At 11/18/13 06:04 PM, Sammy589 wrote: Newgrounds is now about the money, not actually about letting people post creative works.

Oh, please. Save it for the choir...

At 11/18/13 03:49 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:

At 11/18/13 03:43 PM, Entice wrote:
That's not that point of blamming at all

It's a system that removes content (some of which is honest work) based on it's "likability" to many people who couldn't care less for content (look how successful the heavily plagiarized "Meet n' Fuck" games are). It's basically just a method for people to vent negativity on submissions without having to leave valid criticism or encouraging artistic growth.

That's exactly what blamming is about and it's generally in far worse taste than Tom's executive decision.

No it's not. Firstly, those Meet n' Fuck games are NOT stolen content (if they WERE, at least give me examples of a Meet n' Fuck game that was uploaded on a random site months before it got uploaded here by someone else). If they WERE plagiarized work, 9 times out of 10, you could BARELY read the Japanese text and 10 times out of 10, whoever uploaded such a thing doesn't match the site it came from.

Secondly, one of the main reasons why blamming exists is to keep the site clean from spam. Unfortunately, since this site got bombarded with:
[--spam crew submissions,
--copy/paste hentai games that serve no purpose of existing other than to keep your hand on the mouse rather than on your dick,
--the idea that porn sells just to label yourself a content creator if you have no imagination,
--and the fact the this site has a "Voting Power" feature, which makes it hard for spammers to resist the urge to stat whore their voting power to the point where blamming their spam crew submissions is pointless, since they have pimp-level voting power] It's difficult to trust the moderation, because the blam and vote power features are easy to abuse, regardless of using the whistle. So what you basically get from the recently passed submissions are spam and copy/paste hentai games.

And last of all, submissions getting blammed depends on certain factors:
--Was the flash an unfinished, lazily put together piece of shit? If so, then there's a justification it needs to be blammed.
--Was the flash made by someone else who ISN'T the uploader and was put out there anyway without permission? There's a justification.
--Did the flash contain some material that can threaten NG in any way, shape or form? There's a justification for that too, and that's probably why Pico School is no longer on NG.

So what do you mean when you said that certain hardwork content is getting blammed? That only happens if there's a spam crew that's active with large VPs to blam anyone's work for the wrong reasons. And since the downfall of the Duck Division (which nearly got NG shut down through hacking), I doubt the odds of that shit happening is high. I honestly doubt it.

At 1/14/14 08:49 PM, Eltro2kneo wrote:

--Did the flash contain some material that can threaten NG in any way, shape or form? There's a justification for that too, and that's probably why Pico School is no longer on NG.

Hold on, there was a typo. What I meant to say was: "Did the flash contain some material that can threaten NG in any way, shape or form? There's a justification for that too, and that's probably why PiGPEN's game is no longer on NG.

At 12/31/13 09:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/30/13 07:32 PM, JackofPojo wrote:

At 12/29/13 02:47 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: People who don't filter out the bullshit deserve their just rewards as well. Tom filtered this bullshit and he's a better man for doing so. The message being sent here isn't one of denial, but of basic decency. That's where all your bullshit gravity zombies don't equate.

read before you post, I was not at all talking about Tom.

Your posts are filled with so much stupid, arrogant, incorrect verbal nonsense that reading them in any sort of light that grants you even a modicum of intellectual aptitude would be a practice in erroneous behavior.

TLDR; you're an idiot.

I see you think using long words to say nothing is a valid form of argument, I prefer the shorthand version: It reveals without a doubt that you don't have anything to say

At 12/31/13 09:45 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/31/13 09:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/30/13 07:32 PM, JackofPojo wrote: read before you post, I was not at all talking about Tom.

you're an idiot.

...and everyone knows it. Why you choose to continue posting such blatantly false and excessively stupid non-points (that you allege [lol] has NOTHING to do with Tom) is beyond my scope of understanding.

You must be on drugs, mentally handicapped, and/or trolling. Prolly all three.

blatantly false and excessively stupid non-points? Would you care to elaborate? Or why not make this simple and insult my face to justify your point. That is, in essence, what you are doing, "your stupid, and thus your points are wrong", is that not an accurate summation of your argument?

No, you've just taken a massive shit on it by forgetting the fucking owner took the time to address you, despite your track record.

yeah, yeah, we all hear you, you say you have a big dick, and are unwilling to show, or attempt to prove anything

At 12/31/13 10:19 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Evidence of pojo's ineptitude:

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.

This.

