my knowledge this has never been abused. Most TOs will allow all players in order of entry into their tournaments however that is by tradition and not rule.

[squishyg]

"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?

no, i'm saying that words and ideas evolve. after all, we don't tie yellow ribbons up around our towns to welcome home convicts.

[owenshooter]

looks like MPJH and Violet just got overly owned...

Still no url from whence the dancing woman came.

I did pose the question elsewhere, to try and get an answer that wouldn't be lost in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=132802

if i do give it ....can u then please admit that ur just trying to defend ur own reality? that my avatar came from a site were u like to surf urself?? i rather surf at the beach .....

http://www.coolavatars.org/welcome-to-cool-avatars/reonkadena24tt here i got it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reon_Kadena and this is the woman on it ....u see no porn actrice ....so if u can admit ur wrong u would surprise me

the avatar is not pornographic in nature, even within the context it was taken from. and again, it has held up to multiple challenges by team CC... i believe the TO guys came in and gave a very well reasoned explanation of how violet violated the rules and what the TO staff use as guidelines to decide these things. once again, mpjh has been proven 100 percent wrong, and again i doubt he will admit it...-the black jesus

[mpjh]

You doubt correctly, but I can't comment further. My silence is requested.

[Timminz]

Your silence has been requested for years. Why do you now care what everyone else wants?

[pascalleke]

You doubt correctly, but I can't comment further. My silence is requested.

u can only show to the world that u cant even admit u were wrong .... big surprise

[natty dread]

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.

qft. Well said.

[radiojake]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

[TheMessage]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

Could you maybe elaborate on that? I've read through the entire thread and you have yet to actually explain how the image is in any way misogynistic. It seems that you're banking on "Public display of female sexuality" to be somehow equivalent with "demonstrating hatred or distaste for females," which I'm sorry but that just sounds absolutely absurd. Surely you don't hold this opinion for all such incidents, so can you describe a situation where you could see a public display of female sexuality that isn't misogynistic? Then can you explain what the differences are between that example and this instance?

[Gypsys Kiss]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

Could you maybe elaborate on that? I've read through the entire thread and you have yet to actually explain how the image is in any way misogynistic. It seems that you're banking on "Public display of female sexuality" to be somehow equivalent with "demonstrating hatred or distaste for females," which I'm sorry but that just sounds absolutely absurd. Surely you don't hold this opinion for all such incidents, so can you describe a situation where you could see a public display of female sexuality that isn't misogynistic? Then can you explain what the differences are between that example and this instance?

No he cant, because he obviously doesn't know what misogyny means. I love women, I love the female form....how can that equate to hatred?

[BoganGod]

I may be a little late to this discussion, and no, I haven't read every single reply to this thread (although I may do so later this evening if I have the time), but I feel compelled to add my thoughts.

The decision that a tournament organizer is not allowed to refuse entry into their tournament based on being offended by an avatar is wrong. That is the easiest way to put it. Why do I say this? Because if lackattack can force users to change their avatars because he is personally offended by them (reason for offense is of no matter, let's make that clear), and threaten them with suspended use of the forums, then if a tournament organizer is truly offended, they have the right to refuse entry into their tournament.

You cannot maintain a double-standard, and yes, it is a double-standard.

Unless something has changed, and I damn well hope not, then tournament organizers have always been allowed to refuse entrance into their tournaments at any time at their own discretion. I certainly hope that this is merely an oversight by the Tournament Directors and the decision will be corrected as is appropriate.

And yes, I will start a rampage of horror if I find that tournament organizer rights are being trod upon in an unfair manner. I'm not joking.

Hear, hear!!! Well said mate. I have had the understand that tournament organizers are allowed to exclude/include players at their discretion. People that run a tournament are providing a service to the greater CC community, why make it less attractive to let people help the community? That said, if someone has stated a specific reason for excluding someone, rather than trotting out the discretion line, they should be consistent in backing up that reason they have stated. Also any reason other than TO's discretion should be subject to the "rules" ie in this case, if violet excluded due to offensive avatar, when avatar is allowed within the rules, then that was wrong.....

