At 11/22/13 05:53 AM, Greggor88 wrote: 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.

Tom's stuck his neck out in the past for authors/content providers since the very beginning. Earlier this year, Nintendo sent him a list of a few hundred games to take down, lest he be sued. He didn't fold on all of them, especially since it seemed to be a blanket list of everything that had 'Mario' in the title :|

YouTube and Facebook (and the 'blame laying' press) are just too big to feel... humane, or accountable for that matter. At least here, members of the site can take out the trash (spam, crap submissions), contact the owner of the site directly, and foster an atmosphere of community, without cheap gimmicks (well, some cheap gimmicks, but no worse than dA).

Ah, things have gone downhill since 9/11... I saw all kinds of submissions on the event, hours after it happened, good, bad and indifferent. What's different now, is the stigma we are fed by governments, mass-media, and the corporations that feed them. Freedom means we can get a bloody nose from time to time, and not a nanny state or a constantly revised rulebook of 'acceptable behavior'.

At 11/20/13 06:23 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/20/13 04:08 PM, Boss wrote:

At 11/19/13 07:52 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/19/13 07:18 PM, Boss wrote: its good that you followed your heart

His "heart" probably doesn't care about how much he would lose in ad revenue.
His "heart" probably doesn't care if a bunch of people that have never heard of him think ill of him because of a news story possibly mentioning him.

I think the word you are looking for is "wallet" and "Ego"

i hope you have fun trying to live a good life with your negative attitude because it is impossible and you need to find yourself but you are lost in the world of self hate and fear

Thanks for the judgement bro, you obviously know so much about me.

I feel really sorry for you, it's impossible to live a good life when you are as obsessed with torturing small animals as you are. You really need to find yourself.

Yeah, you have clearly "found yourself" since you are here on this thread.

Your post is very ironic because I felt the need to say something back to your original and very facetious reply to me because you seem extremely judgmental out of nowhere. I do not torture small animals and I am sorry that I made you feel so low that you felt the need to fabricate an argument to try to put yourself over me in some way. You have made like nine billion posts in this thread and you should just calm down.

At 11/18/13 12:08 PM, Wegra wrote: Did I miss something?

I KNOW you have a penis.
A MEGA penis.
A WEGRA penis.

Everyone using the line of "It's Tom's decision; there's no need to argue over it" obviously forgot (or didn't read) the main point of putting this up in a news thread:

At 11/18/13 11:58 AM, TomFulp wrote: I'm of course interested in hearing thoughts on the matter, especially from artists on the site.

There is no "right" in this. Both actions would've lead to pissing off large groups of people, and there was no real way of telling which option was better in the long run. It's all opinions, and Tom wanted ours. Spamming it up with arguments over who's opinion is better than who's has so far succeeded only in clogging the thread with stupid and making it harder for the staff to gauge the overall userbase's mentality regarding controversial content.

Speaking of opinions:
I can understand making exceptions for special cases, but I do not want to see NG lose its standing as a safe haven for artists whose work would otherwise be restricted from public viewing. If we lose that, we're not really much different from any of the other flash creation sites, let alone sites like Youtube with the financial power to easily eclipse NG if they deem us a direct competitor. As long as isolated special cases stay isolated, I can live with the occasional loss of an objectionable but nonetheless well-made flash. As soon as this becomes a habit, we're fucked.

I guess I'm not surprised this site would censor something... any sort of comment that seems to be slightly offensive or vulgar in nature gets killed by that silly robot. O well, still a fairly decent site :S

I'm more offended that Tom says he removes homophobic/racist content.

At 11/21/13 08:06 PM, Parlux wrote: Tom I feel this is just a public relations stunt just to save your own ass and you're a hypocrite because you did this years in ago in 1999 with Pico's School . The Foundation of that game and the technical achievements with such a early version of Micromedia flash was amazing for that time despite the graphic content of the game.

