Discrinimation by an value/opinion > VioIet

[Master Fenrir]

Even though Violet's actions are the very definition of prejudice, I wanted to know more. What did she find offensive? Underboob? Asian underboob? Hip swaying? Did she assume the Asian girl was listening to offensive music? So I went to the tourney thread to see if she posted justification.

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 yet MNDuke was allowed into the tournament despite his avatar featuring a young lad in a suggestive position with a blow-up doll. It took me 20 minutes to turn off my bullshit-detector after witnessing the prejudice/hypocrite combo.

[pascalleke]

Even though Violet's actions are the very definition of prejudice, I wanted to know more. What did she find offensive? Underboob? Asian underboob? Hip swaying? Did she assume the Asian girl was listening to offensive music? So I went to the tourney thread to see if she posted justification.

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 yet MNDuke was allowed into the tournament despite his avatar featuring a young lad in a suggestive position with a blow-up doll. It took me 20 minutes to turn off my bullshit-detector after witnessing the prejudice/hypocrite combo.

omg ...sometimes its too obvious

[Robinette]

....I have always thought that Pascalleke's avatar was of poor choice (Greenoaks, General Stoneham and others fall into the same category) - They have a distinct aura of disrespect and objectification that only serves to undermine attempts of gender parity and equality. To try to call 'discrimination' because you were left out of a tournament because of your avatar is ridiculous - I appluad Violet on her stance.

Personally, as a bird lover, I find your avatar deeply offensive.

well... at least it's not a naked bird...
I think all birds should be respected,,, especially Robin's


bytheway, nice post radiojake

[natty dread]

We all live in a culture where women's bodies are commodified - Billboards and advertising splash semi-naked women to sell things from deoderant to men's shoes. The fact is, Pascalleke, your avatar depicts a woman with the fly of her jeans undone and exposing half of her breasts. CC guidelines are hypocritical and the NSFW thread is a living, breathing example. (FOR GOD'S SAKE, NO NIPPLES!! NO NIPPLES!! --but everything else is fine).

There are a number of cultural factors in play - The feminiest movements of the 60's & 70's have been turned around in an ironic reversal. Somewhere along the line, women have been taught (or tricked into believing) that sexual promiscuity and skimpy dresses somehow equals emancipation.

I have always thought that Pascalleke's avatar was of poor choice (Greenoaks, General Stoneham and others fall into the same category) - They have a distinct aura of disrespect and objectification that only serves to undermine attempts of gender parity and equality. To try to call 'discrimination' because you were left out of a tournament because of your avatar is ridiculous - I appluad Violet on her stance.

Bull crap.

The human body is beautiful. Even more so without clothes. Every human, male or female, should have the right to decide for themselves, what they consider "objectifying" or "degrading" and not have someone else impose their values on them. If someone feels good about his/her body and feels comfortable sharing the joy with others, then by all means they should do it.

Point being: sex is fun. Nude bodies look nice. Some people get hung up about them, probably something to do with their uprising. That's ok, but these people shouldn't be allowed to spoil the fun from all the others, you know, those who are comfortable with their bodies and human sexuality.

FYI - masturbation is also fun and doesn't make your blind.

[nagerous]

....I have always thought that Pascalleke's avatar was of poor choice (Greenoaks, General Stoneham and others fall into the same category) - They have a distinct aura of disrespect and objectification that only serves to undermine attempts of gender parity and equality. To try to call 'discrimination' because you were left out of a tournament because of your avatar is ridiculous - I appluad Violet on her stance.

Personally, as a bird lover, I find your avatar deeply offensive.

well... at least it's not a naked bird...
I think all birds should be respected,,, especially Robin's


bytheway, nice post radiojake

Your avatar is suggestive and offensive to me. Just kidding, see this is the point Master Fenrir was making - at where do you draw the exact line.

Could someone clarify what criteria TOs can use to exclude people from their tournaments? I thought that TOs could exclude people for any reason they liked, but apparently not...

are you kidding? you truly think that an avatar is a reason for a TO to exclude someone from a tournament? if the avatar is not deemed to be offensive by Team CC, then what is the issue? the TO is not a mod and should not force her own beliefs/standards onto others in order for them to join a tournament... your statement/question is just as ridiculous as what VioIet did... maybe you two can meet at her house and print out all the forum posts you don't like and burn them... toss a few books on there that you don't like too just for good measure... *rolling my eyes at this absurd situation*... the black jesus is truly disgusted...-the black jesus

Nope, I don't think that an avatar is a reason for a TO to exclude someone from a tournament, and I wouldn't do that. I do think, though, that the TO is the one that put time and effort into making the tournament enjoyable for the players, and, if they want to exclude someone for having the wrong hair color, that's their privilege. There's a difference between personally thinking that I shouldn't do something, and thinking that there should be rules against it. And, yeah, your situation is pretty absurd, I'm not sure how you connected it to this.

