I'd say Newgrounds needs this. I mean, I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I wish I hadn't. So if you ask me, I think the censorship was a good idea.

At 11/21/13 09:16 PM, spicedawgz wrote: I'd say Newgrounds needs this. I mean, I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I wish I hadn't. So if you ask me, I think the censorship was a good idea.

Your fault for searching everything mature and above.

At 11/21/13 09:39 PM, Vielle wrote:

At 11/21/13 09:16 PM, spicedawgz wrote: I'd say Newgrounds needs this. I mean, I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I wish I hadn't. So if you ask me, I think the censorship was a good idea.

Your fault for searching everything mature and above.

haha BURN

oh shit
is that some vectorman boss in your avatar?

At 11/21/13 09:39 PM, Vielle wrote:

At 11/21/13 09:16 PM, spicedawgz wrote: I'd say Newgrounds needs this. I mean, I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I wish I hadn't. So if you ask me, I think the censorship was a good idea.

Your fault for searching everything mature and above.

He doesn't have to tolerate that content even if it is ''Mature and above''. If you're as free to say that shit should stay, he's as free to say that shit should go.

Deal.

At 11/21/13 10:06 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/21/13 09:43 PM, Rycuda wrote: If you're as free to say that shit should stay, he's as free to say that shit should go.

Please quote the sentence where he said that anyone wasn't free to say anything.

Just felt like that had to be said.

Even if its mature content and that he is old enough to see it does not justify that content. Does not mean he has to stand by it or accept it.

At 11/18/13 12:20 PM, Knights wrote: Whether you enjoy the flash or not, or whether you find it tasteful or distasteful or not is irrelevant. What is is the fact that it was so emotional that it made yo want to censor it in the first place, and I think that speaks enough for itself.

I'm on this side, I haven't played or seen the game myself but it sounds clear that the developers had a good reason to make it, and weren't just doing it to troll or cash in. I understand art as free-speech, and whether or not you like someone's free speech is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to say it.

Here's an interesting thought, did the parents who wanted the game removed contact the game developers to voice their concerns before they contacted Tom? Or were they not trying to appeal to reason and went straight for the emotional angle?

Either way, it's your site, it's your rules. I realize this was probably a tough call so whether I like what you chose or not, I respect your decision.

New creepypasta.

At 11/21/13 10:20 PM, luckylime wrote:

At 11/18/13 12:20 PM, Knights wrote: Whether you enjoy the flash or not, or whether you find it tasteful or distasteful or not is irrelevant. What is is the fact that it was so emotional that it made yo want to censor it in the first place, and I think that speaks enough for itself.

I'm on this side, I haven't played or seen the game myself but it sounds clear that the developers had a good reason to make it, and weren't just doing it to troll or cash in. I understand art as free-speech, and whether or not you like someone's free speech is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to say it.

Yeah, same here. I actually looked up the flash because of all this racket... The author obviously intended for the experience of stepping into the shoes of the murderer to feel uncomfortable, and based on the response, he did a masterful job. It's goddamn controversial art. There's a ton of stuff available on this site that is actually much sicker, and much more offensive than that game, advocating gun control of all things.

Removing it seems to have been a hard call, so I'm not too bothered by the decision as such really. It's when you start removing such content without a second thought that this site's really spiralled down the crapper. Nonetheless, a mistake.

At 11/21/13 04:31 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/21/13 02:49 PM, JackofPojo wrote:
So you are saying that people are only obliged to contribute something if they do not agree with you?

No. Can you stop with this borderline Godwin's Law "suggesting everyone is a fascist" schtick? It's so juvenile and hardly clever. Asking Tom to host the game is the same as asking him to ACCRUE LOSSES. If you want someone to TAKE A DIVE for you, then you should be ready to compensate them. If you convince me to chop my arm off for your benefit, you better be ready to pay my hospital bills. Get it?

taking something down discouraged users, who then took their business, and ad revenue elsewhere, then what?

They would not be obligated because Tom chose to take down the game, believing it was for the best. Asking him to go AGAINST his OWN DECISION is different than allowing him to decide. Hosting the game at this point would be TAKING A DIVE. ie. purposefully doing something he believes isn't practical. Understand?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? better yet, do you have any proof?