If you really feel this way maybe the NGA was right and the website should be Banned or why stop at that flash maybe all the offensive content like the 9/11 flashes they are just as offensive? Or how about the other school shooting flash games and movies like Virginia tech and Columbine High School massacre

I made Pico when I was near the same age as the kids at Columbine and it was as far as I was willing to go in the name of shock value - a game that was about school shooting but not about Columbine; a game where you fought back against the school shooters, not a game where you ARE the school shooter.

PiGPEN took the school shooting theme to a different level when he made V-Tech Rampage. We kept the game up on NG in the name of freedom and I dealt with all the hatemail and backlash.

Now PiGPEN felt compelled to do it a second time, this time with even younger victims and even more realism and darkness. This time it has a political message but I don't personally buy those motives. He crossed the line where I finally said "This is not what Newgrounds is about and I am not going to defend it." I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

At 11/22/13 07:06 AM, Advertise-Play wrote: U Can Go F yourself, Tom.

Wow your polite! Really contributing to the discussion huh?

I think the right thing was done. People need to realize that in some cases, censorship is necessary, and beneficial. I'm proud of newgrounds for making the decision that they did honestly.

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote: I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

Regular users / artists being cared about by the staff was another of the big draws to this website over places like YouTube. If you're throwing that away too you might as well just sell the site and be done with it.

Well, in one side we have abusing, shocking and horrible contents of the internet, ( content that, even if sometime wants to deliver a good message, do it the wrong way ) witch isn't suited for any "normal" people.

In the other side, we have internet freedom, the possibility to see everything,by everyone.

But is it a good idea to let the "mentally sick" humans show their mind's horror to the "normal" humans, or to bring hate with their "opinions" ?
Well, we'll never stop arguing about things like that,but in my opinion, NG should be a place where censorship exist, but in a moderated way.
If people want to see offending/racist content,then they shouldn't come here, they should go to some sites dedicated to their "opinions" or whatever they like.

People who wants to sensitize other people should use tact, diplomacy, and be aware that not everyone will agree with their "methods".

Of course, some content are more offending than others,and some content are really controversial.
But to put an end to this loooong reply, I'm glad that you care of every opinion, and that you ask our thoughts.

At 11/22/13 11:18 AM, Sheizenhammer wrote:

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote: I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

Regular users / artists being cared about by the staff was another of the big draws to this website over places like YouTube. If you're throwing that away too you might as well just sell the site and be done with it.

I still care about the majority of regular users and artists, I just won't guarantee a defense of 100% of them.

At 11/22/13 11:20 AM, TomFulp wrote: I still care about the majority of regular users and artists, I just won't guarantee a defense of 100% of them.

That's good to hear... In fact that's exactly what I was hoping for. You can't be all things to all people after all, hence the whole reason this was / is such a thing in the first place.

You were, somewhat ironically, going to get flak for this either way, and as long as the majority of the stuff that makes NG different from all the soulless flash-dump sites is defended, I can see this being a good decision in the long run.

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote: I made Pico when I was near the same age as the kids at Columbine and it was as far as I was willing to go in the name of shock value - a game that was about school shooting but not about Columbine; a game where you fought back against the school shooters, not a game where you ARE the school shooter.

PiGPEN took the school shooting theme to a different level when he made V-Tech Rampage. We kept the game up on NG in the name of freedom and I dealt with all the hatemail and backlash.

Now PiGPEN felt compelled to do it a second time, this time with even younger victims and even more realism and darkness. This time it has a political message but I don't personally buy those motives. He crossed the line where I finally said "This is not what Newgrounds is about and I am not going to defend it." I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

I am glad you made it clear, Tom. People who disagree with you may leave, but there will be people who agree join. Newgrounds will find its place among the crowds who share the same ideals.

Our point of view, values and ideas change as we grow. I would probably defend the hell out of my "freedom of speech" if this was 10 years ago. But now I have my own kids, I can relate to the parents who lost their children.

Artists should be responsible for their works, not hide behind the name of art and say "I am just expressing myself". Everyone can have opinions, but also be hold responsible for their opinions.

Internet is convenient for people to get away with the consequences of rude behaviors. How many of the people who oppose on having this game taken down can actually tell the parents who lost their children face to face "No way, it's all for freedom of speech"? If we wouldn't do that in real life, we should try to maintain the same respect on internet.

