Don't forget, in the publish settings you can set alternate source paths for as files, so the files you want to use shouldn't be limited to the same folder as the FLA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_ga me

adobe.com

This should have everything you need.

http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cdet land.to?poid=446063

Though if you're working on a laptop, I recommend using an old monitor to dual screen.

:-)

I believe my point still stands.

Your initial question was about painting a nude picture of a child. The paragraph you're citing is about the legality of simulated intercourse with a child.

Two very different things.

It's probably wise to stop looking for loopholes for subject matter like this.

At 7/1/09 06:53 AM, Tome89 wrote: mongoid, you might want to consider what element of child pornography that is harmful.

... And stop appealing to the law in your arguments.

Oh man, this is just getting sadder and sadder.

At 7/1/09 06:32 AM, HeartOfNG wrote: If I remember correctly, if it's drawn, it's only considered child pornography if, and only if it depicts an actual child.

If you did a nudist portrait of an existing, real life, non-fictional child, it is child pornography.

I have no idea if someone already brought this up, but it's still a valid point.

The law states that drawing children in the nude is just fine as long as it isn't obscene, or can be construed as pornographic. Read this for more info.

At 7/1/09 06:11 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 7/1/09 06:04 AM, mongoid wrote:

So then simulated child pornography makes it all better? That's like saying "I like to watch kids having sex... as long as someone draws it."

You end up looking like a pedophile in either case.

I'm not a pedophile thank you, and I do enjoy lolicon/shotacon. I have no sexual attraction to kids and I know I never will. The idea disgusts me and I'm very insulted that you ASSUME they are one and the same, because they really aren't.

LOL! Dude... when you admit to enjoying lolicon and shotacon, it's hard to think otherwise. If your parents or your girlfriend walk in on you fapping to that crap, what do you say?

"Don't worry... they're not real kids."

Hahah, I would actually pay to see the look their face. You could probably heartheir respect for you shattering to pieces.

At 7/1/09 05:45 AM, Gagsy wrote: Child pornography is... REAL children.

The closest you could call his flash is lolicon. Besides it's a parody, sure it contains sex, but it's not really meant to be taken seriously.

IT'S NOT CP.

So then simulated child pornography makes it all better? That's like saying "I like to watch kids having sex... as long as someone draws it."

You end up looking like a pedophile in either case.

Here's the way I look at it:

Is the character having sexual intercourse? -Yes

Then it is porn.

Is the character under the legal age of consent in the US? -Yes

Then they are a child.

Zone Sama is making child pornography, and it has no place on Newgrounds. Especially when the latest polls suggest that something like 80% of the people who frequent this site are under 18.

Go ahead and tell me that "cartoons aren't real" and "no actual child is being abused." It proves that you're eager to hide behind a loophole in the US penal code to do what would normally get someone dragged into the street and beaten.

In Zone Sama's latest movie, there's a young girl getting forced against a wall and raped. There is no definition of artistic expression or parody for this to hide behind. This crap was made for one purpose alone, and it's simply wrong. If you disagree, take a few screen caps and post them outside your front door or send links to zone sama's work to your friends and neighbors. See how long it takes until you get an angry mob at your door looking for answers.

I urge you to keep defending your counterpoints. It's been fucking hilarious so far.

You are absolutely right. In the United States, as demonstrated in the cases of Dwight Whorley (2005) and Christopher Handley (2009, not yet sentenced), even illustrated child porn is illegal. I have unsuccessfully flagged similar submissions in the past.

Best response yet. Thanks, HibiscusKazeneko .

Rule 34?

So simply the fact that someone out on the internet has drawn someone having sex with someone else makes animated child porn acceptable?

I think not.

At 7/1/09 01:31 AM, CryogenChaos wrote: Zone's always had a thing for the girlies. I remember he had this one that he didn't submit to Newgrounds but had on his site for a little while that was about the sisters from Johnny Test being raped by mechanical tentacles.

That one was interesting.

Man, you simply don't get the point here, do you.

At 7/1/09 01:17 AM, Novatrigger777 wrote: ^ Common sense for the win. Also It's a Cartoon, not a picture. Hence legal.

I think the whole point of me starting this discussion is the fact that the characters are clearly children, and they're having sex. In some cases, they're being raped.

If I rotoscoped a video of real child porn and submitted it to Newgrounds , would THAT be legal?

At 7/1/09 01:10 AM, Elios wrote: All of the Teen Titans are +18

hence, legal.

