People hate censorship, because sometimes it kills the "fun" for others.

Personally, I enjoyed games like Manhunt, and I found it entertaining as a fictional experience. However, I am not so sure on games based on real life tragedy. Imagining those little kids had to experience the horror in screams and crying, then be shot among their friends and teachers. Nothing those kids could have done in their short lives makes them deserved to be killed like that. It's just pure sadness to me.

What it's the experience the game developer wants to give to players? Is it meant to be fun? Does it send out a clear and constructive message?

A rule has to be in black and white to create orders. However, Tom can be flexible on things in grey area, because he is the owner of Newgrounds, and it's his responsibility and reputation.

I'm 100% behind this decision. Having been a user here for more years than I care to count, I have seen some of the controversial stuff and have always agreed with your policy to allow it to exist here. This time was different though. I played the game, and whilst the art and graphics were good, the whole thing felt like an exploitation of this horrible tragedy. Newgrounds is a place where the craziest, weirdest stuff can get seen by the community, and I love that, but that game was a step in the wrong direction.

Nice one Tom.

Don't start folding every time some bleeding heart stops by and pretends to be a parent now.

Oh dear, I am a very old mother and my daughter lost her pet seal in a horrific clubbing accident.

Please take down those seal-clubbing games as they are how-tos for the violation of animal rights.

I understand that they are advocating for club-control but they are doing it in the very wrongest of ways.

Pfft, get the fuck out.

At 11/19/13 12:49 PM, Luis1109 wrote: Tom was a good guy, now everything is about money

What if everything was about money, but now I'm a good guy?

DUN DUN DUN

At 11/19/13 01:15 PM, TomFulp wrote:

At 11/19/13 12:49 PM, Luis1109 wrote: Tom was a good guy, now everything is about money

What if everything was about money, but now I'm a good guy?

DUN DUN DUN

OR... what if it was never about money and you've always been a good guy?

I'd like to throw in my two cents worth:

I've got a lot of respect for a anyone who can see when it's time to put the feelings of others before himself. This is such a massive moral grey area and this couldn't have been an easy decision to make. I think it would have been a lot easier to say "No" to the parents of Sandy Hook and whoever stood by them but it takes a lot of testicular fortitude to step back and put your own beliefs aside for the good of others. And it takes a lot of wisdom to see when it is best to stand up and when it is best to stand down. So I say kudos to Tom and whoever else was involved in the decision.

I haven't played the game but it sounds to me like an idea and opinion that would be better expressed through allegory, not literally recreating a tragedy. Especially one that, and I'm assuming this here, didn't directly affect the creator of the game. That's exploitation of other people's pain and suffering and I find that a very hard thing to defend.

Sometimes we don't know which barriers can be trespassed and which not...

At 11/19/13 01:09 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: Nobody who regularly Blams submissions is allowed to complain.

It's a site where users regularly vote to have submissions removed from the portal just because they don't like them

and yet when Tom makes a compassionate decision on behalf of mourning parents, removing a submission is suddenly a huge mistake?

Oh my god the hypocrisy. If you're going to whine about this, also mourn every submission you've decided to blam because you sure as hell didn't help those artists enjoy their creativity or freedoms either. Jesus.

This. (Thank you!)

Might I also ask the rest of Newgrounds -- how many submissions were blammed just because they were downright distasteful? How many, despite all the good production that went into it? How many blam points did you yourselves get?

I got some blam points myself -- we have all been responsible. There is a form of censorship whether we like it or not.

Now don't go acting like this is SOPA or PIPA all over again. SOPA was to stop Fair Use from simply being... well, Fair Use. That was far worse. And don't you DARE play the Pharisee when it comes to determining what levels of freedom you can have just to play that Sandy Hook game, because you can bet your bottom dollar that there are games about 9/11 and other natural disasters that have been blammed... by us.

If anyone wants to bring back the BASTARDS! collection, then by all means, ask Tom. Don't stab knives into his heart when he made the decision as a mark of respect.

