this is really funny considering this is the same site that frontpaged the v-tech rampage and oklahoma city bombing games

At 11/20/13 07:46 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:41 PM, derelix wrote:
Absolutely nobody is saying the Sandy Hook parents are not allowed to voice their opinions, allowing them to voice their opinions doesn't mean letting them run the site.

Yes, but they voiced their opinions to Tom, who DOES run the site.

Fact you are ignoring, they are not here. you know why? Because they don't have anything to do with this site, they probably know nothing about this site...

Says the guy who hasn't contributed a single thing to the community he claims to be defending. Do something for this community if you "care" so much. Make a flash, make artwork, make music. Do something productive instead of sitting in the peanut gallery criticizing a guy for making decisions to maintain the site that you do nothing but CONSUME from.

It's very easy to bite the hand that feeds.

Hey asshole, all I see from you is artwork.

I don't make flash, I don't make music. I write, not that it's any of your business. That's my thing and it doesn't belong on newgrounds.

Now what you are probably too young to understand is that us "consumers" do contribute to this site staying around and this site would not exist if not for people like me playing the games and clicking ads that interest us. What you don't seem to get is that sites like this keep running not just through having ads but by having "consumers" to click those ads.

I am not biting the hand that feeds, I am not being "fed" I am choosing to go to this site. Get over your fanboy glorification of this website and realize what is actually going on here.

Kid, you are right, the voiced their opinions to Tom who DOES RUN THE SITE and he, as the person that runs the site, decided to get this topic open for free discussion, not for ignorant fanboy children like yourself to defend him and make him look worse by association with the likes of you.

You say do something "productive" but what have you done that's productive? As long as you are throwing stones, how productive is your artwork to this site? Are people rushing to view it, bringing in more viewers and therefore more ad dollars? No? Then quit relying on the "if you don't post crappy flash like me, you have no right to speak here" nonsense.

At 11/20/13 08:02 PM, Gi-go wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:47 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:57 PM, Gi-go wrote:

Nobody is saying it deserves to exist just because it's "edgy" and this game was obviously not made just to be edgy. Again, you people have nothing but strawman arguments to back up your childish and blind defense of this decision. You support the decision, fine, nobody is saying you are not allowed to voice that opinion here, but there's no reason to attack people and outright lie just because you disagree with their views.

It really looks like your just personally attacking this guy to cover up your own lack of skill and creativity.

Kid, you are saying he "pryed open the wounds of the parents" but that could be said about almost anything on newgrounds, including your work. Zombie animations and games could open the emotional wounds of a person that saw real life violence or genocide. Go remove your work at once as it's extremely disrespectful.

You can't make something just because it's "edgy" and it exposes you as the trollish attention whore that you really are.

BTW I never claimed the flash was his "Cry for help" I was saying it's his work and his voice and that attacking him personally and claiming he's playing a "tortured artist routine" is far more disrespectful and sociopath than the game itself.

This dude's just as autistic as PiGPEN. Either that or he's a troll with too much time on his hands. My zombie short opening the same kind of emotional wounds as a playable recreation of an actual terrible event? Lol go fuck youself, you're delusional and not worth debating.

Although, I'm sure you'll continue to get responses from a load of 14 year olds that have a better grasp on reality than yourself.

So now your calling us both autistic?

And your trying to play moral and talk about how we shouldn't offend people?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You are not "debating me" you are just insulting me as well as downplaying an actual mental illness. Like I said, you are the type of person that actually caries out these types of attacks, the personality types is pretty obvious in you.

Everyone sucks, your the only real person, nobody else's feelings matter unless it's to feign a sense of morality without empathy.

I think the decision made is the one correct for the time being. Censorship is always going to upset somebody, be it by allowing or disallowing content. About the only solid line that can be drawn for Censorship is Time. The more recent an event, the more likely a tough topic will be viewed as approached in a distasteful way. The game being discussed approaches a topic that took place only a year ago. To the immediately affected families and friends, the time to heal from the event will be a lot longer than those who were only witnesses by mass media and have no direct connection. Regardless, the longer the time frame from the event to the release of the game (or re-release of the game), the less uproar it is likely to cause.

I will support the decision that this has been a case-by-case choice. Newgrounds by and large remains very inviting to free expression and allows the community to drive what animations, games, and art make it to the top page and what is sent to the animation graveyard. There can not be perfection, only the best of effort and good intention in any choice made for what content is allowed or removed.