I pulled this off of the wiki page for the series:
" A major difference between the animated series and the comic book is that while the comic portrayed the characters as being in their late teens to early 20s (resulting in the comic series at one point even dropping the word Teen from its title to reflect its older characters), the animated series characters are all depicted as being in their actual teen years 13-14 (Beast Boy), 15-16 (Robin, Raven, and Starfire), 17-19 (Cyborg)."

I just noticed Jinx Hentai Parody by ZONE-SAMA on the front page? How is this not considered child pornography. In fact, ANY of the Teen Titan hentais that Zone-Sama has made could be considered as such. Why are they allowed on Newgrounds?

I know NG's rules of flash submisison state that the images can't be photographs of child porn, but come on... this is just stupid.

At 5/19/09 02:00 PM, smulse wrote:

No. Uhh, I really can't be arsed explaining any more.

I concede Smulse. It took me this long to figured out that I'm comparing apples and oranges.

Perhaps a lesson on the British education system is in order.

Oh... wow. I never knew that.

Well now I feel like a total jack ass.

So you completed half of an associates degree and dropped out?

You're right. Your opinion isn't moot, but I hardly consider it valid. 10 months of college barely teaches you a thing. I have a feeling that you think going to college is comparable to teaching yourself design because you never made it to the parts that matters.

At 5/18/09 06:42 PM, Jessii wrote:

At 5/18/09 06:22 PM, mongoid wrote: Wait... wtf... smulse, you're 18. You haven't even gone through college yet. Your opinion on whether college is effective is now officially moot.

He went for a while and dropped out. Brits go to college sooner than those of us in the States.

I completed one year (of two) before I left. Two of the subjects I studied there were Art and Graphic Design; so my opinion is completely valid, thanks.

But I still disagree that it teaches you to be creative. Yeah you're told to explore different mediums, but it's nothing that you couldn't go to an art and craft shop and buy yourself anyway.

Wait... wtf... smulse, you're 18. You haven't even gone through college yet. Your opinion on whether college is effective is now officially moot.

You can't teach creativity. You can't teach someone to have good ideas, can you? You can show people how to use software, and how to present the ideas that they do have well. But I couldn't disagree more with that statement! Creativity isn't relational to your education in any way.

See, I disagree. We're all very creative people in our own ways, but knowing HOW to funnel that creativity into your work is very much something that can be taught. Gaining experience or a skill allows you to attempt to cross into new realms of expression.

Take for instance a personal example: Anyone can buy a sketchbook and draw people. It will take a while to study the human form from books, tv, and magazine, but you'll eventually get it. Unfortunately, you'll probably end up like most of those who start out on their own and adhere to a particular style (like... ** shudder **... anime). You'll only know how to draw skinny females and men with effeminate hair styles. Unless you make it a point to try something new, it becomes hard to break out.

Schooling snaps you out of that rut. You're literally forced to draw in different styles. You're forced (yeah right) to sit in front of naked women and draw their anatomy from hundreds of different angles and cast in a variety of lighting. The influence on your how well I could draw the human from was visibly apparent after a few months.

When I felt more comfortable at drawing the human form, I began to experiment. It opened up a whole new adventure in expression. I'd truly learned to be more creative.

That's a bit long-winded... but I think you get the point.

Ah, I see.

In that regard, I'd agree that you don't need to go to school to become a designer. But it really helps. Seriously. My friend and I actually use the term "DUH-signers" because of the ridiculous stupidity that some of them exude.

There are certain things that you pick up from professionals that make a huge impact on your work. These can include typography, color coordination, composition, user friendliness, and simple standards of the trade. If all of us could become ground-breaking designers from just picking up an O-Reily book and a Lynda.com account, then there would be no use for college. But, after working in the industry for a while, you can usually sniff out when someone is reaching a ceiling in their creativity that your typical college graduate would break through without effort.

On another note, college is incredibly useful in developing relationships with people who you may work with (or work for) in the future.

At 5/17/09 04:19 PM, diuqscirtic wrote:

At 5/17/09 04:12 PM, mongoid wrote:

That's not the point anyone here has put forward. The point is; why take further education when you don't need it? Okay, if you want to be a doctor you need some sort of medical qualification, this will teach you how to be a doctor, a scientist will need some sort of degree because it teaches you what you need to know, but someone who wants to do web design doesn't need a degree because it can be all self taught.

Everyone I know who didn't graduate high school has a laundry list of missed potential. They say they're happy with how successful they've become, but in truth they've merely settled for an outcome far emptier than if they stayed in school. Some are lucky enough to have some sort of artistic talent, but to be honest, their style is derivative and lacking in the fundamental traits of someone who learned from someone other than themselves.