Tom's "censorship" in this situation had nothing to do with being politically correct. Though, I see this being discussed as such. It had to do with real, living people. It had to do with their traumatic experiences. I can't understand anyone who would want to continue inflicting traumatic pain and emotional distress on someone simply to protect the "sanctity" of non-censorship. I can only hope this kind of attitude stems from poor understanding of the situation, and I'd encourage those that feel this way to give the situation a second look. Pleasure is not an adequate reason to inflict pain, no matter how it would benefit you.

At 11/19/13 01:18 PM, ReNaeNae wrote:

What if everything was about money, but now I'm a good guy?

DUN DUN DUN

OR... what if it was never about money and you've always been a good guy?

I'll take that as an answer as well.

At 11/19/13 01:15 PM, TomFulp wrote:

At 11/19/13 12:49 PM, Luis1109 wrote: Tom was a good guy, now everything is about money

What if everything was about money, but now I'm a good guy?

DUN DUN DUN

Ok you won on this.

But i still think that it is wrong to delete this "game"

PiperAnn, very well said.

At 11/19/13 11:26 AM, Asandir wrote:

At 11/19/13 10:56 AM, Rustygames wrote:

At 11/19/13 10:43 AM, spiritofdoom wrote: my support, you have it.
your site (kinda), your rules.
dont know the game, or the author
if it was removed for things you defended in the past, it must've gone past the limit of good taste and common decency

Then the site motto needs to be changed to "Everything by anyone we choose"

Nonsense. Flashes get blammed and flashes that break the rules (like being stolen, the flash in discussion is not rulebreaking in my opinion) get unpublished by portal mods. If anything, the slogan has been always wrong.

Looking back at the thread, I see that most are disappointed with the given moral card as reason for taking the flash off. It woul have been probably more honest to say straight up something like "I am sorry guys, but due to our past offensive content we have lost most advertisers so we have to play more nicely now, otherwise we go bankrupt and have to take the site off."

That's the situation. The moral point is valid and respectable but Newgrounds can literally not afford to lose advertisers over one offensive flash. It doesn't matter if you don't find it offensive. The advertisers show their products and are not happy to see their baby clothing next to a school shooting game. Yes, it sucks. But I want to see Newgrounds survive through those already financially pressing times.

I do however fully understand that Tom didn't say it like that. It doesn't sound good and it's just punching holes in the blanket of hope. Saying it outright would also give the advertisers a tool to put more pressure on Newgrounds to take more stuff that they find questionable off. In all honesty, the way he handled it was the most smart way in this delicate situation that is gathered with landmines left and right.

No, you're wrong. That's EXACTLY how he should have said it. Tom has only made the situation worse by trying to give everyone a "blanket of hope" that "sounds good". The community doesn't deserve to be patronized with platitudes about "choosing to respect the Sandy Hook parents", and if Tom would have just made it clear from the get go that he was forced to do something morally questionable for the the sake of the survival of the website then everyone would have been much more likely to take one for the team and let it go. Instead we have 17 pages of stupid arguments now. So, unless Tom was deliberately trying to create controversy, the way he handled it was not smart at all.

21 pages actually. Not sure why I said 17.

well Tom, as if you're reading here, I am pleased this is still a relevant topic of consideration for NG staff and that you're making considered decisions

At 11/19/13 01:48 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: tells me this site of full of selfish, inconsiderate babies who think Tom has to constantly cater to their appetite for edginess and controversy

go back to 2005 n00b, I was clubbing seals before it was cool

At 11/19/13 01:48 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: Theres nothing "morally questionable" about respecting the wishes of a mourning parent

the fact that users here think that "betraying their code" just by removing one flash is "morally questionable" versus causing emotional pain to parents who've had their children murdered in cold blood

tells me this site of full of selfish, inconsiderate babies who think Tom has to constantly cater to their appetite for edginess and controversy

Well that interpretation would be incorrect. To be perfectly honest I didn't care much for the game. I though the gun control message was pretty stupid. In the eagletears mode the teachers shoot you point blank and it doesn't even damage you. My favorite works on Newgrounds are animations like Lost in a Dream and games like Looming. The point is the actual content of the game is irrelevant. Someone's emotional reaction to a piece of art is obviously no justification for censoring it. Tom's decision made sense from a pragmatic standpoint, and like I said if he just wouldn't have sugarcoated his decision with condescending platitudes about "choosing to respect the Sandy Hook parents" then the community as a whole would have probably been more likely to just take one for the team and let it go.