At 11/20/13 07:47 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:38 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:42 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:38 PM, derelix wrote: For people supporting the censorship of this spree shooter game, you people seem to have the judgmental, antisocial, and unempathetic worldview that these types of shooters always seem to have.

Lol armchair psychologist. You are seriously the last person anyone in this thread would take advice from.

Where did I give advice?
I notice you didn't seem to mind the armchair psychologist calling me hateful and angry and saying I need to "find myself"

Nope, you seem intent on harassing me and anyone else that dares to disagree with you slightly. And you call me the troll, that's funny.

I'm not harassing you. You make stupid posts and then either ignore me completely when I dismantle them, or you simply talk about irrelevant things.

On top of that, I've never once called you a troll so I would like to know where you read that at? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and that just further proves you are just blowing hot air.

I am not "harassing" anyone disagreeing with me. I am simply pointing out why their logic is flawed.
The fact that I grow frustrated by your ill-informed and dimwitted posts should not be surprising when you can't even come up with a single proper argument like many others have in this thread.

I am not "ignoring you" I simply don't respond to every single thing nor do I stay around here all day as you seem to do.

If you disagree with me and need to voice your side of things, good, do that, calling my point of view "stupid" and doing nothing but insulting me is childish and counter productive, not that you care because you're clearly just here to harass people you disagree with.

Not once have you "posted how our logic is flawed" so I think it's obvious who here is "blowing hot air"

I have come up with "proper" arguments but you wouldn't know because you have ignored those, attacked a strawman that you created, and insulted me time and time again.

At 11/20/13 08:10 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:58 PM, derelix wrote:
You say do something "productive" but what have you done that's productive?

I won't even go into this. But uhm if you take a quick look at the top right of my profile it says I have nearly 900 Fans, meaning I provide content for nearly 900 people on a regular basis (plus whoever is browsing the Art Portal at the time). But you know--whatever, right?

But yeah, look. Giving this website hits is hardly active contribution. It might make you feel good to assume self-worth by saying "I was here". But no, not rly. All you do is sit there and eat up the content that people like me produce and the bandwidth that people like Tom pay for. And all you do in return is complain when things don't go your way. Boo hoo. Cry me a river. You falsely attribute your mere existence with "worth", but all you're actually saying is "I exist."

So plz, sir, plz. Just plz. lol

You are not "giving this websites hits" you egomaniac, you are providing lazy content for 900 people who felt sorry enough for you to subscribe. Those people are not coming to this site for your work, I think that's obvious even to you.

Hey if you want to rely on insults and judgement, I can play that game too.

I am not "crying that things didn't go my way" but I don't expect you people to produce anything other than those baseless strawman attacks at this point. I was voicing my opinion, as Tom created this thread for people to do. You seem to be the one that has a problem with it, not the creator of the site who you keep referencing.

At 11/20/13 07:58 PM, bash wrote: this is really funny considering this is the same site that frontpaged the v-tech rampage and oklahoma city bombing games

im telling you its because Tom had kids

"Oh no, im offended by this therefore its wrong and nobody should disagree with me"

No. People get offended every day. I respect your decision tom, but personally, there is nothing hateful about someone attempt to START a conversation on sandy hook. It's just like 9/11 in this country, it was a horrid tragedy, but lord, don't try to talk of it.

Im offended by assassins creed portayal of american indians relations with the wite settler, BETTER TAKE IT ALL OFF THE SHELVES BEFORE I SUE EA

At 11/20/13 07:59 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:51 PM, JackofPojo wrote:

Think about it.

then say what you mean, saying it was their right to complain about it, and Tom's right to take it down is a completely different argument from your previous one. And as you yourself say, everyone, not just a select few, should have a voice, why do the parents get more say in this website's affairs then even new users.

I did say what I mean. Many users are saying it's the parents' fault for "exposing" themselves to the game. But all they did was see a game on open web space, feel offended, PM the admin and it was summarily removed. The parents did nothing wrong. They simply were exercising their right to say what they felt and Tom made a decision based on those feelings. To say the parents "shouldn't have been here" is god awful reasoning and that's what I was addressing.