THE ADMINISTRATORS THEMSELVES HAVE SAID ------IN THIS THREAD------ THAT BACKERS HAVE PULLED OUT OVER CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL. You are repeatedly grasping at straws and it is grating on my nerves.

What about people who disagree with the reason the decision was made?

Then they're allowed to disagree. But asking someone to martyr their own revenue, website, and livelihood over one game is still absolutely ridiculous.

You are effectively not allowing a dialog between people, and only allowing your view point to be heard. That is practically insane, what if nobody questioned the theory of geosynchronous orbit? Or proportional gravity? Isolating yourself, and your opinions makes you lose perspective. Also, unless I make you cut your arm off, or say I am going to take you to the hospital, no, I do not have to do anything when you cut your arm off, no matter how hard I wished it, or whatever, because I did not make you do it, you did it of your own free will, while presumably being of sound mind, knowing I was under no obligation to help you afterwords.
Another attempt to dance around equal standing? This time with potentials? So then what differentiates a potential loss from an actual one? what if the potential loss is actually less then the actual loss? then this would be good advice, wouldn't it? And why couldn't people give good advice?
they have said that about incidents in the past, that was then, this is now, and I'm not grasping at straws, I'm asking you to defend their argument, that was the point the whole time, most people would have, by now, either provided definitive evidence, as I have asked you to do, or backed off, realizing ow ridiculous their claim was, again, you can say that it is probable that this would happen, but until you can show that it is both certain and immediate, you can not treat your assumption with the certainty you have thus far used, and saying that you know that this would happen without being able to providing definitive proof, which you have done, is sufficient evidence for the point being discredited as a lie, or at least something poorly thought out, which is why I gave you so many 'annoying' chances to back down, in your case, so far it seems to be that you are merely unclear on the concept, so I will try to clear it up; do you want to back down, do you have definitive proof that you will present, or are you lying?
Honestly, I think that very few people are suggesting Tom reverse his decision, and even if they were, Tom has a mind of his own, he can look at the arguments, and make an informed judgment call, something he can not do, I might add, without people on both sides expressing their opinion, what if Tom himself decides this was a mistake? Is that not his right? And are the people requesting him put the game up requiring it? One side of a topic is not a dialog, if Tom did not want, want to here both sides of the story, why would he have made this thread? Furthermore, allowed too? That is not your place to decide. Ever. As long as they stay within the sight guidelines, they are 'allowed' to do whatever they please.

At 11/21/13 09:43 PM, S3C wrote:

At 11/21/13 09:39 PM, Vielle wrote:

At 11/21/13 09:16 PM, spicedawgz wrote: I'd say Newgrounds needs this. I mean, I've seen quite a bit of stuff that I wish I hadn't. So if you ask me, I think the censorship was a good idea.

Your fault for searching everything mature and above.

haha BURN

oh shit
is that some vectorman boss in your avatar?

Yup. I had no other Idea to have as my avatar that was small enough and recognizable so I used a Vectorman boss :)

At 11/21/13 11:07 PM, CypressDahlia wrote: Pico's School is a game where you attempt to stop a school shooting. This is a game where you commit a school shooting.

Are you honestly saying we should be offended by acts of heroism just as much as we are offended by acts of villainy?

That a game where you try to prevent a crime is as bad as a game where you commit one? Guess Superman, Spiderman and Batman games need to taken off the shelves, cuz they depict characters attempting to stop real world crimes.

The likeness is tenuous at best. That entire comparison is ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous. The fact that it is shown is just bad enough as the game itself. It's like a show where people use cigarettes ESRB still has to give it a teen rating or something just because of that.

At 11/18/13 12:29 PM, TPS wrote: I never post here, but I usually read your updates.

I don't think this is "opening floodgates," we have to consider WHO was complaining here. The parents of these children, the people who are still suffering. It's not like you bent to some organization trying to flex its muscles, these are people whose motives you could trust.

Don't rip your conscious out on this, it was the right thing. Those people have gone through enough.

I agree with this guy (I also never post here, so hello, fellow lurker!) Ultimately, I think what you did here Tom was a decision on a personal level for a site that YOU run and control, that doesn't really adversely affect the site as a whole. I mean, some messed up stuff definitely still gets through, and it's been a long time since Pico's School and a lot of crazy things have happened both around the world and in your (Tom's) own life since then, so things are different now. I went to another site and did in fact play the game, and I can understand why it doesn't really violate any normal standards for Newgrounds (I mean, we have Sexual Lobster here, things get pretty strange in this odd community). I just know that if something terrible were to happen to myself or a member of my family, and someone made a game, even one that is artistically of merit, and I took the time and effort to politely ask it to be removed, I would deeply appreciate this gesture.