I've said this over and over in this thread but it bears repeating again. Like Judge Judy says
"don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain"

I have to admit, while I can see why you did what you did, I do not agree with it. This site exists so that all creators can have a voice, regardless of the quality or value of their work, and that their work can be shared with a wide variety of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. At the same time, once it is decided that one thing is unacceptable, what is to stop something else from becoming 'unacceptable'? Numerous works on this site could be considered offensive by different groups, but they remain, as they have the right to. As soon as one thing becomes taboo anything can become taboo and the voices of many can be silenced.

At the same time content submitted to Newgrounds is voted on and the community decides whether it remains on this site or if it is removed. I believe that this is a fair system, for each new work to be able to stand or fall on its own merits as judged by the community on that day. If this work was allowed onto the site by the site's members it should have a place.

Now, of course, given the nature of this work, perhaps displaying it in the open, making it easily available to all is not the best choice. But there are other options. It could be put in a members only section of the site, kept behind a warning of its offensive nature and a disclaimer that it does not reflect the views of Newgrounds staff members. This would be fair as the work would still have a place on this site but would be kept somewhere where only members who understood what they were looking for, and had been warned, could find it. If the members of this site voted to allow this work, regardless of its content or quality, onto this site they should be able to have access to it. We

In conclusion we must be vary careful when it comes to silencing people, even those who seek out confrontation, for once one is silenced all can be silenced.

At 11/19/13 02:23 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/19/13 02:15 PM, Elitistinen wrote:
Can any dick on here see the difference between virtual and real life? Seem like you don't have a brain to decide it.

Way to miss the point.

You: feeling justified for being butthurt over a flash

You: telling parents they're unjustified for being upset about their murdered child

Why don't you stop crying about your stupid little flash for a second and understand that people in this world have bigger problems than worrying about your entertainment, you overly-entitled little gnome.

You are the one missing the point. Pretty much no one here is worried about the actual flash or it's contents. This is a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" type of situation.

At 11/19/13 01:55 PM, Elitistinen wrote: we just have some oversensitive butthurt parents -

Oh my god, the idiots on this website ...

I believe you did the right thing. In this time when matters like this are always on the news and such, it's important for websites to be careful as nothing get more attention then something on the web.

A good call.

I completely agree with CypressDahlia. THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE

hi tom fulp i only want to say thank you for your site and castle crasher your the best -kevan010

At 11/19/13 02:38 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/19/13 02:28 PM, surfingthechaos wrote:
You are the one missing the point. Pretty much no one here is worried about the actual flash or it's contents. This is a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" type of situation.

I mentioned this in an earlier post:

Things get BLAMMED on this site by the USERBASE all the time.

In other words things users don't like get CENSORED CONSTANTLY. This is not a new concept. This has been happening for ages. So why is Tom getting shit for this one decision?

They shouldn't, offencive conntent should be brought to Wade, voting on the portal is quality based, just beacuse some people abuse it doesn't mean they should

At 11/18/13 05:03 PM, TomFulp wrote: YES, NG came up out of celebrity killing, seal clubbing and even making light of school shooting but shit evolves. The NG you knew and loved just MIGHT be dead. I didn't even know anyone gave a shit about that Anita Sarkeesian game until today but it really was a shitty game with no effort (sorry whoever made it, if it wasn't by a PR team). And maybe the flippant removal of that game was the beginning of the end times for NG. Or maybe it was the first hairs growing on NG's chest because it's growing the fuck up. OK probably end times. Think of NG as entering a chrysalis and now we all get to wait and see what comes out on the other side.

If NG is able to age, it's also able to die. Though some change is obviously for the better, a change of vision like this makes the site loose a big chunk of it's appeal, it feels more like a mid-life crisis than chrysalis. Though maybe this is the one exception and such tragic breaches on freedom of expression won't occur for at least many years to come...