Yes, repeating what someone else said about a misquate is a great way to prove your point, good job

At 11/20/13 09:24 PM, JackofPojo wrote: Every supreme court case would argue with you there. I for one, admit that I do not know enough to judge Tom's

More evidence of why you're having trouble comprehending the latest posts.
You disagree with his reasoning because you're unwilling to accept the pure, unadulterated truth: you've got a vendetta and heavens be damned if you'll let something like honesty get in the way of a good smear. Here's your smear for ya:
decision, I do however, disagree with his stated reasoning, and based on other posts I've seen, neither does Tom.

So you know, with no degree of uncertainty, the ins and outs of the issue Tom had to face?

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

You're not an equal; you will not be treated as one.

...really? Did you seriously just say that? You do realize saying things reminiscent of the Nazi's philosophy will not win people over to you, right? And how does this show my ineptitude? "I refuse to acknolge, or treat someone else as an equal, so they must be ineptit", yes, that makes perfect scence

At 11/20/13 07:51 PM, JackofPojo wrote: why do the parents get more say in this website's affairs then even new users.

Evidence of your utter incapacity to "see the other side"

I can see the other side, can you? The parents are the other side, but we should listen to them exclusively, because fuck any other side? Is that what you are saying?

At 11/20/13 05:23 PM, JackofPojo wrote: although I do not think his argument is valid, it is something that should be addressed, we can't just brush it off as 'stupid', or 'an opinion'. As far as I can tell, the reason Tom gave in post 1 is a lie

And here's where your true motives come out. You aren't interested in the facts, you're interested in trying to defame Tom. Props on being an asshole on an even bigger level than I originally gave you credit for.

yes, by saying Tom lied about his reasoning to sooth the enraged parents, so everyone can get on with their life, I was CLEARLY defaming him. I don't know about you, but I don't really care that much about lying, at least not ones like this, I am well aware that I should just lie, and tell you how 'smart', and 'clever' you are to get you to shut up, and this before you burst a vein. Doing things like cropping other peoples quotes to distort what they are saying on the other hand, would be a straight out criminal.

At 11/20/13 05:14 PM, JackofPojo wrote:

At 11/20/13 04:06 PM, Troisnyx wrote: 1) PiGPEN made a game to cause offence and literally cite Sandy Hook.
2) Tom tried to reason with PiGPEN.
3) From the link from a few posters above me, PiGPEN obviously wasn't bothered to listen.
4) Meanwhile, because the game was on NG for a time, all the bad press went to Tom and his hard work.
Guys, ENOUGH WITH ALL THE BLOODY STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS. This is the evidence for you, fair and square. You guys judge for yourselves what kind of hurt PiGPEN has caused, what Tom has done, and what you and I have done, if it added anything at all to this situation.

do you have any evidence to support this claim of straw-manning?\

Gravity zombies come to mind, in case you feel the need to re-establish your title as King Windowlicker.

So, could you not be bothered to find, and copy whatever it is you are referencing, or are you just full of hot air?

At 12/30/13 11:30 PM, greensucksbluerules wrote:

At 12/30/13 08:12 PM, JackofPojo wrote: definition of analogy
what you are referring to is an application of science.

Way to miss my point. Applying science to a movie doesn't work because it's a movie. Real world science and physics don't apply. Unless you're the kind of person who likes to ruin movies for everyone by mentioning all the factual errors.

Yes, you said I was allying science, I was using an analogy, so your using a reference to an application of scientific principles is irreverent.

Prove using data the reflexive property, a.i. something is equal to itself, it is impossible, because there is no data one way, or the other, and if you think it is possible, I'd advise you to look up the problem before you make an ass out of yourself by grossly misunderstanding the problem. No it is not as simple as "I am me, so I am an example of the reflexive property" Unless you are claiming there is no scientific data in this whole thing, in which case, retract your court case argument.

What we have here is you predictably making a claim and refusing to back it. You said the dating we're working with is scientific. You're the one who claimed the data is scientific. When you make a claim, you're the one who has to prove it. Instead, you dodge responsibility and throw in a bunch of big words because you think they make you look smart.
Spoiler alert: They don't.