And because, as I explained, the people who have posted in this thread are less than 1% of all Newgrounds users. Succumbing to the pressure to re-host the game would still be a MINORITY RULE.

yes, it is true, the argument "people shouldn't be here" is invalid, but that's not what you said, you said (or heavily implied) that was the only argument that side had, and therefore the point was invalid, which is a bit like saying because one ball is red, they must all be, or because some blanks are blank, all blanks, or at least effectively all of them, must be (you know, racism)
And once again, you are saying you said something you did not say, last time you said those who have not 'contributed' to Newgrounds don't deserve a voice, second, just because not every single person on the sight has voiced their opinion on this matter does not mean that they agree with you, or for that matter with me, or anyone, voter turnout is a little more then half in the U.S., does this mean the other about half don't have a voice? The the Newgrounds community filter out the game? did it not make it through the portal, and meat the site guidelines? Say what you are saying, if you are bringing up a new point, say as much, but don't try to defend an argument by straight out changing it, and stop using a possible counter to arguments nobody has made as arguments, a single example is sufficient to contradict a thesis, but not to prove it is true.

At 11/20/13 08:20 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:15 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:47 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:38 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:42 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:38 PM, derelix wrote: For people supporting the censorship of this spree shooter game, you people seem to have the judgmental, antisocial, and unempathetic worldview that these types of shooters always seem to have.

Lol armchair psychologist. You are seriously the last person anyone in this thread would take advice from.

Where did I give advice?
I notice you didn't seem to mind the armchair psychologist calling me hateful and angry and saying I need to "find myself"

Nope, you seem intent on harassing me and anyone else that dares to disagree with you slightly. And you call me the troll, that's funny.

I'm not harassing you. You make stupid posts and then either ignore me completely when I dismantle them, or you simply talk about irrelevant things.

On top of that, I've never once called you a troll so I would like to know where you read that at? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and that just further proves you are just blowing hot air.

I am not "harassing" anyone disagreeing with me. I am simply pointing out why their logic is flawed.
The fact that I grow frustrated by your ill-informed and dimwitted posts should not be surprising when you can't even come up with a single proper argument like many others have in this thread.

I am not "ignoring you" I simply don't respond to every single thing nor do I stay around here all day as you seem to do.

If you disagree with me and need to voice your side of things, good, do that, calling my point of view "stupid" and doing nothing but insulting me is childish and counter productive, not that you care because you're clearly just here to harass people you disagree with.

Not once have you "posted how our logic is flawed" so I think it's obvious who here is "blowing hot air"

I have come up with "proper" arguments but you wouldn't know because you have ignored those, attacked a strawman that you created, and insulted me time and time again.

I like how you didn't address how you were wrong about me calling you a troll. You want it your way or the highway. You will say whatever you want (calling people assholes, insulting them without any leg to stand on, etc), but as soon as someone does it to you, you cry like a baby and say that their argument is bad because they called you a name.

I've disproved everything that you have posted in this thread.

You can use as many ad hominems as you would like, but you will never be right.

Yeah I was mistaken, that was somebody else, it's hard to keep track when I am receiving personal attacks from several people on this thread.

See this is all you do, look for any possible mistake and blow it out of proportion while completely ignoring the parts of my post that are relevant, such as the fact that you have done nothing but personally while accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I can't argue against your argument when you don't provide one and naturally it will be personal attacks when that's all you present to me.

You have not "disproven" a single thing I have posted except for me saying you called me a troll. If you think you can "disprove" a personal opinion, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on personal attacks for your "argument" here.

At 11/20/13 08:28 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:17 PM, derelix wrote:
You are not "giving this websites hits" you egomaniac, you are providing lazy content for 900 people who felt sorry enough for you to subscribe. Those people are not coming to this site for your work, I think that's obvious even to you.

That's still about 900 more hits this site gets from viewing my content versus the 0 its gets from yours. lol

Face it: you don't really actually care about Newgrounds. If you cared about Newgrounds, you would consider these things:

1.) If NG loses ad-revenue over negative press, who's going to make up for it? You? With your zero content generation, zero hit counter, zero everything? Huh?

2.) Consider that you are one person speaking on behalf of millions of users. The number of people in this thread is a TINY percentage of all of Newgrounds. If Newgrounds' content suffers because of loss of ad revenue, you would have hurt a majority that is hundreds of thousands of times greater than the summary worth of all the opinions in this thread.

Maybe we can continue talking when you can process those two ideas.