Anyway, my question still stands. Like greenoaks pointed out, some TOs don't let foed players into their tournaments. If Violet had just foed pascalleke, then would she have to let him into the tourney? Or are the other TOs who don't accept foed players also breaking the rules?

Your argument is deeply flawed, why should a TO be allowed to have the privilige to exclude someone as the case in your example because of hair colour. That is definitely not a privilige, it is the lowest form of discrimination - next you'll be suggesting that they should have the right to exclude people from their tournaments because of skin colour. At the end of the day, a player's username or avatar is not going to affect your tournament in any way, the only factors that should be allowed are those that actually affect the tournament game, say if they have a poor rating or if it is a tournament for high ranks only. Are you truely suggesting that if I made a tournament and stated that I did not want anyone with ginger hair to join that this is right? That is completely wrong.

[trapyoung]

Don't discrinimate. Some people are just aminated charectars and you shuold just raelize that's how the Entirnets are.

[Rodion]

Could someone clarify what criteria TOs can use to exclude people from their tournaments? I thought that TOs could exclude people for any reason they liked, but apparently not...

I don't want to get into this specific case, but I'm also curious about the criteria.

The one thing I know fore sure is you can make tournaments that exclude lower ranks below a specific number that the TO decides, but which can't be over 2000. This is in the tournament guidebook.

I've also seem many tournaments asking for a rating minimum (4.5, 4.8, 4.9...), an attendance minimum (98%+, 99%+).
I've also seem TOs that reserved themselves the right to deny entry to FOED people or to people that have previously deadbeated in any of the TO's former tournaments. These are not in the guidebook, but as tournaments with such rules are constantly approved by team CC, I think those criteria are considered acceptable.

I've also seem tournaments stating that players:
a) must have never played a certain map before
b) couldn't have won more than 1 tournament before
c) couldn't have played more than 500/1000/1500 games
Although those are not constant, I've seen enough of them approved to think this "newbie clauses" are also valid.

Anyway, the system is not clear as to the extent of those restraints, but could I say restrictions are fine as long as they are general/abstract?

[natty dread]

Gameplay related restraints, based purely on your CC merits, should be ok.

Discrimination based on the actual person behind the nickname, ie. race, gender, age, opinions, etc. are not ok.

[Lindax]

----
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

[alster]

[*]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.

Really? I mean seriously, I don't see any reason for why a TO should deny entry just because a player is on his foe list. A tourney is a public event, don't think entry should be denied on that basis (unless the TO reasonably can say that he/she would expect issues running the tourney due to the player in question).

[Lindax]

[*]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.

Really? I mean seriously, I don't see any reason for why a TO should deny entry just because a player is on his foe list. A tourney is a public event, don't think entry should be denied on that basis (unless the TO reasonably can say that he/she would expect issues running the tourney due to the player in question).

Isn't that more or less what I wrote? Or at least implied?

Once more:

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.

Lx

[nagerous]

[*]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.

Really? I mean seriously, I don't see any reason for why a TO should deny entry just because a player is on his foe list. A tourney is a public event, don't think entry should be denied on that basis (unless the TO reasonably can say that he/she would expect issues running the tourney due to the player in question).

Isn't that more or less what I wrote? Or at least implied?

Once more:

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.

Lx

I think alstergren is questioning whether you've fallen out big time with another user on this site but you know the player on the most part to be an honourable player and he hasn't tried to sign up to the tournament to mess with it do you still have the right to not let him join?

[Lindax]

[*]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.

Really? I mean seriously, I don't see any reason for why a TO should deny entry just because a player is on his foe list. A tourney is a public event, don't think entry should be denied on that basis (unless the TO reasonably can say that he/she would expect issues running the tourney due to the player in question).

Isn't that more or less what I wrote? Or at least implied?

Once more:

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.

Lx

I think alstergren is questioning whether you've fallen out big time with another user on this site but you know the player on the most part to be an honourable player and he hasn't tried to sign up to the tournament to mess with it do you still have the right to not let him join?

This is exactly the general type of "what if" question that I'm not going to answer here and now. There is obviously no way that we can know why players are on somebody's foe list without looking into it.

If and when that happens and there a possible case of abuse or the "honorable player" complains, we will look at it.

Lx

[radiojake]

We all live in a culture where women's bodies are commodified - Billboards and advertising splash semi-naked women to sell things from deoderant to men's shoes. The fact is, Pascalleke, your avatar depicts a woman with the fly of her jeans undone and exposing half of her breasts. CC guidelines are hypocritical and the NSFW thread is a living, breathing example. (FOR GOD'S SAKE, NO NIPPLES!! NO NIPPLES!! --but everything else is fine).

There are a number of cultural factors in play - The feminiest movements of the 60's & 70's have been turned around in an ironic reversal. Somewhere along the line, women have been taught (or tricked into believing) that sexual promiscuity and skimpy dresses somehow equals emancipation.