Thanks Tom, and thanks Newgrounds. I love this place.

At 11/21/13 09:05 PM, Vielle wrote:

At 11/21/13 08:58 PM, KingBobThe4th wrote:

Trolls? Are we trying to upset people or cause humerous reactions to stir up? No we are not. This is related to Pico School in the matter that it is a school and you are going around shooting people. I would consider Tom a hypocrite and that he should stop censoring stuff. Blame the media because all they care about is ratings and money. That's it. They need stories to report because they have to report something it is their job to go around looking up stuff and reporting whatever they find. So why should we do something just because of some parents in Connecticut or the stupid media want us to remove the game? It is just a game and it won't encourage shootings. Just a reenactment or recreation of the event.

I'm glad you speak for everyone then! But apparently you didn't read the post too well? (glad they picked a "smart" one) I already compared Pico's School to this and it's in a completely different context, other than that it is about school shootings - He only did it this one time and then told everybody why! So to call him a hypocrite is kinda dumb (don't know why I would of expected more) Yes, to your news part (good job!) - hmmm I'm glad you feel like something like this should be put off as nothing and be able to be used for any purpose - why not make it into a dark psychotic game (might be cool!) - fuck em right!... I mean they were just kids... or whatever... why respect anything? and who needs morals? it's just a game!
As far as I'm concerned you sir are a just a retarded fucking troll crying for attention because nobody likes you :'-( (other than trolls) I believe you are not even a person - your whore of mother must be really proud

At 11/19/13 05:54 PM, Quasimodoxxx wrote:

At 11/19/13 04:55 PM, knexfan100 wrote: "freedom of speed"

please elaborate. im really confused on what that is...

I meant to say "speech", but I couldn't edit the post...

oh, ok. good thing you said that because i was actually looking this up to see if im missing something. lol

[THREAT OF VIOLENCE]

http://swfchan.org/2942/sandyhook.swf

Alright I just played the game and I don't think that it should have been removed from Newgrounds (even though I don't like the creator but that's because I personally know him).

This game is a piece of art and pretty stylish. So here is the thing: Art always poralizes. Art can piss people off- heck sometimes it even should.

Artists have always created art in order to shock people- shock people, hurt their feelings and offend them. Art evokes emotions. It has become hard to evoke emotions nowadays. He succeded. If offending and pissing off people is a good thing or not is another question. If you want to make friends or people like you it certainly ISN'T a good option but that's clearly not what he aimed for.

If he hadn't used Sandy Hooks in the title no one would give a single fuck about this game. This is a pretty clever trick how to rise awareness of your creation. It will get you fame. It gave him fame.

See you could make a normal game and no one would really give a fuck. Say you code a normal Super Mario clone. Now change your Mario sprite and call it Super Allah world and place some religious signs somewhere in your game and muslims will be offended by your creation. This is just an EXAMPLE and I am not trying to offend Muslims here or anyone. What I am just trying to say: You can just make any game and then add "risky" content / stuff where you know people will get offended and it will mostly EXPLODE. People will become aware of it.

In all fairness I don't think that this game is about gun control or what not. The creator simply felt like making a game about the Sandy Hook's shooting. I think there isn't more to it but you know what: That's okay. You should be allowed to make a game about whatever the fuck you want to make a game about. If you want to gain fame offending people is the easist way to gain IF you are fine with negative publicity. They say any publicity is good publicity even negative publicity but one can debate about this.

Newgrounds is Tom's site so it's up to Tom to host something or not. Like anyone can create whatever the fuck they feel like creating Tom can do whatever the fuck he feels like doing on his own page.

At 11/21/13 11:57 PM, MarkP0rter wrote: http://swfchan.org/2942/sandyhook.swf

Alright I just played the game and I don't think that it should have been removed from Newgrounds (even though I don't like the creator but that's because I personally know him).

This game is a piece of art and pretty stylish. So here is the thing: Art always poralizes. Art can piss people off- heck sometimes it even should.

The "Eagletears" bit kinda made me laugh a bit

[THREAT OF VIOLENCE] *misses and flees*

you made a call and morally I think you did the right thing.