But, as I explained, nobody is coming to this site because of your content. So you know, we are on equal ground.
Yes I could post some lazy uncreative artwork but I don't see any reason to and it certainly wouldn't contribute to newgrounds. You seem to be taking the "you are not allowed to talk about this if you don't have anything posted!" route while ignoring the fact that what you have posted is something literally anyone can post with zero effort necessary.

Hey kid, if newgrounds loses anything in ad revenue, I HAVE NOT HURT ANYTHING because I am not making anyone do anything. I was voicing my opinion, something you continue to ignore, I was not demanding that Tom go back on his decision, I was simply saying that I disagree with the decision.

If you can't handle that I have a different opinion from yourself, get lost. It's a thread, not your personal soapbox.

I see that you had to make a decision, and I respect that decision, Tom. My problem is that there was really nothing bad with the game. Are you sure the people aka the "parents" are real or not. Third of all, I don't see any reason a game should be removed unless it breaks rules. (don't know the rules of the flash games, Yep call me an idiot) The main reason I am saying this is, I have mixed feelings about Sandy Hook, lots of people do. What i'm trying to say is that this game had a good artstyle, meaning, and political views. (especially the eagle mode or something when the teachers were armed and actually gave the kids a chance) It had lots of potential and I really could care less about what's wrong with the world. (heck, everything is wrong with the world.)

At 11/20/13 08:50 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:46 PM, derelix wrote: Yeah I was mistaken, that was somebody else, it's hard to keep track when I am receiving personal attacks from several people on this thread.

See this is all you do, look for any possible mistake and blow it out of proportion while completely ignoring the parts of my post that are relevant, such as the fact that you have done nothing but personally while accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I can't argue against your argument when you don't provide one and naturally it will be personal attacks when that's all you present to me.

Except not.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1354761/26#bbspost24879596_post_text

You have not "disproven" a single thing I have posted except for me saying you called me a troll. If you think you can "disprove" a personal opinion, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on personal attacks for your "argument" here.

Also, this isn't the first time you have mistaken what I have said for something else.

I'll just keep letting you babble to yourself though if you are going to parrot my own statements against you to me.

Have a good day, I won't be wasting my precious time with you any further.

And neither one disproves my argument, and both posts were just personal attacks.

Yeah just call me a retard again, it makes you seem so much smarter. I mean if I'm retarded, that makes you smart automatically. Flawless logic.

What if I was retarded? Why am I even asking? that would just make you even happier to troll me.

At 11/20/13 08:02 PM, Gi-go wrote:

At 11/20/13 07:47 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 06:57 PM, Gi-go wrote:

Nobody is saying it deserves to exist just because it's "edgy" and this game was obviously not made just to be edgy. Again, you people have nothing but strawman arguments to back up your childish and blind defense of this decision. You support the decision, fine, nobody is saying you are not allowed to voice that opinion here, but there's no reason to attack people and outright lie just because you disagree with their views.

It really looks like your just personally attacking this guy to cover up your own lack of skill and creativity.

Kid, you are saying he "pryed open the wounds of the parents" but that could be said about almost anything on newgrounds, including your work. Zombie animations and games could open the emotional wounds of a person that saw real life violence or genocide. Go remove your work at once as it's extremely disrespectful.

You can't make something just because it's "edgy" and it exposes you as the trollish attention whore that you really are.

BTW I never claimed the flash was his "Cry for help" I was saying it's his work and his voice and that attacking him personally and claiming he's playing a "tortured artist routine" is far more disrespectful and sociopath than the game itself.

This dude's just as autistic as PiGPEN. Either that or he's a troll with too much time on his hands. My zombie short opening the same kind of emotional wounds as a playable recreation of an actual terrible event? Lol go fuck youself, you're delusional and not worth debating.

Although, I'm sure you'll continue to get responses from a load of 14 year olds that have a better grasp on reality than yourself.

no, actually, his points are perfectly valid, and you have made none, other then insulting him, what is the difference between your game, and Pigpen's? what if one of your zombies just happens to look like someone's relative, and had simaler injures then their relatives sustained on death, and you 'made' them shoot their relative? what is the difference, even if you think it is obvious, elaborate, you might be building your argument on nothing.