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote:

At 11/21/13 08:06 PM, Parlux wrote: Tom I feel this is just a public relations stunt just to save your own ass and you're a hypocrite because you did this years in ago in 1999 with Pico's School . The Foundation of that game and the technical achievements with such a early version of Micromedia flash was amazing for that time despite the graphic content of the game.

If you really feel this way maybe the NGA was right and the website should be Banned or why stop at that flash maybe all the offensive content like the 9/11 flashes they are just as offensive? Or how about the other school shooting flash games and movies like Virginia tech and Columbine High School massacre

I made Pico when I was near the same age as the kids at Columbine and it was as far as I was willing to go in the name of shock value - a game that was about school shooting but not about Columbine; a game where you fought back against the school shooters, not a game where you ARE the school shooter.

PiGPEN took the school shooting theme to a different level when he made V-Tech Rampage. We kept the game up on NG in the name of freedom and I dealt with all the hatemail and backlash.

Now PiGPEN felt compelled to do it a second time, this time with even younger victims and even more realism and darkness. This time it has a political message but I don't personally buy those motives. He crossed the line where I finally said "This is not what Newgrounds is about and I am not going to defend it." I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

Honestly Tom, don't take it too personally, children be children, and some come back and some don't. Again, don't take it personally, some people need to vent. Truth be told, I've been to Newgrounds a lot longer than what it says in my profile, call me a long time lurker. The one thing I've found about this site, is that Newgrounds will never die, provided there are people willing to make those difficult choices every now and then.

The fact that my first few posts (EVER) are in defense of you should speak volumes as well. I usually try and avoid drama, and Newgrounds always seems to have an abundance of supply. So, to stick my neck out... not really my thing, and I'll probably be flamed/trolled/monkeyed, because of the simple fact that I'm standing up for you. One game being pulled (Once in a lifetime, mind you) because your trying to do what you feel is right, is not the reason I'd leave, it's the reason I'd stay. It means you have strong morals, and your willing to stand up for what you believe in. Just as you've stood up for all the games/movies/music/ect that others took offense to, and tried to get it pulled.

For those that are leaving, I wish the best of luck, I'll be right here, I ain't leaving. ~WeasleX

I must say i disagree with taking the game down. If it met quality policies it should have been allowed to stay for freedom of expression. There's a section dedicated to "offensive" things on the site, and if the game had any other proper warnings to how "real" it would be it had every right to stay. By taking it down you also take down the message that goes along with it. I presonaly don't believe in gun control, but I much more believe in freedom of expression.

At 11/22/13 02:53 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/22/13 02:05 AM, JackofPojo wrote:
so you deleted must of my argument, so you could be right?

This is not a rebuttal, but the reason I delete most of your post when I quote you is to avoid being a discourteous dick and filling up the page with massive walls of redundant text. Given that you only have 31 posts on this BBS (most of them directed at me), I don't expect you to understand how things might work. But maybe you should start considering doing the same.

Adieu.

no, what you posted was a published, and deliberately false statement that is damaging to a my reputation, you distorted my words so many times in blatant attempts to completely change 'my' argument, and stick words in my mouth, perhaps I am wrong, and you only accidentally did this, but with your policy of cropping others argument, at this point it does not matter, because if you are going to do that, you need to make sure you accurately, and truthfully present the oppositions argument, an art you have not yet mastered, I, feeling I have not mastered that art either, instead present your arguments in their entirety, so as to provide full context, and reasoning, maybe you could consider doing the same.

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote:

At 11/21/13 08:06 PM, Parlux wrote: Tom I feel this is just a public relations stunt just to save your own ass and you're a hypocrite because you did this years in ago in 1999 with Pico's School . The Foundation of that game and the technical achievements with such a early version of Micromedia flash was amazing for that time despite the graphic content of the game.