At 11/18/13 11:58 AM, TomFulp wrote: Over the years, a number of highly offensive games and movies have been published on Newgrounds and despite the hatemail and being dropped by just about every ad company in existence, we held firm on a policy of anti-censorship. Today, however, I pulled a reversal on that policy and maybe it was a huge mistake or maybe it was the right thing to do, I'm sure there will be a variety of opinions on the matter.

It's not like we don't already slip on the censorship policy. We've removed racist and homophobic stuff (moreso than YouTube I would say) and we remove shovelware games built off common templates with zero passion.

This game, however, had a certain level of artfulness and craftsmanship to it. There was a visual and technical quality that revealed a serious level of effort and passion. It also had a political message I personally agree with; a statement on gun control and the problem of gun violence in the US. It attempted to demonstrate how things can play out differently with changes in our gun laws. It made you feel and it made you think.

It did so, however, in the context of the Sandy Hook massacre, recreating the event and putting you in the role of the shooter.

Newgrounds has faced harsh criticism in the past for standing firm on not censoring distasteful material, namely games about school shootings. All I can say is that this game took things to a new level in terms of the age of the victims and the realism of the terror they faced on that day.

I was personally contacted by Sandy Hook parents and they expressed their understanding of what the game was attempting to communicate, but also expressed the sadness and horror it made them feel, and their desire to have it removed. Today I'm choosing respect for the Sandy Hook parents over respect for NG's censorship policies.

Either decision on this matter puts a knot in my stomach. I'm of course interested in hearing thoughts on the matter, especially from artists on the site.

OK.

I have been on NG on and off for a fair few years. I've stayed to myself, I've given my opinion and that is all I can offer normally without getting too involved.

On this one, I am getting more involved. Seeing how much this site has to offer in terms of freedom and expression, I do not believe that something should be made personal. Bring the death of a child and things already become elevated, bring in the death of many children and this turn from expressive to personal.

The Gun laws in the US should be reveiwed, this is my opinion and I believe in it. The fact that the parents of these children found this content before it even gathered any momentum mean that they are vigilent to NG and so I think, on this one you did the right thing Tom. Congrats to you :)

a part of me would like to review the content of this game. i have a overwhelming sense of humanity that is appalled at the idea of playing a game where you shoot children, if the intent of the game was to raise awareness of gun issues in america, as a gun owner, i think the artist failed miserably. the real issue i see is a lack of humanity, the gun is just the outlet that the person channels his hate, much like a artist with a brush except instead of paint its bullets and the canvas is human life. the fact that a person would take the life of one child yet alone go on a killing spree is unfathomable. the fact that a person would glorify the act in game form is unfathomable still, that being said i was first drawn to this site because of its lack of censorship. i was amazed at its openness to creativity, its seedy underbelly of content "i mean where else could i give Brittney spears a dirty Sanchez" i have found allot of content offensive, raciest, homophobic, but its art and opinions expressed are sacred to individuality regardless if there politically correct. i find that people who are easily offended offensive, but despite my personal opinion, i think that censoring a person and taking away there right and the right of another person to like or not like is a crime against artistic expression, with all that said tom, thank you. at the end of the day you made a choice and took a hard stand on a moral decision with no easy answer, that took allot of brass as im sure the new grounds community agrees you made the right choice.

At 11/21/13 11:33 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/21/13 11:02 PM, JackofPojo wrote: You are effectively not allowing a dialog between people...

Because I'm somehow magically stopping you from posting, right? Sorry, lemme turn off my wizard powers.

I did not make you do it, you did it of your own free will...

You're right. So I guess next time a doctor prescribes the wrong medicine to a patient, the patient shouldn't be compensated for malpractice. Something called LIABILITY exists. Especially when a person is asked to make a suspicious to seemingly unwise decision.

And why couldn't people give good advice?

^ you suggesting that the author of the site somehow lacks the insight to make a better decision than a very small portion of the userbase. Please. Everything in this world is based on potential. When it comes down to making decisions about running Newgrounds, it's safe to say Tom is the authority. My opinion on medicine does not hold the same weight as a doctor's. A regular user's opinion on the Public Relations, revenue and damage control sectors of NG does not hold the same weight as Tom's.