At 11/20/13 07:36 PM, Vergon wrote: I just realized something. People are getting pissed off at either Tom Fulp for removing the game or PiGPen or whatever his name is for making the game. However, The game would not have been on Newgrounds if it wasn't for one small, but very important fact: People voted on having the game put on Newgrounds. Tom Fulp only removed the game AFTER people voted for it to be on Newgrounds. Instead of blaming PigPen or Tom Fulp, Why doesn't the userbase blame ITSELF for VOTING for the game to be put on newgrounds. PigPen is the guy who made the game and uploaded it. Tom Fulp was the one who removed it.

In order for a game or movie to be allowed a more permanent spot on Newgrounds, it has to be voted on a certain amount of times AND have a certain score. If said movie or game fails either of them, it is removed. The game, however, got enough votes AND a high enough score to have its place on Newgrounds. These are the facts as I understand them.

So instead of being angry at Tom for removing the game or PigPen for making the game in the first place, Lets be angry at OURSELVES for giving the game a high enough score and enough votes for the game to have a spot on Newgrounds. Had the game been given a score below what is required, it would have been blammed, and people would have moved on and forget about it, and none of this would have happened. Shit on Newgrounds gets blammed ALL THE TIME, every day. It's nothing new. Just ask anyone who has blammed a movie or game.

You have made an excellent argument as to why we should not be anger at Pigpen, now I'm not saying we should be mad at Tom, we should not, I am saying that your argument only takes responsibility off of Pigpen, because had Tom not pulled the game down, it would be on the portal, where the people who voted for it thought it belonged, also, the moderators are responsible for censorship, the users are only responsible for quality control, if something is bad, you blam it, if you just don't like it, or think it breaks the rules, you tell Wade, "Remember, you're submitting a REVIEW for this CONTENT. This isn't a place for you to make smug jokes, post stupid nonsense, or act like a total jerk. ", <h3>Click on an icon to vote on this!</h3>

At 11/20/13 08:54 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:50 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:46 PM, derelix wrote: Yeah I was mistaken, that was somebody else, it's hard to keep track when I am receiving personal attacks from several people on this thread.

See this is all you do, look for any possible mistake and blow it out of proportion while completely ignoring the parts of my post that are relevant, such as the fact that you have done nothing but personally while accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I can't argue against your argument when you don't provide one and naturally it will be personal attacks when that's all you present to me.

Except not.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1354761/26#bbspost24879596_post_text

You have not "disproven" a single thing I have posted except for me saying you called me a troll. If you think you can "disprove" a personal opinion, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on personal attacks for your "argument" here.

Also, this isn't the first time you have mistaken what I have said for something else.

I'll just keep letting you babble to yourself though if you are going to parrot my own statements against you to me.

Have a good day, I won't be wasting my precious time with you any further.

And neither one disproves my argument, and both posts were just personal attacks.

Yeah just call me a retard again, it makes you seem so much smarter. I mean if I'm retarded, that makes you smart automatically. Flawless logic.

What if I was retarded? Why am I even asking? that would just make you even happier to troll me.

derelix is right on this, as on many other points, but derelix, you should go the extra mile by specifically trying not to insult them, it only weakens your arguments, yes, they are pretty much just personally attacking you, but you are personally attacking them as well, all of you, please stop acting so high, and mighty, the other side is not 'wrong', or 'dumb', and we can achieve a lot more by treating each other as equals

FINALLY! but remember Pico School 1...

At 11/20/13 09:08 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:45 PM, JackofPojo wrote:
And once again, you are saying you said something you did not say...

Or maybe you just misunderstood what I said? It's funny that you find it easier to tell me what *I* said versus considering the possibility that MAYBE you misunderstood?

Also, in a debate new arguments are constantly introduced. Not everything said is necessarily a corroboration of a past argument, but possibly a new talking point or clarification.

But, to clarify further, I've been in this thread since the first couple of pages. I've addressed a lot of points before I started talking directly to you. You are only going on what you've read. I don't expect you to read my earlier posts, but you are being pretty presumptuous saying I'm only attacking one point.

Last time you said those who have not 'contributed' to Newgrounds don't deserve a voice,

Nossir, I said it's surprising that these people who do nothing for the site suddenly think they know what's best for it. Honestly, my vote lies with the guy who not only runs the site but pays its expenses and understands its dynamics. The fact that these people are sitting here saying "who cares if you lose revenue and backers, just uphold OUR morals!" is ridiculous when they are not even the slightest bit responsible for these things. Once again, you misinterpret what I said.

second, just because not every single person on the sight has voiced their opinion on this matter does not mean that they agree with you...