At 11/18/13 06:05 PM, TomFulp wrote: 1) Continue to support Group #2. Struggle with revenue. Have my name and NG slandered in the press (ouch there's my ego). Be confronted about controversy when making public appearances. People from Group #1 feeling shitty when they link their work to friends who say "What are you doing on a site like this?" (awkward, although I hate those JUDGY FUCKS)

2) Cut off Group #2 and support Group #1. Bring back the animators and game developers who left and help them thrive with better paying ads. Yes, they will leave if something better comes along but Group #2 probably would too if the opportunity presented itself. SIDE EFFECT: NG could get really boring if Group #1 doesn't make awesome shit.

As I see it group #1 already invests the majority of their time with YouTube, because that's where the bigger audience exists, and with Google's funds they'd be able to match any payouts if they had to. I don't see how NG could be able to compete in terms of audience, thus the only strong standpoint remaining seems to be that freedom of artistic expression that this place represents. Which is not something to be taken lightly. I'd believe both serious and unserious artists would appreciate the potential to do whatever they like (within the limitations already outlined), whereas the larger social communities are all out to censor. I do appreciate the fact that this censorship on NG is open for debate, whereas censorship on these other sites is usually automatic; reason or purpose often not even provided.

How about re-instating the Bastards section, to distance administration from submissions you don't support, but still keep them on-site to be fair towards the users? You could even cut off ad-revenue to the authors for submissions included within this section, to enforce the notion that these submissions are not supported, and combined with an age limit and a fair warning there would be no reason for anyone to accidentally wander in and watch something that may offend them.

At 11/18/13 07:10 PM, Rustygames wrote: http://www.rustyarcade.com/games/play/2298/The-Slaying-of-Sandy-Hook-Elementary

I don't want to put it on the front page because I don't actually think it's that good. But I wouldn't remove it if my site was an open portal, nor will I remove it now I've decided it's a piece of art that needs to be preserved.

A truly honorable act. :)

At 11/18/13 05:10 PM, tox wrote: if it all comes down to it, i personally will pay for legal fees for the site

If there's really need for it, I'd be happy to contribute as well. No doubt lots of users would show their support if rough times become an actuality. How about starting a fund of user-based contributions which can be used if financing does actually run out? Judging by previous comments, it seemed ad-revenue was the real issue. But then PsychoGoldfish seems to crack down on that theory. If it's not about keeping the business afloat, it feels like this is being taken too personally. Don't want to seem insensitive but policies are important in maintaining a solid foundation for a community; the impression of freedom is important!

At 11/19/13 10:40 AM, Catalyste wrote: To be honest, I wouldn't create a poll knowing full well there are a bunch of kids on this site who want to keep pretending that freedom of speech = freedom from accountability.

The thing is there's nothing illegal about this game (or am I missing something?), so accountability shouldn't be an issue. And responsibility should lie with the uploader, not with the founder of the site.

At 11/19/13 02:01 AM, RealFaction wrote: I do agree with the fact this game was EXTREMELY offensive, but I think parents would feel better with age restricted accounts and not just warnings. I think you should make it so if someone is under 17, they can't play mature games.

Sounds like a great idea.

At 11/19/13 01:09 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: Oh my god the hypocrisy. If you're going to whine about this, also mourn every submission you've decided to blam because you sure as hell didn't help those artists enjoy their creativity or freedoms either. Jesus.

Blamming a submission is like a majority vote, it takes more than one user to decide the fate of a submission. In most cases the work that's been blammed is effortless; useless, not because it's obscene and tasteless... as was the case with this one. It's a rather big difference.

At 11/19/13 12:51 AM, King-Duckford wrote:

Great stuff

A sad but inspiring message.

At 11/19/13 01:51 PM, Elitistinen wrote: If NG have a poll system then I think we shall not keep fighting on settled matters like this. Vote for what you believe like the true democracy.

There's this: http://strawpoll.me/732754

I fear this threatens what I do.

At 11/19/13 02:38 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: In other words things users don't like get CENSORED CONSTANTLY. This is not a new concept. This has been happening for ages. So why is Tom getting shit for this one decision?