He and many admins see loss as a highly potential outcome for hosting the game. I trust their word.

they have said that about incidents in the past, that was then, this is now.

Are you saying something that has consistently happened in the past cannot be assumed to happen in the future? You are simply refusing to make SIMPLE, TINY LEAPS OF LOGIC so you can have an argument. That is the definition of GRASPING AT STRAWS. I guess I shouldn't expect the sun to rise tomorrow, even though it has risen every morning for billions of years. Come on. There are socioeconomic principles at work here which guarantee NG will lose backers. Companies do not want to support logos of ill repute. That's not a "prediction" that's a law of internal politics. But you know what? Keep refusing to read between the lines. I LOVE spelling things out for you as if you were a child.

I absolutely LOVE having to repeatedly point out the obvious to you. It's actually become my favorite hobby.

True, luckily nobody gave you the power to do this, probably beacuse of what you would do if you could, from what you've said, this is exactly what you'd do if you could, or are you just calling everyone who doesn't agree with you evil? Then again, could be both. Or you could even have a real explanation, if so, what is it?
No, because the patient had no reason to doubt the doctor, the doctor said the medicain would not only not be detrimental, but would be curative, and the patient was paying the doctor for treatment of an aliment, if you look at my example, I did imply, if not explicitly say, that if I told you I would take you to a hospital, I would have to take you to the hospital.
And you know for certainty that they are right? Everyone is wrong sometimes, some of the greatest thinkers of all time held beliefs, and even created theories, that were later proven false, and regardless of whether or not Tom was right, talking about it allows him to make a well informed desion, and again you assume the belifes of others, based on what measure do you say this? Beacuse I can give data that supports the opposite:
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.
http://strawpoll.me/732754
So unless you can give me evidence more concrete then this, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
yes, Tom does know more about the subject, that does not mean he knows everything.
You see, one of the many flaws in that argument is that those spawnsers have withdrawn their support, so it is fair to assume that all current spawnsers are okay with what Newgrounds has done up until this point, yes, past behavior can be used to predict future outcomes, but only when the variables are the same If you know a coin lands on heads about 50% of the time, you can't assume a coin with two tails will. Now again, provide evidence, back down, and adjust your argument accordingly, or you are almost certainly lying, and your point is therefore null, and void.

At 11/18/13 12:06 PM, zalzane wrote: thank god, the guy who made that game is a huge narcissistic shithead who gets off when people get mad at his game.

itll be fun to see how he reacts

Please sir, try not to rage at him too hard, after all you'd just be fueling his narcissistic orgasm. He tried to show how people think and feel in a way he probably didn't realize people would react so strongly against. People have made games on other school shootings and tragedies in the past such as Columbine, and people do not usually react so strongly to them, rather they ignore them and pretend they don't exist. So why should the Author have assumed differently about using this event as his setting.
If you have taken nothing at all from this, at the least take a boot and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Other people's opinions and ideas matter, and can't be shut out on a whim. To the Author, thank you for creating this game.

There will still be pain whether it was removed or not. Personally, I would've removed it anyways if it were my decision. I can't stand violence toward children or any references to it. But it WASN'T my decision. That said, I've seen for myself that someone somewhere is gonna post that kind of stuff, regardless of what any victims say. Some sites will remove it, some won't.

I'll repeat: some won't. Some won't do a damn thing. But for most of those sites, it's simply because they could care less, not because of any moral ideal. This site has a moral ideal to uphold freedom of speech and avoid censorship. Almost every work of art will deeply offend someone; a lot of mine has, and I can totally see where they're coming from. But if you start removing everything that people find upsetting, there will be nothing left.

Maybe there should've been a vote or something?

Just checked out the game. Call me squeamish, but I couldn't even press the button to shoot the mom. The way it said "Shoot your mother". "YOUR mother". MY mother.

I can certainly see why people wanted it removed.

But at what point do you draw the line of censorship?

It's your website, Tom. Your decision.

But I am disappointed.

At 11/22/13 01:37 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/22/13 12:59 AM, JackofPojo wrote: ...are you just calling everyone who doesn't agree with you evil?

lol. Just call me a Nazi and get it over with. I'm tired of these pointless jabs. Just enforce Godwin's law already.

...the doctor said the medicain would not only not be detrimental, but would be curative

so what you're saying is: the difference between my example and what's happening here is that people are //asking Tom to purposefully make an UNWISE decision//? I'm glad we can finally agree. :]

And you know for certainty that they are right? Everyone is wrong sometimes...