Yes, but it is safe to assume these things:
1.) if a person is not voting or vocalizing, they are probably indifferent. It's easy to create an account and post here. Much easier than becoming a legal citizen and voting in elections.
2.) people who visit Newgrounds would like Newgrounds to operate in a healthy, orderly and content-rich manner, which are things that losing ad revenue can negatively affect

So it's safe to assume that the majority would want Newgrounds to continue running right as opposed to watching it martyr itself over a single flash. These are not extreme leaps of logic, and I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you.

your first two points contradict each other, are you introducing new arguments, or are you not? If you are , you certainly did not specify that you introduced them, you presented them as the same argument you just gave despite being significantly different, which is what I was objecting too.
Your third point is a straight out lie, when you said "If NG loses ad-revenue over negative press, who's going to make up for it? You? With your zero content generation, zero hit counter, zero everything? Huh?" you were clearly trying to say he shouldn't have a voice because he has not made an investment, or is it more nuance then that? If so, please explain, and while you are at it, explain why it was 'obvious' this was what you meant.
You fourth point assumes a binary world, how many sponsors threatened to pull their support do to this indecent? Did Tom say he made his decision based on keeping this sight up, or because of "respect"? Is why the decision was made (or why it was said that it was made) not important? Every supreme court case would argue with you there. I for one, admit that I do not know enough to judge Tom's decision, I do however, disagree with his stated reasoning, and based on other posts I've seen, neither does Tom.

At 11/18/13 09:00 PM, yakuzahornet634 wrote: The guy who made the sandy hook game should fricking die in a fire,i hate people who take the struggles of this country and make fun of them in a fricking offensive game like that,thank you,however,it would be smarter if you update creating profiles and add an adult section for certain content such as pr0nz only for 18+ users,try that and you could be happy

He wasn't mocking the shooting, nor was he insulting anyone. He was actually providing an argument that something needed to be done about this so that these events won't occur in the future. If you had actually played the game, you would know that it was rather mature and very artistic. I myself enjoyed playing it, though I did have a small knot in my stomach with the fact that this event really happened.

At 11/20/13 09:12 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:11 PM, JackofPojo wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:54 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:50 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 08:46 PM, derelix wrote: Yeah I was mistaken, that was somebody else, it's hard to keep track when I am receiving personal attacks from several people on this thread.

See this is all you do, look for any possible mistake and blow it out of proportion while completely ignoring the parts of my post that are relevant, such as the fact that you have done nothing but personally while accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I can't argue against your argument when you don't provide one and naturally it will be personal attacks when that's all you present to me.

Except not.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1354761/26#bbspost24879596_post_text

You have not "disproven" a single thing I have posted except for me saying you called me a troll. If you think you can "disprove" a personal opinion, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on personal attacks for your "argument" here.

Also, this isn't the first time you have mistaken what I have said for something else.

I'll just keep letting you babble to yourself though if you are going to parrot my own statements against you to me.

Have a good day, I won't be wasting my precious time with you any further.

And neither one disproves my argument, and both posts were just personal attacks.

Yeah just call me a retard again, it makes you seem so much smarter. I mean if I'm retarded, that makes you smart automatically. Flawless logic.

What if I was retarded? Why am I even asking? that would just make you even happier to troll me.

derelix is right on this, as on many other points, but derelix, you should go the extra mile by specifically trying not to insult them, it only weakens your arguments, yes, they are pretty much just personally attacking you, but you are personally attacking them as well, all of you, please stop acting so high, and mighty, the other side is not 'wrong', or 'dumb', and we can achieve a lot more by treating each other as equals

He is not right. Look at the first part of my post here and tell me that I'm wrong with a straight face.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1354761/26#bbspost24879596_post_text

You can't. The second part of the post was an insult aimed at him simply because of how ignorant he is acting. It does not take away from what I said in the first place.

the first part of your post... I guess it could be considered an argument, but not one strong enough to stand on its own, by your own argument I could say that the game should not be a big deal, because it doesn't use real people, just images, and what about historical fictions, and other works that portray violence against what we have no proof are not real people? And do you honestly believe any work of fiction is not based, in part, on fact? And why do you need to add an insult? It merely imply that you do not think the argument could stand for itself? And since then what have you said? You gave me one 'point', and a personal attack, and other then that, I've seen personal attacks. Don't get me wrong, he is no angle, but insulting each other accomplishes nothing.