If you really feel this way maybe the NGA was right and the website should be Banned or why stop at that flash maybe all the offensive content like the 9/11 flashes they are just as offensive? Or how about the other school shooting flash games and movies like Virginia tech and Columbine High School massacre

I made Pico when I was near the same age as the kids at Columbine and it was as far as I was willing to go in the name of shock value - a game that was about school shooting but not about Columbine; a game where you fought back against the school shooters, not a game where you ARE the school shooter.

PiGPEN took the school shooting theme to a different level when he made V-Tech Rampage. We kept the game up on NG in the name of freedom and I dealt with all the hatemail and backlash.

Now PiGPEN felt compelled to do it a second time, this time with even younger victims and even more realism and darkness. This time it has a political message but I don't personally buy those motives. He crossed the line where I finally said "This is not what Newgrounds is about and I am not going to defend it." I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

Alright Tom, please just tell us, in no uncertain terms, why exactly you choose to remove this game. I do not mind you removing this game, and will not leave regardless of your response, but how you anwser this question now is actually very important, it is like a supreme court ruling in a way, so please tell us the factors that entered into your decision, and how they played a role? Was it, as you initially posited, respect? Was it that PiGPEN was acting in an unjustified manner? Was it fear of losing ad revenue? I have heard you and the staff give answers all around the board, and I just want a clear and concise anwser as to why you choose to do this, I doubt the parents will look at page 30+, and your anwser will probably be berried before they can see it without actually extending effort, so please, for us, anwser the question.

At 11/22/13 02:11 PM, JackofPojo wrote: Was it, as you initially posited, respect? Was it that PiGPEN was acting in an unjustified manner? Was it fear of losing ad revenue? I have heard you and the staff give answers all around the board, and I just want a clear and concise anwser as to why you choose to do this, I doubt the parents will look at page 30+, and your anwser will probably be berried before they can see it without actually extending effort, so please, for us, anwser the question.

The argument of revenue is a valid one because NG has been completely crippled by the content we have supported over the years. We took a HUGE hit from PiGPEN's V-Tech game. As a result, we adapted in a way that the Sandy Hook game was unlikely to hurt ad revenue much. The majority of the ads nowadays are performance based and a lot are for MMOs based in other countries such as China. We are already a site that hosts pornographic content and games that recreate school shootings, neither of which I take great pride in.

On Monday morning, the main thought going through my head was that I was no longer interested in defending content that hurts people so much. I know I hurt people with Pico and it made people think that anything goes on NG, but V-Tech Rampage in 2007 was the ultimate test of that. It was a game that hurt people a lot than Pico did because it was directly about their tragedy and it put you in the role of the shooter. I received a lot of emails about that game and it made me question whether NG had to be the end-all absolute last stand for this stuff. When people look back on NG in the future, I want them to tell stories about all the successful game devs and artists who started here. I don't want the lasting memory of NG to be that it hurt people for the sake of publicity. It has happened but it doesn't have to keep happening.

One of my friends told me, "NG should either make you money or make you happy." NG hasn't made me any money in a long time, so the least it can do is make me happy otherwise you guys won't have anyone to run NG anymore. And I know that's a "selfish" reason but that's just how it is - if I sell NG the new owners will remove the questionable content. If I don't sell NG but don't like what it has become, I don't know what the point is because NG takes up a ton of time that I otherwise spend making games of my own, which make me happy AND make me money.

At 11/22/13 03:46 PM, TomFulp wrote:
The argument of revenue is a valid one because NG has been completely crippled by the content we have supported over the years.

On Monday morning, the main thought going through my head was that I was no longer interested in defending content that hurts people so much.

One of my friends told me, "NG should either make you money or make you happy." NG hasn't made me any money in a long time, so the least it can do is make me happy otherwise you guys won't have anyone to run NG anymore. And I know that's a "selfish" reason but that's just how it is - if I sell NG the new owners will remove the questionable content. If I don't sell NG but don't like what it has become, I don't know what the point is because NG takes up a ton of time that I otherwise spend making games of my own, which make me happy AND make me money.

thank you Tom, I respect your decision, and reasons for making it, and I'm sure others will as well. Sorry for cropping a bit, but it would not let me post with 90 something percent quoted text, I hope I have not distorted what you have said

I have to side with Tom here. When I caught glimpse of the game the first hour it was on here, I thought it crossed the line. And I've seen all the edgy flash games and movies that are hidden on here. And this is the first time I found something to be in bad taste. Much like other users, I've been here a lot longer than my register date...just lurking about. While I agree that this site has always been about it's edginess, offensive material and simply pushing the envelope on what really gets under peoples skin. But something like this, that uses young children in a violent matter, doesn't deserve a place in any medium. Regardless of how it's portrayed.