This train of thought is simply nihilistic. This argument can be expanded to say nobody is ever right, even if it's incredibly likely that they are. In fact, nobody understands anything about anything. Happy?

...it has to be voted on a certain amount of times AND have a certain score.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? Users have approved games in the past that have caused Newgrounds to lose sponsers. Users don't have access to the Newgrounds checkbook, users don't deal with media and press, do interviews. They lack the insider knowledge that Tom and other admins have and are very much less informed on what's actually //beneficial// for the site.

So unless you can give me evidence more concrete then this, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

115 random users voted on a poll and that's your "evidence" that this game is somehow beneficial for Newgrounds? That doesn't even make sense...

If you know a coin lands on heads about 50% of the time, you can't assume a coin with two tails will.

WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU EVEN SAYING HERE? HAHAHAHA. Okay, okay, I'm done, dude. This was fun while it lasted but you've just stopped making sense at this point. I'm "backing down". Go do your victory laps. You've "won". :] hahahaha.

so you deleted must of my argument, so you could be right? Or did I miss something? Or would you, if you could, really stop everyone who disagreed with you from talking? That actually seems like the most likely conclusion, since you have never even tried to refute it. And is someone who only allows their point of view to be heard acting less then moral? Or for that mater, wisely, or smartly, I'd say in this day and age, probably.
That is not at all what I am saying, and you are either very good at conveniently selectively reading, or at this point deliberately distorting my argument.
Yes, everyone is wrong sometimes, and everyone has something to contribute, and no, we can not be certain of anything, in fact, certainty only closes our minds, this is not a hard concept to grasp.
I was not addressing the wisdom of this decision here, I was addressing the 'small number of people' you assumed were disagreeing with you, vs the 'large majority' that agreed, and 115 people is more then 115 people more then you have provided, ever, it is a statistic, it is data, it is a measure, I can't say it is necessarily objective, but it is a lot more objective then you, or I.
This argument to hard to grasp for you? Changing the variables can change the outcome.
You haven't made sense in ages, and your responses keep becoming less and less retorts, and more and more attacks, if you are going to cede, could you at least do it like a self respecting individual, if you don't feel the need to respond, could you just say that, instead of making baseless acusations? If you have points, why can't we discuss them in a civilized manner? I have been listing to you this whole time, but I see very little evidence that you have been listing to me.

I never saw the game myself so I can't say anything about it. I can say that as someone who lives in America and I disagree with gun control I am a advocate of free speach and people having the right to say what they want and feel. I also understand that in a sense NewGrounds is your place of business and as it being your business you have final say on what can and cannot be shown on your site. You made the call and that should be the end of it. He has the freedom to post it on his own site if he wants to badly enough.

I have been a Newgrounder for many years and have admired the censorship policies held here, I know this is a rough spot but how about a compromise for extremely offensive material. Have you considered putting a disclaimer for this extreme content?

Maybe is a way to put the creator in the heat but not the entire website? it seems really unfair this guy isn't taking any heat for this

At 11/22/13 04:12 AM, trueamerican wrote: I never saw the game myself so I can't say anything about it. I can say that as someone who lives in America and I disagree with gun control I am a advocate of free speach and people having the right to say what they want and feel. I also understand that in a sense NewGrounds is your place of business and as it being your business you have final say on what can and cannot be shown on your site. You made the call and that should be the end of it. He has the freedom to post it on his own site if he wants to badly enough.

Thanks for voicing your point of view, on a subject which has caused Tom much consternation. It's good that our members can come together, and speak out about what brought us here in the first place: freedom. Our site is peer-reviewed, the content producers and staff of the site, are approachable, helpful, and actively engaged in maintaining structure and dialog.

I've heard super-idealistic people say that Newgrounds is on a sliding slope, and this is just another drop downwards, from where it used to be.... I think it's the world which has lowered itself, asking for more protection and giving up their liberty to do so.

I appreciate that this was a tough call, Tom. My first reaction was outrage, because I am staunchly opposed to censorship. But after thinking about it for a long time, I came to the realization that Newgrounds should not be obliged to host the content, despite its importance. I agree with the author's intentions, but I think that he should take the heat for hosting his game. It's not Newgrounds' responsibility.