Alright, we won't use scientific data, that just leaves logic, and things it would be pointless to work with, since we clearly disagree about, and would, once again, require the retraction of your court case thing, your it has never happened thing, and just about every argument that referenced any real event or situation, as those are all built on science.*

Your right, it does take a certain mindset, the one of a scientist, or any other practitioner of critical thinking, and if you think somethings color doesn't change because you can't see it, consider the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The physiologist would argue no, it does not, as sound, like color, is persevered, it does, however, make a noise. And as for your Google argument, it is a simple way of defining the question, if you look at it, 'the sky' is pretty poorly defined anyway, especially since we can't see air

That's one type of a different thinker. Then there are those who think differently because of mental disorders they have. But the worst type is someone whose different way of thinking is caused by a mental disorder, yet he believes he's smarter than everyone else.

I do not think of myself as smarter then everyone else. If I thought of myself as smarter then you, I would probably say something stupid like "He will never understand, he is too dumb, and there is no way he could be at all right, or insightful". I do know that I think differently, and I do think that this is a situation for critical thinking.
:I won't flat out say which category you fall into, but I will mention "a scientist, or any other practitioner of critical thinking" would know the difference between "you're" and "your."'
I don't really care about spelling that much, especially when trying to reply to long forum posts (which I don't mind, but it is a lot of typing for a place in which the spelling cares little wait) But I will say you should be careful when using spelling, and grammar as an argument; unless you spell every word correctly from then on, some will turn that little stunt around on you.
:Like usual, your analogy doesn't work and that's because I'm talking about something most people see. How would nobody, literally nobody not be around to see the sky change color?
Somebody could be there, but if that somebody isn't you, you do not know that the sky changed color, and the sky is relative to you, about half the world has a black, night sky, while the other has a blue sky, in fact, as I have said before, the sky doesn't exactly exist, as it is not well defined.
:Furthermore, you were previously talking about what color people perceived the sky and factors that could change their perception of the color. You implied obstruction ("What about when we can't see it?") could change perception. But it wouldn't. If someone goes under a tunnel while the sky is blue, he'd still think the sky is blue. He wouldn't think the sky is gray just because he's underneath a gray surface and he certainly wouldn't mistake the top of the tunnel for the sky.
But if the sky changed color, he would still ignorantly believe it to be blue, and if he can not see the sky, does the sky even exist for him?
:And again, you pull the literally card with your technicalities. To most people, the sky is blue. Even NASA says the sky is blue.
you should probably have read that link, the closest they come to saying "the sky is blue" other then when asking the question, is "This is why we SEE a blue sky most of the time." They never actually say the sky is actually blue, just that when we have an unobstructed view through the Earth's atmosphere, we see the color blue.

Oh good, you are throwing empty insults, that means you have no valid counter argument, and you know it, and we can move on

You didn't have anything to counter. In your own words:
"if it is so self evident then stop saying it is self evident , and prove it."
So I explained it in my post from two days ago and you replied with this:
"I get that, I never did not get that"
Way to waffle on your viewpoints. I look forward to seeing you try to worm your way out of this.

You explained the wrong thing, and thought I was saying something I was not, and then I misunderstood what you said.

Actually, this was brought up, I said that is a valid point, but it gets into the massively complicated issue of whether or not that actually matters, that I did not feel like discussing, and that you did not reply to, so we mutually dropped, do you want to talk about whether, and when intentions matter?

In reality, you ignored it in your attempt to summarize my argument. You were unable to provide direct refutations to the intentional/unintentional issue. When I said "zombie games and real life tragedy games are completely different for the reasons I've discussed before," the reasons I was referring to were possibility/probability and intentional/unintentional. You chose not to address my reasons in your next post. But anyways, this is not a "massively complicated issue." If intent didn't matter, why do people who intentionally committed crimes get harsher sentences than those who unintentionally broke the law? Why do people try to justify their wrongdoings as mistakes and accidents? If you can think of any scenarios where intent doesn't matter, I'd love to hear them.

How about if a company produces a product that they know MIGHT hurt someone using it as instructed because it is highly unlikely that it will actually happen? A situation much more like this one then the ones you listed, a one that I already used. Furthermore, it is not unheard of for sufficient recklessness to be considered murder. What about political cartoons? They don't flatter the politicians they portray, and that is not an accident, should they be banned?

At this point, I can only conclude that you think 'insufficient evidence' implies 'not true'. You are wrong, but at least we cleared up that annoying mess.

Check it out, now you don't have a valid counter argument. Doesn't that make you wrong by your own logic? By the way, if you're trying to interpret someone else's words to make them look dumb, it's a good idea to use things that person actually said.

Nope, this was just a misunderstanding, probably should have taken more responsibility for that. Since I believe you are saying what you were saying was that 'insufficient evidence' implies 'not true', my counter argument was that that was incorrect, unless you choose to pursue it, I don't see the need to elaborate, do you wish to pursue it?
If you can not counter a counterargument, it makes that part of the argument invalid, does it not? If the 'if' of an 'if then' statement is not true, the 'if then' statement can't imply that the 'then' is true, can it.