Dropping out of college is a bit of the same crap. I can attest for it, since I dropped out in 1999 to pursue a career in Web Design. Big mistake. If I knew then what I do now, I would have realized that I was a cocky, impatient idiot who didn't have the experience to realize that he'd only scratched the tip of the iceberg. I've stood behind certain principles in the past that now, after returning to college, I now feel incredibly embarrassed about. If I'd only asked myself what I really wanted in life before applying to all of those colleges, I may have actually stayed in and got a degree. Who knows where I'd be, but I sure as wouldn't breaching 30 years old with only a highschool diploma to show for it.

You can be the most creative person in the world, but you'll never be a doctor, engineer or a scientist without a college degree. And you sure as hell won't make it through college without a high school diploma.

At 5/17/09 12:05 AM, DFox wrote:

At 5/16/09 11:13 PM, DanielZ wrote: Speaking of high-school dropouts, look at smulse. Didn't he drop out? Last time I checked, he's doing pretty well. However, I'm not planning on failing out of high school. My grades so far have been pretty good, with mostly B's and a few A's. I'm running a B+ average, with an 1890 on the SAT.

So what's the issue here? You're doing fine in high school and with that SAT score you can get into a ton of good colleges...

But I'm sorry, it's 2009 and pretty much everyone graduates from high school. Even people who have ZERO need for most of high school graduate from high school. I mean highly skilled baseball players who are going to make millions of dollars anyway, they all graduate from high school.

We didn't create new problems. The text and variables you're modifying are either non-existent or out of scope of your code.

At 5/15/09 11:43 PM, JollySpace wrote:

At 5/15/09 11:38 PM, The-titan wrote: remove the ';' at the end of the statements so it would go like

} else if (multSym == true ){

That caused more errors...

A stick animation?

If you think by completing a simple stick walk and jump loop that you've graduated into the upper echelons of animation notoriety then you have a deep misunderstanding of how this all works.

At 5/16/09 12:14 AM, Kwing wrote: Not long things, mind you, but I can animate walking animation loops and jumps now... Why? I have no freaking idea. I haven't animated in months, and now when I get a sudden inspiration to do something, I have renown patience and I can animate about five times better than I used to be. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure the animation is still amateur, but I've progressed so far, by... Not doing anything. How can I possibly have gotten better if I've just been programming and stuff?

Example

(Platform script is FeindishDemon's, I will create my own script later, as for now I'm just using FD's to showcase the animation.)

At 5/14/09 04:07 PM, 25272D wrote:

At 5/14/09 04:01 PM, mongoid wrote: I really like the idea of a small panel of accomplished artists and NG employees to decide the relevance of a submission's quality.

It's impossible to judge fairly like that. The point of a game is to appeal to the populous, even if 5 of the panel members enjoy it, every single member of the public could hate it. Only part of a game is the programming and design, playability and general enjoyment is also a major part and 5 top end people can't decide that, can they?

If everyone is on the same scoring system, it's the safest bet.

I disagree. The current system is easily "hacked", based on a legion of fanboys that vote 5 on anything their beloved artist/programmer makes, and vote 0 on everyone else. It's also influenced by 6 year olds who think that anything with a mario sprite is the best game they've ever played. Popularity, especially that which is derived from a user base of somewhat anonymous voters, often has little to do with the quality of a game. It moves into an agenda-based form of ranking that is demoralizing and unfair to those who put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into their work.

If I was given a high rank from a committee of accomplished developers, I would take that much more seriously than a flood of up-votes from juvenile and sophomoric n00bs.

You had me interested until I saw "games will be ranked by score and the best games will get the most publicity."

Sorry, but Newgrounds.com's scoring system is flawed, and too susceptible to influence from fanboys, griefers, and inexperienced or impatient gamers. One only needs to see Ed McMillen's latest rant to get a good laugh at how ridiculous it all is. http://bluebaby.newgrounds.com/news/post /311089

I really like the idea of a small panel of accomplished artists and NG employees to decide the relevance of a submission's quality.

If you really want to be an animator, the last thing you want to do is make a sprite film. Start right off the bat with your own work.

At 5/9/09 03:46 AM, SoullessWanderer wrote: My first couple of animations I would like to be sprite movies so I can get the basics of flash first, before I move on, so I guess an image editing program would be nice. ;

Hey dude, hope this helps.

http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.p hp?p=1876826

Thanks for the critiques guys.

:-)