I personally think you should've not taken down the vid/game. That evil plot cartman had on cartoon wars can be applied here right?

At 11/20/13 09:37 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:33 PM, JackofPojo wrote: the first part of your post... I guess it could be considered an argument, but not one strong enough to stand on its own, by your own argument I could say that the game should not be a big deal, because it doesn't use real people, just images, and what about historical fictions, and other works that portray violence against what we have no proof are not real people?

It honestly doesn't matter what you say, because I was refuting what he said... He was saying that people should be angry over the film Elephant etc, and my point completely obliterates his argument.

But I will address your argument. What you said still doesn't negate the fact that the game is labeled after an actual event that took place, while the film Elephant is a fictional story.

I never said anything about actors. I was referring to the content of the game and the film.

yes, but how are they different? And if your argument is not sound, how could it blow anything out of the water? And why does what I said not matter? because I'm not him? so only two people can talk at a time now? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't add up. You might think that because one of the works appears to be more fiction, it must not exist, but why? Why does the source of the material matter? Everything is rooted in reality. What about animal farm? should it be banned because it was based off real people, and events? why not? what about in Cold Blood? that was a real story, and when it was written, the families of the victims were still alive, yet now we read it in school, so why is this different? Even if they are different, does it matter? Well then why does it not matter at a murder trial? People go up to the stand, and say words that they know may not just cause someone pain, but also may kill them, how is that different from the parents? What if we changed the characters into squires or something? how would that distance would it suddenly be acceptable to everyone? Why? Nothing has changed.

At 11/20/13 09:43 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:24 PM, JackofPojo wrote:
you certainly did not specify that you introduced them..

okay so I'll just spell out everything for you from now on. I got it.

Your third point is a straight out lie, when you said "If NG loses ad-revenue over negative press, who's going to make up for it? You? With your zero content generation, zero hit counter, zero everything? Huh?" you were clearly trying to say he shouldn't have a voice...

Wat. No. I asked him what he would do to make up for the lost revenue. That point is made ASSUMING that his opinions are heard and Tom rescinds his decision, not telling him he doesn't have a say. Assuming he DOES have his say, what will he do to make up for the inevitable losses? Or does he simply expect Tom and Newgrounds to take damage on his behalf without any responsibility?

...how many sponsors threatened to pull their support do to this indecent? Did Tom say he made his decision based on keeping this sight up, or because of "respect"? Is why the decision was made (or why it was said that it was made) not important?

That's irrelevant considering the INEVITABLE OUTCOME of re-hosting the game would be lost backing and revenue. Tom, Wade and other Moderators have repeatedly said--in this thread, btw--backers have pulled out when controversial material popped up. He made the decision out of respect /and// self-preservation, as he says.

But my point is addressing the hypothetical: "what if he decides to re-host the game?" So why he took down the game initially is a moot point.

...So you weren't saying his option did not matter, you were just saying that in order for it to be valid, he must make up for all the money? Yeah, that is effectively saying the same thing...
inevitable? And you know this how? Although it may be a probable outcome, it was in no way an inevitable one.
Did he actually ask Tom to re-host the game? He might have, but I certainly saw nothing of the sort, if your argument is that your counter point was valid, even though nobody made the initial point, then... Sure, do that, but then get back to the topic at hand.

There are times when you have to stand up for artistic integrity, and there are times when you have to dodge an unnecessary PR clusterfuck.

At 11/20/13 09:56 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:51 PM, JackofPojo wrote: stuff

If you can't see the difference between portraying a fictional event and a real event, then I don't even know what to say to you.

"stuff"? can't be bothered to keep a quite? Please do not take such liberties to stuff words in my mouth in the future. Furthermore, can you explain the difference? and what about the homicide investigation? What about the books I mentioned? What about the fiction you just wrote, a quite of me saying something I did not say? Or distorting it beyond reason? Can that, or thing like that, not hurt me, or others? Is your Libel not harmful? if only the truth can be harmful, and the fiction can not, it stands to reason, or will you refuse to understand this point until it is done to you?

Many of my reviews have been censored, too! Is that your concept of freedom of opinion? If I don't like a game who is on the front page, it doesn't mean that my negative review has to be deleted. Shame on newgrounds!

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Someone will always find a way to go too far and if someone doesn't step up and get in the way, art becomes a damaging force rather than a creative or insightful one.