Hmmmmm an odd situation but maybe a compromise. Remember in the past when we had the 'hidden links' like the original bear in the house that blew and the snarly brown shorts? Maybe do something like that with this? Allowing the thing to still be on the site but still being respectful to those that might not like it, Showing that yes it will be on the site but we at least have some decency, a balance of freedom and respect. It is hard to balance art and the feelings, and art will offend sometimes, shitty art and good art alike. Taking down the stuff that offends one group will only make more groups come in and demand more take downs, but saying 'we can hide it but people will still have access to it if they look and you HAVE to try and get to it but we won't fully it take it down' might send the message that you at least want to balance both. Just a thought...

At 11/22/13 03:46 PM, TomFulp wrote:

On Monday morning, the main thought going through my head was that I was no longer interested in defending content that hurts people so much. I know I hurt people with Pico and it made people think that anything goes on NG, but V-Tech Rampage in 2007 was the ultimate test of that. It was a game that hurt people a lot than Pico did because it was directly about their tragedy and it put you in the role of the shooter. I received a lot of emails about that game and it made me question whether NG had to be the end-all absolute last stand for this stuff. When people look back on NG in the future, I want them to tell stories about all the successful game devs and artists who started here. I don't want the lasting memory of NG to be that it hurt people for the sake of publicity. It has happened but it doesn't have to keep happening.

On PICO: that one had you as a student fighting back something that was causing the chaos. You were a hero regardless and the instigators of the shooting where nihilistic villains that wanted to either control or destroy the world, starting with that school so don't ever feel like you hurt anyone with that creation Tom. Plus there is enough fantasy in it that anyone who takes it seriously is out of their minds honestly.

Actually, I usually don't find it on purpose.

While I do not feel it was the best choice to remove the game, I respect Toms decision. It sounds to me that Tom was just too mentally fatigued to defend it, and if my hypothesis is correct then defending it would have been devastatingly stressful. You have to pick your battles man.

I know nothing of pigpen, but after playing the game, I'm willing to defend it. First, I liked the art style and felt that the character design for Adam Lanza was quite telling. Adam is portrayed as a barley human scribble, his footsteps splash with blood, and the first thing he does is kill his sleeping mother. He is portrayed as a monster in it's purist form. Second, the game play is not fun. I felt sick killing those innocent women and children, and it took quite a bit of will to not hit the “X” key to end the game. However, like Tom, mental fatigue got to me, and I hit the”X”, where Adam kills himself. No glory, no fanfare, he just kills himself.

This game does not glorify Sandy Hook, it puts you in Adam's shoes to show you just how much of a monster he is. It makes you feel the sickness in his head.

But the song says it most bluntly. To paraphrase “Crazy people are killing people, and what we're doing to stop them isn't working”.

At 11/20/13 12:57 AM, derelix wrote:

At 11/19/13 11:51 PM, Adultism wrote: Oh wow, I mean we've had some pretty disturbing games over the years and I agree that crap should be removed but if the parents asked for it to be taken down we should respect their wishes. I mean in this situation its pretty messed up so.

Can you explain to me how that makes sense?

Yeah the situation is messed up, it's messed up that their kids were murdered by some psycho, that doesn't mean they should decide what happens to anything based on that tragedy.

Let's not pretend he took it down because the parents asked him too. He wouldn't take down the miami shark game just because a shark attack victim calls with a heartfelt message.

He's given several reasons for doing this but the only reasons that have any substance to them is ad revenue and a fear of him having his name "ruined" in the public forum. Kind of disgusting that he tries to cast himself as a noble sympathizer to the victims when he's made it clear that he's only made the choice to keep his machine running and to protect his own ego.