Have just read through 10pages of varying quality.... The individual nature/unique aspect, of different tournaments demand that criteria are set for joining, score, experience on a map etc. I'm sure everyone agrees on the previous sentence. I join tournaments based on maps, concept/rules, and who I will be playing against. I look at the game load, and often prefer to join tournaments that include freemium players, as I know I will not have a large game load for that tournament. There must be a balance between inclusiveness(giving everyone a go) and the greater good(cater to the majority of players by excluding those likely to slow things up/noob it up/cause offence). Striking the balance can be difficult. I believe the existing rules for hosting tournaments are working well. We must be aware that over policing, and too many rules lead to much less enjoyment for all.

On the offensive avatar, and objectification of woman theme...... If posting a moving picture of the human form(not showing nipples... ) is objectification of woman, so is the picture of a womans face, ankles etc. Same holds for objectification of men.... Draw the line at pornography, not what your grandmother would approve of. Cheers Bogan

[natty dread]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

I'm sorry, but actually you're the "misogynist" here.

You seem to be so intimidated by female sexuality that you have to impose your "moral restraints" on it. You take it as your job to "protect" the female gender, as if females aren't able to make their own decisions... In reality, women are perfectly capable of defining for themselves what they find degrading. If women who are comfortable with their bodies and their own sexuality are happy to be seen in nude photographs, drawings etc. then who the f*ck are you to tell them "you can't do that, it OBJECTIFIES you!"

Let me ask you, would you be as huffed if it was a sexy half-naked man dancing around in that picture? Would you be crying out "this picture objectifies men"? If not, then why the double standards? If yes, then you probably have even more issues than I thought, wink wink cough cough...

[pascalleke]

mmm why can we just accept that the one looks at a womans picture the one way and that another person looks at it the other way?? To the people wo think my avatar is offending and woman hate like (mysognistic...omg) ; am i the only one wo is noticing that u are just the persons wo look at the female bodies with a dislike manner??? so u blame us with something u do urself ....weird tough

Optimus prime : so u accuse lack attack of double standerds?? i would rather believe he is just the person to follow CC guidelines wo are made by a group , not as 1 person : would hope CC community is a lil bit of a democrazy instead of a dictator ship
And then u start to say u would raise hell bcs u dont like that even the tournie makers would not have to follow the same rules??Is that not the same principle to forge things up to others like that guy did in WWII bcs u think other wise??

[Woodruff]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

I don't believe our culture DOES accept misogyny. Perhaps Australia is different in that regard.

[greenoaks]

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.

qft. Well said.

I think this highlights our culture's acceptance of misogyny

I don't believe our culture DOES accept misogyny. Perhaps Australia is different in that regard.

no we don't

and we have lots topless bathing in Sydney and a few nude beaches

thankfully though radiojake is in the south where it is too cold and wet all year round to expose any part of the female body

[radiojake]

If women who are comfortable with their bodies and their own sexuality are happy to be seen in nude photographs, drawings etc. then who the f*ck are you to tell them "you can't do that, it OBJECTIFIES you!"

Please point out where I said "you can't do that..."

Ok - Some clarifications.
Not once have I said that Pascalleke should have to change his avatar -

Secondly, people have begun bringing up art and have implied that I am against nudity full-stop. There is nothing wrong with nudity, however I think it comes down to context and appropriateness. A 2 second .gif file depicting a girl bouncing from side to side with half her breasts exposed and pants undone has little or no context (other than to gawk at). It has been devoid of any meaning. How can it be art if it is meaningless?

Our culture accepts subversive misogyny because women (and in recent years, it is begun happening to men) are constantly told to HATE their bodies. Plastic surgery is a prime example - Anorexia is a symptom. Look at magazines and the unachieveable image that is present (unachievable because they are most often photoshoped images).

Images like Pascalleke's avatar will obviously always have a market - I have not said that people should never pose nude or appear in 'sexy' photographs - But all these images have their place - An avatar for a Risk-based online game where children have complete access feels like an innappropriate place to bring in this kind of image. Again, I'm not saying that he should have to change his avatar, but if Violet wanted to run a tournament without Pascalleke, then I think she should have been able to -