A hypothetical situation:

If someone creates a game or movie showing people how to cook meth, they have enabled people to do something that will land them in jail or get themselves (or others) hurt or killed. What does that contribute to society as a whole? It doesn't lift people up, it brings people down.

Art should be something that inspires people to think about something new or explore some aspect of humanity in detail. Gunning down children doesn't help anyone at all and Tom did the right thing here.

At 11/20/13 10:15 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 10:08 PM, JackofPojo wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:56 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:51 PM, JackofPojo wrote: stuff

If you can't see the difference between portraying a fictional event and a real event, then I don't even know what to say to you.

"stuff"? can't be bothered to keep a quite? Please do not take such liberties to stuff words in my mouth in the future. Furthermore, can you explain the difference? and what about the homicide investigation? What about the books I mentioned? What about the fiction you just wrote, a quite of me saying something I did not say? Or distorting it beyond reason? Can that, or thing like that, not hurt me, or others? Is your Libel not harmful? if only the truth can be harmful, and the fiction can not, it stands to reason, or will you refuse to understand this point until it is done to you?

The reason I put "stuff" was because it wouldn't let me post due to most of the text being quoted, but nice attempt at diverting the argument into your own favor because you can't refute my point.

Lets see...the difference between an actual event that took place and a fictional event is that ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and the other one is a made up story. Is that difficult to understand? I'll repeat myself. One of them (HINT: IT'S THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPPENED) is based on something REAL (which means it is NOT fictional) and the other one is FAKE (which means it did NOT actually take place). I know how you will respond to this (saying the game didn't take place etc because you can't seem to understand common English), but I am referring to the TOPICS the media (whether it be a game or a movie) is made about.

Now I'm done responding because if anyone reads this they will think I am insane for even entertaining you.

yup, there you go again, personally attacking me instead of even looking at my points, otherwise, you would address the harmful truths people say that convict killers, and adress the true story of In Cold Blood, you would also address my point about libel, fictions that cause people harm, and how these fit into your 'reality' argument, and furthermore, you have yet to explain why the source of material matters, one "ACTUALLY HAPPENED", the other "is FAKE (which means it did NOT actually take place)", so what? how does that effect the material, how does it change what 'can', and 'can't' be done with it?

At 11/20/13 10:24 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/20/13 09:59 PM, JackofPojo wrote:
...So you weren't saying his option did not matter, you were just saying that in order for it to be valid, he must make up for all the money?

That's exactly what I'm saying. And no, its not the same thing. If you want the game re-hosted, you should at least offer a solution to solve the ensuing financial drawbacks. This is how the world works. You can't simply ask people to do what you want whilst refusing to take responsibility for the consequences. If it was Tom reading this, do you honestly think he would be like, "Oh, these people want me to lose backers and support and simply crucify myself and my website for one flash. I'm all in!"

That's nonsense.

inevitable? And you know this how?

It's pretty much guaranteed considering the media backlash. The fact that this TOPIC exists. The fact that this is the FIRST incident of its kind of Newgrounds. This definitely has more moral and political weight attached to it than everything prior.

Did he actually ask Tom to re-host the game?

Wow, this is getting frustrating. Are we in the same thread? This thread is about opinions regarding the removal of the game. My hypothetical deals with the outcomes were the game still hosted here. Its essentially the same as asking "what if the game weren't removed?" So can we stop with the roundabout questions?

really? And what did, oh let's say the parents contribute? a threat to drain funding? You can ether drop this point, or justify the other parties involvement, and you know, this game not being hosted also has negative consequences, so what is your contribution? and since the consequences aren't necessarily economical, '900 more then 0' will not cut it.
So you are not certain? And furthermore, do you think the ad sights would say "oh, Tom re-hosted the game, let's cut all funding imidetly, even though we have not expressed a desire for him to remove it imididly"?
...So anyone who talks in this thread must have either your opinion, or want the game put back up? Does that also mean you think that I am 'evil', and 'stupid'? if you want to reduce the world to black and white, it sounds like you are calling one of us that, but just because we do not see eye to eye does not mean one of us is 'right', and the other is 'wrong', or anything like that.

I don't agree with your decision as an ethical one, but the fact of the matter is as you put it, the pragmatic decision is what matters if you truly believe this may be the thing that puts newgrounds under. This sets a worrying precedent but i just have one question. If there was absolutely no threat to newground's well being as a result of this decision, would you have still removed the flash?