I just see things that way. Would you want to see a game that depicted your dead child being murdered by the character you play? I sure wouldn't. Either way I don't think to deep into it because its not really a huge deal.

At 11/22/13 10:37 AM, TomFulp wrote: I no longer care who I let down or what people think. As far as I'm concerned, this week can be the week that Newgrounds died for the people who this matters to.

From what you've posted earlier though it seems like this mattered to you as well. You know, it's frustrating seeing change happen that you don't agree with yet have no control over, and it's hard to voice an opinion in a delicate way with something you are passionate about. Hope you understand that users are flustered as well, for other reasons. Best simile I can think of is that NG is like a country; citizens want a voice in how their society is governed. Some are more patriotic than others, some maybe overly so. NG has its own culture, holidays, leaders and selected representatives to enforce its own law; even polls as to what content is accepted.

As for the death of this place, I feel like NG was actually really brought alive for a moment thanks to this topic, a lot of old users I'd never heard of appearing to tell their tale, everybody engaging in the topic, for good or bad. Ultimately it's of course your decision and I appreciate opening that decision for debate especially since it'd have been easier for you if you hadn't. Also appreciate the...

I still care about the majority of regular users and artists, I just won't guarantee a defense of 100% of them.

... and the honest response later on, on how you reasoned. I don't have the same views in this matter, but you follow through despite what people say so that's an admirable act (or maybe just stubbornness...). As for ad revenue, have you been seeking out any sponsorships with other creative enterprises? Sounds like this place needs to start making some real money so everyone can be happy. :) The question of selling NG or not puts the topic in a new perspective though... hope it never comes down to that, but surely there are plenty of trustworthy people who wouldn't mind taking over and carrying the torch if such a day ever comes?

Btw, maybe relevant: I'm wondering, were the reviews for obituaries removed intentionally, because they were often intentionally cruel to submissions that were going to blammed anyway... or are they coming back? After reading this I'm wondering if that's related... I'm fine with it either way, though there have been a lot of legit submissions removed for other reasons of which the reviews would be fun to read again.

At 11/23/13 11:04 AM, Cyberdevil wrote: ... and the honest response later on, on how you reasoned. I don't have the same views in this matter, but you follow through despite what people say so that's an admirable act (or maybe just stubbornness...). As for ad revenue, have you been seeking out any sponsorships with other creative enterprises? Sounds like this place needs to start making some real money so everyone can be happy. :) The question of selling NG or not puts the topic in a new perspective though... hope it never comes down to that, but surely there are plenty of trustworthy people who wouldn't mind taking over and carrying the torch if such a day ever comes?

Btw, maybe relevant: I'm wondering, were the reviews for obituaries removed intentionally, because they were often intentionally cruel to submissions that were going to blammed anyway... or are they coming back? After reading this I'm wondering if that's related... I'm fine with it either way, though there have been a lot of legit submissions removed for other reasons of which the reviews would be fun to read again.

Reviews for obituaries were an accident with the redesign launch, would still like to have those be visible so it's on the long list of fixes still.

As for making more money, NG in its current form is toxic for brand advertisers and they spend their money on safer places. We talk a lot about ways to change this and I'm getting very serious about doing something in 2014. Basically NG needs to become a central publishing hub. It's possible NG could still host ALL the content and we could attempt to monetize the content better on satellite sites (such as a clean games or animation site), but I'm so personally attached to the NG brand - I'm always wearing the tank logo when I go out - that I like the idea of NG itself becoming something more respectable, while satellite sites can offload the things that make a lot of people feel icky.

For example this week I registered a domain name that could become a pure adult site. We could start by mirroring the adult content there and seeing how well we can monetize it for the artists. Right now we aren't allowed to share ad revenue on adult submissions because our ad partner on NG doesn't allow us to be an "adult reseller" of their ads. With a dedicated adult site we could just run a bunch of adult ads that I don't want to run on NG and could share the revenue from those. Ultimately, we could stop hosting adult content completely on NG, but artists would still use NG to publish their work and utilize our payment system - the submissions would just pass through to the adult site instead of appearing on NG. The submissions could still be linked to from the artist pages, but NG itself wouldn't list them in our content hubs and search.