I have always thought that Pascalleke's avatar was of poor choice (Greenoaks, General Stoneham and others fall into the same category) - They have a distinct aura of disrespect and objectification that only serves to undermine attempts of gender parity and equality. To try to call 'discrimination' because you were left out of a tournament because of your avatar is ridiculous - I appluad Violet on her stance.

Bull crap.

The human body is beautiful. Even more so without clothes. Every human, male or female, should have the right to decide for themselves, what they consider "objectifying" or "degrading" and not have someone else impose their values on them. If someone feels good about his/her body and feels comfortable sharing the joy with others, then by all means they should do it.

Point being: sex is fun. Nude bodies look nice. Some people get hung up about them, probably something to do with their uprising. That's ok, but these people shouldn't be allowed to spoil the fun from all the others, you know, those who are comfortable with their bodies and human sexuality.

FYI - masturbation is also fun and doesn't make your blind.

There is a difference between admiring the beauty that is the human body, and commodifying sexuality - I think the line has become very vague and people do not seem to know the difference anymore.

By the way, I am not a prude, and am well aware of the benefits of masturbation

[Blinkadyblink]

Are you truely suggesting that if I made a tournament and stated that I did not want anyone with ginger hair to join that this is right? That is completely wrong.

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that I think it should be permissible – there is a huge difference between the two. My opinion of you would definitely fall if you did that, but if you're not actively harming someone's experience on the site, I don't see why you should be forced to actively improve it. The way I see it, the player you excluded would be just as well off as if you never posted the tournament in the first place, so why should you be forced to make them better off?

Also, thanks to Lindax for answering my question.

[Skoffin]

OMG BOOBIES

What is this i don't even?

[nagerous]

Are you truely suggesting that if I made a tournament and stated that I did not want anyone with ginger hair to join that this is right? That is completely wrong.

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that I think it should be permissible – there is a huge difference between the two. My opinion of you would definitely fall if you did that, but if you're not actively harming someone's experience on the site, I don't see why you should be forced to actively improve it. The way I see it, the player you excluded would be just as well off as if you never posted the tournament in the first place, so why should you be forced to make them better off?

Also, thanks to Lindax for answering my question.

That is your justification for discrimination? Of course their experience would be harmed as they are feeling left out of something because of a personal characteristic or trait. Your logic astounds me. CC should not promote discrimination in any means and that is why Lindax and the Tournament Director's ruling on this is correct.

[Blinkadyblink]

I'm not trying to justify discrimination and I agree that CC should not promote it. What I am saying is that if you want to put the effort into running a tournament, you should be able to run it as arbitrarily and unjustly as you want (as long as you clearly lay out the rules ahead of time – no bait-and-switch.) If people don't like that, they can ignore the tournament and foe the TO or start a retaliatory tournament that only allows people with semi-naked girls in their avatars.

[mpjh]

Well, at least violet did not "shrink" from standing up for her principles.

[Victor Sullivan]

My thoughts:

To VioIet - Vio, I love ya hon, but you can't be discriminating based off of someone's avatar. Though I myself am not a fan of it either, it doesn't violate the rules and it is therefore legal for him to use it and illegal for you to exclude him.

To natty - I understand where you're coming from, but I assert the standard that it is inappropriate to abuse the the image of the nude human form, especially in public areas. And I am also aware of the deficits of masturbation, which I get the vibe that you don't. I think it's time ol' Sully had "the talk" with natty... (Trust me, I'll do a much better job than saxi did with The Bison King)

-Sully

[nietzsche]

I like Violet and I think her name should be taken off the title.

[owenshooter]

I like Violet and I think her name should be taken off the title.

why? she is the principal party involved that attempted to keep a member out for an avatar that team CC deemed non-offensive long ago...
i understand she is pm'ing her friends to try and end the thread and to stick up for her in the thread, but she did what she did and the community
is discussing it...-the black jesus

[Robinette]

I don't know violet, but after reading all this, i am inclined to want to defend her also...


in a nutshell... some of you need to learn to be a little more tolerant of people who think differently than yourself...

[Rodion]

I like Violet and I think her name should be taken off the title.

why? she is the principal party involved that attempted to keep a member out for an avatar that team CC deemed non-offensive long ago...
i understand she is pm'ing her friends to try and end the thread and to stick up for her in the thread, but she did what she did and the community
is discussing it...-the black jesus

From the moment this was moved from C&A to General Discussions, I think that conversation could have been turned into something abstract ("when can a TO deny entry?") as opposed to concrete ("what do you think of VioIet for denying entry?"). That would be enough reason, imo, to remove her name from the title.

[Foxglove]

What I am saying is that if you want to put the effort into running a tournament, you should be able to run it as arbitrarily and unjustly as you want

This is true if a person wants to run a completely private tournament.

It's not true at all if a person wants to run a tournament in the general CC framework, request privileges from TDs (game creation), and expect to reward the winners of their tournament with CC medals.