No, I used it to make my point, and I accused you of being a hypocrite, not of not doing research (that is just the thing that makes you a hypocrite. And you want proof of the McDonald's case? here it is

I know, I was explaining why your attempt at using the hypocrite card didn't work. I didn't have to do research on the McDonald's case because I never used it to prove my point. I wanted you to provide proof of the other cases having gag orders in place and you didn't.

I did, however, provide what I, at least, think is a valid reason for that requirement to fall to you, which you seem to have ignored.

I never said game developers where more concerned with the first amendment than people's feeling, I said we should be

"And no, the reason video gamers do not consider such an issue is not it's unlikelihood, as I keep saying, humans are nowhere near as diverse as you seem to think they are, if they had a reason to worry about it, they would worry about it, but the idea is simply so increadably outrageous, as it should be in this case, that no reasonable person would consider it, because freedom of speech is much more important then some people's feelings."
There you are, saying they care more about freedom of speech.

Read again, I said they would never consider it BECAUSE it was outrages BECAUSE freedom of speech is much more important then some people's feeling, I did not say the developers think freedom of speech is more important, I said matter of factually that it is, and because of that, they do not worry about it.

and I did provide backing for that.

And yet you still haven't backed it up. Oops.

If the lawsuits didn't win, then people disagreed with the thinking behind them, I suppose they could still be common, but I would need a hell of a lot more incidents to be convened of that.

Your explanation doesn't account for those not on a jury, those who we don't know disagreed with the lawsuits (and that's a lot of people).

Can you provide evidence of these people existing? How many?
:Also, how many examples do you have of people keeping their mouths shut to avoid looking stupid? Zilch.
Actually, I have quite a few, just look for anyone over thirty who hasn't filed a frizzles claim, they have almost certainly had more then ample opportunity to make one, and since your argument is that most people would, why haven't they? This does not disprove your point, but it does establish my position as the null hypotheses.

That's your argument? you haven't even cited one of these cases yet! For all I know, you could be pulling them out of your ass, furthermore, is the gag order requirement unreasonable? If these cases did have a gag order, would they still be evidence? If not, why should you address them? That would be a fragrant, and immoral use of statistic manipulation, it would be like going to 5000 doctors, asking them if stabbing yourself in the brain was good for you, and if 4 of them said yes, ignoring 4995 of them to say that four out of 5 doctors recommend stabbing yourself in the brain. Or using false causality.

Since you're too lazy to look them up, here you go. And don't tell me you're too lazy to scroll through all the photos to find the ones I mentioned. True to your nature, you make up a ridiculous analogy instead of providing a direct refutation. Once again, a gag order is one of risks a person takes when filling a lawsuit. A gag order could make them look stupid, but it still doesn't stop them from suing.

Maybe you should try explaining your point in hypothetical scenarios, and analogies, and so on. It is a perfectly valid form of argument.
A gag order might make them look stupid, but if real damage has been done, should they sit ideally by to avoid 'looking stupid'?
first case is one of fraud
second case meets all criteria but winning
third case seems to meet all criteria but winning
fourth case, the prosecutor actually has a point, and a need, she was injured, and although it was not her fault, it was clearly someone's fault, and for whatever reason, she could not successfully sue the railroad.
fifth case involves different cultures
sixth case, meets all criteria but winning, and the drive to fund the defense supports my position.
seventh case sounds valid, but I can't seem to see how it was resolved
eighth case was resolved do to the contract being deemed unenforceable do to being illigeal, and it is understandable how one might not be aware of that detail, but is otherwise valid except for it's failure.
ninth case sounds valid, but I need the actual name of the case to find the necessary details.
tenth case sounds valid except for loss
eleventh case, that guy has issues, I don't think being sue happy was the primary cause of that one
twelfth case, the hot coffee case has already been discussed, your source having it listed does, however, make me question it's creditability
thirteenth case, this seems fishy, if you want to use it, you need to give me the name of the case, information provided suggests that this ended in a gag order
fourteenth case, it seems valid, but was dropped
fifteenth case, this is an example of fraud, so it does not meet the criteria
so none of your examples meet all the criteria including winning.

Was browsing through old posts and I saw this one by Ross regarding PiGPEN's V-TECH game and it made me really sad. Thought I should bring it up here.

Maybe we have lost track...