That's the sort of thing that would be necessary to get off the blacklists that block us from even getting on the radars of large ad buyers. It could be a real win-win because it could make a lot more money for ALL artists on NG and NG itself could prosper. Artists could wear their tank logo shirts in public without people thinking they're promoting a hentai site (although those people were usually the ones searching Google for hentai when they stumbled across NG). It brings a level of compartmentalization to everything that ultimately gives us more flexibility.

On the topic of OFFENSIVE games, one thing I have been thinking about this week is the tone of how they are presented. I've been picturing a site where you need to have an account for X months before you can browse the content, at which point the content is served without ads and in the context of a historical archive. Basically an outsider wouldn't be able to read a sensationalist article and instantly go get offended, they would have to have an account with a waiting period and would be approaching the content in a different context than when it is viewed on a popular / ad-supported site like NG. It would allow the serious discussions to take place without being something the press can rub everyone's faces in.

At 11/24/13 09:14 AM, TomFulp wrote: On the topic of OFFENSIVE games, one thing I have been thinking about this week is the tone of how they are presented.

After hearing Arin Hanson complain in a recent Game Grumps about the occasional hostility of Newgrounds members, I've realized that I'm more offended by the tone of how people sometimes present their opinions here than any apparent censorship taking place. It seems like it is a problem. And it seems relevant to what you wrote before about trying to please different groups of people.

You run this site with enthusiasm and class without losing your sense of humor. Members should do likewise. Moderators should not bait each other because it's juvenile and basically unprofessional; old-timers should be gentle to newcomers because they represent the future of the site; users should refrain from personal attacks because it creates a toxic environment; etc. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be funny, blunt or even outrageous from time to time. But it should be possible for this community to represent free creative growth without also harboring a small, vocal group of immature jerks. Maybe an attempt to make Newgrounds more respectable by branching out to different domains will also help us find a place of better balance in the forums and comments.

At 11/24/13 09:14 AM, TomFulp wrote: Reviews for obituaries were an accident with the redesign launch, would still like to have those be visible so it's on the long list of fixes still.

Bluh, hope the staff can nail a fair amount of these glitches/fixes before the end of the year.

For example this week I registered a domain name that could become a pure adult site. We could start by mirroring the adult content there

So, Newdgrounds wouldn't work, or is this a new name?

That's the sort of thing that would be necessary to get off the blacklists that block us from even getting on the radars of large ad buyers. It could be a real win-win because it could make a lot more money for ALL artists on NG and NG itself could prosper. Artists could wear their tank logo shirts in public without people thinking they're promoting a hentai site (although those people were usually the ones searching Google for hentai when they stumbled across NG). It brings a level of compartmentalization to everything that ultimately gives us more flexibility.

It just sucks that the age filter isn't dependent on the sign-up birth-date listed... searches and what can be displayed can be linked by rating, yes? Wouldn't that be enough to get the big advertisers back? I'd hate to think you'd have to go through so much work shuffling files around, and basically making a new site.

On the topic of OFFENSIVE games, one thing I have been thinking about this week is the tone of how they are presented. I've been picturing a site where you need to have an account for X months before you can browse the content, at which point the content is served without ads and in the context of a historical archive. Basically an outsider wouldn't be able to read a sensationalist article and instantly go get offended, they would have to have an account with a waiting period and would be approaching the content in a different context than when it is viewed on a popular / ad-supported site like NG. It would allow the serious discussions to take place without being something the press can rub everyone's faces in.

Yeah, that sounds like a club, which could grant some 'plausible deniability'.... is there anything else like this on other major sites? Seems an odd concept these days. Just sucks being a registered member here isn't enough... although, you could filter content by whether or not the visitor is logged in/member.

And just to be a dick, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/24/secrecy-shrouds-sandy-hook-massacre-probe/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29
Myself, I think some major mental abuse was going on... or, more likely, prescription drugs. You'd be surprised how many kids lose their shit http://www.ssristories.com/