Because they're being "censored" based on quality and amount of effort expended on them, not moral standing. It's a different concept entirely, especially given that Tom said the game's design showed a lot of effort.

Anyway, I never saw the flash, so I can't comment on the overall ratio of offense to quality. But I don't need to, for 2 reasons:

1. Such things as offense are entirely subjective, and it was Tom making the judgement, not me.
2. More importantly, If you lost a child in Sandy Hook and are stupid enough to click on a flash game entitled "The slaughter of Sandy Hook" you deserve all the horrible flashbacks you get.

There was never any attempt made, by any party involved, to force the game on anyone. No-one had to play it, which goes back to my age-old censorship rule of: 'if you don't like it, don't watch it'. Don't spend hours on end bleating on at a website's owner in an attempt to stop everyone who isn't blinded by personal tragedy from watching it, and in this case having their opinions on gun control laws challenged in a constructive manner too.

Taking content off any website for the sake of "moral standing" will only cater to people who have no interest in the site beyond what they want removed anyway. Do you really think any of those protesting it's existence cared about Newgrounds to begin with? Can you really afford to cater to that kind of mentality right now?

At 11/19/13 02:38 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/19/13 02:28 PM, surfingthechaos wrote:
You are the one missing the point. Pretty much no one here is worried about the actual flash or it's contents. This is a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" type of situation.

I mentioned this in an earlier post:

Things get BLAMMED on this site by the USERBASE all the time.

In other words things users don't like get CENSORED CONSTANTLY. This is not a new concept. This has been happening for ages. So why is Tom getting shit for this one decision?

Like I said earlier, I believe he wouldn't be getting shit if he wasn't insulting everyone's intelligence with platitudes about "choosing to respect the Sandy Hook parents". Someone's emotional response to a piece of artwork is obviously no justification for bypassing the blam system in order to suppress it. On the other hand, removing a single flash for the long term survival of the website is an understandable necessary evil, and if Tom would have been honest about his rationale then I think a lot more people would have been willing to stand by him and take one for the team. The fact that he instead chose to sugarcoat the truth really shows that he doesn't have much faith in his own community, so of course the community is going to pick up on that fact and not react well to it.

At 11/19/13 02:38 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: I mentioned this in an earlier post:

Things get BLAMMED on this site by the USERBASE all the time.

In other words things users don't like get CENSORED CONSTANTLY. This is not a new concept. This has been happening for ages. So why is Tom getting shit for this one decision?

I see where you are coming from. I made my point on the matter clear in the first post and I welcomed the deletion of the flash but I will try to show you the perspective of the others in a more objective way. You, I, nor anyone else has to agree with those views but I think it would be fair if you would consider them:

Be aware, once again speculation time so take everything from now on with a grain of salt, also I generalize a bit for the sake of it, not all opinions are mirrored in this summary:

Now, if I look from the perspective of someone who saves and blams submissions (like I do, for instance), then that person might be offended (everyone is offended easily nowadays, including me) because the flash they deemed worthy of passing got taken off, in their mind unrightfully. Their thought is that their ability to vote has been deemed worthless and that all of their votes won't matter and they think that the admins will personally cherry pick allowed content in the future, by appealing to groups of interest (like people who are related to tragic events, be it school shootings or other things).

It doesn't bother them if a flash gets deleted, it bothers them how and why it gets deleted. In this case not by them, but Tom himself. for reasons they do not agree with.

At 11/19/13 02:15 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Can any dick on here see the difference between virtual and real life? Seem like you don't have a brain to decide it.

Wow, You just enjoy being a dick do you? This is Tom's website/business, and he has the right to do what he wants. This isn't like 4chan anymore, there is a certain degree of respect and culpability that Tom himself has for others, and it is necessary to shed that old image in order to get more legitimate artists and ad revenue to the site.

People who use the freedom of speech argument clearly don't understand that NG is a private enterprise and they have the right to make their own rules and policies, right or wrong. Plus, as I said before, there are lines that you shouln't cross without expecting controversy something that they would've embraced when they were relatively small and under the radar, but not anymore when they started to be legitimate.

Come on.

Maybe you should stop being so disrespectful, and understand why they did what they did considering the circumstances.